11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 October 27th, 2005 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) (np) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) (np) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) (np) 18 William Henderson ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) 21 22 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) 24 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 25 Michelle Pong ) (np)
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) (np) 8 9 Ian Smith ) (np) Robert Runciman 10 Alice Mrozek ) 11 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 12 Jacqueline Horvat ) 13 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 14 Mary Jane Moynahan )(np) 15 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 16 Trevor Hinnegan ) 17 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 18 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 19 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 20 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 21 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 22 Debra Newell ) K. Deane 23 Ian McGilp ) (np) 24 Annie Leeks ) (np) 25 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np)
41 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 ) 14 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 15 16 Mark Fredrick ) 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 ) (np) 24 Adam Goodman ) 25
51 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 6 4 5 RONALD JOHN VRANCART, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Donald Worme 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downward 95 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 100 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Alice Mrozek 102 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 104 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 113 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Frederick 122 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 183 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 194 15 Cross-Examination by Mr. Vilko Zbogar 209 16 17 Certificate of Transcript 269 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-917 Document Number 1009454. Hostile 4 Occupations Review, Evacuation of 5 Serpent Mounds Provincial Park Sept. 6 01/95. 25 7 P-918 Document number 3000806. Minister's Note 8 from Ron Vrancart, Deputy Minister 9 Natural Resources, re. Occupation of 10 Ipperwash Prov. Park, Sept. 05/95. 41 11 P-919 Document Number 3001562. Minister's 12 Note from Ron Vrancart, Deputy Minister, 13 Natural Resources, re. Occupation of 14 Ipperwash Prov. Park, Sept. 06/95. 72 15 P-920 Document number 1011966. Handwritten 16 notes Re: " Deputies - Elaine Todres, 17 Ron Vrancart Meeting, Sept. 18/'95. 88 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
71 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, Mr. Worme. Good morning. 8 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning 11 everybody. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, Mr. 13 Vrancart. 14 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 15 16 RONALD JOHN VRANCART, Resumed 17 18 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME: 19 Q: Mr. Vrancart, yesterday we had left 20 off -- you had been good enough to provide us with a 21 thumbnail sketch of the extensive governmental experience 22 that you have. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Having been in the Ontario Government 25 from 1969 at least up to the point that we're concerned
81 about, 1995 -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- and indeed beyond that, primarily 4 in resources management. Would -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- that be right? And insofar as the 7 work that you did was involved extensively with 8 administrative planning and policy development with 9 respect to resource management. 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: You have also indicated that there 12 was considerable technical work that was done under -- 13 under that rubric as well. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And you've indicated that your 16 appointment as a Deputy Minister in 1995 came under the 17 previous administration -- the previous Premier that is, 18 Premier Bob Rae? 19 A: That's correct and three (3) years 20 later it was renewed under the Government of Mike Harris. 21 Q: Right. And one (1) of the things 22 that you had told us about or -- or perhaps I can just 23 ask you to elaborate at this time was, sort of, the -- 24 the corporate culture of the Ministry of Natural 25 Resources as an operational ministry. Can you provide us
91 with any view on that? 2 A: Sure. The Ontario Ministry of 3 Natural Resources is one (1) of the largest operational 4 ministries in the Ontario Government. At the time that I 5 became Deputy Ministry it was comprised of seven thousand 6 (7,000) full-time equivalent staff. That swelled during 7 the summer months to several thousand more part-time 8 positions working in places like provincial parks and on 9 seasonal activities in other programs. 10 And -- and it also is and continues to be 11 to this day one (1) of the most highly decentralized 12 ministries of the Ontario Government operating, if you 13 include provincial parks, in well over a hundred distinct 14 locations in the Province. 15 So, with a decentralized organization like 16 that the culture of the organization was very much one of 17 empowering the people on the frontlines to make 18 decisions, get the job done and to do it in the context 19 of strategic plans and policies that provided guidance 20 for them and for their decision making. 21 The Ministry of Natural Resources is very 22 much know for its attitude of getting the job done and 23 just do it and people who have come into that 24 organization from elsewhere in the Ontario Public Service 25 are always surprised at the degree of authority that is
101 invested in managers who work on the frontline of that 2 organization. 3 Q: All right. Thank you. And in June 4 of 1995 you've indicated that you were then appointed by 5 Premier Mike Harris to your position as Deputy Minister? 6 A: In... 7 Q: In June -- pardon me, in 1995? 8 A: No, I was -- in February of 1995 I 9 was appointed by the Bob Rae government. The term of a 10 deputy minister is three (3) years. Three (3) years 11 later in February of 1998 I would have been reappointed 12 by the Mike Harris government. 13 Q: I see. Thank you for that 14 clarification. With the advent of a new administration, 15 that is when the Mike Harris administration came over or 16 came into power I should say, you were then charged with 17 certain responsibilities with respect to briefing what 18 would be your new minister? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Can you tell us about that process 21 that would have taken place, the types of briefings that 22 would have entailed? 23 A: Well, when there's a change of 24 government there's a massive transition that has to take 25 place from one (1) administration to the other and
111 typically in the civil service and certainly in my case 2 as the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources. 3 I was aware that there was a possibility 4 of a change of government and -- and began preparations 5 well before the election. It was clear to me in the 6 spring of '95 that no matter which party became the 7 government, indeed if -- if the current government was 8 returned that they were going to have to take significant 9 actions to deal with the deficit and debt of this 10 province. 11 So, we spent a significant amount of time 12 prior to the election in the Ministry of Natural 13 Resources at the senior management level preparing 14 scenarios for cuts and reductions in our programs. And - 15 - and so, you know, when it turned out that the 16 Progressive Conservative Party came into power we knew 17 from their election platform that they were going to 18 inflict significant cuts to deal with the deficit and we 19 were prepared against that backdrop. 20 We then entered into briefings of our -- 21 of our Minister who was the Honourable Chris -- Chris 22 Hodgson at the time and as you can imagine for a new 23 minister there is a relatively steep learning curve, 24 particularly with the Ministry that it has such a breadth 25 of activities, as the Ministry of Natural Resources.
121 So, we had take him through briefings that 2 introduced him to all of the programs of the Ministry of 3 Natural Resources and the overarching policies by which 4 the -- the Ministry worked. 5 We answered all of his questions and -- 6 and this process went on for several months. It wasn't 7 as though we were doing this every day, because the 8 Minister had other responsibilities that he had to 9 deliver. 10 But, you know, we would -- we would do 11 this for several hours a week for three (3) or four (4) 12 months. 13 Q: Okay. You've talked about the -- the 14 need to make budget reductions within -- within the 15 Ministry, irrespective I take it, from the way you 16 answered that, of what party would have gained power in 17 1995? 18 A: Yes, it was clear that whoever came 19 into power in 1995 had no choice but to make reductions 20 in expenditures across the board. 21 Q: And I take it that once the new 22 government came into power, that those instructions were 23 issued? 24 A: Yes, within -- within the first month 25 of the new government coming into power, we were directed
131 to provide them with a plan that would see the Ministry 2 of Natural Resources staff and -- and budget cut by up to 3 40 percent. 4 Q: And without going into the -- the 5 details, which I expect would be fairly extensive and 6 significant as to how that was effected, can you provide 7 us with an example as to how those instructions would be 8 carried out within the Ministry? 9 A: Well, as I -- as I -- as I said, we 10 had anticipated this prior to the election, so we had 11 done some work. We had the benefit of some forethought 12 on this. 13 We had concluded, as a Ministry senior 14 management team, that if the cuts were as significant as 15 they turned out to be, that the Ministry of Natural 16 Resources would have to reinvent itself; that it could no 17 longer operate in the way that it had in the past. And 18 we had actually embarked upon a strategic planning 19 process that allowed us to develop some new methods of 20 operation. 21 And I'll give you the example of the 22 Forest Management Program which was the largest program 23 within the Ministry of Natural Resources, and a budget of 24 $700 million. The Forest Management Program probably 25 represented 120 million of that seven hundred (700).
141 And we, in rethinking that program, took 2 the position that the Ontario Government could no longer 3 afford to be in what we called operational forestry. 4 There was a time when the Ontario 5 Government did everything in the forest from planning it 6 to planting trees to harvesting it to almost to 7 delivering it to -- to the mills. 8 Over time, there has been a retreat from 9 that position of operational forestry. And we took it to 10 the final conclusion which was saying that the Ministry 11 of Natural Resources will no longer be in operational 12 forestry and we would retreat to what we called the high 13 ground, which was establishing policy and carrying out 14 audits of the private sector forest companies that did 15 forest management and would be expected to do forest 16 management and require -- actually requiring them to do 17 audits of -- of their own activities and our role would 18 be to set the policy and then audit their audits. 19 With that sort of basis for re-engineering 20 the program, we in fact were able to cut that program 21 from, I think, about 110 million down to $40 million. It 22 -- that certainly exceeded a 40 percent cut and was, I 23 believe, the largest cut of any program. 24 Q: And those kinds of cuts, as you've 25 described it, I take it would also be consistent with
151 respect to other resources under the management of the 2 Ministry of Natural Resources? 3 A: We used that principle in re- 4 engineering some of the other programs as well, yes. 5 Q: You mentioned earlier that the 6 Ministry of Natural Resources had a longstanding 7 relationship with Aboriginal people within the Province 8 given the -- the fact that many Aboriginal people rely on 9 or perhaps even claim some of the resources within the 10 Province. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. And insofar as these cuts 13 are concerned, if the suggestion is brought to you, Mr. 14 Vrancart, that cuts were made directly targeting 15 Aboriginal people or Aboriginal programs under the 16 Ministry, what's your response? 17 A: I would say categorically no, that, 18 in fact, none of the programs of the Ministry of Natural 19 Resources were specifically arranged around Aboriginal 20 interests. 21 Q: All right. Thank you. In 1995, Mr. 22 Vrancart were you aware of activity at the Ipperwash 23 Provincial Park, or in and around the vicinity of the 24 Provincial Park? 25 A: It had been brought to my attention
161 in, I believe it was July of 1995, that there had been an 2 incident on the beach in front of Ipperwash Provincial 3 Park where one of the occupiers of Camp Ipperwash had 4 taken what was described to me as a wreck onto the beach 5 and -- a vehicle, and had driven it around on the beach 6 and had endangered the safety of some of the people that 7 were using the beach. 8 Q: As a Deputy Minister, is the type of 9 reporting that would typically come to you? 10 A: Typically those types of incidents 11 would not come to me. The kinds of incidents in 12 provincial parks that would come to me would be drownings 13 and bear attacks where there were fatalities, things of 14 that nature. 15 Q: And in this instance, do you know why 16 that information would have come to you and what -- what 17 did you do with it? 18 A: Well, I think -- I think the context 19 at that time was pretty significant at the time. There 20 was Gustafson Lake issue taking place out in Western 21 Canada. There was a heightened sense of -- in the 22 Ministry around Aboriginal issues and -- and so I think 23 that's why it was brought to my attention. 24 Because it was brought to my attention and 25 -- and -- in that heightened sensitivity I in turn
171 brought it to the attention of the Minister at one of our 2 weekly meetings. It was nothing more than an information 3 item for him. 4 Q: Right. And the timeframe in which 5 this would have occurred was July or August 1995? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: You were aware then at the same time 8 that in and around that same time period that there was 9 an occupation at the camp -- at Camp Ipperwash that is? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And can you tell us anything beyond 12 that you had a general awareness of this? I think you 13 may have mentioned yesterday that you had come about this 14 probably through the media and again corrected by the 15 record -- 16 A: Yes. Much earlier I believe in -- in 17 1993 when the initial occupation took place. 18 Q: Given the occupation of Camp 19 Ipperwash and the fact that it is adjacent to the Park 20 Ipperwash or Ipperwash Provincial Park, what was the 21 reaction of the Ministry? 22 A: Well, I -- I don't recall there being 23 any particular reaction. As I said, it was just an 24 information item and I didn't put it to him in the 25 context of, you know, the possibility of the occupation
181 at the Camp spilling over into the Park. It was just -- 2 just for his information. 3 Q: All right. If I can direct your 4 attention, Mr. Vrancart, to Tab Number 2. It is the 5 meeting notes of the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal 6 Emergencies Interministerial Committee. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: I believe you have described it and 9 others have described it as the barricade or blockades 10 committee. 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: It is Exhibit P-506 in these 13 proceedings. You'll note that the date on that is August 14 the 2nd of 1995? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And at page 2 of that, you will also 17 note that there were Ministry of Natural Resources 18 officials in attendance and I take it you would recognize 19 those names. 20 A: Yes, I recognize the names of all of 21 those -- those people from the Ministry of Natural 22 Resources. 23 Q: And at page 5 of that exhibit, that 24 is -- it's numbered page 4 of the actual minutes, under 25 Item Number 3, the discussions of the Ministry's --
191 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- concerns and options. You'll see 3 that there was at least some concern about the effect of 4 the cut telephone and modem lines on the water pressure 5 and supply for the Park? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: If you go just further down there's a 8 concern that members of the Stoney Point Group may try to 9 occupy the Park. 10 Do you see that? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And just below that the point is 16 made: 17 "MNR is concerned about corporate 18 support should such crisis occur." 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Yeah. And I'd ask you just to 21 comment on that first of all. 22 And before I ask you to do that I guess I 23 -- I should put it to you, have you seen this document 24 before? 25 Is this the type of note that would have
201 been brought to your attention? 2 A: I -- I have seen this document before 3 but only in being prepared for this -- this Inquiry. I 4 don't recall seeing it prior to that. 5 Q: Okay. You might have been briefed on 6 the -- on the -- the outcome of such a meeting; would 7 that be fair? 8 A: Yes, normally Peter Allen would brief 9 me on the issues arising out of the -- out of this 10 meeting. 11 Q: And you'll see that at the end of 12 that -- of that bullet it was agreed that MNR and OPP 13 staff onsite at Ipperwash are in the best position to 14 assess the risk? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Is that consistent, Mr. Vrancart, 17 with what you would have been briefed following the 18 meeting? 19 A: I -- I don't -- I don't recall, you 20 know, specifically being briefed on that point, but it 21 would have been consistent with as I described previously 22 the culture of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 23 Q: Okay. And if I can ask you to turn 24 to page 5 of that, in terms of under the -- the fifth 25 bullet, Next Steps.
211 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: The first point I've already referred 3 you to and that is that MNR and OPP would monitor the 4 situation, assess the risks. 5 And if you go down to the third point: 6 "MNR and OPP have developed and will 7 continue to develop contingency plans 8 in the event of an emergency, e.g. [or 9 example] safe evacuation of the 10 campers." 11 Is that something that you had followed up 12 on if you -- if you recall, or your office would have 13 followed up on? 14 A: I -- I don't -- I don't believe that 15 -- that I was aware of that nor would it normally be the 16 practice to follow up on an undertaking at the local 17 level to develop a contingency plan. It would have been 18 expected that that would have been done and it would have 19 been in place. 20 Q: Thank you. I just want to take you 21 then to -- and -- and ask you about your first experience 22 in dealing with First Nations matters or issues as a 23 deputy minister. And you'll recall an incident that -- 24 that occurred at Serpent Mounds Provincial Park? 25 A: Yes.
221 Q: What can you tell us about that, sir? 2 A: Well, Serpent Mounds Provincial Park 3 actually was a -- a park that was leased from the 4 Hiawatha First Nation on -- I believe it's on Rice Lake 5 in the -- in the Kawarthas. And -- and the -- the main 6 feature of this provincial park are some burial mounds; 7 that's why it's called Serpent Mounds. 8 And the -- the lease on this -- this park 9 expired in -- I believe in -- in 1995. And the -- the 10 Hiawatha First Nation took it upon themselves to blockade 11 this park on the Labour Day weekend of -- of 1995. 12 Because we were operating this park and 13 had at the local level, close working relationships with 14 -- with the Hiawatha First Nation, the Ministry was aware 15 that this blockade or occupation was going to take place 16 and so there was adequate time to prepare for this 17 occupation, to put in place a contingency plan and to 18 involve the OPP. 19 The situation as it turned out was that 20 the OPP became involved; took charge of the -- the 21 incident. 22 And the contingency plan required that the 23 campers and day users of this Park be evacuated; that -- 24 that happened. And at the time that we were planning it 25 and about to undertake it, I laid out the contingency
231 plan for the Minister. And he added to the contingency 2 plan that we would give to every camper a rain check that 3 would be honoured at any other Provincial Park in the 4 Province for whatever number of days they had planned to 5 be camping. 6 And -- and the evacuation went without 7 incident. And -- and it was a successful local 8 management of that particular issue. 9 Q: Okay. Why is it remarkable, Mr. 10 Vrancart, the addition to the plan that you say Minister 11 Hodgson brought? 12 A: Well, it was something that we should 13 have thought about and -- and didn't. 14 Q: All right. There has been, or 15 perhaps we anticipate that there may well be a suggestion 16 that the reason for the super -- or, pardon me, for the 17 Serpent Mound blockade, was for the impending 18 cancellation of a certain for -- harvesting agreement 19 that had been in place with the Hiawa -- the First 20 Nation. 21 Do you know anything about that? 22 A: Yes. There was an announcement made 23 by -- by Minister Hod -- Hodgson that the harvesting 24 rights of the Williams treaty First Nations of which the 25 Hiawatha First Nation was one, would be cancelled in the
241 fall of 1995. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: And that's what precipitated the 4 blockade. 5 Q: All right. Did that cancellation of 6 that particular agreement have anything to do with the 7 instructions for budgetary cuts within the Ministry that 8 you told us about earlier? 9 A: Not that I'm aware of. 10 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that the 11 blockade at Serpent Mounds Provincial Park occurred in 12 August of 1995 as opposed to the Labour Day weekend. 13 You have -- 14 A: I -- I -- 15 Q: -- a view on that. 16 A: I may be confused on that point. I 17 believe when we originally talked, I told you that it was 18 the August civic holiday weekend. 19 However, in reviewing some of the material 20 that has been provided to me, there were some detailed 21 minutes of -- of that issue which indicated that it 22 actually took place on the Labour Day weekend. 23 Q: And the detailed minutes that you 24 referred to, Mr. Vrancart, are those the -- is that the 25 review at Tab 25 of the document binder in front of you?
251 That is Inquiry document 1009454? 2 A: Yes, that -- that's the material I'm 3 referring to. 4 Q: It's entitled, Hostile Occupations 5 Review: Evacuation of Serpent Mounds Provincial Park, 6 September 1 of 1995? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Perhaps I can ask that that be made 9 the next exhibit, please? 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-917, Your Honour. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-917: Document Number 1009454. 13 Hostile Occupations Review, 14 Evacuation of Serpent Mounds 15 Provincial Park Sept. 01/95. 16 17 MR. DONALD WORME: 9...I'm sorry? 18 THE REGISTRAR: 917. 19 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The document 21 number, do you want it put the -- have you indicated the 22 document -- 23 THE REGISTRAR: The document number is 24 1009454. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.
261 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 4 Q: Following the Labour Day weekend of 5 September 4th of 1995, Mr. Vrancart, you became aware of 6 an occupation of the Ipperwash Provincial Park, did you 7 not? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And what can you tell us about that, 10 sir? 11 A: Well, it was brought -- it was 12 brought to -- to our attention that a number of 13 dissidents from the Stoney Point First Nation had entered 14 Ipperwash Provincial Park and had occupied it. 15 Q: Just with respect to your use of the 16 word "dissident", can you tell me how it is that -- that 17 you come to use that word? 18 A: It was -- it was made known to me, 19 subsequently, that -- that the people that were doing the 20 occupying were -- were doing this without the blessing of 21 -- of their community. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: And I take it that you would have
271 reported this information on the line of command? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And I take it that that means you 4 would have reported then to your Ministry? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: In terms of your receiving a report 7 of the occupation or your passing that information along, 8 Mr. Vrancart, were you aware of the reasons for this 9 occupation? 10 Was that part of the briefing? 11 A: I -- I don't recall specifically, you 12 know, what the reasons were for -- for the occupation. 13 Q: At some point in time, in and around 14 September the 4th of 1995, did you become aware of a 15 suggestion that there was burial grounds within the 16 boundaries of the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 17 A: Certainly over that two (2) or three 18 (3) day period that issue was brought to my attention, 19 yes. 20 Q: Okay. And I take it from that that 21 you're not certain exactly when you might have learned of 22 that? 23 A: No, I'm not certain. 24 Q: All right. When you did learn about 25 that, Mr. Vrancart, what was the reaction that you might
281 have had or what was the reaction of the Ministry 2 generally? 3 A: My -- my own personal reaction was if 4 there was a burial ground, given that this Park was the 5 fourth oldest park in the provincial park system, it's 6 surprising that we were not aware of it. 7 And -- and my first thought was to wonder 8 whether or not we had actually done one (1) of the 9 cultural inventories that we had talked about yesterday 10 and -- and if we had done one (1) of those inventories 11 and it had identified an Aboriginal burial ground that we 12 would have been aware of it. 13 So, I guess in my own mind I probably 14 assumed that -- that the allegation probably was without 15 merit. 16 Q: All right. You talked to us a bit 17 about the involvement of the Ministry at Serpent Mounds 18 Provincial Park, what was different with this occupation 19 if anything? 20 A: Well, the -- the basic difference was 21 that we were leasing Serpent Mounds from the Hiawatha 22 First Nation. In this case we owned the land on which 23 the provincial park existed. 24 Q: All right. And beyond that in terms 25 of how the -- the matter was -- was dealt with, what can
291 you tell us about that? 2 A: This matter -- every one (1) of these 3 incidents takes on a life of it's own. They don't come 4 out of a cookie cutter and -- and the circumstances 5 around them determine what, you know, what happens in 6 terms of managing -- managing the issue. 7 In -- in the -- in the case of Serpent 8 Mounds we were given forewarning. We were prepared. We 9 were in discussion with the First Nation. We understood 10 the issues and we were able to respond in I -- I think a 11 very appropriate way. 12 In -- in the case of -- in the case of 13 Ipperwash I don't think many of those pre-conditions 14 existed and -- and it wasn't the same sort of peaceable, 15 if you wish, or peaceful type of occupation that we -- 16 that we saw at Serpent Mounds. 17 Q: Okay. And you told us that in 18 Serpent Mounds the OPP were certainly brought to the -- 19 A: Yes. Yes. 20 Q: -- into the equation in some fashion? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And was that the situation here as 23 well? 24 Was there any distinction in terms of the 25 roles played by the OPP and -- and the Ministry in each
301 of these two (2) instances? 2 A: I -- I think most contingency plans 3 that would exist for provincial parks would identify as 4 one (1) of the steps calling in the OPP. And in -- in 5 the case of -- of Serpent Mounds, you know, the -- the 6 circumstances were somewhat different than -- than they 7 were at Ipperwash nd -- and so the response at Ipperwash 8 took on a different character. 9 Q: Do -- do you know, Mr. Vrancart, 10 whether at any time, at least in the initial -- in the 11 initial days of the Ipperwash occupation, Ipperwash Park 12 occupation, was the Ministry told that this isn't your 13 issue? 14 Do you recall anything like that coming 15 about? 16 A: I don't recall the Ministry being 17 told that it wasn't there issue, but I recall advising 18 the Minister that I didn't think it was our issue. 19 Q: Okay. But certainly in the Serpent 20 Mounds, and if I can just go back to that for one last 21 moment, certainly that was an issue that the Ministry had 22 led from start to finish; is that -- is that fair? 23 A: I wouldn't -- well, I think -- I 24 think you could say that the Ministry of Natural 25 Resources led that issue from start to finish, but the
311 OPP was very much a partner in that process. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And in terms of the Ipperwash 6 occupation, you would have, as you had with respect to 7 the other matter you told us about, received a briefing 8 from, perhaps, your -- your assistant, Mr. -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Were any of those briefings in 11 writing? Were any of those written briefings, in other 12 words? 13 A: My recollection is that because this 14 issue was unfolding so quickly, that most of the 15 briefings were -- were verbal, if not all of them. 16 Q: And in terms of the verbal briefings 17 that you would have received, do you know where your 18 assistant would have obtained his information from? 19 A: Peter Allen was in direct 20 communication with Peter Sturdy and Les Kobayashi. 21 Q: And those are individuals that we 22 know were at the local level. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
321 A: Yes. 2 Q: In terms of any of these verbal 3 briefings, Mr. Vrancart, in the initial days of the 4 occupation, did any of that contain what you thought to 5 be police operational matters? 6 A: Not to my knowledge. 7 Q: And I take it that once you had 8 received these verbal briefings that you, in turn, would 9 brief your Minister? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And when you were doing so, was there 12 anybody present for these briefings? You've told us that 13 you would have these essentially hour long meetings per 14 week? 15 A: Yes. Normally Peter Allen and Jeff 16 Bangs, the Minister's executive assistant, would be in 17 attendance. 18 Q: And do you know whether or not -- 19 you've told us earlier that you didn't maintain written 20 notes, but would any of them have created notes, to your 21 knowledge? 22 A: I would expect that Jeff Bangs and 23 Peter Allen would have kept notes, particularly action 24 items arising out of the discussion. 25 Q: And you've indicated that you advised
331 your Minister that you didn't think that this was your 2 issue. Why was that so? 3 A: I was of the opinion that, because 4 the OPP had become involved in this case and -- and -- 5 and it appeared that this issue was -- was going to -- 6 was going to linger, my -- my intuition told me that, as 7 a deputy Minister, sometimes you have the instinct to 8 want to protect your Minister from getting into 9 situations that may not reflect positively either on him 10 or on his Ministry, and my intuition told me that -- that 11 this was a situation where, perhaps, it would be best for 12 the Minister to duck this one and to have one of his 13 colleagues, either the -- the Attorney General or the 14 Solicitor General take the lead on this. 15 Q: And did he follow that advice? 16 A: He -- he -- he did take that advice. 17 Q: Is there anything else of 18 significance that you can recall, sir, from September the 19 4th of 1995, aside from receiving this information and 20 passing that along the line? 21 A: No. 22 Q: On September the 5th we have had 23 testimony here that there was a -- a meeting of the 24 Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, an 25 organ -- a group that you have -- and others have
341 variously called the blockades committees or the 2 barricade committee? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: You were not at that meeting as I 5 understand? 6 A: No, no I was not. 7 Q: And I take it that just as you would 8 have received briefings on other meetings that you 9 received a briefing with respect to this particular 10 meeting as well? 11 A: Yes, I did. 12 Q: Given what you've told us earlier 13 that -- that your advice to your Minister that -- was 14 that this was not an MNR issue and the briefing that you 15 would have received coming out of the Barricades 16 Committee, did you get the sense that there was any 17 urgency to the matter at that point in time? We're 18 talking now about the -- September the 5th of 1995? 19 A: At that point my understanding is, 20 from the briefing that I received, that a large part of 21 the discussion at that meeting was around the possibility 22 of obtaining an injunction to serve on the occupiers and 23 -- but the sense of the meeting was that there was not a 24 great deal of urgency with respect to obtaining that 25 injunction.
351 Q: With respect to the briefing on 2 obtaining that you would have received was there any 3 mention about whether or not -- as to what forms such 4 injunctive relief might take? 5 A: I believe, you know, there was some 6 discussion that took place with respect to the nature of 7 the injunction, but to me this seemed to be a technical 8 legal question and one that I didn't feel I was 9 particularly prepared for or could really offer any 10 wisdom on. 11 Q: All right. You told us that at least 12 as of the 4th and -- and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, 13 you'd advised your Minister that this was not an MNR 14 issue? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And on the 5th did you still hold 17 that same view? 18 A: I was still of the view that -- that 19 this was not an MNR issue, it was an issue that was 20 taking place on our venue, but it was not our issue. 21 Q: Okay. If I can just refer you Tab 22 Number 6 it is marked as Exhibit P-536 and I can tell you 23 that these are the handwritten notes of one Julie Jai who 24 was the Chair of the Barricades Committee. 25 And particularly at page 12 of -- of that
361 exhibit... 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And there is a handwritten number "3" 6 at the top. For My Friends it bears front number 7 0025036. 8 A: I'm not sure if I'm on the same page 9 as you. 10 Q: It's a handwritten note, number "3" 11 at the top. It's -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- about twelve (12) pages in. 14 A: All right. 15 Q: And you'll see that the first -- 16 A: I've got -- I've got you. 17 Q: It's marked at the top of the page: 18 "Blocked. It is gated and trees have 19 been felled to block it." 20 Are you with me on this? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And if you just go down to the second 23 bullet on that there's a notation, "Peter Allen." They 24 spoke to their DM and I take it he's referring to you 25 obviously?
371 A: Yes. 2 Q: If you can just go down to where it 3 says, "DM" and there's in brackets, "Ron Vrancort"? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: First of all I note that that's a -- 6 a misspelling of your name? 7 A: Yes, that's a common misspelling of 8 my name. 9 Q: All right. And: 10 "Would like us to have an injunction 11 ready to go, but not proceed 12 precipitously. No great inconvenience. 13 Can we make a successfully (sic) 14 injunction application, i.e., no real 15 urgency?" 16 And that's consistent with what you've 17 just told us? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: If I can refer you nextly to Tab 20 Number 4, that is Exhibit P-509 and those are the meeting 21 notes of the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues 22 Interministerial Committee of September 5th of '95? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Again you'll note at page 2 of that 25 that is the first page of the minutes that you have your
381 officials there from the Ministry? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And at page 2 of the minutes under 4 the second bullet you have updates from the Solicitor 5 General and MNR and I take it that would have been from 6 your officials? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: The information that they passed 9 along was that the Stoney Pointers are trespassing and 10 that they've been asked to leave the Park? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And that the -- the Ministry has been 13 denied access to the Park's maintenance facilities and 14 have been unable to proceed with closure of the Park's 15 physical plant? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you'll recall that was a concern 18 of the Ministry at that time? 19 A: It was the primary concern of the 20 Ministry at that time. Once the campers and day users 21 had been evacuated from the Park, our main concern was 22 around the plant. 23 Q: That is the assets of the Ministry 24 that you're charged to -- to look after? 25 A: Yes.
391 Q: And at page 3 of the minutes, there's 2 a bullet, number 4, Next Steps, do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And it indicates there that: 5 "The MNR will act as the spokesperson 6 regarding this matter in the short 7 term." 8 Now let me just stop there. That was a 9 change then from the advice that you had given your 10 Minister and the advice that he had accepted and had 11 followed up to that point. 12 A: Yes, it was. 13 Q: And if you'll just continue then -- 14 it then goes on, it will inform the public that: 15 "1. The Province has valid title to 16 the Park. 17 2. The occupiers have been told that 18 they were trespassing and have been 19 asked to leave, and 20 3. The Province will take steps to 21 removed the occupiers ASAP." 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: As a result of receiving a briefing 24 on that which I'm assuming you did -- 25 A: Yes.
401 Q: -- which was typical -- a typical 2 practice of your assistant. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: What did you do with that 5 information? 6 A: Well as a result of that, I asked 7 that a communications plan be prepared and that the 8 Minister be prepared to provide a statement to press on 9 the occupation. 10 Q: Okay. If I can refer you to Tab 3 in 11 the book of documents in front of you. That is Inquiry 12 Document Number 3000806. It's entitled 'Minister's Note' 13 and it bears a date of September the 5th of 1995, 14 purportedly issued by yourself. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you recognize that document? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: And you've had a chance to review 19 it -- 20 A: Yes, I did. 21 Q: -- before coming here today? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: And you accept the various points 24 that are in there? 25 A: Yes, I do.
411 Q: And that in fact it is consistent 2 with the minutes that we have just reviewed earlier? 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: I'm not sure if that's been made an 5 exhibit yet. I don't believe it has, Mr. Commissioner. 6 Perhaps I can ask that that be marked as the next exhibit 7 please. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-918, Your Honour. 9 10 ---EXHIBIT NO. P-918: Document number 3000806. 11 Minister's Note from Ron 12 Vrancart, Deputy Minister 13 Natural Resources, re. 14 Occupation of Ipperwash Prov. 15 Park, Sept. 05/95. 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-918. 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 21 Q: And I take it then, Mr. Vrancart, 22 that your advice to your Minister would have changed as a 23 result of receiving these minutes from the -- pardon me, 24 this information through your executive assistant from 25 the Interministerial Committee?
421 A: Actually my advice didn't change. 2 However, it had been agreed at the Interministerial 3 Committee that the Ministry of Natural Resources would, 4 because we were the owner of the Park so to speak, that 5 we would be the spokesperson for this issue. 6 And particularly since the Premier's 7 office had been involved in those discussions, I felt 8 that it was appropriate that our Minister take the lead 9 in terms of this particular communication with the media. 10 But my continuing advice was that we should not be in 11 front of this issue. 12 Q: Okay. You agreed earlier that one of 13 the concerns of the Ministry was the assets within the 14 Park. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And what was your view that -- with 17 respect to those assets? 18 A: My view was that -- that the biggest 19 issue that we had with respect to the remaining Park 20 plant was to winterize the water system. There was a 21 rather extensive water system throughout the Park and -- 22 and the concern was that -- that we had the opportunity 23 to get in there before freeze up, to winterize that 24 system so that it would not be a great expense to us and 25 to the public purse to have to replace that water system
431 if it was frozen. 2 Q: So if there was any urgency to the 3 situation and wasn't a public safety urgency at that 4 point -- 5 A: No. 6 Q: -- but one with respect to the 7 assets, is that fair? 8 A: That's correct. And -- and -- and 9 even at that, the urgency wasn't that great because at 10 this point we're still in September. It doesn't freeze 11 down here until sometime in November, I would guess, so I 12 thought we had time. 13 Q: At any point around this time on the 14 -- on -- I think we're talking about September the 5th, 15 1995, did you have meetings where you would have raised 16 this subject? 17 A: Well, certainly in my briefing of the 18 Minister, I pointed out to him that that was our main 19 concern at meetings that I would have had with my 20 colleagues, the deputy Attorney General and the deputy 21 Solicitor General, I would have pointed out to them that 22 that was our major concern. 23 Q: Did you have any meetings to your 24 recollection, sir, with anybody from the -- from ONAS? 25 A: I would have attended meetings where
441 staff from ONAS would have been present and I'm sure as 2 well that Peter Allen would have conveyed this message to 3 the blockade committee that our main concern was with 4 respect to the winterization of the Park. 5 Q: And insofar as that winterization of 6 the Park, do you know whether, within the Ministry, there 7 were any steps taken at that point in time to effectively 8 get into the Park in order to do that? 9 A: I believe the Park Superintendent had 10 discussions with a representative of the occupiers and 11 was denied access. 12 Q: As a result of that denial of access, 13 I take it first of all, that that was reported to you -- 14 A: Yes, it was. 15 Q: -- in the usual fashion? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: You wouldn't have spoken directly to 18 the Park supervisor, who we know to be Mr. Kobayashi? 19 A: Yes. Although I've known Mr. 20 Kobayashi for a long time, I don't believe I talked with 21 him directly during this incident. 22 Q: And as a result of receiving 23 information that there was a denial of your ability or 24 your Ministry's ability to get into winterize, what, if 25 anything, was the reaction to that?
451 A: Well, as I said, I was of the view 2 that we had time on our side; that, you know, there 3 wasn't an imminent threat here in terms of, you know, the 4 water system freezing. 5 It seemed to me that we had at least a 6 couple of months to deal with this and that I thought 7 that it was something that, you know, didn't have to be 8 dealt with right away. 9 Q: Okay. To your recollection, sir, and 10 again I appreciate that you didn't have any nor had you 11 made any written record of this time period, or was it 12 typical even in your practice, but do you recall whether 13 there was anything else that was remarkable from the 5th 14 of September? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: I can't recall anything. 19 Q: If we can turn then to the 6th of 20 September we have had evidence here that there was a -- a 21 further meeting that morning of the barricades or 22 blockade committee -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You became aware of that? 25 A: Yes.
461 Q: I take it in the same fashion as you 2 did not see the actual meeting minutes from the meeting 3 of the day before, you would not have seen the meeting 4 minutes of this day? 5 A: It's unlikely. 6 Q: And you would, however, have received 7 a briefing perhaps from your assistant -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- as, again in typical fashion -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And what is your recollection, sir, 12 of what you understood was the outcome of that meeting? 13 A: Can you point me to the tab where 14 those minutes are? 15 Q: Perhaps we can go to Tab number 5, 16 that is Exhibit P-509. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And those are the -- the meeting -- 21 meeting notes of September 6th of 1995 of that blockade 22 committee. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you'll see there at page 1, again 25 there are a number of officials from the Ministry of
471 Natural Resources. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: At page 2 of that -- that document, 4 starting in the -- in the second bullet. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: There's some discussion there of the 7 activities that had gone on within the Park. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And then you'll see at page 2, pardon 10 me, under -- under point 3, in the middle of the page, 11 the Minister's directives? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that -- at that point, it says: 14 "MNR. The Minister wants to act as 15 quickly as possible to avoid further 16 damage and curtail any escalation of 17 the situation." 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And that's in relation to what's 20 reported just above that and that is -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- there were trees cut, there was 23 Park assets -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- that were being used?
481 A: Yes. 2 Q: And then if we go to -- under -- 3 under point 4, Communications, it would appear that at 4 that point there was agreement at least within this 5 particular committee that the MNR would continue to be 6 the Ministerial spokesperson regarding the occupation? 7 A: Yes, and that's consistent with the 8 conclusion that this committee came to on the previous 9 day. 10 Q: If we just carry on with that -- with 11 that point you'll see that it notes and I'll carry here - 12 - pardon me, I'll quote here: 13 "The MNR will also work on informal 14 communications with key people in the 15 Region, eg. Marcel Beaubien, MPP and 16 local politicians to diffuse tensions." 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that was part of your 19 understanding of the outcome of this meeting? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you -- would you have taken steps 22 to effect those contacts? 23 A: I wouldn't have taken steps directly, 24 but I'm sure that Peter Allen in debriefing Peter Sturdy 25 and Les Kobayashi and Ron Baldwin who was the District
491 Manager at that time would have asked that -- that -- 2 that these people be contacted. 3 Q: Okay. And again that's consistent 4 with the decentral -- decentralized culture -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- of the Ministry -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- which you've told us about 9 already. Thank you. 10 In terms of that communication plan you'll 11 see at the bottom of the page, the last three (3) 12 bullets, that: 13 "The AG has been instructed to seek an 14 injunction ASAP. Police have been 15 asked to remove the occupiers from the 16 Park and public safety and removing the 17 trespassers from the Park are the key 18 objectives." 19 And those are consistent with the 20 communications plan that ultimately was developed? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: As a result of being briefed on the 23 outcome of this meeting, if you'll turn to Tab Number 7, 24 Mr. Vrancart, there is Inquiry Document Number 3001526 is 25 a minister's briefing note again purportedly under your
501 hand or from your office, in any event, dated September 2 the 6th of 1995? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: You've had a chance again to review 5 that document? 6 A: Yes, I have. 7 Q: And you'll agree that that is 8 consistent with the -- the outcomes of the Blockades or 9 Barricades Committee? 10 A: Yes, it is. 11 Q: The only thing I draw your attention 12 to with respect to -- that note, on page 2 of that... 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Under the first bullet it says: 17 "The OPP has established contact with a 18 spokesperson for the dissident group." 19 And then there appears to be a handwritten 20 notation there, "not". And I'm just wondering if that 21 would qualify the -- whether they had established 22 contact? 23 A: I -- I have no idea who entered that 24 modification to that -- to that point. 25 Q: Do you know at that point in time
511 whether in fact the OPP had established contact with a 2 spokesperson for the dissident group as is indicated? 3 A: I don't know as a fact, but that's 4 what I was told. 5 Q: All right. Thank you. And the last 6 point on there: 7 "The MNR is not aware of any aboriginal 8 burial site on the property of 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park." 10 Again that is consistent with what you 11 indicated was your understanding prior -- in the -- in 12 the time leading up to this? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I understand, sir, that you had 15 occasion then to attend meetings during -- during the 16 course of this -- of this matter where these various 17 topics would have been discussed in some detail by very 18 high level politicians? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Can you tell us about that, where the 21 -- the meetings that you recall being at, the dates and 22 times if you can assist us with that as well? 23 A: I can -- I can recall attending a 24 meeting at the Ministry of the Solicitor General and I 25 believe this would have been on September the 6th in the
521 morning. And this was a rather high level meeting with 2 Ministers and Deputy Ministers in attendance. 3 And it was to bring everybody up to speed 4 with respect to this issue. 5 Q: In terms of the people that were 6 present, who do you recall being at this meeting? 7 A: Three (3) Ministers were there, Bob 8 Runciman who was the Minister of the Solicitor General, 9 Charles Harnick who the Minister of the Attorney General 10 and Chris Hodgson who was the Minister of Natural 11 Resources. 12 Q: And beyond -- beyond the Ministers? 13 A: Beyond the Ministers, the Deputy 14 Ministers of those three (3) Ministries were -- were in 15 attendance. And the Executive Assistants of the 16 Ministers and the Deputy Ministers, I believe, were there 17 and there were communications directors from each of the 18 Ministries, I believe, in attendance. 19 And additionally there were some staff 20 from the Ministry of the Solicitor General there who 21 dealt with -- with Native issues and there were two (2) 22 members of the Premier's office in attendance. 23 Q: And let me just ask you if you can, 24 sir, if you could -- if you could attach names to first 25 of all the Deputy Ministers that were there and their
531 assistants. 2 A: Yes. The Deputy Solicitor General is 3 Elaine Todres, the Deputy Attorney General was Larry 4 Taman and I'm sorry but I -- I don't know the names of 5 their assistants or indeed whether -- I would be fairly 6 sure that Elaine Todres' executive assistant would have 7 been in attendance, but I'm not sure that Larry Taman's 8 would have been. 9 Q: All right. Do you recall Minister 10 Hodgson's executive assistant being there? 11 A: Yes. Jeff Bangs was there. And I 12 recall that Minister Runciman's executive assistant I 13 believe, I think it was Katherine Hunt was in attendance. 14 And I believe Minister Harnick's executive assistant 15 David Moran was in attendance as well. 16 Q: And what about the Premier's 17 assistant, executive assistant, one Deborah Hutton? 18 A: Deborah Hutton was in attendance at 19 this meeting as was Paul Rhodes who was the Premier's 20 communications officer. 21 Q: You've indicated that there people 22 there that dealt with Aboriginal issues, do you know who 23 those would have been? 24 A: I'm specifically thinking of -- of 25 Ron Fox who was introduced to me either at that time or -
541 - or another time as a liaison officer who was on 2 secondment from the Ontario Provincial Police to the 3 Ministry of the Solicitor General. 4 Q: All right. And what did you take 5 that position to be, given the introduction? 6 A: Well, I assumed because he was on 7 secondment to the Ministry of the Solicitor General that 8 he was in fact a member of staff at the Solicitor 9 General's office. Not specifically working for the 10 Solicitor General, but working in the Ministry of the 11 Solicitor General. 12 Q: And that he was on secondment from 13 the OPP, did that have any relevance for you at the time 14 insofar as the position that -- that he occupied or the 15 function that he was to perform? 16 A: Well for me, it was -- it was 17 interesting information to have because this was an 18 individual who I now knew had experience working on the 19 frontline with First Nations people, which put him in 20 distinction to most of the people that were at that 21 meeting. 22 Most had not had experience directly 23 working with First Nations people. 24 Q: And what do you re -- beyond that, 25 what do recall of the -- of the meeting in terms of the
551 content, the agenda, the discussions? 2 A: Once again, it was bringing the 3 Ministers up to speed, talking about communications and - 4 - and there was some discussion as well on -- on the 5 injunction. 6 Q: In terms of the discussion on the 7 injunction, what can you recall about that, sir? 8 A: My recollection is that there was 9 agreement that we should proceed to get an injunction. 10 Q: Okay. Do you recall whether there 11 was any discussion at that point in time, we all 12 appreciate that this was some time ago and that you are 13 unaided by your own personal notes, but do you recall 14 whether or not there was any discussion about the -- the 15 method of service of such a document? 16 A: It seems that every time this 17 discussion about an injunction arose, in my presence, it 18 always went off into a technical discussion about ex 19 parte versus on notice and I tuned out because I thought 20 really this was the responsibility of the Attorney 21 General. 22 Get whatever injunction you need, and 23 serve it, was my attitude. 24 Q: Okay. And did you -- at that point 25 in time, sir, do you have any recollection, I suppose, of
561 a discussion specifically with respect to service of an 2 injunction, and I again appreciate that it's a technical 3 legal matter for you, but nonetheless, whether there was 4 some discussion about the service by helicopter or any 5 such thing. 6 A: I recall that suggestion being made 7 somewhere along the way, but I thought that it was really 8 being made in jest because I couldn't think of a sillier 9 way to try and serve an injunction. 10 How could you possibly serve an injunction 11 from a helicopter. 12 Q: And can you tell us whether this 13 discussion, as you -- as you can recall it now, occurred 14 at this meeting you're telling us about, from the morning 15 of September the 6th of 1995? 16 A: I don't recall it taking place at 17 this meeting. 18 Q: All right. Thank you. In terms of 19 the individuals you've described as being in attendance 20 at that, did it come to -- to you as a surprise that any 21 of them were there? 22 A: I'm not sure I would categorize it as 23 a surprise, but I was interested and noticed that -- that 24 Ms. Hutton and Mr. Rhodes from the Premier's office were 25 both in attendance at this meeting, at a meeting where,
571 you know, three (3) ministers of the Crown were involved 2 and I just -- it was just something that I noticed and it 3 was a signal to me that -- that the Premier's office saw 4 this to be a significant issue. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: More significant than perhaps I had 7 considered it to be up until that time. 8 Q: Okay. And insofar as their presence 9 being there, do you recall what input to the meeting that 10 they had that would trigger your assumptions that the 11 Premier was interested in this? 12 A: I don't recall much, if any, 13 participation by those two (2) individuals at this 14 meeting. 15 Q: Did you -- did you find anything 16 inappropriate about their attendance at that -- at that 17 meeting? 18 A: No, I didn't think there was anything 19 inappropriate about it other than, as I said, it was of 20 interest to me that they were in attendance. 21 Q: All right. And being in -- being in 22 attendance, again, I -- did you find anything 23 inappropriate about what they might have stated? 24 A: I really have no recollection of -- 25 of -- of their participation in the meeting.
581 Q: And I take it that would include no 2 recollection of their conduct insofar as that meeting as 3 well? 4 A: Well, if there had been any conduct, 5 behavioural conduct that was inappropriate, I probably 6 would have remembered that. 7 Q: All right. I understand that you 8 then had occasion to attend at a further meeting. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Can you tell us about that, please? 11 A: After this meeting concluded at the 12 Solicitor General's Ministry -- 13 Q: Yeah. 14 A: -- offices, I returned to my office 15 which -- which was in the Whitney Block which is in the 16 Queen's Park complex. This meeting was held up at Bloor 17 and Church Street in Toronto and when I got back I can't 18 recall precisely how the instruction was delivered to me, 19 but my recollection is that the Secretary of Cabinet had 20 requested my attendance at a meeting in the Legislature 21 that was to take place I believe over the noon hour or 22 shortly after the noon hour. 23 Q: The Secretary of the Cabinet, that 24 was one (1) Rita Burak (phonetic)? 25 A: Rita Burak, yes.
591 Q: Did you go to this meeting? 2 A: Yes, I did. 3 Q: And where was that again, I'm sorry? 4 A: It was in the -- it was in the -- the 5 Legislative -- in the Legislature and it was actually 6 held in the Premier's dining room. 7 Q: And can you recall, Mr. Vrancart, 8 that there -- that there was also a Cabinet meeting that 9 day? 10 A: I can't recall, but if you can tell 11 me what this day was I could tell you if it was -- was 12 this Wednesday? 13 Q: September the 6th I think was a -- 14 was a Wednesday. I think we've had evidence on that. 15 A: If it was a Wednesday then there was 16 a Cabinet meeting that morning. 17 Q: Do you know who had -- well, who -- 18 who had given your -- you the instructions to attend this 19 meeting? 20 A: As I said it was -- it was Rita 21 Burak. 22 Q: I'm sorry, you did answer that. Your 23 Minister similarly would have been summoned to that 24 meeting? 25 A: Yes.
601 Q: Do you know who made the decision to 2 hold a meeting? 3 A: I -- I -- I don't know as a fact, but 4 I would assume that it was the Premier's office that made 5 a decision to have this meeting and the Premier's office 6 would have communicated directly with the Minister's 7 office and would have communicated through Rita Burak 8 with my office. 9 Q: Okay. Tell us who was in attendance 10 at this meeting, on your recollection. 11 A: My recollection is that many of the 12 people that were at the meeting in the morning also 13 attended at this -- this meeting in -- in the -- the 14 Premier's dining room. 15 Q: Okay. Is there anybody in addition 16 to those individuals that were at the previous meeting 17 that were in attendance in this dining room meeting; or 18 not in attendance, perhaps, as well? 19 A: It would be helpful to me if I could 20 refer to the notes that -- that I have that show who was 21 in attendance at that meeting. 22 Q: I'm -- I'm not sure that we have 23 notes with respect to that -- 24 A: Oh, I'm sorry, they're not -- they're 25 not in this tab, they're in some other material that I
611 have. 2 Q: The other material you're referring 3 to is the -- the outline of the anticipated evidence -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- statement. 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: You'll find that -- well, let me ask 8 you first before you refer to that if you have an 9 independent recollection of who was at that meeting. 10 A: Yes, I do. Would you like me to run 11 through the list? 12 Q: Would you please? 13 A: I believe -- well, Premier Harris was 14 in attendance at that meeting, Paul Rhodes, Deb Hutton, 15 David Lindsay (phonetic) of the Premier's office would 16 have been at that meeting. David Lindsay was the 17 Premier's principle secretary. And the -- the three (3) 18 Ministers and -- and once again their executive 19 assistants, the three (3) Deputy Ministers and their -- 20 no, not their executive assistants. 21 I believe the three (3) Deputy Ministers 22 were there on their own and I believe -- I believe -- I 23 believe Ron Fox and/or the Commissioner of the OPP, Tom 24 O'Grady, may have been in attendance at that meeting as 25 well.
621 Q: Okay. I'd asked you what the agenda 2 and the discussion was at the earlier meeting, what was 3 the - what -- what was it here? 4 A: In this case it was an opportunity to 5 bring the Premier up to speed with respect to this issue 6 and to talk about the next steps. 7 Q: And as part -- as part of any of this 8 discussion, do you recall Larry Taman taking any 9 particular position? 10 A: Yes. I -- I distinctly recall Larry 11 Taman, the Deputy Attorney General, inserting himself 12 into the -- the discussion on a couple of occasions and 13 forcefully making the point with the politicians that not 14 only did they have to but they had to be seen to not be 15 instructing the police on this matter. 16 Q: Was there something that had given 17 rise to Mr. Taman's taking this forceful position? 18 A: Well, I think, yes, he must have felt 19 that -- that they were moving into territory that could 20 possibly be seen to be on the verge of providing 21 instruction to the police. 22 I don't recall a specific point at which 23 he would have concluded that but he was very clear on 24 that point. 25 Q: All right. During the course of this
631 meeting, is there anything that stands out, in your mind, 2 as remarkable either because you might have thought it to 3 be inappropriate or -- or taking a position that was 4 perhaps not reflective of the Ministry? 5 A: No, I didn't think there was anything 6 untoward at this meeting. 7 Q: You've indicated that Mr. Taman was 8 insistent on -- on certain matters. Do you recall Elaine 9 Todres telling the group about the separation between 10 government and police? 11 A: No, I don't. 12 Q: Do you recall any discussion with 13 respect to the injunction relief that was being sought, 14 you told us about earlier? 15 A: Yes. Yes. Once again, that 16 discussion was had and -- and the technical discussion 17 ensued. Larry Taman took control of that discussion and 18 said that he would look after the injunction and he had a 19 definite preference for one method or another; I can't 20 recall which one he preferred. 21 Q: Okay. And you had indicated and 22 agreed earlier that you had, on the day previous, had 23 provided your Minister with a briefing note as he was, I 24 think, obliged to make a public statement on the matter, 25 was he not?
641 A: Yes. 2 Q: And as a result of this meeting, did 3 anything change? Now I -- I appreciate you've told us 4 that your advice was consistent throughout, needless to 5 say this was not an MNR issue, in your view. 6 A: Yes. And -- and -- and as a result 7 of -- of this meeting it was agreed that the Ministry of 8 the Attorney General would become the spokesperson for 9 this issue. 10 Q: Do you know why they would be the 11 spokesperson on the issue now, at this point? 12 A: I think probably because they were 13 going to be pursuing the injunction. 14 Q: And insofar as that injunction, you 15 told us earlier your -- your views on these technical 16 matters, but do you recall whether, at this point in 17 time, there was any agreement or position taken with -- 18 with respect to the type of injunctive relief? 19 A: I -- I believe that Larry Taman 20 expressed a fairly strong opinion in favour of one over 21 the other, but I can't recall which it was. 22 Q: At this meeting do you recall what, 23 if anything, that Ron Fox might have -- might have said 24 as -- as part of contributing to the discussion? 25 A: No. I -- I have no recollection of
651 Ron Fox participating in the meeting at all. 2 Q: As a result of your attendance at 3 least at these two (2) meetings that you've described to 4 us, is there anything in your view that would -- that 5 might be characterized as -- as the government providing 6 direction to OPP operations? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Is there anything in these meetings 9 that occurred that would perhaps have you or -- or be 10 susceptible to a characterization that the positions 11 taken could be characterized as redneck? 12 A: I didn't -- I didn't see anything 13 that I would have characterized as -- as redneck. 14 Q: Or similarly, did, again, the views 15 and the -- the discussions that might suggest that this 16 group or any of these groups of these meetings you were 17 at, were in love with guns? 18 A: No, I didn't hear anything of that 19 nature, anything that would have suggested that to me. 20 Q: Okay. And again, just to be clear, 21 was there anything that suggested to you that the 22 government, and I think you've agreed already that it -- 23 that there was nothing that would have suggested the 24 government was telling the OPP how to -- how to do their 25 business?
661 A: No. 2 Q: Should that -- should that have 3 occurred in your presence, would you have taken a 4 particular position? 5 A: Well had that occurred in my 6 presence, after hearing Larry Taman be so forceful on 7 this point, I would have -- I would have brought this to 8 the attention of the politicians. 9 But at -- at these meetings Mr. Taman was 10 the one that represented that point, and as I said, he 11 made it very forcefully. 12 Q: Do you recall your Minister, during 13 either -- either this meeting we're now talking about or 14 the previous meeting that you were at, taking the -- 15 taking the position that he's been told he could not 16 direct the police and therefore people should stay out of 17 the business of politics. And I'm paraphrasing here. 18 A: I don't recall him taking that 19 position or -- or -- or saying that, but I think he 20 certainly got that message. 21 Q: If that is something that was said in 22 your presence, do you think you might recall it today? 23 A: Possibly. 24 Q: Did you hear or do you have any 25 recollection of Deborah Hutton participating in these
671 meetings? 2 A: Deborah was -- was certainly at -- at 3 this meeting. I have -- have no recollection of her 4 participation in the meeting. 5 Q: And did you -- 6 A: The discussion was primarily amongst 7 the ministers. 8 Q: Did you hear her or -- or the 9 Premier, who you've indicated was at least at one of the 10 meetings, use words or a comment to the effect, Get the 11 fucking Indians out of the Park and use guns if you have 12 to? 13 A: No, I never heard that comment. 14 Q: Okay. Do you think that's something 15 that might stick in your memory? 16 A: Definitely. 17 Q: Did you hear anything coming from the 18 Premier, any suggestion that perhaps it, inexplicably, 19 relating to the holocaust? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Okay. And again, do you think that's 22 something that you might recall? 23 A: Oh, I would have recalled that, for 24 sure. 25 Q: And again, just so -- just so as I
681 understand, you've told us that, given that this is a 2 Wednesday, there would have been a cabinet meeting that 3 day? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you recall now, sir, when 6 typically those meetings would have commenced, when they 7 would have been over? 8 A: Those meetings normally -- normally 9 start at first thing in the morning, probably at nine 10 o'clock and would run for two (2) hours. 11 Q: Okay. And do you know if this 12 meeting in the Premier's dining room occurred after the 13 cabinet meeting? 14 A: Yes, it did. 15 Q: Given the number of ministers that 16 you've told us there, did that come as any surprise to 17 you at all? 18 A: The number of ministers that were at 19 the -- the meeting in the dining room? 20 Q: In the dining room, I'm sorry, yes. 21 A: No. No, that's not a surprise. 22 Q: All right. If I can just refer you 23 to a -- and you've indicated that the meeting that you 24 had attended at the -- that morning was -- sorry, this is 25 the meeting before the dining room meeting.
691 A: Right. 2 Q: That -- I think you've indicated just 3 generically that it occurred in the morning. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And do you have any recollection of 6 what time that might have been? 7 Was it before the cabinet meeting? 8 A: It probably was coincident with the - 9 - with the cabinet meeting. I recall that it was the 10 first meeting of the day for me. 11 And -- and -- and the meeting probably 12 would have commenced at either eight o'clock or nine 13 o'clock in the morning and it ran for, I would say, at 14 least an hour. 15 So it would have -- it would have run into 16 the same time that the cabinet was meeting, which meant 17 that there were at least three (3) ministers who were not 18 at the Cabinet meeting. 19 Q: Your minister was one (1) of them? 20 A: My minister was one (1) of them. 21 Q: And do you know why he would not 22 attend the Cabinet meeting? 23 A: Because he had been instructed to -- 24 to attend this other meeting and to be dealing with this 25 issue at Ipperwash.
701 Q: Thank you, sir. If I can direct you 2 to Tab Number 8 of the book of documents in front of you, 3 this is Exhibit P-727. On the cover is a fax -- the 4 first page is a fax cover sheet rather, from your office 5 dated September 6th, 1995? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And I believe it's time stamped 16:34 8 -- 39? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Directed to Peter Sturdy? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: If you turn to the second page, the 13 contents of the -- of the document, it is a letter under 14 your signature. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And it essentially outlines the fact 17 that you had discussed the -- the concerns that you had 18 for the safety of the MNR staff working at the Park? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: You discussed that with the Minister? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And given the uncertainty of the 23 circumstances, you were then requesting, at that point, 24 that the Park staff be reassigned? 25 A: Yes.
711 Q: And -- and did that -- did that 2 happen? 3 A: Yes, it did. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Worme, 5 would this be a good time to take morning break or -- 6 MR. DONALD WORME: This would be an 7 excellent -- excellent -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This would 9 be a good time to do it? 10 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't we 12 take a short break now? 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 14 for fifteen (15) minutes. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 10:24 a.m. 17 --- Upon resuming at 10:45 a.m. 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 20 resumed. Please be seated. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you for that 22 break Commissioner. 23 Commissioner, at Tab Number 7 I referred 24 Mr. Vrancart to a document, Inquiry Document Number 25 3001526, the Minister's briefing note of September the
721 6th '95 and I wish to have that made the next exhibit 2 please. 3 THE REGISTRAR: P-919, Your Honour. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 919. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-919: Document Number 3001562. 7 Minister's Note from Ron 8 Vrancart, Deputy Minister, 9 Natural Resources, re. 10 Occupation of Ipperwash Prov. 11 Park, Sept. 06/'95. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 14 Q: Mr. Vrancart just before I leave the 15 area of -- of these meetings, two (2) meetings that the 16 Prem -- the early morning meeting that you told us about 17 in the Premier's dining room meeting. I just want to put 18 a couple of things to you. 19 First of all we -- I can tell you that we 20 have heard evidence here from Commissioner O'Grady as 21 well as Mr. Fox, both of whom indicate that they were not 22 at the dining room meeting. Does that assist your 23 recollection at all? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not-- 25
731 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 2 Q: And that O'Grady was not at the 3 dining room meeting, pardon me. 4 A: That's possible. I -- I recall 5 Commissioner O'Grady being at some meeting and -- and it 6 may not have been the -- the dining room meeting. 7 Q: And I take it from that you don't 8 have a specific recollection? 9 A: No, I don't. 10 Q: Now, the -- the meeting that you were 11 at where the Premier attended at his dining room, did you 12 leave when the Premier left because we've -- we've also 13 heard I believe and the record will -- will correct me 14 obviously, that the Premier had left that meeting before 15 its conclusion? 16 A: I don't recall that. I recall -- I 17 recall the meeting coming to an end and I recall the 18 Minister or the Premier being coached by his 19 Communications Director Paul Rhodes on what he should say 20 when he left the meeting and was likely to be scrummed by 21 the media outside the Cabinet room. 22 Q: Okay. And insofar as your 23 recollection I've asked you already whether or not you 24 had recalled the Premier making specific statements. 25 What do you recall the Premier talking
741 about or discussing within the context of that meeting? 2 A: I -- I thought the Premier was -- was 3 primarily being as I said brought up to speed on this 4 issue. He was absorbing the information. He was taking 5 the advice of -- of his ministers. He was -- he asked 6 questions I think with respect to the injunction and -- 7 but I don't recall anything specific. 8 Q: Okay. You recall asking -- him 9 asking questions with respect to the injunction, what 10 about asking questions with respect to the OPP? 11 A: I have no recollection of that at 12 all. 13 Q: And -- and can I take it from that 14 that you have no recollection that the Premier might have 15 been critical of the OPP? 16 A: I don't recall that. 17 Q: Or whether he could direct the OPP? 18 A: I -- I don't recall that either. 19 Q: And just with respect to the matter 20 of the injunction that you've told us about I refer you 21 to an exhibit that's been marked as P-426. 22 For the benefit of My Friends it is 23 Inquiry Document 1002419 and it bears front number 24 0016559. 25 I can tell you that this is a scribe note
751 from September the 6th -- from September the 6th of 1995 2 and it has at the top of the scribe note the number "53"; 3 that is the page designation? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the time at the bottom of the 6 page I want to direct you to is 08:27 hours. 7 And you see the notation there? It 8 reads: 9 "Les Kobayashi states Deputy Minister 10 called. We not going for an injunction 11 basically, we are -- they want him to 12 retract that position and I just told 13 Daryl to hang tight and check with 14 Pete. John Carson are pursuing that 15 option. Until some court gives us a 16 stamp we haven't got it." 17 I'm interested in the first part of that 18 obviously where Mr. Kobayashi apparently indicates that 19 you had called advising at least at 8:27 hours, that 20 would be the morning of the 6th, that there was no 21 intention to pursue an injunction. 22 A: I don't recall as I said previously 23 ever talking to Mr. Kobayashi directly during this 24 incident. 25 Q: And thank you for that clarification.
761 Was there any point in time that you 2 recall that there might have been a position formed that 3 an injunction would not be pursued? 4 A: Certainly during the discussion 5 around the injunction, the main issue that kept arising 6 was is there an urgency case to be made for this 7 injunction. 8 And -- and that -- that was only debate, 9 to my recollection, with respect to whether or not we 10 should proceed to get an injunction it was -- my 11 understanding is that urgency is a critical point that 12 has a test, I guess, it has to be passed in seeking an 13 injunction and there was some question as to whether or 14 not there was an urgency. 15 There was never in my mind a question of 16 should we give up on this idea of -- of an injunction. 17 It seemed to me that we were always pursuing the avenue 18 of getting an injunction. 19 Q: And I'll take it from that that you 20 have no explanation as to how that notation might have 21 been made? 22 A: This one at 0827 hours? 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: No, I have no idea. In fact, I'm not 25 sure -- where does this come from? Is this from a log?
771 Q: It's the scribe notes that are -- 2 it's a document that is created, again I stand to be 3 corrected, in the -- in the matter of course by the 4 Ontario Provincial Police. 5 A: Oh. It doesn't say what deputy 6 minister -- 7 Q: And it does not, no. 8 A: I -- 9 Q: I simply wanted to -- 10 A: -- have no idea. 11 Q: I simply wanted to give you an 12 opportunity -- 13 A: I never seen this -- 14 Q: -- to speak to that, if you could. 15 A: -- and as I said, I don't recall ever 16 speaking to Les directly. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: You told us just before the break, 21 Mr. Vrancart, that one of the last things that you had 22 done following the meeting was to issue the letter to 23 reassign Park staff. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And at the end of the meeting in the
781 Premier's dining room, I think you've indicated that to 2 your recollection, he was being briefed as to possible 3 responses he might give when being scrummed outside? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And at that point in time, were you 6 responsible for or did you brief your own minister in 7 terms of what he might be saying should he be scrummed, 8 or was that even on the radar then at that -- at that 9 point? 10 A: That wasn't even on the radar at that 11 point. The media are always more interested in the 12 Premier than they are in any individual minister and my 13 recollection is that both the minister and I went back to 14 our offices without any media involvement. 15 Q: Was there any further involvement by 16 you or your minister, to your knowledge, on that day? 17 A: With the media? 18 Q: With anybody. 19 A: Well, I'm sure that we had some 20 involvement with somebody during the rest of that day, I 21 just don't recall what it was. 22 Q: I'm sorry. Let me -- I didn't ask 23 that question properly. 24 Perhaps what I -- what I might ask you and 25 I hope -- hope this helps, did you have any involvement
791 with anybody specifically with respect to the Ipperwash 2 matter that day that you haven't already told us about? 3 A: Not that I can recall. I'm sure that 4 when I went back to the office I would have shared some 5 of the aspects of that meeting with my executive 6 assistant Peter Allen because he had to be in the loop. 7 Q: And did you take any further steps, 8 to your recollection, to advise or otherwise prepare your 9 minister for his ongoing involvement, if any? 10 A: Well, at this point I think we felt 11 that we had successfully gotten the Ministry of Natural 12 Resources and the Minister from out in front of this 13 issue and that the Ministry of the Attorney General was 14 now in front of this issue and -- and we could sit back 15 and take our lead from them. 16 Q: And insofar as the balance of the 17 day, is there anything that stands out in your 18 recollection, sir, to your involvement in the matter? 19 A: I can't recall anything. 20 Q: What is the next thing that you hear 21 about the Ipperwash occupation? 22 A: The next thing that I hear about is 23 in the early hours of the morning of September the 7th, I 24 received a phone call from Peter Allen saying that -- 25 that there had been an incident in the Park and that one
801 individual was fatally shot and two (2) others had ended 2 up in hospital. 3 Q: What reaction, if any, did you have 4 to learning this? 5 A: Well, I was absolutely shocked. I 6 was just blown away, you know, first of all by being, you 7 know, woken up in the middle of the night by a phone call 8 and then the message was certainly not the message that - 9 - that I was expecting to hear with respect to Ipperwash 10 Park. 11 I was of the view that the next set of 12 events surrounding this issue would have been obtaining 13 and serving an injunction and then seeing where -- where 14 the issue went from there. 15 Q: And we understand, sir, that the -- 16 after the -- the shooting death of Dudley George, that 17 there was a new methodology in terms of trying to deal 18 with -- with this situation. 19 A: You mean in terms of who was taking 20 charge of the issue management? 21 Q: Yes, that and in terms of a -- the 22 government or a corporate response. 23 A: At that point the issue became -- or 24 came under the -- the management of the three (3) Deputy 25 Ministers. The three (3) Deputy Ministers, myself, Larry
811 Taman and Elaine Todres pretty much stepped in to -- into 2 the breach and took on the responsibilities that had 3 previous had been carried by the Blockade Committee. 4 Q: All right. And the authority that 5 had been delegated to the Blockade Committee by -- by 6 yourself and the other Deputy Ministers, what became of 7 that? 8 A: Well it -- we brought that authority 9 back into our own personal responsibilities. 10 Q: If I can direct your attention to Tab 11 Number 9, Mr. Vrancart, that is Exhibit P-659. It's 12 Interministerial group material for Elaine Todres, Larry 13 Taman and Ron Vrancart. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: It's dated September the 7th, 1995. 16 And do you recognize that -- that document. I'm going to 17 suggest to you the first part of that is a draft and 18 there is a subsequent copy which appears as part of this 19 same group of materials. 20 First of all do you recognize this? 21 A: I -- I recognize it as -- as a 22 document only, you know, for the purposes of preparing 23 myself for this -- for this Inquiry. I -- I can't recall 24 this document from, you know, ten (10) years ago. 25 Q: All right. And having had an
821 opportunity to review that before testifying here, is 2 that consistent with what recall you do have of -- of the 3 Deputy's committee? 4 A: Yes. My -- my recollection was that 5 Elaine Todres had instructed her staff to prepare a 6 document similar to this and -- and I assume this is the 7 product of -- of that instruction. 8 Q: And similarly at Tab Number 10 which 9 has been marked earlier as Exhibit P-661, Ipperwash 10 Incident Crisis Communication Procedures and Contact 11 List. That's a document that you would have seen. 12 A: Once again I -- I don't recall seeing 13 this document prior to my preparation for this Inquiry. 14 Q: And at Tab Number 11, there's Inquiry 15 Document 1011966. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: It's handwritten notes. First of all 18 do you know whose notes these are? They're dated 19 September 18th of 1995. 20 A: I don't know whose notes these are 21 but the handwriting and the paper looks very similar to 22 handwriting and paper that I had previously seen with 23 Julie Jai's notes. 24 Q: Would Julie Jai be at the Deputy 25 Subcommittee that you've just described to us?
831 A: Probably. Yes. 2 Q: And at the bottom of the -- at the 3 bottom of the page is the matter that I simply wanted to 4 draw your attention to. It seems to be attributed to 5 you, Ron Vrancart? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And my interpretation of that 8 handwriting is his Minister is not in favour of co- 9 management? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Can you tell what -- what that's 12 about? 13 A: Co-management is a term for a 14 partnership arrangement in this case between the First 15 Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources to -- to 16 manage Ipperwash Provincial Park and co-management was a 17 philosophy that was promoted by the NDP Government 18 between 1990 and '95. It's not a philosophy that the 19 Conservative Government subscribed to and -- and my 20 Minister was quite clear that he was not in favour of co- 21 management initiatives. 22 Q: And if we just turn to the next page, 23 the very first entry at the top of the page, it says, 24 "RV" and I'm going to suggest that that is -- that is 25 you?
841 A: Yeah. 2 Q: The notation simply is concerned 3 about precedent and I take it that that's consistent with 4 what you've just told us. 5 A: It is, but I'm not sure -- not sure 6 what the precedent is that's being referred to. 7 Q: All right. If I can refer you then 8 to -- 9 A: I'm -- 10 Q: I'm sorry, were you going to say 11 something? 12 A: I was just going to say I'm not sure 13 what the precedent is that -- that that note refers to. 14 Q: All right. Thank you. And at Tab 15 15, that is Exhibit P-302, there's a minister's note 16 unlike the one's we have just marked and you've 17 identified as coming out of your office? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: This one dated September the 26th of 20 1995? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And on page 1 there's the notation: 23 "The matter of a burial ground on the 24 Provincial Park site is being 25 researched prior to the release of
851 Federal correspondence indicating that 2 a burial site may exist. MNR had no 3 knowledge or record that such site lies 4 within the Park." 5 And I take it that you recall giving your 6 Minister that advice? 7 A: I'm sorry, I -- I've lost you. 8 Q: Sorry, I'm looking at the -- the 9 third bullet on the first page. 10 A: Yes, okay. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: And the question is...? 15 Q: Is that the kind of advice that you 16 recall giving your -- your Minister? 17 A: Yes, that -- that's the advice that I 18 gave -- gave my Minister. 19 Q: And insofar as the research that you 20 indicate was to be undertaken on the matter of the burial 21 ground, that you know whether in fact that that had been 22 undertaken? 23 A: I think there was -- there was a 24 willingness on the part of the Ministry of Natural 25 Resources to embark upon that research and my
861 recollection is that -- that -- that research 2 subsequently got swept up into a Memorandum of 3 Understanding that was subsequently signed I believe 4 between the Government of Canada and the First Nations 5 with respect to negotiating the return of the Camp 6 Ipperwash lands to the Ketty -- Kettle and Stony Point 7 First Nations. 8 When it became known to us that this was 9 one (1) of the terms of that Memorandum of Understanding 10 we then I think took the position that we would cooperate 11 with the Government of Canada in undertaking that 12 research and -- and -- and then that Memorandum of 13 Understanding seems to have evaporated into thin air and 14 nothing has happened to my knowledge with respect to 15 undertaking the research. 16 Q: All right. And just the second -- 17 the second sentence in that -- in that same bullet item, 18 "Prior to the recent of Federal correspondence," what can 19 you tell us about that? 20 A: Well, it was after -- after the death 21 of Dudley George perhaps within, you know, the week 22 following his death, there arrived at -- at the Ministry 23 and I can't recall whether it went to the Minister's 24 office or my office or both, a letter from the Minister 25 of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa, to
871 which was attached a -- some correspondence that would 2 indicate that at the time that the Park was being built, 3 I believe in 1937, that the -- the engineer carrying out 4 the works had uncovered an aboriginal burial ground and 5 that the correspondence went back and forth between the 6 First Nation, the Indian Agent and the -- whoever was 7 responsible in Ottawa. 8 Q: Hmm hmm. 9 A: And subsequently a request came from 10 Ottawa to the Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests at the 11 time bringing to his attention this possibility. 12 The Deputy Minister responded to the 13 Department of Indian Affairs or whatever it was called 14 then and indicated that if they could provide more 15 details with respect to the location of this burial 16 ground that he would be happy to ensure that the wishes 17 of the First Nation were accommodated and that the area 18 would be fenced off. 19 Q: And with the disclosure of this by 20 the Federal Government, what was the reaction of the 21 Ministry? 22 A: It -- it came out of the blue and -- 23 and -- and was a bit of a -- was a bit of a shocker. It 24 was -- it was something that -- that we weren't aware of 25 and we wondered, you know, what motivated, you know,
881 bringing that correspondence into the full light of day 2 without having a discussion with -- with -- with the 3 Ministry. 4 Q: If I can just get a moment, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just for the 10 record, Mr. Worme, the document that you've been 11 referring to is Exhibit P-302, I believe. The document 12 number 1010587. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. I believe 14 I also referred at Tab 11 to Inquiry document 1011966 15 which were the handwritten notes, and I don't believe 16 those have been made an exhibit, so I'd ask that those be 17 made an exhibit, please. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 THE REGISTRAR: P-920, Your Honour. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 21 920? 22 THE REGISTRAR: 920. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-920: Document number 1011966. 25 Handwritten notes Re: " Deputies -
891 Elaine Todres, Ron Vrancart Meeting, 2 Sept. 18/95. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 5 Q: Mr. Vrancart, I have no further 6 questions in your examination in-chief. 7 However, one of the things that we have 8 asked virtually every witness is whether they might have, 9 from their own experience and such knowledge, any 10 recommendations that the Commission -- the Commissioner 11 might consider when he comes to that part of his task. 12 A: Assuming that one of the objectives 13 of this Inquiry is to prevent an incident like this from 14 ever happening again in the Province of Ontario -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's part 16 of our mandate, Deputy. 17 THE WITNESS: I assumed it was, and -- 18 and -- and assuming, on my part that it's factually 19 correct, that when the Federal Government expropriated 20 Camp Ipperwash under the War Measures Act back in 1942 or 21 whenever it was, that there was an understanding that 22 when the Federal Government no longer required those 23 lands, that they would be returned to the First Nation. 24 My recommendation would be that this 25 Inquiry do whatever it can do to facilitate the return of
901 Camp Ipperwash to the First Nations. 2 It is my view that none of this tragedy 3 would have occurred had Camp Ipperwash been returned to 4 the First Nations when it was no longer required for 5 military purposes. Thank you. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you for that, 7 Mr. Vrancart. Those are all my questions -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 Thank you very much. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: -- and Commissioner it 11 might be useful at this point just to inquire of My 12 Friends as to who wishes first of all to cross-examine 13 and secondly to get an estimation of the time that they 14 would require. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Worme. 17 Does anybody wish to cross-examine and can 18 you give me some indication of time again? 19 Mr. Downard? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Fifteen (15) minutes 21 or less. 22 MR. DONALD WORME: Fifteen (15) minutes 23 or less. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't see 25 Ms. Horvath. Is she on her feet?
911 MS. JACQUALINE HORVAT: Ten (10) minutes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long? 3 MR. DONALD WORME: Ms. Horvat indicates 4 ten (10) minutes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 6 Mr. Runciman? 7 MS. ALICE MZOREK: Ten (10) minutes, Your 8 Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ten (10) 10 minutes. 11 MR. DONALD WORME: On behalf of Mr. 12 Runciman, ten (10) minutes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 14 Mr. Hodgson? 15 MS. MEGAN MACKEY: Approximately an hour 16 to an hour and a half. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: One hour to an hour 18 and a half on behalf of Mr. Hodgson. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Anybody here 20 on behalf of Mr. Beaubien? No, I don't -- no, that's 21 fine. 22 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: No questions. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy? 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Approximately fifteen 25 (15) minutes on behalf of Ms. Hutton.
921 MR. DONALD WORME: Fifteen (15) minutes 2 on behalf of Ms. Hutton. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 5 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Possibly 6 fifteen (15) minutes, Your Honour. 7 MR. DONALD WORME: Fifteen (15) minutes 8 for the OPP. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 10 Clermont...? 11 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Five (5) minutes. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Five (5) minutes for 13 Ms. Clermont. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Bzogar? 15 MR. VILKO BZOGAR: Close to an hour and a 16 half. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: The Estate. One, one 18 and a half hours. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Rosenthal...? 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Half an hour, 22 Commissioner. 23 MR. DONALD WORME: Thirty (30) minutes, 24 Mr. Rosenthal indicates -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Neal...?
931 MR. CAMERON NEIL: I'll reserve twenty 2 (20) minutes. 3 MR. DONALD WORME: And Mr. Neal at twenty 4 (20) minutes reserved. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 On behalf of the First Nation? 7 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: The First Nation, 8 fifteen (15) minutes or less. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 10 the Chiefs? 11 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I would estimate 12 being a half an hour depending on what happens. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: Thirty (30) minutes on 14 behalf of the Chiefs of Ontario. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. Roy? 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Forty-five (45) minutes 17 to an hour depending on what happens. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 19 Myrka, you would want to wait and see how it unfolds? 20 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just roughly 22 before we decide to do at this moment. Well roughly how 23 does that line up? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
941 MR. DONALD WORME: The mathematicians are 2 busy -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 4 to know if we could finish it today. Unlikely to finish 5 today? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well depend -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Depending. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It depends on what 9 happens, there's about six (6) to seven (7) hours and 10 often it's -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Collapses or 12 expands. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- it's reduced 14 because people -- as you've them aren't going over what 15 others have done so we'll see. But it's -- it adds up to 16 about six (6) to seven (7) hours. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have an 18 idea how long we're looking at? If we don't finish 19 today -- 20 THE WITNESS: I have no idea what 21 questions are going to be asked. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but if 23 we don't finish this afternoon I mean -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we have
951 to come back next week to finish. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. No, I understand 3 that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 So why don't we just get started. There's no point 6 taking a break now. We'll just get going. 7 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll start 10 with you, Mr. Downard. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 15 Q: Mr. Vrancart, my name is Peter 16 Downard and I appear for the former Ontario Premier Mike 17 Harris. And I just have a small number of questions for 18 you today. 19 Now you spoke in your evidence about the 20 occupation of Serpent Mounds Provincial Park? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And we were referred to Tab 25 of 23 your brief which has been marked as Exhibit P-917 and 24 it's Inquiry Document Number 1009454. 25 A: Yes.
961 Q: Now looking at this document at the - 2 - at the fourth page and as I understand it, this -- this 3 is a memorandum that you -- you received regarding the - 4 - the Serpent Mounds occupation? 5 A: I have to tell you that I don't 6 recall ever seeing this document prior to being prepared 7 for -- for this Inquiry. 8 Q: All right. Well that's -- that's 9 fine. I'll just direct you to a couple of statements in 10 it and ask you if that's information that you -- that you 11 otherwise had. 12 You'll see at the fourth page of the 13 document. It is stated under the heading: 14 "Saturday and Sunday, September 2 and 15 3, Lyle kept in touch with Lorne Potash 16 (phonetic) kept him updated. The 17 demonstration was very peaceful all 18 weekend." 19 So, was it your understanding after this 20 demonstration had concluded that it had been peaceful 21 throughout the weekend on which it had been held? 22 A: Yes, it was a very peaceful event. 23 Q: I see. And you'll see under the next 24 paragraph, Monday September 4th: 25 "Lorne advised Lyle that six (6) -- at
971 6:00 p.m. that the blockade was over." 2 So it was your understanding that the -- I 3 take it that the occupation of Serpent Mounds Park ended 4 at the conclusion of the -- the Sunday of the weekend? 5 A: I believe that's Monday, September 6 the 4th. 7 Q: Oh, I beg -- I'm sorry. Monday -- at 8 the end of the weekend, Monday September the 4th. 9 A: Yes. That's my understanding. 10 Q: And if you look at the previous page, 11 you'll see at the third full paragraph and you had told 12 us that it was very clear from the outset of this 13 occupation of Serpent Mounds Park that it was being 14 carried out because of a desire to protest on a specific 15 political issue involving the Williams treaty, right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you'll see at the third full 18 paragraph of this page it reads, and I quote: 19 "Three (3) Hiawatha natives had 20 positioned themselves at the front gate 21 of the Park in the early afternoon and 22 were handing out a paper entitled, 23 quote, 'Why are we doing this?' 24 unquote." 25 A: Yes.
981 Q: And I'll just stop there. Did it 2 come to your attention during the course of this -- this 3 occupation or a reasonable time after, that during this 4 occupation the occupying people were making particular 5 efforts to express the -- communicate a political 6 message? 7 A: I -- I don't recall that and I 8 certainly don't recall ever seeing this paper entitled, 9 "Why are we doing this?" 10 Q: Okay. All right, but it was, in any 11 event, your understanding that the -- this particular 12 occupation was being carried out to convey a specific 13 political message? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, with respect to the dining room 16 meeting that you've talked about, you said that you did 17 not have recollection of Ron Fox participating in the 18 meeting. 19 Do you recall being Ron Fox being 20 introduced at the meeting in a loud -- in a loud voice by 21 someone? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Do you recall him being introduced at 24 all? 25 A: No.
991 Q: And in your direct evidence you said 2 you didn't have any recollection of the Premier asking 3 questions about the OPP or of the Premier being critical 4 of the OPP. 5 Now, just to put a slightly finer point on 6 -- on that. In particular, do you recall the Premier 7 ever saying in this meeting that the OPP had made 8 mistakes in this; they should have just gone in? 9 A: I don't recall that. 10 Q: Do you recall the Premier expressing 11 any other opinion on police operations in the course of 12 the dining room meeting? 13 A: No, I don't. 14 Q: And in your direct evidence you said 15 that you did not recall the Premier saying anything about 16 whether he believed he could direct the Ontario 17 Provincial Police and you said, as I recall, that Mr. 18 Taman, in your words, forcefully made the point in this 19 meeting that politicians not only had to leave 20 operational matters to the police but they had to be seen 21 to be not instructing the police, right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And do you recall the -- just to put 24 again, a slightly finer point on it, do you recall the 25 Premier saying anything that at the time you considered
1001 to be an instruction to the OPP or that your 2 understanding might be appear to be an instruction to a - 3 - a reasonable observer? 4 A: No, I don't recall that. 5 Q: And given Mr. Taman's forceful advice 6 on the issue, if the Premier had done that, do you think 7 you would have remembered it? 8 A: Oh, I would have remembered that, 9 yes, for sure. 10 Q: Okay. And in the course of this 11 meeting, do you recall the Premier ever saying words to 12 the effect that we have tried to pacify and pander to 13 these people for too long, it's now time for swift, 14 authoritative action? 15 A: I don't recall that. 16 Q: All right. If the Premier had said 17 that, do you think you would recall that? 18 A: I think I would have. 19 Q: Those are my questions, thanks very 20 much. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 Mr. Downard. 23 Yes, Ms. Horvat...? 24 25 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT:
1011 Q: Good morning. My name is Jacqueline 2 Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick, former Attorney 3 General. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: I anticipate that Mr. Harnick's 6 evidence will be that on September 6th he attended the 7 following three (3) meetings: A briefing by his Deputy 8 Minister Mr. Taman early on the morning of September 6th, 9 a Cabinet meeting and immediately following that the 10 dining room meeting and that he did not attend any other 11 meetings on that day regarding Ipperwash. 12 Is it possible that the meeting that you 13 recall with the three (3) ministers and the deputy 14 ministers took place on a day other than September 6th? 15 A: It's possible. My -- my recollection 16 is that it took place on September the 6th. 17 Q: Okay. Previously Inspector Scott 18 Patrick testified that he and Ron -- Ron Fox attended a 19 meeting with the ministers, with the three (3) ministers 20 and their deputy ministers including yourself on the 21 afternoon of September 7th. 22 Does that refresh your memory at all? 23 A: It's possible. I -- I -- I don't 24 recall that meeting. 25 Q: Okay. Thank you.
1021 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 Yes, on behalf of Mr. Runciman. 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ALICE MROZEK: 5 Q: Good morning, my name is Alice Mrozek 6 and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Runciman who was the 7 Solicitor General at the time. 8 I also anticipate Mr. Runciman's evidence 9 will be that he attended only two (2) meetings on 10 September 6th, the Cabinet meeting and the meeting in the 11 Premier's dining room and that his evidence will be that 12 there was a very brief discussion of Ipperwash at Cabinet 13 and that indication was given it would be discussed in 14 more detail at the dining room meeting and that the 15 dining room meeting came immediately after the Cabinet 16 meeting? 17 So again I just wanted to see whether that 18 assists in your recollection of whether the meeting that 19 you described as taking place on September 6th early in 20 the morning, might actually have taken place on the 7th? 21 A: It's possible. 22 Q: And I anticipate that Kathryn Hunt 23 who was Runciman's executive assistant, that her evidence 24 will be that there was a meeting on the afternoon of 25 September 7th where the three (3) ministers and their
1031 deputies and others attended. 2 So in light of that does that assist in 3 your recollection? Do you have any memory of that 4 meeting? 5 A: It's possible that -- that I have -- 6 that I have the dates mixed up here. 7 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 8 questions. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. On behalf of Mr. Hodgson? 11 MS. MEGAN MACKEY: Commissioner, Mr. 12 Frederick is just en route from a mediation and we ask 13 that cross-examination on behalf of Chris Hodgson perhaps 14 occur after the lunch break, if possible. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. I think someone 16 said that Ms. Perschy was ready to move up and I got an 17 e-mail from Mr. Frederick this morning saying -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- he would be here by 20 one o'clock he hoped. He had a mandatory mediation 21 meeting to attend. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 If Ms. Perschy's ready to move up then we'll do that. 24 Ms. Perschy represents Deb Hutton. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
1041 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 4 morning. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I wasn't aware that I 6 was going to be moving up, but that's fine. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 9 Q: Good morning, Commissioner. Good 10 morning, Mr. Vrancart. 11 As the Commissioner indicated my name is 12 Anna Perschy and I represent Deb Hutton who was the 13 Executive Assistant to the Premier at the time. 14 You provided some testimony yesterday 15 about reporting relationships and you mentioned that you 16 would have had briefings weekly with your minister and I 17 believe that you mentioned that his executive assistant 18 and yours attended those briefings? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Do you recall that? And you describe 21 that briefing as following a fairly regular pattern and 22 being quite informal in nature. 23 And my question was -- to you -- was 24 simply that from your years in government you saw, I'm 25 going to suggest to you, that the way that a minister
1051 worked with his staff would presumably vary from person 2 to person in terms of the number of briefings, the 3 frequency, the detail, the communication style, those 4 sorts of things? 5 A: Yes, definitely. 6 Q: Did you have much occasion to attend 7 meetings with the executive assistants of ministers other 8 than the Minister of Natural Resources prior to September 9 of 1995? 10 A: No. 11 Q: And did you have much occasion to 12 attend meetings with the executive assistants of 13 ministers other than the Ministry of Natural Resources 14 prior to September of 1995? 15 A: No. 16 Q: And did you have much occasion to 17 attend meetings with the political staff of the Premier's 18 office? 19 A: No. 20 Q: And did you know what was Deb 21 Hutton's role and responsibilities within the Premier's 22 office? 23 A: I had a general idea of her role as 24 an executive assistant to the Premier, yes. 25 Q: Could you provide some --
1061 A: Well, it would be very similar to my 2 executive assistant, you know, being an aide de camp, 3 helping carry out directions, being a liaison between -- 4 between the staff and -- and -- and my office and 5 generally being with me at -- at meetings to take notes 6 and remind me of commitments and action items to be 7 followed up on, that sort of thing. 8 Q: And that was based -- presumably, you 9 mentioned they would be similar to your executive 10 assistant, so your understanding of her role was based 11 on -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- your experience with your 14 assistant? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: We've heard evidence that the 17 objective of the Interministerial Committee which I think 18 was referred to in previous questions as the blockade or 19 barricades committee, that the objective of that 20 committee in regards to occupations and blockades was to 21 seek to prevent such actions from occurring or in the 22 event that they did occur, a blockade or occupation did 23 occur, to end it as quickly and safely as possible. 24 And I'm just wondering if you were aware 25 that that was the goal of that committee?
1071 A: I believe that was the goal of that 2 committee. 3 Q: And we've heard evidence that that 4 committee was to be a clearing house for information, and 5 I take it you were aware of that -- that as being one of 6 its roles? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And the Interministerial Committee 9 was also to identify options, review them and make 10 recommendations? I take it you -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- understood that? And I take it 13 that you also knew that one of the functions of that 14 committee was to consider communication messages? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: We've heard evidence that prior to 17 the Interministerial Committee meetings that took place 18 on the 5th and the 6th of September 1995, MNR's position 19 was that it had acquired the Ipperwash Provincial 20 Parklands from third parties through a normal process; 21 they'd simply bought it from private parties, that there 22 were no land claims that they were aware of, to the Park 23 and that the -- the occupation of the Park was illegal. 24 And I'm wondering if you were made aware 25 of that?
1081 A: Yes, I would have been, I believe. 2 Q: In 1993, when claims were made by 3 Stony Pointers with regard to the Park, MNR's position at 4 that time was that its ownership of the Park was clear 5 and that was communicated to Maynard George at the time 6 who was one of the -- one of the people involved, and 7 also to Chief Tom Bressette. 8 And I'm wondering if you had been made 9 aware of that history? 10 A: I can't say that I was aware of that. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: So I take it that you wouldn't have 15 been made aware that back in 1993, when a booth was set 16 up for a brief period of time in the Park, and MNR had 17 taken this position, you weren't made aware of the fact 18 that Chief Tom Bressette had indicated that he didn't 19 support those actions? 20 A: No, I wasn't aware of that. 21 Q: Were you made aware of the fact that 22 in 1995, Chief Tom Bressette indicated that he wasn't 23 supporting the actions of the Stony Pointers with respect 24 to the occupation of the Park -- 25 A: Yes.
1091 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: We've heard evidence from MNR 4 representatives on the ground that prior to the 5 occupation on September 4th, 1995, they had 6 communications with the OPP and that the OPP had 7 indicated that to them that in the event of an occupation 8 of the Park, the OPP wanted MNR to seek an injunction. 9 Were you made aware of that? 10 A: No, I wasn't aware of that. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Peter Sturdy testified that, I think 15 approximately 7:00 a.m. on September 5th or early in the 16 morning on September 5th, he understood from his 17 communications directly and indirectly with the OPP that 18 an -- that an injunction was a priority for them. 19 And I take it, given your answer to the 20 previous question, you weren't made aware of that either? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Les Kobayashi testified that he was 23 aware, as of September 1st, 1995, that he understood from 24 a meeting with Inspector Carson, who was the incident 25 commander, that in the event of an occupation the OPP
1101 expected MNR to rapidly seek an injunction, and that, on 2 September 4th, he went and attempted to serve notice that 3 night on the occupiers, within hours of the occupation, 4 so that work could move ahead with respect to the 5 injunction. 6 And I take it, given your previous 7 answers, you weren't made aware of this either? 8 A: I was aware that Les Kobayashi had 9 attempted to serve notice on the occupiers, but I think 10 it was with respect to their trespass and it wasn't 11 notice of an injunction. 12 Q: So you weren't aware of any 13 connection between the -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- the two (2) issues? So I gather 16 that you weren't aware at the time of the OPP's 17 perspective with respect to wanting MNR to -- to obtain 18 an injunction, but do I take it that, knowing that now, 19 while -- while the OPP's views in that regard might be of 20 interest that, from your perspective, it would still be 21 up to the government to -- to need to consider the issue 22 of whether or not to bring an injunction and to make that 23 determination? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: You testified that you were briefed
1111 with respect to the Interministerial Committee Meeting on 2 September 5th, and I just wanted to ask you one (1) 3 question in that regard. 4 I take it that following that you didn't 5 have any communications with Ms. Hutton on September 5th? 6 A: Not that I'm aware of. 7 Q: Did you hear of any media reports on 8 September 5th that indicated that MNR was going to seek 9 an injunction? 10 A: I can't recall. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Did you hear about any media reports 15 that suggested, erroneously, that MNR had, in fact, 16 applied for an injunction or was -- or was in the process 17 of doing so, on September 5th? 18 A: I don't recall that. 19 Q: I anticipate that we'll hear evidence 20 that someone from the Deputy Minister's office contacted 21 the OPP, upset that there had been some reports with 22 respect to MNR applying for an injunction when they had 23 not yet, you know -- the government had not yet made a 24 decision in that regard. 25 Do you recall having any concern that
1121 there were communications in the media about this issue? 2 A: No, I don't recall that. 3 Q: I anticipate that Deb Hutton will 4 testify that she wasn't in the Solicitor General's office 5 on September 6th and never attended a meeting with you 6 regarding the Ipperwash Park occupation, prior to the 7 dining room meeting attended by the Premier. 8 And I suggest that you may be mistaken 9 regarding your recollections of the meeting at the office 10 of the Solicitor Generals, on September 6th? 11 A: It's possible. 12 Q: There was a meeting on September 7th 13 which was attended by the ministers of the Ministry of 14 the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the 15 Ministry of Natural Resources, their deputies, their 16 executive assistants and included Ms. Hutton and others. 17 Do you recall that meeting taking place? 18 A: It's possible that I have that 19 meeting mixed up with the one that I thought took place 20 on the morning of September the 6th. 21 Q: Given your comments with respect to 22 the recommendation with respect to this matter, did you 23 believe that frustrate -- frustration regarding the 24 Federal Government's delays in returning the lands which 25 formed Camp Ipperwash were connected to the occupation of
1131 the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 2 Did you see a connection between the two 3 (2) issues? 4 A: Oh, I'm sure -- I'm sure it was at 5 the root of the frustration of the First Nations. 6 Q: Thank you. Those are all of my 7 questions. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much. 10 Perhaps we could go to Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I understand that Ms. 12 Tuck-Jackson had given -- wishes to maintain her position 13 and examine after Mr. Hodgson -- counsel for Mr. Hodgson 14 and frankly I understand that, given what we've heard 15 with respect to Mr. Hodgson and Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 16 I suggest perhaps that Lambton Shores 17 could do their examination and then we can see where 18 we're at. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 20 Clermont, are you ready to go? Why don't you come up 21 then. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT:
1141 Q: Good morning, Mr. Vrancart. 2 A: Good morning. 3 Q: My name is Janet Clermont and I'm one 4 of the counsel that represents the Municipality of 5 Lambton Shores where the incident occurred, formerly it 6 was named Bosanquet Township. 7 And I have a very narrow interest and I 8 won't -- I won't be very long. My interest is in 9 determining who in the Toronto MNR office was responsible 10 for communicating with municipal officials in 1995, and 11 I'm hoping you could help me with that. 12 I understand that part of your role as 13 Deputy Minister was to communicate or liaise with 14 stakeholders. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And did this include municipal 17 officials under the umbrella of stakeholders? 18 A: From time to time. 19 Q: From time to time. And did you or 20 someone from your office communicate or liaise with the 21 municipality during the summer of 1995? 22 A: My recollection is that Peter Allen, 23 my Executive Assistant, may have had conversations with 24 the -- the Reeve of Bosanquet or -- and/or Marcel 25 Beaubien, isn't a municipal official, but was the MPP at
1151 the time. 2 Q: All right. And did Peter Allen relay 3 these conversations to you regarding the municipality; 4 the content of the conversations? 5 A: He would have, yes. 6 Q: All right. And, in turn, would you 7 have conveyed these concerns onto your minister? 8 A: If I thought they were -- if I 9 thought they were relevant in material I would have, yes. 10 Q: And I take it that that was -- it was 11 helpful information to have regarding the position of -- 12 of the municipality and their concerns that it was 13 important to have those -- that information brought 14 forward? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And is it fair to say that your -- 17 your liaison role created a mechanism for the concerns of 18 the community to be brought to the attention of the 19 Minister? 20 A: Yes. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And I just -- I want to draw your 25 attention to a copy of the accountability and contingency
1161 planning document. I just had a few questions for you on 2 that. 3 It's Exhibit P-802 and I'm wondering if 4 that can be put to the witness. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that in 9 this document, in this brief? 10 MS. JANET CLERMONT: I have an extra 11 copy. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. Is it 13 in his brief? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 18 Q: It's Document 1012220. 19 A: Yes. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 24 very much. 25
1171 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 2 Q: And have you ever seen this document 3 before? 4 A: I'm sure I have but I don't recall 5 it. 6 Q: You'll see that Peter Allen -- it was 7 brought to his attention, see that on the fax -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- cover page. And if you turn -- if 10 you turn to page 2 it's dated February 16th, 1995 but 11 that should actually be 1996. And it was a review, among 12 other things, with respect to the adequacy of 13 communications protocol during Ipperwash and -- and 14 Serpent Mounds? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And I'm interested in -- in getting 17 your thoughts on one (1) observation on page 12. If 18 you'd just turn to page 12 of the -- the document under, 19 "Communications?" 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Third -- third paragraph that starts 22 with the word, "Observations?" 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: "Observations were also made that at 25 times our communications efforts with
1181 external groups such as surrounding 2 residents and community leaders, as 3 well as with local media was not as it 4 could have been." 5 And did Mr. Allen, to your recollection, 6 ever discuss these observations with you? 7 A: I don't recall having a conversation 8 with Mr. Allen about -- about -- about this particular 9 observation, no. 10 Q: Was this your experience? 11 A: I think this would be -- would -- 12 certainly would be consistent with my experience in the 13 Ipperwash incident. 14 Q: Okay. And did you -- did you have 15 any direct -- direct contact with the Municipality during 16 this timeframe, the summer of 1995 up to September 6th, 17 that you can recall? 18 A: Personally, I don't believe I had any 19 direct contact with the Municipality. 20 Q: Okay. And there were a number of 21 recommendations that came out of this document, you can 22 see them there. 23 And I'm wondering if, to your acknowledge, 24 whether any of the recommendations were ever implemented? 25 A: I would -- I would have expected that
1191 most of these recommendations would have been 2 implemented. This -- this review was undertaken by the - 3 - by -- by Mr. Cam Clark (phonetic) who was the Assistant 4 Deputy Minister for Operations. 5 And so the recommendations were to him, 6 and I am sure that he would have internalized, into his 7 divisions operations, most of these recommendations and 8 certainly would have had a vigorous discussion of this 9 report at his management committee meetings and -- and -- 10 and his management committee meetings typically involved 11 the regional directors of the Ministry who would have 12 made sure that these recommendations were implemented. 13 Q: Okay. Thank you. We've heard the 14 term, "messaging" being used to describe the 15 communications -- external communications -- and are -- 16 are you familiar with that term, "messaging?" 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I take it that "messaging" means 19 communicating a message to the public through a press 20 release or press conference; is that correct? 21 A: It -- it can be through a number of 22 different vehicles, but those -- those would be a couple 23 of vehicles. 24 Q: And is it usually a one (1) way 25 communication as opposed to a two (2) way dialogue?
1201 A: It's not always -- it's not always a 2 -- a one (1) way, but often it is. 3 Q: Okay. And I just had one (1) other 4 area that I was interested in. I'm -- I'm interested in 5 determining if -- how the communications changed with 6 external stakeholders after September 6th and the 7 department -- or the -- the three (3) deputy ministers 8 took over that issue, took over the issue of -- of 9 Ipperwash Park managing the issue. 10 And can you tell me how -- how 11 communications changed, if at all, with external parties? 12 A: Once the -- the three (3) deputy 13 ministers had charge of this issue it -- I think it was 14 agreed that the Deputy Solicitor General had lead 15 responsibility for communications and -- and I believe 16 they developed a communications plan and strategy for 17 managing this issue. 18 Q: And do you recall who had the lead 19 for communications, prior to September 6th? 20 A: Prior to -- prior to September the 21 6th the Ministry of the Attorney General had -- had the 22 responsibility, and prior to that the Ministry of Natural 23 Resources was the spokesperson. 24 Q: All right. Okay. Those are my 25 questions. Thank you.
1211 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 3 very much. We'll take an early break. We'll take an 4 early lunch break now. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 6 adjourned until one o'clock. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 11:46 a.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 1:16 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Mr. Commissioner, may 14 I say -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 16 afternoon. 17 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Good afternoon, late 18 good afternoon. I just want to apologize to you and to 19 all My Friends here and My Learned Colleagues. I had -- 20 if it hadn't been for the truck accident on the 402, I 21 think I would've been here right on time. 22 But I do apologize and I do apologize -- I 23 do thank you for waiting and I apologize to you, Mr. 24 Vrancart. I know the idea is to finish you today and I'm 25 going to make my best to go through and ask you a number
1221 of questions. 2 If you don't hear me or understand me, 3 please free to tell me and I'll try not to rush too much 4 but I'll try and get through some of the more 5 uncontentious things in an expeditious fashion, if I can. 6 With your permission, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine, carry 8 on. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 11 Q: Mr. Vrancart, you spent twenty-one 12 (21) years at the Ministry of Natural Resources holding a 13 number of important posts, culminating in the post of a 14 Deputy Minister. 15 And that was the senior civil service post 16 in the Ministry, is that correct? 17 A: That's correct. One amendment, it 18 was twenty-three (23) years. 19 Q: Very good. And over that period of 20 time you had a broad range of experience and had worked 21 under ministers from all three (3) political parties, 22 correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And as deputy, you managed the civil 25 servants in the Ministry and provided policy advice to
1231 the Minister? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And was Mr. Hodgson someone who 4 sought out your view, when he was minister? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And did he generally follow your 7 advice? 8 A: Generally he did, yes. 9 Q: Now the Minister had an executive 10 assistant, Mr. Jeff Bangs. 11 And Mr. Bangs also seek advice from you? 12 A: Yes, from time to time. 13 Q: And I understand you would meet with 14 the Minister and Mr. Bangs, usually once a week at 15 minimum, correct? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: But you'd have lots of other informal 18 meetings with them, exchanges of e-mails, telephone 19 conversations? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So there's no bar to you having 22 contact -- 23 A: No. 24 Q: -- with the Minister in any way? 25 Correct.
1241 Did you feel inhibited in any way giving 2 advice to the Minister? 3 A: Never. 4 Q: The situation concerning Ipperwash 5 involved the MNR, I think we've heard, because it -- it 6 held title to the Park in the name of the Crown. 7 Is that correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: I want to take you back to the last 10 weekend in August of 1995 and by my calendar that would 11 have been the weekend of August 26th and 27th of 1995. 12 There was an incident involving the Hiawath First Nation 13 of the Serpent Mounds Provincial Park. 14 Do you recall that taking place? 15 A: I guess I do. There seems to be some 16 confusion about the dates though. 17 Q: Okay. Well my understanding is and I 18 believe Mr. Hodgson will give evidence it was around that 19 weekend. 20 The Park had been occupied by the First 21 Nation. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We heard a 23 little bit of this in-chief, Mr. Fredrick. 24 MR. MARK FREDRICK: That's right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure
1251 if you're aware of what we did hear or not because I 2 don't -- 3 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Yes. I've -- I've 4 got a pretty good briefing and so -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You got a 6 pretty good briefing? Okay, that's fine. 7 MR. MARK FREDRICK: -- I'm going to try 8 and -- I'm going to try and skip around parts that have 9 already been gone through. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 13 Q: The Park was taken over by the Band's 14 official leadership; is that right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And Mr. Hodgson had a part of -- in 17 the role of a decision to give the campers rainchecks and 18 close the Park to the public? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And the OPP was contacted and they 21 were taking care of the occupation, correct? 22 A: Yes. Yes. 23 Q: Did the MNR have any other 24 involvement in the Park during the occupation of the 25 Park?
1261 Did they have any other role once the OPP 2 had taken over the situation -- 3 A: Well, evacuating the campers and day 4 users from the Park. 5 Q: Any other role you can think of? 6 A: No. 7 Q: And did you have a role to play in 8 the way the MNR's immediate response to the occupation 9 was handled? 10 A: I was -- I was the one that made the 11 decision to evacuate the Park. 12 Q: Now Mr. Hodgson will say that the 13 Hiawatha First Nation owned half of the Park and were 14 making a land claim. 15 And I take it that was your understanding 16 as well? 17 A: That was part of it, yes. 18 Q: And during the time of the occupation 19 did you and Mr. Hodgson discuss a longer term resolution 20 of that dispute? 21 A: We may have -- we may have talked 22 about the possibility of a co-management arrangement in 23 the future. 24 Q: Okay. Mr. Hodgson will say that was 25 the case.
1271 Was thought given as to why this idea 2 would be tabled with the First Nation or how, at what 3 timing it would be? 4 A: I don't recall. 5 Q: Okay. My understanding is that the 6 idea was the co-management, what came out of discussions, 7 it would take place after the occupation was resolved. 8 Does that accord with your -- 9 A: That would make sense, yes. 10 Q: Does that accord with your 11 recollection? 12 A: I -- I really don't recall. 13 Q: Okay. And Mr. Bangs was also 14 involved in that process? 15 A: Yes, he would have been. 16 Q: Now, the occupation at Hiawatha 17 petered out pretty quickly and eventually a co-management 18 agreement was worked out with that First Nation, right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And that -- that agreement was 21 arrived at after the situation at Ipperwash; is that 22 right? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: In his evidence about a meeting with 25 Mr. Hodgson on September 6th Mr. Fox, who has given
1281 evidence in this matter, said that he made the following 2 remark, and the transcript reference is July 12th page 72 3 line 8. Mr. Fox says: 4 "In my capacity as an advisor I offered 5 up as suggestion and made the 6 suggestion that perhaps some inroads 7 could be made with the First Nation 8 with respect to Ipperwash Park in terms 9 of co-management." 10 And I do recall exampling the Park at 11 the -- that was managed by the Cape 12 Croker First Nation, the parked managed 13 at Serpent Mound First Nation as well." 14 And it continued on at page 117 and 118. 15 He said: 16 "I felt I was providing, in my capacity 17 as an advisor, advice. Whether it was 18 taken or not it seemed prudent that I 19 provide it." 20 And that was with respect to the Park and 21 co-management issues as possible solution. And the 22 question was put to him: 23 "Thank you. And you indicated some 24 sorts of precedents in relation to Cape 25 Croker and Serpent Mounds in that
1291 respect and that's correct?" 2 So what Mr. Fox is saying essentially is 3 that September 6th he is alleging making this advice to 4 the Minister. What I suggest to you is there was no such 5 discussion on September 6th because, in fact, that idea 6 of co-management wasn't on the table yet because the Park 7 was still being occupied at that point. 8 Would that make sense to you, sir? 9 A: It makes sense to me; I don't recall 10 that -- that conversation. 11 Q: Thank you. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: While we're at it I want to ask you 16 for your comment on some evidence given by Julie Jai as 17 well. 18 She expressed some concern about what she 19 characterized as Mr. Hodgson's aggressive approach in the 20 context of Ipperwash. On August 31st, in her evidence, 21 she said this and this is at page 284 to 85 of her 22 transcript. The question -- the answer she's given at 23 line 4: 24 "Okay. I wanted to just clarify 25 something that I said yesterday.
1301 Q: Yes? 2 A: This was in the discussion about 3 the briefing that I attended involving 4 Minister Hodgson, the Minister of 5 Natural Resources. 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: And I remember at the time saying 8 that I couldn't remember the details 9 but that it was in relation to some 10 land claim; that there was a comment 11 that was made by the Minister that was 12 quite extreme that sort of took me 13 aback, that I was just very surprised 14 by, and it was in relation to some 15 harvesting issues. 16 I'm just -- I was just thinking about 17 that, trying to remember what it was 18 and I believe that it was in 19 relationship to Temagami land claim 20 agreement which had been on the table 21 and had not been ratified. Like there 22 was actually a "no" vote by the members 23 of the Temagami First Nation. 24 And so at that time, when the 25 government came in, one (1) of the
1311 issues was whether or not [pardon me] 2 was whether to leave that agreement on 3 the table or like the offer on the 4 table or not. 5 And I think that was one (1) of the 6 issues that was -- that Minister 7 Hodgson was being briefed on because 8 there was a large area of Crown land 9 that was being kind of interim 10 protected, where there was some 11 restrictions on land and any 12 dispositions, so that I was at the 13 briefing table because of that topic. 14 And so the comment that Minister 15 Hodgson made, I believe, was in 16 relation to the restrictions that were 17 currently in place at that time on any 18 harvesting activity which -- which 19 would be harvesting of trees. Like, so 20 there couldn't be any, like, commercial 21 forestry operations, for example, in 22 the Temagami area." 23 Can you advise us, to your recollection, 24 when the Temagami issue was actually on table; was it in 25 September of 1995?
1321 A: The Temagami issue was on the table, 2 probably for a decade. It was the single most time 3 consuming issue that the Liberal Peterson Government 4 dealt with. And then it went through the whole time of 5 the NDP Government and was only resolved at the time of 6 the Progressive Conservative Government, and it was 7 settled by the Progressive Conservative Government in the 8 fall of 1995, I would guess. 9 Q: Okay. My understanding from Mr. 10 Hodgson is, though, at the around the time of Ipperwash, 11 Temagami wasn't an issue that was being discussed, at 12 least at the Minister's level, that it came after 13 Ipperwash -- 14 A: Yes, it was after Ipperwash -- well, 15 I mean, it was -- I mean, there was a decade of activity 16 before Ipperwash and then -- but it was resolved 17 relatively quickly after Ipperwash. 18 Q: Okay. What I'm going to suggest is 19 Ms. Jai has her timing incorrect in terms of when the 20 Minister was commenting about Ipperwash -- about Temagami 21 and at what time it came up for discussion with the 22 Minister, and I'm just going to suggest it was after 23 Ipperwash. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 25 you answer.
1331 Yes, Mr. Myrka...? 2 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The concern that I 3 have is he read this long passage from Julie Jai's 4 evidence that I couldn't follow. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. WALTER MYRKA: It was so quick. It 7 hasn't been placed before the witness -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. WALTER MYRKA: And there was nothing 10 I saw in that passage remotely connected to this 11 particular witness. 12 I think, at the very least, the passage 13 has to be put to him and to give him an opportunity to 14 review it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 16 MR. WALTER MYRKA: But if he wasn't 17 there, then he shouldn't be asked a question about it and 18 I don't see -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- how he can answer a 21 question about timing, concerning another witness at this 22 Inquiry. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 24 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Well, I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you got
1341 a copy -- 2 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- respectfully 3 disagree. But the point is -- the point is that Ms. Jai 4 gives -- gives a statement and -- concerning a view she 5 had of Mr. Hodgson. 6 I just want to show that the statement 7 wasn't on the table at the time of Ipperwash -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 9 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- the issue 10 wasn't -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 12 that's what you're showing, I don't think you've shown 13 that. The witness has said that Temagami was on the 14 table for years before. 15 MR. MARK FREDERICK: But I think he went 16 on later to say that the resolution of it, the discussion 17 of it -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Occurred 19 after -- 20 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- at the Minister's 21 level occurred after. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't see 23 how that's inconsistent with the statement that Ms. Jai 24 made. 25 MR. MARK FREDERICK: I think I'll -- I'll
1351 take -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I don't 3 know what you -- what the witness has said that you feel 4 assists you. 5 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Well, I'll leave it 6 on the -- I think what he said, and I'll leave it on the 7 table, but what he said is the discussions took place, I 8 believe, at some other point but the record will reflect 9 what he said on the point and I can make my point from it 10 later on. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 12 not sure that you have. You've read him a long passage. 13 I think what Mr. Myrka's objection is, is that the 14 question that you asked him following the reading maybe 15 unfair and we may be leaving an incorrect impression. 16 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Why don't I -- why I 17 don't leave -- set this aside for the moment, and I'll 18 come back -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. MARK FREDERICK: I may come back at 21 the end and see if I can frame it -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 23 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- in a different 24 way. And I apologize to you, Mr. Vrancart. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right.
1361 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 3 Q: Now, about August 1995, the situation 4 involving Ipperwash came up on the radar screen as a 5 problem and one with the potential of an occupation 6 taking place; I think you've been through that with My 7 Friends earlier? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And your Ministry's on the ground, 10 people were already liaising with the police. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now, I examined Julie Jai about the 13 principles guiding response to emergency situations, and 14 these included the prevention of violence, property 15 damage or personal injury. 16 And as deputy minister, did you share 17 those principles? 18 A: Yes, I did. I would -- I would have 19 included in that public safety and safety of the staff 20 working the in Park, as well. 21 Q: And did those principles govern your 22 approach to dealing with emergency situations? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And did they influence your advice to 25 the Minister?
1371 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did the Minister support or 3 reject those principles? 4 A: As far as I know, he supported them. 5 Q: And on what basis do you give me that 6 answer? 7 A: He never told me otherwise. 8 Q: Now, you had an assistant, Mr. Peter 9 Allen? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And his role was to brief you on 12 meetings that he'd attend on behalf of the Ministry, 13 correct? 14 A: Yes, partly. 15 Q: And Mr. Bangs would also attend those 16 meetings representing the Minister? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: In those roles they'd be getting 19 information and conveying respective views? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And there were meetings going forward 22 from August 1995 concerning Ipperwash, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And Mr. Bangs and Mr. Allen and 25 several others from the MNR were invited to attend and
1381 did attend them along with other civil servants? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you would attend meetings 4 personally, from time to time? 5 A: If we're talking specifically about 6 the -- the blockade committee, I generally did not attend 7 those meetings. I may have attended one (1) or two (2) 8 of them. 9 Q: You attended at more senior level 10 meetings, generally? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now the -- I believe you've said, and 13 I just want to make sure this is correct, that the main 14 concerns of the MNR at Ipperwash, when it first arose, 15 were the situation about the water distribution at the 16 Park and the potential that the dissident group that 17 occupied the base -- the military base adjacent would 18 occupy the Park. 19 Those were the two (2) main concerns? 20 A: The main concern was public safety, 21 number 1, so we evacuated the Park. Our secondary 22 concern was about safety for our staff and we eventually 23 reassigned them to other duties and then -- and then the 24 concerns about the plant in the Park and -- and the 25 possible occupation would have been, you know, third and
1391 fourth order concerns. 2 Q: Now there's also this group, and I 3 won't take you to too much of it, but there was a special 4 committee set up through the Ontario Native Affairs 5 Secretariat; is that correct? 6 A: I'm not sure which one you're 7 referring to. 8 Q: I think they called it the Blockade 9 Committee. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: It was under the auspices of the 12 Ministry of the Attorney General? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And I'm looking at the minutes of 15 that meeting at Tab 2 of the brief. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I look at the -- I believe, if I 18 go to the second page, I see that Mr. Bangs and Mr. Allen 19 attended at this meeting? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: Do you recall if there was a 22 discussion between you and them before they attended? 23 A: I don't recall. 24 Q: Okay. Item 4 and 5 on page 5 of this 25 -- of these minutes --
1401 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is the 2 meeting of August 2nd just for the record. The exhibit 3 number is 506, P-506. 4 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Thank you, sir. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 7 Q: Just to page 5 of P-506 -- on page 5, 8 items 4 and 5 indicate, and you can read them if you like 9 for a second. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: There's indication that the prospect 14 of an incident including a possible occupation of the 15 Park had been noted, and that the MNR and the OPP would 16 be left to monitor the situation and respond. 17 Do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And the last paragraph says: 20 "It was agreed that the Committee will 21 reconvene if an actual incident at 22 Ipperwash occurs but that the MNR and 23 OPP staff on the ground do not need to 24 wait for the Committee's approval 25 before taking actions that are
1411 necessary to protect public safety." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And was -- was that something that 5 you -- do you have any recollection discussing that type 6 of approach with Mr. Allen prior to him attending the 7 meeting? 8 A: I don't recall having that specific 9 discussion but Mr. Allen would have been aware that that 10 would have been the approach that I would take and 11 generally that the Ministry would take to dealing with 12 this issue. It was always our first inclination to 13 empower our front line staff to make those kinds of 14 decisions. 15 Q: Okay. Now how did you understand the 16 respective roles of the OPP and the MNR in terms of any 17 response that would be forthcoming? 18 A: Well in my view, the OPP were there 19 to affect law and order. And the Ministry of Natural 20 Resources was there to assist in ensuring that, you know, 21 that the Park and its patrons were protected. 22 Q: And essentially you -- you understood 23 that there would only be immediate involvement if there 24 was some necessity to protect public safety? 25 A: Yes.
1421 Q: Now the OPP, I think you -- if I can 2 paraphrase, the OPP are going to stick to policing and 3 the MNR are going to stick to safety issues concerning 4 operations of the Park. Is that a correct way of putting 5 it. 6 A: I think that's a fair assessment. 7 Q: And was that a view you would have 8 expressed to Minister Hodgson, as well? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And did -- do you if Minister Hodgson 11 shared that view? 12 A: I believe he did. 13 Q: On what do you base that answer? 14 A: The -- that was the advice that I 15 provided to him and he provided no indication to me at 16 the time that that advice was not sound advice and 17 subsequently he told me that the advice that I had 18 provided during this incident was good -- good and sound 19 advice. 20 Q: Thank you. Now the problem that 21 happened, that occurred at Ipperwash, many problems I 22 suppose, but when -- when issues first started arising, 23 there was a problem started with a dissident group from 24 the local Bands. 25 Was that your understanding?
1431 A: That was my understanding, yes. 2 Q: And these were people not elected by 3 the Band? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: They were their own group? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Not supported by the Band? 8 A: That was my understanding. 9 Q: Did the -- did the MNR generally have 10 a good report with aboriginal Ontarians? 11 A: Generally, yes. The Ministry had a 12 very good working relationship at the grass roots level 13 with our First Nations. 14 Q: And at Ipperwash, I believe Chief 15 Bressette and Mr. Kobayashi gave evidence that there was 16 good rapport with the local band and people at the Park. 17 Was that the case at Ipperwash, to your 18 knowledge? 19 A: To the best of my knowledge, yes. 20 Q: I believe some aboriginal people were 21 hired on at the Park? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Ceremonies were allowed to take 24 place? 25 A: Yes.
1441 Q: Now, the month of August passed, back 2 in 1995, did you have occasion to brief Mr. Hodgson on 3 the status of matters at Ipperwash in August, following 4 an incident involving a car doing -- allegedly doing 5 doughnuts on the sand at the beach at the Park? 6 A: Yes, I did. 7 Q: And what was the content of that 8 briefing, in a nutshell? 9 A: It was -- it -- it was to provide 10 information to Mr. Hodgson, the context -- it wasn't the 11 kind of thing that I would normally have brought to his 12 attention, but there was a heightened sense of awareness 13 around native issues at that time because of the 14 Gustafson Lake stand off in Western Canada. 15 Q: Now, was there any discussion about 16 who would speak on this matter to the public? 17 A: My -- my advice to -- to the Minister 18 was to not get in front of this issue and to not be -- be 19 the spokesperson for it. 20 However, subsequently, the blockade 21 committee had an alternative view and since the Premier's 22 office was involved in -- in that discussion, Mr. Hodgson 23 ended up, initially, being the spokesperson for the 24 issue. 25 Q: Okay. I'm going to come back to that
1451 in a minute. 2 Did you tell Mr. Hodgson that this issue, 3 the take over of the Park, if I can call it that, did you 4 tell him that it was an MNR matter? 5 A: Did I tell him that it was an MNR 6 matter? Well, it was an MNR matter. It was our Park but 7 it was my view that it was an OPP issue. 8 Q: Okay. And did Mr. Hodgson accept 9 that advice, to your knowledge? 10 A: I believe he did. 11 Q: And, effectively, you -- you told him 12 he should not get in front of the issue. 13 Is that -- is that fair to say you advised 14 him that this issue like the doughnuts on the beach that 15 we heard about, the car doing that sort of thing, that he 16 -- your -- your advice was not to comment upon it 17 publicly, if I can't put it that way? 18 A: I don't think I advised him not to 19 comment on it publicly, I left that to his judgment. 20 Q: Okay. Your advice was, though, 21 generally, not to make statements concerning the issues? 22 A: I think, you know, what I meant by 23 saying don't get in front of this issue is, don't say 24 things publicly, don't become involved in the media, 25 don't give the impression that you're leading this issue.
1461 Q: Okay. And -- and did he accept that 2 advice? 3 A: I believe he did. 4 Q: I want to move forward to labour Day. 5 As I understood the chronology, the Park closed for the 6 season at 6:00 p.m. on the 4th of September 1995 and the 7 occupiers took over the Park about 7:30 p.m. 8 Does that accord with your -- 9 A: That's my understanding, yes. 10 Q: And did you call Mr. Hodgson that 11 day? Do you recall that? 12 A: I don't recall talking to him on the 13 Labour Day weekend, no. 14 Q: Okay. But Mr. Hodgson will -- he's 15 going to give evidence in this thing eventually. He's 16 going to say that he got a call from you -- 17 A: Oh. 18 Q: -- on Labour Day and he'll say that 19 you discussed whether there was any urgency in the 20 situation that required a response. 21 Do you recall your first discussion with 22 Mr. Hodgson on the circumstance and does that accord with 23 what you recall? 24 A: I don't recall that. 25 Q: Okay. He's going to give evidence
1471 that when you both first spoke on the occupation, he will 2 say that both of you agreed that, since the Park was 3 closed, there was no urgency in responding. 4 Does that accord with your recollection 5 of -- 6 A: Yes, it does. 7 Q: Were you aware of whether there were 8 any demands being made by the occupiers at the outset? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: I don't -- I don't recall what -- 13 what the demands were. 14 Q: What was your primary concern about 15 the Park at that time? 16 A: My primary concern: Knowing that -- 17 that he Park had -- had been evacuated was for the safety 18 of the staff in the Park, first and foremost and then, 19 secondly, for -- for the Park plan, specifically the -- 20 the water system. 21 Q: Now, I understand that your EA Mr. 22 Allen and the Minister's AEA Mr. Bangs attended a meeting 23 of the Barricades Committee on September 5th, from about 24 11:00 in the morning til about 2:00 in the afternoon. 25 I take it you were aware they were going
1481 to such a meeting? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And had some discussions with them in 4 advance of going to that meeting? 5 A: I don't know if I had a discussion 6 with them in advance. 7 Q: Okay. I want to take you to Document 8 Number 1012288, if I could, which are the minutes of that 9 meeting and I think they're at -- I think they're at 10 Tab -- 11 A: Tab 4. 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-509. 13 MR. MARK FREDRICK: P-509. Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 18 Q: Have you seen these before, sir? 19 A: Yes, I have. 20 Q: Do you recall being briefed on the 21 results of this meeting by Mr. Allen and/or Mr. Bangs? 22 A: I don't recall being briefed on it, 23 but it would have been normal practice that I would have 24 been briefed on it. 25 Q: Okay. In terms of the issues
1491 discussed in these minutes, are they consistent with your 2 recollection of the results of that meeting? 3 A: Yes, they are. 4 Q: What I -- if I can paraphrase it, 5 what occurs at this meeting is a review of facts and a 6 consideration of options and particularly at page 2, if 7 you can go over to page 2, item number 3, there are the 8 various options that I believe you've been through before 9 in terms of what was being considered to respond? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Criminally or trespass or the civil 12 injunction; I think you told My Friends about that 13 earlier on, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And the steps to be taken by the MNR 16 are set out on page 3? 17 A: Under "Next Steps?" 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And, specifically, the MNR was going 21 to act as spokesperson in the short-term. 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And, in fact, these steps listed here 25 were -- were the only steps that were contemplated for
1501 the Ministry at that time; is that correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Nowhere is it stated in these -- in 4 these minutes that the MNR or its minister will contact 5 the OPP to provide directions, correct? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And that fact -- that was not 8 discussed, right? 9 A: Not to the best of my knowledge. 10 Q: And there was never any discussion, 11 to the best of your knowledge, at any time, that the MNR 12 or the Minister or anybody else in the Ministry would be 13 giving directions to the OPP; is that correct? 14 A: Not that I'm aware of. 15 Q: In fact, in these minutes it's noted, 16 specifically, that the OPP had discretion as to how to 17 proceed with removing the Stoney Pointers from the Park? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And would that be your understanding 20 of the role that the OPP was to play in the occupation? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And did that determination ever 23 change, as far as you were aware? 24 A: Not in my mind. 25 Q: Now, it mentioned -- we -- we heard
1511 before that the Minister -- Minister Hodgson was going to 2 be spokesman in the -- sorry, it's in here, MNR and would 3 act as spokesman in the short-term. 4 Do I take it it was not foreseen that the 5 MNR would be spokesman -- spokesperson in the long-term? 6 A: The advice that I'd given to the 7 Minister was -- was to not be spokesperson at all, but 8 following this meeting he was elevated to -- to that -- 9 to that role and I know, from discussions with him, that 10 he was intent on pursuing a strategy that would see him 11 not be the spokesperson for this issue, over the longer 12 term. 13 Q: Now, as this matter progressed to the 14 stage where an injunction was sought, was it the position 15 that the Legal Branch would then take responsibility for 16 the matter, the Attorney General's Office? 17 A: Yes. yes, it was. 18 Q: I want to cover off some things that 19 were reportedly said at this meeting, to see if they 20 accord with your recollection and advice. 21 And specifically I want to refer to the 22 notes of Ms. Hipfner of September 5, and I believe they 23 are Exhibit P-510. Just take me a second to turn these 24 up. 25
1521 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: The Document Number is 1011739. 4 A: Thank you. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Do you have those in front of you, 9 sir? 10 A: Yes, I do. 11 Q: I realize these aren't your notes and 12 I -- I just want to take you to some of the quotes from 13 people from the MNR, just to see if they accord with 14 positions that were being discussed by you and the 15 Minister or you and the various representatives of the 16 Ministry of Natural Resources and see if they're 17 consistent with what your advice was and what your 18 understanding was; I'm going to do that. 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: Now Mr. Bangs was, again, we noted in 21 the earlier formal minutes, that he was there -- he was 22 the aide of Mr. Hodgson; he'd be there representing Mr. 23 Hodgson? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And I take it you've had lots of
1531 experience dealing with the executive assistants to 2 ministers? 3 A: A fair amount, yes. 4 Q: Generally they attend as political 5 staffers to represent the ministers at meetings; is that 6 correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: The assumption is that they keep 9 their ministers briefed? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: At page 3 of the written memos, we 12 see Mr. Bangs quoted as saying that: 13 "Should consider injunction first." 14 Do you see that? 15 A: No, I don't. 16 Q: Okay. It's just at the top of page 3 17 under 5, "Options." 18 A: Yes. Oh I see that's Bangs. I -- I 19 wasn't reading that. Okay. 20 Q: Okay. Mr. Bangs, I understand, will 21 give evidence to confirm that, but was it, in fact, your 22 view, as well, that an injunction should be considered 23 first as opposed to any other step; criminal charges, 24 trespass? 25 A: I -- I saw these things perceiving at
1541 the same -- at the same level in the early going. I 2 hadn't really made up my mind about what the best option 3 was. I didn't think I had all of the advice that I 4 needed to make -- make that determination. 5 Q: Okay. But in terms of -- in terms of 6 having had a discussion and a briefing with Mr. Allen, 7 Mr. Bangs, did you voice any opposition to the idea that 8 an injunction would be an appropriate way to proceed at 9 first? 10 A: I didn't voice any opposition to it, 11 no. 12 Q: And certainly, moving for an 13 injunction was less confrontational than -- than 14 arresting people; would you agree with that? 15 A: Just moving for an injunction would 16 have been, yes. Serving it may have been something else. 17 Q: Okay. As I understand, the OPP had 18 recommended, and I believe Mr. Fox gave evidence that the 19 OPP was -- and I believe the other OPP officers who've 20 come here to testify, have indicated that their preferred 21 methodology was to -- was to ask for an injunction first, 22 as the first step in going to remove the occupiers from 23 the Park? 24 A: Yes, apparently. 25 Q: And that was your understanding?
1551 A: Yes, it was. 2 Q: And do I understand that the MNR 3 agreed with supporting the OPP in that goal? 4 A: I don't think we disagreed with it? 5 Q: If you go down the page a little bit 6 further, someone -- there's -- there's a quote there 7 attributed to someone from the MNR, I'm afraid I don't 8 know who it's -- I think it's likely Mr. Allen. Third 9 way -- third line down says: 10 "It shouldn't be too precipitous about 11 what we do, even WRT [I think that's 12 with regard] to obtaining injunctions." 13 I take it, is -- is that approach an 14 approach that you would have shared? 15 A: I -- I think that would have 16 reflected my opinion about an injunction. 17 Q: Do you recall any scenarios around 18 injunctions that you otherwise discussed with your staff? 19 A: No, I don't. 20 Q: Okay. This sounds like a request to 21 exercise caution, and is exercise of caution in this 22 situation something that advocated? 23 A: Yes, but I didn't see -- I didn't see 24 the urgency to this -- to this situation at that point in 25 time.
1561 Q: Okay. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Above that, there's a line that says: 6 "Need to have a talk with them about 7 what they're trying to accomplish." 8 Now I read that being someone from the MNR 9 is advocating, Talk to the occupiers as to what they're 10 trying to accomplish. 11 Was that something that you, yourself had 12 discussions with your staff about? 13 A: I'm sure that's something that I 14 would have discussed with -- with Peter Allen. It seemed 15 to me that talking through this was -- had to be the 16 really the first option and to see if it was possible to 17 resolve this issue without going to any of those options 18 that had been set out by the -- by the blockade 19 committee. 20 Q: And again, it sounds -- 21 A: I don't think we had a very good 22 understanding of what their -- what their frustrations 23 were or what their demands were. 24 Q: And again, it sounds like a cautious 25 response from the MNR?
1571 A: Yes. 2 Q: If I go over a page, there's another 3 attribution, and the last one I'll take you to in this 4 document from Mr. Bangs. It's about the third line down, 5 Mr. Bangs is attributed to say, and I understand he'll 6 confirm this: 7 "We can afford to wait; if we get 8 injunction we'll be expected to move 9 in. Don't want to escalate the 10 situation." 11 A: Yes, that was consistent with the 12 advice that I provided. 13 Q: Now, I want to -- there's one other 14 set of notes from that date from Ms. Julie Jai, and it's 15 document 1012579. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: These notes 17 are at Tab 6, I think, of your binder. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 23 Q: They're in a little bit. The front 24 page is typed, and then you get into the notes. If I can 25 take you to -- it's -- it's about the fourth page in, and
1581 there's number 2 at the top. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The notes 3 are in reverse order, I think, in the document. I'm not 4 sure which meeting are you referring to, the one on -- 5 MR. MARK FREDERICK: The one -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 5th 7 or the 6th? 8 MR. MARK FREDERICK: I'm sorry, 9 Commissioner, you're absolutely -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all 11 right. 12 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- right. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 6th is 14 the first one and the 5th is the second one. 15 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Yeah. It's in the 16 second page in from the second grouping of notes. It's 17 about ten (10) pages or so from the back. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They're 19 numbered at the top. What page are you looking at? 20 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Page 2 of the -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Page 2? 22 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- of the September 23 5 -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: September 25 5th?
1591 MR. MARK FREDERICK: September 5 notes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 6 Q: Are you there, sir? 7 A: Yes, I am. 8 Q: The top of the page says: 9 "What do they want?" 10 Do you see that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay, so we're on the same page. At 13 the -- at the very bottom of the page there's a review of 14 the options and including the first point there is made 15 injunction; do you see that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: So they're talking about a discussion 18 of getting an injunction at this point. 19 On page 3, Peter Allen -- there's a quote 20 attributed to Peter Allen who's your EA. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And the statement is essentially: 23 "They spoke with their deputy minister. 24 No attempt made so far to speak to them 25 and find out what they want. They're
1601 just occupying an empty Park. 2 Shouldn't take overly precipitous 3 action." 4 So -- do you -- so -- does that help you 5 recall any discussion you might have had with Mr. Allen 6 on the occupation, at that point? 7 A: That -- that is consistent with my 8 view about this issue in the very beginning, that it 9 didn't have the sense of urgency attached to it which 10 seemed to be getting attached to it. 11 Q: And if I can move down the page there 12 is some quotes attributed to Mr. Bangs. Mr. Bangs -- 13 Jeff Bangs: 14 "Discuss with minister this morning. 15 If we get an injunction, we'll be 16 expected to enforce it and it will 17 escalate this. Could lead to a 18 confrontation." 19 Do you see that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And again, that is something that 22 there's -- your people are saying, Let's exercise caution 23 Mr. -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- Bangs is saying, This could lead
1611 to an es -- to a confrontation. 2 Are those issues that you discussed with 3 Mr. Bangs and with the Minister? 4 A: Yes, they are. 5 Q: And did the Minister give you any 6 indication, at any time, that he wanted to see a 7 confrontation or an escalation of the situation at the 8 Park? 9 A: Never. 10 Q: In fact, what was his attitude? 11 A: His attitude was to get this issue 12 resolved as peacefully as possible, get the occupiers out 13 of the Park. 14 Q: Now, if I can take you to Document 15 3000806 which was a briefing note prepared by the 16 Committee. I'm just going to turn that up for a second, 17 pardon me. 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-918. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 3? 918. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1621 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Thanks very much. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 4 Q: Now, this was a document authored, I 5 think, under -- it was -- it was done up by Garry Wice 6 from your office; is that right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: But it was done under your 9 supervision. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: That was, I think is what you told 12 everybody. 13 Do you know when Mr. Hodgson arrived in 14 the office on September 5th? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Any recollection of that? He will 17 say it's about two o'clock in the afternoon. Does that 18 strike you as being approximate, after the long weekend? 19 A: That was on the Tuesday then after 20 the holiday Monday. It is conceivable that he would have 21 been in his riding in Haliburton and would not have 22 returned during the Monday rush and would have come back 23 on -- on -- on the -- on the Tuesday morning, or 24 alternatively he may have stayed at his -- well, no, at - 25 - at that time he was -- his family was still living in
1631 Haliburton so he -- he probably would have come back on 2 the Tuesday morning. 3 Q: Okay. He'll -- he'll say he came in 4 in the afternoon and had a discussion, obviously, 5 concerning the situation and -- and before I get to that, 6 this briefing note, it was prepared for the use of the 7 Minister; is that correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that this note 10 reflected not only your thoughts but the thoughts of the 11 MNR and -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- and the thoughts of the Minister 14 as well? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: If we go down to about the eighth 17 point down, can you read that -- can you read that out? 18 It says: 19 "The government..." 20 A: "The government is considering all 21 possible legal remedies to end this 22 illegal occupation in a peaceful 23 manner." 24 Q: Okay. And was there any -- ever any 25 indication from any person in the government, including
1641 your minister, that the occupation should not be ended in 2 a peaceful manner? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Now, the O -- the statement also 5 refers to the OPP taking certain steps; trying to 6 establish contact, is onsite cooperating with the MNR and 7 monitoring the situation. 8 Do you see that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And effectively that was, in fact, 11 the way in which the cooperation was being evidenced 12 between the MNR and the OPP, correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Did the Minister ever express to you 15 a desire on his part to direct the OPP in any way? 16 A: No. 17 Q: As Deputy Minister you understood 18 that the government branch does not direct the policing 19 branch? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: I think you said something to that 22 effect earlier on. 23 Now the press conference followed, as I 24 understand, because the press were at the door? 25 A: Yes.
1651 Q: And did you watch the press 2 conference? 3 A: No, I was not there. 4 Q: Now, on Wednesday, September 6th in 5 the morning, there was another meeting of the Barricades 6 Committee, and I think the minutes of that are at Tab 5 7 of the document brief in front of you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, Mr. -- Mr. Allen was there at 12 that meeting and he was keeping you updated as things 13 were proceeding? 14 A: Yes, he was. 15 Q: There -- there were items discussed, 16 and I want to see if these items were likely discussed 17 with you as well, prior to the meetings. 18 If I look over to page 2, there's 19 something called, "Minister's Directives?" 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: I just want to concentrate on the 22 MNR. It says: 23 "The Minister wants to act as quickly 24 as possible to avoid further damage and 25 to curtail any escalation of the
1661 situation." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And was that consistent with the 5 advice you were providing to the Minister? 6 A: Yeah, and consistent with his 7 response, yes. 8 Q: Thank you. Item 4 speaks about 9 communications and it was -- here's this point about 10 being out in front of the issue, I suppose: 11 "It was agreed the MNR, [and I'm 12 quoting from it at item 4 on page 2] as 13 Parks owner and steward, will continue 14 to be the ministerial spokesperson 15 regarding the occupation of Ipperwash 16 Provincial Park. 17 MNR will also work on informal 18 communications with key people in the 19 region, e.g., Marcel Beaubien, MPP and 20 local politicians to diffuse tensions." 21 Do you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Because I -- I think the local 24 people, the local MPP and politicians were somewhat upset 25 by this situation.
1671 Is that your recollection? 2 A: Yes, they were very upset by this 3 situation. 4 Q: And so the instructions -- the 5 directives that are being given are to take steps to try 6 and diffuse that situation? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And again, was that consistent with 9 your advice? 10 A: Yes, and consistent with the way in 11 which the Ministry would normally operate. 12 Q: And would be consistent with the 13 Ministry's attitude as well? 14 A: Yes. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Now down at the third last sentence 19 on this page it records that: 20 "The Attorney General has been 21 instructed to seek an injunction ASAP." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Later on that day you were going to 25 meet with the Premier in the dining room --
1681 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- next to the cabinet room; is that 3 right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: So by this time a decision had 6 already been made to go ahead with seeking an injunction? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: By the time of this meeting which was 9 -- had occurred between 9:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. that 10 morning? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So the purpose of seeing the Premier 13 was simply to advise him; would that be your 14 understanding? 15 A: Yes. It was to bring him up to speed 16 on this issue. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, Julie Jai has some notes of this 21 meeting and I want to just turn to them briefly. It's 22 back at Tab 6. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1691 Q: And this time it's the first set of 2 her notes. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And if I go over to the second page 7 there is a quote: 8 "MNR now view this as a police issue." 9 Do you see that? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: It's the second -- 14 A: Is this on the page -- 15 Q: It will be the third page in. It's 16 page number 1 at the top. 17 A: Oh, okay, I'm looking at page number 18 2. 19 Q: I apologize for that. 20 A: Oh yes, I see that. 21 Q: And I take it -- was your view that 22 the occupation was a police matter as well? 23 A: It -- it -- yes, it always was. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
1701 Q: Now at the -- over at page 3, or the 2 second page I should say, there is a quote attributed to 3 Mr. Bangs about half way down the page. It says: 4 "Briefings with ministers." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Below that: 8 "Jeff." 9 I believe that's Mr. Bangs? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: He says: 12 "We did what was agreed re messages. 13 He stuck to the script." 14 I take it that concerned the minister 15 giving a press conference. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Is that the only script you're aware 18 of is the one they gave him to go and speak at the press 19 conference? 20 A: The script was that ministers 21 briefing note that we discussed previously. 22 Q: It says here: 23 "Their Minister doesn't want to carry 24 this, especially if it spreads beyond 25 the Park."
1711 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Is that consistent with discussions 4 you'd had Minister Hodgson? 5 A: Definitely. 6 Q: And this -- we're talking about him 7 being a spokesman at this point; is that right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: The third sentence says: 10 "Feels this is quickly spiralling out 11 of MNR's hands. OPP should be 12 spokespeople." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And was that consistent with your 16 view as well? 17 A: Well it was certainly my view that -- 18 at the -- at the site level the OPP should be the 19 spokespeople. At the political level my only -- my only 20 view was that it shouldn't be the Ministry of Natural 21 Resources or the Minister of Natural Resources. 22 Q: All right. Because your Mr. Sturdy 23 up above is reporting that there's gunfire being heard at 24 the Park and things of that nature. 25 A: Yes.
1721 Q: Is the MNR generally equipped to deal 2 with people if there are reports of gunfire and things of 3 that nature? 4 A: Not generally. 5 Q: Now you attended a meeting -- I 6 understand you gave evidence you attended a meeting of 7 the Solicitor General -- Solicitor General's office prior 8 to going to Queen's Park for the meeting with the 9 Premier. I understand that someone suggested to you it 10 may have been on the 7th of September, as opposed to the 11 6th. 12 But I'm going to suggest you that meeting 13 was on the 6th of September. I'm going to -- I'm going 14 to help you with that too. 15 A: Good because I think I need some 16 help. 17 Q: Well it's -- it's a long time ago. 18 It's going to be the evidence of Minister Hodgson and it 19 was the evidence of Mr. Fox that the two (2) of them did 20 not meet after the 6th of September. 21 And, effectively, I'm going to suggest, if 22 you were at a meeting, Mr. Fox was present and the 23 Minister was present and it wasn't at the dining room, it 24 could only have been on the 6th of September. 25 Does that make sense to you?
1731 A: Well it's possible. I am confused 2 with respect to this timeline and would be -- would be 3 glad if somebody could help sort this out. 4 Q: That's probably the best I can do at 5 this staqe so we'll move along, we'll let everybody's 6 evidence fall where it does. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: I should tell you I'm getting to the 9 end of my questions pretty soon. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 13 Q: In any event, you were at a meeting 14 at which it wasn't the meeting in the dining room, but 15 you were at another meeting where Minister Hodgson and 16 Mr. Fox were. 17 Do you recall being at such a meeting? 18 A: Yes, I believe so. 19 Q: We can't pin the time yet but we got 20 you -- 21 A: Right. 22 Q: -- we got you at least, later that 23 after -- or pardon me on the 6th you were at a meeting at 24 the dining room -- 25 A: Yes.
1741 Q: -- and Minister Hodgson and Mr. Fox 2 were at that meeting as well. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So we have two (2) meetings? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: I'm going to try -- I'm going to 7 talk, I'm going to suggest it was the first meeting, 8 occurred before the dining room meeting. 9 A: Yes. That's my recollection as well. 10 Q: Okay. Now was -- do you recall if 11 Mr. Fox was introduced as a serving OPP officer at any -- 12 at any meeting you went to? 13 A: No. Any meeting that I went to he 14 was introduced as an OPP officer who was on secondment to 15 the Ministry of the Solicitor General. 16 Q: Okay. Now Mr. Hodgson says he -- he 17 said he never met Mr. Fox before and he thought he was a 18 member of the Solicitor General's department. 19 Is that possible in your mind? 20 A: It's quite possible. 21 Q: Mr. Fox wasn't wearing a uniform? 22 A: No, he was not in uniform? 23 Q: Didn't have a Sam Brown on or 24 anything like that? 25 A: No. No.
1751 Q: Now there were a number of people 2 there; do you specifically recall who was at that 3 meeting? I think someone suggested to you there may be 4 some ministers there and -- and -- 5 A: Yes. That's my -- my -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He went 7 through this in-chief. But if you want to go over it 8 again but -- 9 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Well, no, I'm going 10 to try and narrow it down a little bit. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 12 fine. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDRICK: 15 Q: My understanding is that there were 16 ministers present at the dining room meeting. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Because they'd just come from 19 Cabinet. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Mr. Hodgson wasn't in Cabinet that 22 day, correct? 23 A: Right. That's right. 24 Q: So I'm suggesting that the other -- 25 there were no other ministers at the first meeting with
1761 Mr. Fox. 2 Does that help you out in any way? 3 A: My -- my recollection was that -- 4 that there were three (3) ministers at that meeting. But 5 I -- I could be wrong on that. 6 Q: Okay. Do you know long the meeting 7 took? 8 A: It may have been about an hour long. 9 Q: Now, one (1) of the topics of this 10 meeting, I understood, was about this injunction and 11 about how it would be served? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And there was discussion about 14 dropping it from a helicopter? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Do you recall if Mr. Spock -- Mr. 17 Fox, I should say, spoke about that -- dropping or 18 serving an injunction in a certain way? 19 A: I don't -- I don't recall who 20 suggested that it be service -- or that the notice be 21 given through a helicopter. I don't know whether it was 22 Mr. Fox or who it was. 23 Q: Do you recall some discussion about 24 it being served from a helicopter? 25 A: Yes.
1771 Q: Did Mr. Hodgson raise an issue about 2 that method of service? 3 A: I don't recall. 4 Q: He's going to come and he's going to 5 suggest that he made a comment about that, that serving 6 it from a helicopter might be a dangerous thing. 7 Does that ring any bells for you? 8 A: It doesn't ring any bells for me. I 9 wouldn't be surprised if he said that because it seems 10 like a rather silly way to try and serve a legal 11 document. 12 Q: He's going to suggest, as well, that 13 he mentioned an anecdote from a television show that he'd 14 seen at one (1) point about dropping things from a 15 helicopter. 16 Does that ring any bells for you? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay. Did you get any sense of anger 19 on Mr. Hodgson's part at any time during the meetings you 20 went to with him? 21 A: No. Anger was not one (1) of the 22 traits that I would ascribe to Mr. Hodgson's character. 23 Q: Did he try, in any way, to take 24 ownership of this issue at any meetings you attended with 25 him?
1781 A: Not that I'm aware of. 2 Q: Did you ever hear him refer to the 3 Park as quote unquote, "My Park?" 4 A: I don't -- I don't recall him ever 5 using that term, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. 6 Q: All right. Did you ever hear him at 7 any time, in these meetings, give any direction to anyone 8 present about removing people from the Park forcibly? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Again, that would have been contrary 11 to your advice? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And of course if he'd said something 14 like that you'd -- you'd remember that pretty clearly, I 15 imagine? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: You saw Minister Hodgson then 18 interact with Superintendent Fox. 19 Did you, in any way, see Mr. Hodgson say 20 anything untoward to Mr. Fox or try and direct him in any 21 specific way? 22 A: I don't recall any interaction 23 between Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Fox. 24 Q: During the meetings that you attended 25 with Mr. Hodgson where Mr. Fox was present, did he make
1791 any remarks that would support the idea that he had a 2 love of guns or of confrontation? 3 A: No. 4 Q: My understanding is that there was 5 some -- Mr. Hodgson expressed, at one (1) of these 6 meetings, some concern -- actually at the -- at the 7 meeting at the Solicitor General's office, some concern 8 that the OPP had allowed the occupiers to occupy the Park 9 in the first place, and that maybe they should have 10 prevented it before it had happened. 11 Do you recall any discussions to that 12 effect? 13 A: No, I don't recall any discussions 14 like that. 15 Q: Where did you go -- sorry. I'll move 16 on to the meeting at the dining room at Queen's Park. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: You attended with Mr. Hodgson? 19 A: Yes, I did. 20 Q: And you sat next to him? 21 A: I believe I did. 22 Q: As I understand it the only thing you 23 recall Mr. Hodgson saying at the meeting was that he 24 shouldn't be the spokesman and the MNR should not be the 25 lead Ministry as the matter is being handled by the OPP?
1801 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Do you recall him saying anything 3 else? 4 A: I don't. 5 Q: He will -- I understand most of the 6 talking at that meeting was done by Mr. Taman from the 7 AG's office? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Do you recall what you did after the 10 meeting was over? 11 A: Went back to the office, and I don't 12 recall, specifically, what -- what took place at that -- 13 after getting back to the office. 14 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. 15 Hodgson after that meeting? 16 A: It's possible, I don't remember. 17 Q: Mr. Hodgson will say, as I understand 18 it, that after that meeting you spoke to him and said it 19 looked like he would no longer have to be the media lead 20 on the issue. 21 A: Well, certainly that was my 22 understanding leaving the meeting and at some point, 23 whether it was immediately after the meeting or at, you 24 know, a subsequent meeting, I'm sure that I would have 25 confirmed that with him and --
1811 Q: I understand after the dining room 2 meeting the Premier got up and left? He went out and 3 spoke with the media? 4 A: Yes, he did. 5 Q: Would that give some credence, then, 6 to the notion of you telling Mr. Hodgson it looked like 7 he wouldn't be lead on this anymore? 8 A: I thought it had been made clear at 9 the meeting in the dining room that the Minister of the 10 Attorney General was now going to be the spokesperson for 11 this issue. 12 Q: Okay. Mr. Vrancart, you worked with 13 Mr. Hodgson as minister for two (2) years or so. 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: And you went over, in intimate 16 detail, the positions of the Ministry and the Government 17 on various matters that affected the Ministry, correct? 18 A: Yes, I did. 19 Q: Did you observe Minister Hodgson to 20 be in any way negative towards First Nations people? 21 A: Never. 22 Q: In terms of burial sites, I 23 understand that, on this issue, it would be covered by 24 the Cemeteries Act. 25 Was that your understanding as well?
1821 A: Yes. 2 Q: Did you ever observe Mr. Hodgson in 3 any way direct that identified burial sites not be 4 handled in accordance with the Cemeteries Act? 5 A: No. 6 Q: If burial sites were discovered, how 7 would the MNR generally handle such an issue? 8 A: If they were discovered within the 9 context of a Provincial Park? Typically, the staff would 10 cordon off the area that was considered to be the burial 11 ground. They would conduct research to ascertain the 12 facts with respect to that burial ground. 13 They would discuss with the First Nation 14 that was associated with that particular burial ground 15 what their wishes might be, and depending on what -- on - 16 - on -- on, you know, what the outcome of those 17 discussions were, you know, a fence may be erected around 18 the cemetery. 19 If it was a particularly significant 20 archeological feature it may be, with the agreement of 21 the First Nation, included in the interpretation program 22 for the Park. 23 It could be a celebrated site within a 24 Park or it could just be left alone. 25 Q: And do you have any doubt that had,
1831 in fact, burial sites been identified in this Park that 2 you and the Ministry and Minister Hodgson would have 3 supported that process? 4 A: Of course. 5 Q: Mr. Vrancart, thank you very much. 6 Commissioner, thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Frederick. 13 I think we go now to Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good afternoon, 18 Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 20 afternoon. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 23 Q: Mr. Vrancart, my name is Andrea Tuck- 24 Jackson. I'm going to ask you some questions on behalf 25 of the OPP.
1841 Sir, it is apparent to us all that, in 2 providing your evidence today, you have not had the 3 benefit of any record generated by yourself, 4 contemporaneous with the events in question, to refresh 5 your memory. 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: You don't have, for example, any 8 notes that you kept of the meeting involving the Premier 9 on the afternoon of September the 6th? 10 A: No, I do not. 11 Q: You do not have the benefit of any e- 12 mails that you generated -- I'm not suggesting that it 13 actually occurred, I'm suggesting that you don't have the 14 benefit of any e-mails -- 15 A: No I -- 16 Q: -- that were a record of what 17 occurred at the meeting that you may have sent to 18 somebody. 19 You don't have the benefit of that? 20 A: No, I do not. 21 Q: And no doubt, stating the obvious, 22 you also don't have the benefit of an audio recording of 23 a phone conversation that you had with someone within 24 hours of the meeting. 25 A: No, I do not.
1851 Q: No. You don't have the benefit of 2 any of that to assist you in refreshing your 3 recollection. 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Okay. I understand, sir, that you 6 were not examined for discovery in relation to the civil 7 suit that arose out of this matter? 8 A: No, I was not. 9 Q: Okay. How long after the events were 10 you first asked to turn your mind to what occurred during 11 the meeting that involved the Premier on September the 12 6th? 13 How many years afer the events? 14 A: Oh, well, we're getting close to ten 15 (10) years. 16 Q: It's ten (10) years now. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: In fact it's more than ten (10) 19 years. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: I can assure you everybody in this 22 room is very cognizant of that. 23 Are you saying to us that the first time 24 you were asked to turn your mind to what occurred on the 25 afternoon of September the 6th, 1995 was in preparation
1861 for the Inquiry? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. All right. So, in essence, 4 you never really had to turn your mind to who said what, 5 who was it who was saying it, what the tone was, any of 6 that, for almost ten (10) years after the fact? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Okay. And I don't say that in any 9 way as a criticism, I just think it's important to -- 10 A: Right. 11 Q: -- make the point of the context of 12 your evidence. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right? Now I'm going to be 15 another one (1) of those lawyers who's going to -- to 16 point up that I think, in -- in my respectful view, your 17 recollection of the meeting that you spoke about this 18 morning that you believe involved Ron Fox, Ministers 19 Runciman, Hodgson, and Harnick, the various deputies, you 20 claimed this morning that you thought it occurred on 21 September the 6th? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: You've heard my colleagues, on behalf 24 of Ministers Runciman and Harnick, who say that they 25 anticipate their Clients don't share that view?
1871 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I can advise you, sir, that Ron 3 Fox never gave us any suggestion or indication that he 4 attended a meeting with Minister Hodgson that day, apart 5 from the meeting that took place in the dining room. 6 So again, I guess, at the end of the 7 piece, what you're suggesting to us is you can't be sure 8 when that meeting took place? 9 A: No, I can't be sure when the meeting 10 took place -- 11 Q: All right. 12 A: -- clearly. I'm sure that there was 13 a meeting. 14 Q: I understand. And -- and as -- 15 again, one (1) of my colleagues pointed out to you we 16 have heard evidence that there was a meeting the 17 following day commencing at around 5:30 p.m. in which all 18 three (3) ministers participated, the deputies 19 participated, and even, for example, Dr. James Young 20 participated? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Does that refresh your memory 23 somewhat? 24 A: Well, I -- I remember that meeting; I 25 remember those participants.
1881 Q: All right. I gather, in response to 2 My Friend Mr. Fredrick's questions, that one (1) of the 3 topics that arose during the course of the meeting, 4 again, was the service by helicopter. 5 And we've heard evidence that earlier on 6 the day of September the 7th, the issue of service of an 7 injunction order, by helicopter, formed part of a court 8 order that was made by Mr. Justice Daudlin in Sarnia. 9 Now, that hadn't come up on September the 10 6th; that came up as of the 7th. 11 So again, does that assist you, sir, in 12 refreshing your recollection that this notion of service 13 by helicopter could only come up after it was actually 14 made an issue by Justice Daudlin, earlier on in the day 15 on September the 7th? 16 A: Well it doesn't help me because it 17 could have been that the discussion on September the 6th 18 was conveyed to -- to the Court and suggested to the 19 Court that that would be a means of service. 20 Q: I can assure you, sir, we've heard 21 uncontested evidence that that very much was not the 22 case, as a matter of fact. It was not something that the 23 Ministry of the Attorney General had volunteered, it was 24 something that came of the judge's own ideas, in any 25 event.
1891 A: Well, I -- I don't know that. 2 Q: I understand. We have your evidence, 3 sir. 4 You -- you've told us, in relation to the 5 meeting involving the Premier on the afternoon of the 6 6th, the number of things that -- that you hadn't been 7 able to recall. I'd like to focus on -- on the few 8 things that you can recall, and again I don't say that as 9 a criticism. It's quite clear that -- that you've had 10 some difficulty recalling the details of what occurred 11 during that time frame. 12 And one (1) thing, sir, that you made very 13 clear this morning is that it was apparent to you that 14 Deputy Minister Taman felt that there was some need for 15 him to address the issue of the inappropriateness of 16 government directing the police on operational matters; 17 you told us that this morning? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: But I trust, sir, that, at this point 20 in time, you can't assist us in recalling what, if 21 anything, was said during that meeting that might have 22 prompted Deputy Minister Taman's comments? 23 A: Yes, I -- I don't know what would 24 have prompted his comments; I can't specifically recall 25 that.
1901 I can recall, however, that this was a new 2 government. This is the first time that this government 3 had to manage an issue of this sort and Mr. Taman may 4 have felt, partially, that it was his responsibility to 5 advise them with respect to, and remind them with respect 6 to the division of responsibilities between the police 7 and -- and the -- and the executive branch of government. 8 Q: I understand. I understand. And 9 again I'm not asking you to speculate. I don't want you 10 to do that. I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not 11 you can recall at this point something that transpired in 12 the meeting and I suspect that you can't -- 13 A: No I cannot. 14 Q: -- just because you don't have that 15 recollection there. What exchange occurred during the 16 meeting that might prompt the Deputy to -- to make those 17 comments? And I suspect that I'll reserve those 18 questions for him more appropriately. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: You've also told us that you have no 21 recollection at this time of then Inspector Ron Fox 22 participating in that meeting. Do I have that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. I can tell you, sir, 25 you're the third person to testify who was present for
1911 that meeting. And the two (2) individuals who preceded 2 you, both do recall Ron Fox participating at that 3 meeting. I gather, sir, that your evidence at the end of 4 the piece is you just don't recall one (1) way or the 5 other. 6 A: Exactly. 7 Q: Okay. Bearing that in mind, I'm 8 going to ask you one (1) slightly different question. 9 Accepting that you have no recollection one (1) way or 10 another, whether Mr. Fox spoke at the meeting -- 11 Inspector Fox spoke at the meeting, I trust that when you 12 left the meeting nothing during the meeting left you with 13 any impression that he was seeking direction from anybody 14 in that room as to police operational matters. 15 A: I don't recall that and I didn't view 16 Ron Fox as being a member of the OPP. He was on 17 secondment to the Solicitor General's office and my view 18 was that he was there in the capacity of a civil servant. 19 And he -- he was not providing direction to the OPP. 20 Q: I understand, I understand. I'll do 21 one (1) second part to the question. I trust then also 22 at the end of the piece you didn't receive any impression 23 that he was taking any direction from the people in that 24 room on police operational matters. 25 A: I did not think he was.
1921 Q: Thank you. We've heard from a number 2 of witnesses that they had a very long day on September 3 the 6th. I won't ask you what time you went that day 4 because frankly, you probably don't recall at this point. 5 But I trust, sir, that when you left for 6 home that day you were under the impression that the OPP 7 were going to continue containing what was going on at 8 the site up at Ipperwash while the Ministry of the 9 Attorney General were going to proceed in obtaining an 10 injunction. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I trust, sir, there was nothing 13 from the meeting involving the Premier or anything else 14 following that, until you went to bed that night, that 15 gave you any suggestion or concern that there was any 16 change in that course of action as you expected it. 17 A: Nothing at all. 18 Q: And finally, sir, I trust that you 19 provided no direction or expressed any preferences about 20 police operational matters between September 4th and the 21 6th to Ron Fox. 22 A: None. 23 Q: You also did not do so to John 24 Carson. 25 A: Never spoke to John Carson.
1931 Q: You did not do so to Tony Parkin. 2 A: No. 3 Q: You did not do so to Chief 4 Superintendent Chris Coles. 5 A: No. 6 Q: And you -- finally, you did not do so 7 in relation to Commissioner Tom O'Grady. 8 A: No. 9 Q: And I also trust, sir, that you have 10 absolutely no knowledge that Minister Hodgson gave any 11 similar direction to any of those individuals. 12 A: I'm not aware of the Minister giving 13 any direction to any of those OPP officers. 14 Q: Thank you, Mr. Vrancart, those are my 15 questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 17 very much. I think we've been going over an hour. I 18 think we should take a break now. We'll take an 19 afternoon break now. 20 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 21 for fifteen (15) minutes. 22 23 --- Upon recessing at 2:30 p.m. 24 --- Upon resuming at 2:46 p.m. 25
1941 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 2 resumed, please be seated. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 4 good afternoon. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hello, Mr. 6 Rosenthal. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With Mr. Zbogar's 8 permission, and your Counsel's permission, and I hope 9 your permission, I should like to interchange position 10 with Mr. Zbogar. 11 I cannot be here on Monday and -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long was 13 your estimate, Mr. Rosenthal? I forgot how long you 14 estimated. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: About a half an 16 hour, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 Then if nobody else objects, that's fine. Carry on. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vrancart. 25 A: Good afternoon.
1951 Q: My name is Peter Rosenthal. I'm 2 Counsel on behalf of some of the Stoney Point people 3 under the name Aazhoodena and George family group, as you 4 can see by reading my sign if you look over there. 5 I want to ask you about several areas that 6 have arisen. First of, with respect to this co- 7 management idea, that's a sort of natural idea that would 8 arise if there's a dispute between the First Nation and 9 MNR over a Park, is that fair to say? 10 A: It's -- it's certainly an option that 11 would be considered and should be considered. 12 Q: Yes. And now in this particular 13 case, however, for whatever combination of reasons, 14 Minister Hodgson informed you that co-management was not 15 something that they wanted to consider in this instance? 16 A: On a general level, it was my 17 understanding that the Harris government was not in 18 favour of co-management activities with First Nations. 19 Q: I see. In general, and then in this 20 particular case as well? 21 A: But I believe there was some evidence 22 introduced earlier this afternoon that indicated that -- 23 that there was not an issue with respect to co-management 24 for Ipperwash and that the Minister had indicated that he 25 was prepared to consider that.
1961 Q: He was prepared to consider it? 2 A: Yes. Was that not -- 3 Q: See, well -- perhaps -- 4 A: -- some earlier evidence that was -- 5 was read in, I believe, by Mr. Fredericks? 6 Q: Well, I'm not sure what he was 7 referring to, but if we could look at the Tab 11 of your 8 documents there. 9 A: Yes. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: I believe you might have been 14 referred to this as well. This is Exhibit P-920 to these 15 Proceedings and it's -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- Inquiry Document Number 1011966. 18 And the last line of that, or next to last line says your 19 name and then it says: 20 "His Minister is not in favour of co- 21 management." 22 Is that correct? 23 A: That's correct, yes. 24 Q: So certainly, at least at some point, 25 that was the fact that --
1971 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- your Minister expressed a view 3 that he was not in favour of co-management. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And that was, as you indicated, 6 consistent with the general position of the Harris 7 government? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: So this document that we just looked 10 at is dated September 18, 1995, but the question may well 11 have arisen before then as well. 12 And there was nothing to contradict the -- 13 the general position of the Harris government that co- 14 management in general was not to be favoured and, in this 15 particular case, it was also not to be favoured? 16 A: That was my understanding. 17 Q: Yes. Now, you -- you told us that 18 you didn't feel that this occupation had to be dealt with 19 urgently -- 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And one (1) reason you told us there 22 was concern about the water freezing, but that was two 23 (2) months away, so that was enough time, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And also I gather, that the fact that
1981 the Park had been closed for Labour Day would reduce the 2 urgency of acting? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And -- but then you told us something 5 to the effect of that even though, in your view, clear 6 that there was no urgency, there seemed to be a sense of 7 urgency being attached to it, is the word you used, I 8 believe a few minutes ago? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now that sense of urgency was being 11 attached to it by some of the politicians and political 12 staff as opposed to the civil servants; isn't that fair? 13 A: I think that would be a fair 14 statement, yes. 15 Q: And were you able to find out the 16 basis of that sense of urgency being attached to it or -- 17 or I would suggest to you it was political considerations 18 that the government -- this government -- wanted to show 19 people that they act quickly and decisively in dealing 20 with protestors of this type. That was essentially what 21 was going on, isn't that right? 22 A: I -- I think that was probably a 23 large part of it, yes. 24 Q: Thank you. Now, going then to the 25 dining room meeting, everybody agrees that was on
1991 September 6th. You're -- you're okay on that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Thank you. Now, Deputy Attorney 4 General Larry Taman was apparently very forceful with the 5 politicians in particular about the separation of duties 6 between government and police, right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Now, I believe you testified a few 9 moments ago that you don't recall what if anything having 10 been said at that meeting might have sparked that 11 forceful response by Mr. Taman; is that fair? 12 A: That's fair. 13 Q: But whether or not you recall 14 anything from that particular meeting, you were aware 15 that there were, among the people who felt this sense of 16 urgency about the matter, there was some discussion going 17 around about getting the police to act quickly and get 18 these occupiers out of the Park, right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: You were aware of that notion going 21 around? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And whether Mr. Taman was responding 24 directly to what someone had said at that dining room 25 meeting or elsewhere, presumably he was responding to
2001 that notion that was very much in the air? 2 A: Possibly, yes. 3 Q: And you, yourself, thought at this 4 state one (1) years later and we do all appreciate the 5 passage of time, especially people like me with bad 6 memories, but you don't at this date recall the specifics 7 of that kind of sentiment being expressed by politicians 8 or political staff; is that correct? 9 A: I don't -- I don't recall 10 specifically, but it was certainly clear that this 11 government had as a plank in its election platform law 12 and order. And this was an opportunity to demonstrate 13 their commitment to their policy platform. 14 Q: Yes. And wasn't it clear that at 15 least before Deputy Minister Taman spoke so forcefully 16 that some people were expressing the view that the police 17 should just go in there and take care of this situation? 18 A: I -- I honestly can't recall hearing 19 anybody forcefully expressing that view. 20 Q: I see. Okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, you gained the understanding, I 25 gather, from Mr. Taman and perhaps others that the
2011 separation of police and government was such that the 2 government could not direct the police to do anything, 3 any particular action, but they could request that the 4 police remove people from the Park. Is that the 5 understanding that you got? 6 A: I don't -- I don't -- my recollection 7 was that there wasn't much discussion on this point. It 8 was pretty much a now hear this statement by -- by Mr. 9 Taman. 10 Q: Yes. I didn't mean necessarily just 11 at that dining room meeting, but in -- in general over 12 the period over those couple of days. 13 Did you not conclude and was it not 14 expressly stated and I'll point to some documents that 15 might assist you if necessary, that while the government 16 did not have the authority to direct the OPP they could 17 make a request that the OPP act to remove the occupiers 18 from the Park? 19 A: I -- I think they could have made 20 that request, yes. 21 Q: Perhaps -- I would like to, if we 22 could, turn to your Tab 5. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2021 Q: Tab 5 being Exhibit P-509 to these 2 Proceedings and Inquiry Document Number 1012252, and 3 being the minutes, the meetings notes as it's titled from 4 the Inter-Ministerial Committee Meeting of September 6th, 5 1995. 6 If you could turn please to page 2 of that 7 document and the last number on that page, on the four 8 (4) communications. You were turned to a part of this 9 earlier about the MNR being the -- the spokesperson 10 regarding the occupation contrary to your advice and 11 wishes, but I want to emphasize a different of that. 12 It says: 13 "MNR will develop a communication plan 14 with main messages as follows." 15 And then there are three (3) bullet points 16 on that page. 17 "The AG has been instructed to seek and 18 injunction ASAP. Police have been 19 asked to remove the occupiers from the 20 Park." 21 And that's what I wish to fasten on. That 22 was part of the message, that police have been asked to 23 remove the occupiers from the Park? 24 A: Yes, it was. 25 Q: And that was true was it? I mean,
2031 the police had been asked to remove the occupiers from 2 the Park? 3 A: Yes, they were on the basis that they 4 were trespassing on private property. 5 Q: Yes. Yes. And, in fact, earlier you 6 told us about Mr. Kobayashi serving a trespass notice and 7 you were asked by, I forget which Counsel, perhaps 8 Commission Counsel, as to whether that was in conj -- 9 connection with the injunction application and you 10 indicating that was your un -- understanding it was for 11 trespassing purposes, right? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And that serving that trespass notice 14 was done in order to have the basis for arresting people 15 for trespassing should the OPP choose to do so. 16 A: That's my understanding, yes. 17 Q: And the MNR as the owners and 18 occupiers of the Park did make the request that the OPP 19 remove the occupiers from the Park? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: If you could turn, also, to Tab 4, 22 the previous tab, this is Exhibit P-519, Inquiry Document 23 1012288. And this includes the meeting notes from the 24 previous days Inter-Ministerial Committee meeting 25 September 5, 1995.
2041 And on page 2 of that document under 2 paragraph number 3, "Options." It says: 3 "Options include criminal charges, 4 e.g., mischief, trespass offences, 5 Provincial Parks Act..." 6 and so on and then three (3) civil 7 injunction proceedings ex parte or interim. 8 Now I believe you testified earlier, and I 9 wanted to clarify, that it was your understanding that 10 these were not mutually exclusive possibilities, they 11 could have all been being pursued simultaneously; is that 12 correct? 13 A: That was my view, yes. 14 Q: And that -- that was your 15 understanding as to what was happening. These -- these 16 were all possibly being pursued simultaneously. There 17 was no -- 18 A: No. I believe that there was a 19 fairly clear preference amongst the members of this 20 Blockade Committee for pursuing -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: -- an injunction. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: My view was that I would have liked 25 to have seen a better analysis of each of these options.
2051 And -- and I felt that in my mind it was too early to 2 jump to the conclusion that an injunction was the way to 3 go. 4 Q: Yes. In fact as I understood your 5 evidence earlier, your view was that all of these options 6 were premature given the lack of urgency. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And -- and at that moment what should 9 have first been is a more serious evaluation of the 10 situation over a period of perhaps days, finding out more 11 about what the occupiers wanted, and so on. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Is that correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Did I understand you correctly? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: But one gathers from the evidence 18 that we've heard, not only from you but from many others, 19 that the political pressure, for the reasons that you 20 indicated, was such as to not allow that kind of calm 21 approach to this that you would have advocated; is that 22 fair? 23 A: It would appear that's the case. 24 Q: Now this request, although not 25 direction, to the OPP to remove the occupiers, did you
2061 have an understanding as to how that request was to be 2 transmitted to the OPP? 3 A: I think -- I would be speculating 4 here, but my -- my expectation is that that would have 5 been conveyed probably from my office through -- through 6 Peter Allen to -- to Peter Sturdy and Les Kobayashi and 7 then to the OPP. 8 Q: I see. Now you mentioned 9 Commissioner O'Grady of the OPP in your evidence, and you 10 thought that he might have been at the dining room 11 meeting, I believe. Is that correct? 12 A: I recall him being at a meeting. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: It may have been the dining room 15 meeting. It may have been another meeting. 16 Q: Yes. In any event, some time within 17 these several days, September 4, 5, 6, before Mr. Dudley 18 George was killed, you saw or were aware of Commissioner 19 O'Grady being involved in some way, is that -- 20 A: I -- 21 Q: Can we say -- go that far? 22 A: I believe he was. 23 Q: Yes. And did you know him prior to 24 this? 25 A: I -- I did know him prior to this, so
2071 I knew who he was and was familiar with his rank and his 2 role. 3 Q: Were you aware of any views that he 4 expressed at all during this time period, as to what 5 should be done? 6 A: I don't recall him making any 7 comments. 8 Q: Now, of course, in the evening of 9 September 6th, there was the killing of Dudley George and 10 that changed the situation. But nonetheless on September 11 7, there was the application made for an injunction, on 12 the morning of September 7, you're aware of that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And it was, one might say, sort of 15 granted. It was an odd kind of granting of the 16 injunction in that it was stayed, the effect of it was 17 stayed. But then the injunction was not subsequently 18 pursued. 19 And I wonder if you can assist us in 20 understanding what happened in that respect? 21 We've had some evidence that there were 22 some subsequent consideration of renewing an injunction 23 application in the ensuing weeks, but, in fact, there was 24 never any other formal application made. 25 Now, can you assist us as to why there was
2081 such an urgency to try to reclaim the Park on September 2 4,5,6 and 7 and then there was no subsequent application 3 made? 4 A: Well, I -- I -- I was not a party to 5 discussions about -- about the, you know, the technical 6 details of the injunction. And I could only speculate 7 that in the aftermath of the death of Dudley George, the 8 politicians felt that it would only inflame the situation 9 to serve an injunction. 10 Q: Yes, that -- in the -- certainly in 11 the immediate aftermath -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- one would have thought. But did 14 you get any understanding at any point in the subsequent 15 weeks or months that there was concern among some 16 government and/or the OPP, that in renewing an 17 application for an injunction would provide a forum at 18 which what had happened on September 6th to Dudley George 19 and surrounding events, might be judicially examined and 20 that the fear of such a forum was one consideration in 21 not renewing an injunction application? 22 A: I was not a party to any discussions 23 that would have brought up that -- that particular 24 concern or perspective on a renewal of an injunction. 25 Q: Thank you very much. I shall
2091 contribute to your desire to finish today by ending right 2 now. Thank you very much, thank you Mr. Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 4 Mr. Rosenthal. 5 Mr. Zbogar...? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good afternoon, Mr. 10 Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 afternoon. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good afternoon, Mr. 14 Vrancart. 15 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I promise there will 17 be no fireworks today. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, that's 19 good news. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: Mr. Vrancart, I guess -- the first 25 thing I'd like to ask you is some followup to some
2101 questions that were asked of you by Ms. Tuck-Jackson 2 about your -- I guess about the last time you recalled or 3 had an opportunity to recall events surrounding this 4 incident. And you may not have recalled this -- when she 5 asked the question, but I wanted to see if I could jog 6 your memory a little bit. 7 You're aware there was litigation ensuing 8 from this incident between -- well, under the title of 9 George versus Harris. And as part of that process there 10 were certain undertakings that were -- that the Ontario 11 Government was obliged to follow-up on including asking 12 questions of a number of people including yourself. And 13 that happened in the summer of 1993. 14 Now, having -- 2003, I'm sorry. Now, 15 having explained that to you does that reflect or jog 16 your memory a little bit as to -- you -- you did have an 17 opportunity to think about this issue at least maybe some 18 time two (2) years ago? 19 A: I -- I don't recall being interviewed 20 at that time. 21 Q: Dennis Brown or John Zurudny 22 (phonetic) or James Kendik or another government lawyer? 23 A: Oh, yes. Thank you for reminding me. 24 Yes, I -- I can now recall that -- this goes back well 25 before 2003. I can remember dealing with John Kendik and
2111 Zurudny in I believe it was 2001. 2 And -- and yes I do believe that I did 3 have discussions with them and may have -- which -- which 4 may have resulted in a -- a witness statement or whatever 5 you might call it that was a recollection of my events 6 surrounding the -- the Dudley George death. 7 Q: I don't know if -- if it's the same 8 thing that I'm thinking about, but I know in -- in 2003 9 the Crown was obliged to ask a number of questions of 10 certain witnesses including things like -- about the 11 September 6th meeting that we've already talked about in 12 the Premier's dining room, but whether you were present 13 for that meeting? 14 Who was at that meeting? When did you 15 become aware that you would be required to attend that 16 meeting; the purpose of the meeting. Who made comments 17 at the meeting? Was -- was the issue of getting the 18 occupiers out of the Park discussed? 19 Was the topic of police discretion raised 20 at the meeting? What did you say? What did your 21 minister say? What decisions were made? Was a decision 22 made to get an injunction -- ex parte? 23 Those are a number of questions that were 24 asked, among others. Do you -- does that refresh your 25 memory at all as to having -- you know, did you give
2121 answers to those kinds of questions at some point in 2 2003? 3 A: I may have. I don't have a -- a good 4 recollection of that. 5 Q: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, I didn't 6 intend to rely on this document, but the undertaking 7 answers are included in Production Number 3000412. And I 8 don't have a copy for the Witness because I didn't intend 9 to rely upon it today, but I don't think I need it. I 10 just want to ask a couple of followup questions based on 11 this. 12 And a lot of the answers that he's given 13 today are consistent with what I see from -- from that. 14 There -- there were a lot of things out of the list of 15 questions that I asked you that you didn't recall, but I 16 want to bring your attention to a couple of -- of them 17 specifically. 18 First of all there was a question that was 19 supposed to have been asked of you as to whether the 20 issue of getting the occupiers out of the Park and how to 21 do that was discussed at the meeting. And your answer, 22 apparently from these undertaking answers, was yes, that 23 was discussed? 24 A: At -- at the September the 6th 25 meeting.
2131 Q: September 6th, yes. 2 A: Yes, it was discussed. 3 Q: Okay. And you were asked whether the 4 topic of police discretion was raised and I think you've 5 already talked about that today. I don't want to ask you 6 any further. 7 You were asked about whether any decisions 8 were made at that meeting and your answer, according to 9 what -- what was provided to us by the legal counsel, was 10 it was collectively decided to get an injunction to 11 remove the occupiers. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Do I -- is it correct then from -- do 14 I understand correctly from that that it was at that 15 September 6th dining room meeting that a decision was 16 made to get an injunction to remove the occupiers? 17 A: I -- I think -- I think it would be 18 correct to -- to say that -- that the final decision was 19 made at that meeting, yes. 20 Q: It was a proposed decision made 21 earlier and it was confirmed at the September 6th dining 22 room meeting? 23 A: The would be the way that I would 24 interpret it, that there was -- the -- the decision that 25 had been made previously was really a recommendation, not
2141 a final decision. 2 Q: Okay. And then you were asked was 3 there a decision, instruction, or recommendation of the 4 government to seek an injunction on an ex parte basis. 5 And your answer to that was, Yes. 6 And that's correct? That's what happened 7 at that September 6th dining room meeting? 8 A: My -- my recollection is that there 9 was a decision to pursue an injunction. The technical 10 details of ex parte versus interim or on notice were -- 11 were things that were beyond my comprehension. 12 Q: Okay. The reason I'm asking and you 13 may want to follow -- like you -- you are aware of what 14 an ex parte injunction is or you -- 15 A: I was. I was. 16 Q: -- you were aware -- 17 A: I'd have to be -- you'd have to 18 refresh my memory. I cannot tell you right now that -- 19 the distinction. 20 Q: Essentially it's an emergency 21 injunction without notice. Normally there's a 22 requirement for service on the other side. And if you go 23 ex parte you can essentially be in court within, you 24 know, virtually as you're ready if you can get a judge. 25 A: Yes.
2151 Q: Otherwise you might have to wait for 2 a date sometime in the future and allow time for service. 3 A: Okay. Thank you. 4 Q: So that's -- that's the essential 5 distinction. So with that background, do you -- can you 6 confirm whether your answer that you gave that there was 7 in fact a decision to get an ex parte injunction -- 8 A: Yes, yes, I believe it was ex parte. 9 Q: And that was a decision made at the 10 September 6th dining room meeting? 11 A: I believe so and I believe that Mr. 12 Taman would have expressed his preference for ex parte 13 given that background. 14 Q: You believe he would have. Do you 15 have any specific recollection of what he said in terms 16 of his preference? 17 A: No, I don't 18 Q: We will anticipate we'll hear from 19 Mr. Taman that his recommendation was the opposite. 20 A: Oh? 21 Q: Does that assist you at all? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. Now I want to go back to the 24 era when you were a -- the director of the Parks 25 Planning Branch, if I can for a moment.
2161 A: Yes. 2 Q: What was your position immediately to 3 becoming the Director of the Parks Planning Branch? 4 A: Immediately prior to that my position 5 was Regional Lands Co-ordinator for -- for the Southern 6 Region of the Ministry of Natural Resources located in 7 Richmond Hill, Ontario. 8 Q: Would that position have included 9 anything to with the Ipperwash area? 10 A: Not directly. 11 Q: Okay. Now you told us that the Parks 12 Planning Branch, of which you a director as of June of 13 1975, among other things undertook historical and 14 cultural inventories included in which would be the 15 identification of Aboriginal sites and artifacts. 16 Now specifically burial sites would be one 17 (1) of the things or kinds of things that would be 18 important to identify for planning purposes? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now also it would be very important 21 to be aware of First Nations claim for potential claims 22 to Provincial Park lands for park planning purposes? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: As Director, those sorts of First 25 Nation issues would have crossed your desk from time to
2171 time? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: In fact, is it part of the protocol 4 was that these sorts of issues would be brought to your 5 attention? Is that expected? 6 A: If there was any anticipation that -- 7 that these sorts of things were likely to become an issue 8 in the planning process, they would have been brought to 9 my attention, yes. 10 Q: Okay. So if it -- now if a burial 11 claim issue or a land claim issue relevant to Provincial 12 Parklands by a First Nations group arose during your 13 tenure as Director of the Parks Planning Branch, you 14 would have expected that those issues would have crossed 15 your desk although I know you can't recall details, but 16 generally that would be fair? 17 A: They would not necessarily have come 18 across my desk if they were a non-issue; if there was 19 agreement with the First Nation around how, you know, 20 whether or not there was a burial ground, and how it 21 would be integrated into the Park management. 22 If -- if -- if -- if those discussions 23 were proceeding apace, it would not be brought to my 24 attention. 25 Typically, it would be exception
2181 reporting, so if it was a situation where there was a 2 dispute with a First Nation over whether or not there was 3 a burial ground and how it would be integrated into Park 4 planning and Park management, that would be brought to my 5 attention. 6 Q: Okay. So if -- if there was a burial 7 ground or land claim type issue that seemed like it might 8 become an issue for the Ministry, you'd expect that 9 information would be passed up through the chain up -- up 10 eventually to your branch -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- and to you? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I want to get a bit more detail about 15 the protocol, how things were done in -- in 1975. 16 Let's say if an MNR civil servant, 17 somebody at a non-management level became aware of a 18 burial ground in a Provincial Park what would they be 19 expected to do with that information? 20 Can you... 21 A: If it was a staff member -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- in the Park, they would be 24 expected to provide that information to the Park 25 Superintendent. The Park Superintendent would -- would
2191 evaluate that information and determine whether or not it 2 was an issue that required action from -- from the 3 Ministry beyond -- beyond the Parks borders. 4 And would have in 1975, would have 5 conveyed that to the district Park supervisor and the 6 district manager or -- for that particular area and once 7 again, depending on circumstances, it -- if it was a 8 significant enough issue, it could have moved its way 9 right up the chain of command. 10 Q: It potentially could have moved its 11 way right up to your level or even beyond? 12 A: It could have moved its way right up 13 -- right up to the Minister's office if it was a 14 significant issue, yes. 15 Q: Okay. And the same kind of reporting 16 up would be expected if it was a -- an MNR staff person - 17 - another department, say an historian who came across 18 such information about a burial site in the Park? 19 A: If it was a historian doing work on 20 behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources? 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: Yes, it would have followed that same 23 route. 24 Q: And if -- and would the -- would that 25 kind of information potentially, you know, in certain
2201 circumstances, be shared with other Ministries as well in 2 1975 about burial grounds in the Park if they were 3 discovered? 4 A: It -- it's unlikely that it would be. 5 Q: Okay. Would that kind of 6 information, if it was discovered there was a burial 7 ground in a Park, be shared with affected First Nations? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And at what level would that have 10 been done? 11 A: That typically would have taken place 12 between the Park superintendent and whoever the 13 representative of the First Nation might be. 14 Q: So that's something that would happen 15 at the superintendent level and not at the zone manager 16 or -- or higher levels? 17 A: In the first instance it would take 18 place at the -- at the superintendent level with -- with 19 the First Nation. 20 If the results of those discussions were 21 not fruitful then it would escalate up the chain of 22 command. 23 Q: Okay. Now, is this generally -- the 24 protocol you described in reference to how things would 25 have worked in 1975, is that generally the same way that
2211 things would have worked in 1995 when you were deputy 2 minister? 3 Or is there differences that I should know 4 about? 5 A: There are differences because there 6 was a change in the organizational structure for the 7 management of Ontario's provincial parks. 8 The parks no longer reported through the 9 district structure of -- of -- of the Ministry and there 10 were regional managers for parks. Peter Sturdy was -- 11 was a regional manager and he reported directly into the 12 director of the Parks Branch in Peterborough. 13 So the -- the chain of command in 1995 14 would have been from the Park Superintendent to the 15 Regional Manager who was in London to Peterborough. 16 Q: The chain of command will have 17 changed in the intervening years, but the basic points 18 that it would be reported up to -- up the chain of 19 command to the appropriate level -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- and it would be shared with the -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- First Nations at some level would 24 still be the same thing? 25 A: Yes, of course.
2221 Q: Yeah. And in 1975 would there be any 2 different or additional steps if the First Nations issues 3 that -- issue that arose was an issue about a claim to 4 park -- provincial park lands? 5 Would it be the same protocol that would 6 be followed as you previously described? 7 A: It would likely have taken on a -- a 8 different tone if it was a formal land claim. 9 Q: Well, informal or formal, is there -- 10 is there a significant difference? 11 A: Well, yes, there is a significant 12 difference. It's one (1) thing to say that's our land, 13 it's another thing to submit the documentation that's 14 required to initiate a formal land claim process. 15 Q: Okay. I expect that most land claims 16 will start with an informal intention or -- or something 17 to start -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- eventually start a formal process. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So maybe let's start with the 22 informal land claim process. 23 If -- if that kind of issue arose would it 24 generally be the same kind of reporting up the chain that 25 you previously described?
2231 A: Yes. 2 Q: And back to the burial site issue. 3 If -- if an MNR staff person discovered that there was a 4 burial site in the Park and failed to pass it on to their 5 superiors or to do anything what that information would 6 it be fair to say that that -- there would be a failure 7 in -- of that person to -- to fulfill their job duties in 8 some way? 9 A: I -- I -- I think that would be a 10 fair -- fair comment, yes. 11 Q: Now, as I recall your evidence you 12 don't specifically recall being aware of First Nations 13 claims or potential claims where burial grounds in the 14 Park around the time of 1995 prior to the shooting, but I 15 want to take you back to some documents to discuss those 16 issues to see if it might assist your recollection as to 17 whether they arose before that time. 18 Now, I know -- I'm going to go back thirty 19 (30) years ago, I know that's a long time. I know I 20 don't remember much from that time. I mean I was two (2) 21 years old so...those -- those were good times, but I 22 don't recall much. 23 I want to refer you first of all to 24 Exhibit P-822. Actually before I do that I put before 25 you a -- a brief of documents and this a -- a brief that
2241 I referred to with Les Kobayashi and I want to take you 2 to just a few of those documents that are in there. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I think a copy should 4 be before you, Mr. Commissioner? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have a 6 copy. 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Do you have one ? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I do. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. Thank you. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 12 Q: And if I could refer you to Tab 13 Number 2 of that -- of that document brief and this is 14 Exhibit 8 -- P-822 Document Number 1008093. 15 And I know you had maybe three (3) or four 16 (4) seconds at the lunch break to maybe review this, do 17 you want to take a few more moments to look at it? 18 A: No, I -- I think I'm reasonably 19 familiar with it. 20 Q: Okay. Have you see this before? 21 A: I have -- I have seen the -- the 22 correspondence between Mr. MacIness of the Indian Affairs 23 Branch and Mr. Cain who was the Deputy Minister of Lands 24 and Forests at the time. 25 Q: Okay.
2251 A: But I have not seen the two (2) 2 previous memos. 3 Q: Okay. So there was a memo from Daryl 4 Smith dated September 14th, 1995. Attached to that is a 5 memo dated January 16th, 1975 from D. R. Fortner to the 6 Superintendent and there's two (2) pages which are a 7 transcript of a letter -- transcript of two (2) letters 8 in 1937 and you say you've seen -- I think you've 9 probably seen the actual copies of the actual letters. 10 A: Yes, I have. 11 Q: Okay. And that would have been after 12 the shooting? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Now based on Exhibit Number P-822, we 15 know that on January 16th, 1975 or thereabouts, Daryl 16 Smith from the Ministry of Natural Resources was doing 17 some historical research in the archives of Whitney Block 18 and that he found correspondence from 1937 referring to 19 the burial ground within the lands that were to be 20 developed for the provincial park. 21 And that the Band -- and correspondence 22 also refers to the Band Council's request to have their 23 old Indian burial ground preserved. 24 Now the timing of this is interesting. 25 This is about five (5) months before you became director
2261 of the Parks Planning Branch and I'm just -- now having 2 seen this document again and -- and described it and -- 3 and discussed it a little bit, maybe I'll ask to -- does 4 it refresh your memory at all as to whether you may have 5 seen this or not or can you be sure what -- you don't 6 know one way or the other? 7 A: No. I'm pretty sure that -- that 8 I've never seen this memo. 9 Q: Okay. And do you know, one way or 10 the -- actually, well, when I ask that question I'm 11 referring to the January 1970 memo, not the September 12 1995 memo, obviously. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Do you know one way or the 15 other whether you may have become aware of this 1937 16 issue -- 1937 correspondence about the burial grounds 17 during the course of your tenure as director of Parks 18 Planing? 19 A: No. No. It was never brought to my 20 attention. I was never aware of it. 21 Q: Okay. Now the memorandum, dated 22 January 16th, is under the name of D. R. Fortner. 23 Do you know who that is? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: What's the --
2271 A: Ray Fortner was the -- in 1975 was 2 the District Manager in Chatham. 3 Q: What was that person's first name? 4 A: Ray Fortner. 5 Q: Ray Fortner. Okay. So it appears 6 that as of this date, January 1975, there was at least 7 one person, Daryl Smith, who was definitely aware of this 8 information. D. R. Fortner apparently was, as well. If 9 the superintendent got it, they would have been aware of 10 it as well. And I don't know where it would have gone 11 beyond that. 12 Is this the kind of thing that you would 13 have expected to see as Director of Parks Planning, at 14 some point? 15 A: I would -- I would not have expected 16 to have seen that kind of information. 17 Q: Now this -- this is information which 18 apparently the researchers were, at least thought was -- 19 weren't aware of before, it was new and -- and 20 interesting and -- and -- and this is the kind of thing 21 that could potentially affect Parks Planning, isn't it? 22 The fact that there's a burial ground in a 23 park that hasn't been -- or that appears it may not have 24 been preserved? 25 A: It -- it could have and I would have
2281 expected that the -- the reason why Daryl Smith brought 2 this to the attention of both the superintendent at 3 Ipperwash and -- and -- and his district manager is that 4 he felt that it was valuable information to be shared 5 with those people so that it could be considered in any 6 park planning or management process. 7 Q: Right. And you would have expected 8 that this information would have, in turn, been shared 9 with the First Nation community in the area? 10 A: I don't know that I would have -- 11 that I would have expected that. I would have expected 12 that the park superintendent would have looked at this 13 information, and together with other information which he 14 or she had, made a determination as to whether or not it 15 was -- it was relevant and -- and material. 16 Q: Okay. Well I want to -- you had a 17 long service in -- in the Ministry and up through the 18 level of Deputy Minister, so I think it's fair to ask you 19 and to make an assessment of this correspondence. 20 Now, it seems that you have a quite 21 serious situation about an old Indian burial ground in a 22 piece of land that the Province is developing for a park. 23 There had been a request for that to be fenced off and 24 preserved, and to my acknowledge and to the -- based on 25 the documents we've seen, the evidence we've heard, that
2291 was -- had not been done. 2 And with those facts in mind don't -- 3 isn't it reasonable that this is the kind of thing that 4 ought to have been shared with the First Nation, at that 5 time? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Myrka...? Yes, Mr. Myrka...? 8 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I don't 9 think that's an appropriate question for this Witness. 10 He's being asked to speculate on decisions that may have 11 been made by a park superintendent in 1975. Mr. Vrancart 12 was not involved in that process. We understand that the 13 park superintendent is now deceased, he can't give 14 evidence. 15 How does it assist us to have Mr. Vrancart 16 speculate on the decisions that may have been made, 17 including the decision which he has indicated that a park 18 superintendent would have considered at the time, and 19 that is to share the information? We don't even know if 20 it's been shared with the First Nation. We simply don't 21 know the answers to any of these questions. 22 That 1975 memorandum is a trail that's 23 gone cold and I don't see how this Witness can assist us 24 with this line of inquiry. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want
2301 to say something? 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes, I do. First of 3 all I'm not asking the Witness to speculate on anything, 4 I'm asking to -- asking him to indicate what the 5 appropriate protocol or practice would have been done. I 6 think it's fair to ask him if somebody with his 7 experience and in particular the positions he's had over 8 the years. 9 And it's true, Mr. Matheson is deceased 10 and he would have been, certainly, a perfect person to 11 ask these -- as these questions through, and in the 12 absence of his ability to testify we -- I think it's 13 important to get this kind of -- or probe these other 14 witnesses who -- especially for this kind of issue which 15 is more of systemic kind of issue which helps inform, you 16 know, what were the appropriate protocols, whether they 17 were followed, whether -- if certain things were done. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 19 don't know if there any protocols for this -- 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, we've -- I've -- 21 I've just gone through that, that was the first ten (10) 22 minutes of my questioning -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure if that was a protocol on how to deal with this 25 issue, but in any event, let's hear the rest of it.
2311 You're objecting to him answering this question. 2 MR. WALTER MYRKA: That's correct. And 3 in terms of a protocol or practice from 1975 -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 5 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- he did describe a 6 practice which he understood it -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- which was for the 9 employee to get the information -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- to the park 12 superintendent. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. WALTER MYRKA: And everything we've 15 seen is entirely consistent with that. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 17 don't know what else you can do with that. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: There was also 19 evidence that this kind of information should be shared 20 with the First Nation. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 22 know if it was or it wasn't. I gather he doesn't know if 23 it was or it wasn't. 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: He doesn't know -- 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
2321 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: He doesn't know 2 whether it was or it wasn't -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- but what I want to 5 know -- and I know he can't comment on it; that's 6 information I think we can piece together from other 7 sources. What I want to know is whether it ought to have 8 been. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. Well, 10 I'm not sure that he can answer that question. I really 11 don't know if he can answer whether it ought to have 12 been. I think there's not much you can get out of these 13 documents; he doesn't know very much about them. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. But we did go 15 through a protocol and I want to -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 17 don't know if it was exactly a protocol, I mean, it was 18 a -- 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I did ask another 20 question as to, if this kind of information came to 21 light, what would be expected to -- what would be the 22 expectations -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he was 24 saying just before that he didn't think it would be 25 passed on, that he thought it would be considered
2331 together with other material and so on. He sort of 2 answered the question. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: He -- he started 4 answering the question and I want to probe it a little 5 further because -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just don't 7 think that it's useful to probe it with this Witness any 8 further. I really don't think this Witness -- 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: All right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- knows 11 enough about these documents that warrants a further 12 probing at this time. 13 Do you want to say anything, Mr. Worme? 14 Did you have a comment on this? 15 MR. DONALD WORME: No, I agree with you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 Well let's move on then. The documents are in, you've 18 made them -- I think these documents are exhibits now. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes, this is Exhibit 20 P -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You made it 22 an exhibit, yes, through Mr. Sturdy. I think that's 23 about all we can do at this stage. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2341 2 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 3 Q: Now, can I ask you -- I'd like to ask 4 you a slightly different question and that is this: What 5 -- I want to know what would have been done if this 6 information about the 1937 burial ground issue had come 7 to your department's attention in 1975, I know it came to 8 your attention in 1995 and there were certain reaction to 9 it, but in 19 -- if it came to your attention in 1975 10 when this information came up, can you enlighten me as to 11 what would have been done with that information. 12 MR. WALTER MYRKA: He's being asked to 13 speculate. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 15 think that's helpful at this point either. I would like 16 you to move one. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Mr. Commissioner, he 18 was the director of Parks Planning at that time. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But he 20 didn't have anything to do with this. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I know he didn't but-- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 23 think it's helpful to speculate at this point so I would 24 like you to move on. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'll move on.
2351 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 5 Q: Now, you're not aware of whether 6 there was any -- ever any investigations done into this 7 burial site and whether the request to have it fenced off 8 or preserved was ever followed through? You don't know 9 that one way or the other? 10 A: To the best of my knowledge neither 11 of those things has happened. 12 Q: All right. Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So that's 14 something he does know. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 17 Q: You do know, you do know that hasn't 18 happened? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he 20 knows that. Yes, those are the kind of questions he can 21 be helpful with, things -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: That's -- that's helpful, thank you. 25 We've also heard evidence, most recently from Mr.
2361 Kobayashi, that in 1950 the former park superintendent or 2 the wife -- that person's wife discovered burial remains 3 in the Park which were subsequently identified as being a 4 child of possibly Ojibway origin, were you aware of that 5 before 1995? 6 A: I was not aware of that before 1995, 7 no. 8 Q: Have you since become aware of that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And is this -- is that information 11 something that should have been reported up the chain of 12 command, at least from the superintendent to his 13 superior? 14 A: I don't -- I don't know whether -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's the 16 same kind of question. 17 MR. WALTER MYRKA: It's the same 18 objection but we're now talking about apparently 1950 19 rather than 1975. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. He 21 wasn't aware of it prior to 1995. You can ask him what 22 happened, when he became aware of it. 23 But what should have happened years ago, 24 I'm not sure that he can answer that question. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I understand, Mr.
2371 Commissioner. I don't intend to ask the witness about 2 details of what he knows about that particular burial 3 finding. What I want to know is, given that this kind of 4 information arose, what would be the expectation or the 5 right channels for that information to flow up through. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it came - 7 - if it came to his attention right now. Or not right 8 now but when he was in a position to do something about 9 it, is that... 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, actually, there 11 is a point that, I guess, he can't speculate as to what 12 should have be done with that information if it came up 13 in 1950, obviously, but -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- is -- I will move 16 on from that. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 19 Q: Now that -- that 1950 burial finding, 20 if it was something that was known by the superintendent 21 or by others during the time that you were director of 22 Parks Planning, that's something that would have been 23 identified as a cultural resource to be taken into 24 account? 25 A: Yes, I -- I would have thought that
2381 that that information would have -- would have become 2 part of the cultural inventory for that Park, yes. 3 Q: I want to move into the issue about 4 the claims of First Nations to the Park lands. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: If I could turn you to Tab Number 16 9 of -- of the document brief that's before you. This is a 10 letter from Rene Brunell (phonetic) who was the Minister 11 of Lands and Forest at the time, that's correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Addressed to J. K. Reynolds who was 14 the Secretary to the Cabinet; I understand that would 15 have been the senior civil servant in the government at 16 the time? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Have you seen this document before? 19 A: Never. 20 Q: It's dated October 1st, 1970 and this 21 document refers to the possibility -- it -- it says -- 22 the Minister writes to J. K. Reynolds: 23 "You raise the possibility of the 24 Kettle Point Indians making a claim for 25 the lands presently encompassing
2391 Ipperwash Provincial Park." 2 Did that information ever come to your 3 attention while you were Director of Parks Planning, to 4 the best of your recollection? 5 A: No. 6 Q: And there's two (2) CC's there, F. 7 Addison and G. H. Ferguson. I understand, and I wonder 8 if you can confirm, those were respectively the Chief of 9 Parks -- Chief of the Parks Branch and Chief of the Law 10 Branch of the Ministry? 11 A: That's correct. The -- the first is 12 a "P"; it's P. Addison -- P. Radison (phonetic). 13 Q: Okay. It -- it appears from the 14 documents that this was a live issue through the 1970's. 15 And if I could turn you over to the next Tab 17 of the 16 document brief, the one I have before you, it's a news 17 article from the London Free Press dated November 1st, 18 1975. 19 And if I could refer you to the third -- 20 this is Inquiry Document 1003314. And the previous 21 document, I don't know if I mentioned was 1003210. 22 But this article from the London Free 23 Press, the third paragraph mentions this issue -- or 24 seems to relate to the letter that we just looked at and 25 it says:
2401 "Chief Shawkence." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: It said: 5 "The Band also has documentation that 6 nearby Ipperwash Provincial Park was 7 taken from the Indians illegally in 8 1900 and never legally surrendered." 9 He said: 10 "The Band probably will, in the near 11 future, lay a claim to the one hundred 12 and nine (109) acre Park." 13 And then the rest of the article goes on 14 to describe the Camp Ipperwash situation as well as more 15 details about the Park lands situation or claim. 16 Do you recall ever seeing this article? I 17 know it was a long time ago. 18 A: No, I've never seen this article. 19 Q: I know this is from your hometown 20 paper, is this the kind of thing you probably would have 21 seen and just don't recall or... 22 A: Well, I -- I left -- I left London 23 when I was in -- in high school and I didn't have a 24 subscription to the London Free Press in 1975. 25 Q: Okay.
2411 A: It's unlikely that I would have seen 2 this. 3 Q: All right. Now, if I could turn you 4 to the following tab, and I think this -- this helps us a 5 bit more. It's Inquiry Document Number 1003315. This is 6 a memorandum dated November 10th, 1975 and the subject 7 is, "Indian Land Claims Southwest Region." And it's from 8 Gregor Robinson to M. Mogford the Director of Policy 9 Coordination Secretariat. 10 I guess M. Mogford would have been your 11 peer in the Ministry Branch? 12 A: Yes, she was. 13 Q: It's -- that person's first name? 14 A: Mary. 15 Q: Mary. And I'd like to refer you to 16 page -- well, I didn't tell you the -- the first page is 17 just an introduction to what the document is and then the 18 second page I want to read excerpts from. 19 It says -- first of all you haven't seen 20 this document before have you? 21 A: No, not, to the best of my 22 knowledge, before today. 23 Q: It's possible that it might have come 24 to your attention somehow during the course of your 25 tenure as Director of Parks Planning?
2421 A: It -- it's possible, I just don't 2 recall it. 3 Q: Okay. It says: 4 "Following is a list of this -- this -- 5 On page 2 at the very top I'm reading 6 from. 7 "Following is a list of the specific 8 claims discussed in order of priority. 9 In general, MNR research should be 10 directed where Indian research is being 11 done." 12 And then, number 1, as -- as the first 13 priority is, "Stoney Point Indian Reserve." 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 15 going to read the whole -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm not going to read 17 the whole thing. The first paragraph talks about Camp 18 Ipperwash and then -- and then the subsequent paragraph 19 says: 20 "It is in connection with the above 21 claim and Indian research on it that 22 the claim against Ontario arises. The 23 basis of the claim is that the land was 24 sold to individual white settlers in 25 contravention of the proclamation of
2431 1763 and that when a surrender finally 2 was effected in 1929 it was done so 3 without the consent of the whole band." 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now having read that, does any of 8 that maybe jog your recollection from thirty (30) years 9 ago as to whether you might have become aware of this at 10 that time, vaguely? 11 A: No, it doesn't stir any of my memory. 12 Q: Okay. Now Ipperwash was in the 13 Southwestern Region at the time, I guess? 14 A: Yes, it was. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it 16 doesn't stir his memory I think you have to move on. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And I'm -- I'm -- I'm 20 acting accordingly -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That doesn't 24 stir his memory. 25
2441 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 4 Q: Is it generally a fair proposition 5 that there would have been discussions between your 6 branch and Mary Mogford's branch, from time to time, 7 about issues that affect other's portfolios? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Is a potential claim to a provincial 10 park something that might have been discussed or would 11 have been discussed between you and her branch? 12 A: It's possible. 13 Q: Is it possible, or even likely, that 14 the Stoney Point issue is the kind of issue that would 15 have come into your portfolio? Even though you can't 16 recall is it likely that it would have? 17 A: It's unlikely that it would have. 18 This, typically, would have been seen to be an issue for 19 the Regional Director of the Southwestern Region to deal 20 with. 21 Q: All right. Now, I was reading from 22 the second paragraph under Stoney Point Indian -- Indian 23 Reserve and I want to take you to a subsequent sentence 24 in that paragraph, and it says: 25 "Our information on the situation..."
2451 This is about two-thirds of the way down. 2 "Our information on the situation came 3 through the Regional Office who had, by 4 way of informal discussions with the 5 Indians [et cetera]." 6 So it appears that this issue about this - 7 - this claim is something that arose from informal 8 discussions between the First Nation and -- and MNR 9 officials; is that fair? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, how 11 could he say? He doesn't recall having ever seen this 12 document. Any question you've asked him, he doesn't 13 know. I mean are you trying to jog his memory, is that 14 the object of what you're doing? If you succeed fine, 15 but otherwise you've to got to move on. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm trying to jog his 17 memory, I'm also trying to get, you know, his expert 18 interpretation of what this kind of thing says. He's -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- he's probably in a 21 more able position to help us than anybody else -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 23 not sure that that's... 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- than people 25 identified in that letter who I don't know are even alive
2461 today. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you 3 looked at this before you were shown this now, this 4 document? Is there anything in here that you can recall 5 having seen or read before? Anything? 6 THE WITNESS: The first time I recall 7 seeing this document was just before the break at -- at 8 lunch time or over the break at lunch time. And to me 9 this really looks like an -- an inventory that was taken 10 across the province of specific land claims that the 11 Ministry of Natural Resources might anticipate dealing 12 with in the coming months and years. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 14 helpful to show him something just before he's asked to 15 testify and ask him to comment as an expert on what might 16 have happened. It's not a fair question. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I won't go any further 18 on that. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: I want to ask if -- if in the years 25 subsequent to 1975 and I do want to tie this into this
2471 memo and if I could turn you to page 3 the paragraph 2 immediately above "Pelee Island" says in the middle: 3 "It is clear that Indian action on this 4 matter is imminent. Having been 5 forewarned MNR should secure a legal 6 and historical analysis of this 7 situation as soon as possible." 8 And I take it your branch during your 9 tenure never had any involvement in doing that kind of 10 historical analysis, is that correct? 11 A: No, there was another -- another part 12 of the Ministry that did that kind of work. 13 Q: You're not aware whether they would 14 have done that or not? 15 A: No, I -- I wouldn't be. 16 Q: If I could turn you to the 17 Commission's brief of documents, please, and at Tab 3... 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: I don't know what exhibit this was. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What tab is 23 it? What tab are you looking at? 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Tab 3. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 3?
2481 THE REGISTRAR: P-918. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 3 918. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 6 Q: P-918 and this is Inquiry Document 7 3000806. This is a note to the Minister which we've -- 8 you looked at already several times today. 9 And what I want to ask you about is the 10 third bullet point there. It says: 11 "No formal land claim has been filed 12 for this property." 13 And I'm interested in the -- I prefer to 14 touch on this a bit before, I want to get a little bit 15 further into the terminology of "formal land claim" and 16 what that means. 17 Can -- can you tell me what that means 18 first of all, generally? 19 A: There is a standard procedure for the 20 filing of a land claim by First Nations in -- in -- in 21 the province of Ontario and it requires giving notice to 22 the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and to the best of 23 my knowledge that has never been done even to this day. 24 Q: Okay. Now, you're aware that there - 25 - as I think we already said there could also be informal
2491 land claims? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And why does it matter whether a land 4 claim is formal or informal? Why is it -- is there -- is 5 there -- is it important, that distinction? 6 A: I -- yes, I do think it's important. 7 What -- what does "informal" mean? Is it the opinion of 8 one (1) person? Is it the opinion of several people? Is 9 it something that the community endorses? The formality 10 I think requires people to put forward a case that -- 11 that can be examined and defended and -- and assail. 12 Q: Okay. Nevertheless it's fair that 13 sometimes an informal land claim can be -- can have some 14 validity in the same way a formal land claim could -- 15 A: Of course. 16 Q: -- if it has gone through the proper 17 channels? 18 A: Sure. 19 Q: From what we've looked at of this 20 1970's issue is that the kind of thing you would consider 21 to be an informal land claim? 22 A: It certainly was informal, it wasn't 23 formal. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2501 2 Q: Another passage in this document 3 says... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: This is the fifth bullet. The bottom 8 line is: 9 "These people are illegally trespassing 10 on provincial property and they should 11 -- shouldn't be there." 12 And what I take from that is that the 13 position as stated in -- in this document is that the 14 occupiers have no right to be there or given the law of 15 trespass they don't even have the colour of right to be 16 there, is that fair? 17 A: I'm not sure I understand the term 18 "colour of right", but certainly the -- the intention was 19 that they were trespassing and didn't have a right to be 20 on that land at that time. 21 Q: I'm not going to ask you about more - 22 - about colour of right, given your in -- you're not 23 familiar with that term, generally, in -- in terms of -- 24 A: It's a term that I have heard but I'm 25 not sure that I can recall the distinction at this point
2511 without some assistance. 2 Q: Okay. Now at Tab 7 there's another 3 Minister's note, Exhibit P-919, Tab 7, Inquiry document 4 3001526. 5 This contains much the same information as 6 th previous day's note. This one is dated September 6th, 7 the last one was -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- September 5th, but there's added 10 at the -- on page 2, just above the title "Background", 11 an additional paragraph. 12 It doesn't appear on the previous document 13 and that is: 14 "MNR is not aware of any aboriginal 15 burial site on the property of 16 Ipperwash Provincial Park." 17 Now, first of all, when it says "MNR" 18 that's referring to the Ministry and not the Minister? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Can you tell me what prompted the 21 addition of this paragraph between September 5th and 22 September 6th? 23 A: I'm not sure what prompted it, but -- 24 and I would be speculating, but it was probably because 25 the allegation of an aboriginal burial site came into
2521 play between the 5th and the 6th. 2 Q: Okay, you're not sure when, but 3 probably got to your level sometime after -- 4 A: Yes -- 5 Q: -- September 5th note was prepared. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. Now, we've heard evidence that 8 it was known to the MNR officials on the ground -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- at least as early as the morning 11 of the 5th, but -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- do you know when you became aware 14 of that issue? 15 A: It was sometime after that -- that 16 briefing note was put together on the 5th. 17 Q: Okay. And do you know when that 18 briefing note was put together? Morning or afternoon 19 or... 20 A: It would have -- it would have been 21 completed, my recollection is, by -- by at the latest, 22 1:00 p.m. on that day. 23 Q: Okay. Now, you stated that you have 24 become aware of the 1937 series of correspondence which 25 refers to the burials grounds in the Park.
2531 We've looked at just today the memo from 2 Daryl Smith which indicates that MNR staff came across 3 that information in their files in 1975. 4 And Mr. Kobayashi also testified that he 5 found those same 1937 documents in MNR files when he 6 researched that in 1995, I can tell you that -- that was 7 his evidence. 8 And I've also told you that the evidence 9 of Mr. Kobayashi was that there was a 1950 burial finding 10 in the Park and -- by the former Park Superintendent's 11 wife. 12 And given all that information, I want to 13 ask -- take you back to the statement that appears in 14 your September 6th briefing note or the Minister's note 15 that -- that's -- at Exhibit P-919. 16 Now, I know this is with -- we're looking 17 at this with a lot of hindsight and I know that when you 18 -- when this was written, you would have believed that to 19 be true; that there were no -- that MNR is not aware of 20 any burial grounds within Ipperwash Provincial Park, 21 right? You would have -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- believed that to be true? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now with the benefit of hindsight I
2541 think is -- it's fair that that appears to be inaccurate, 2 right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, if you are -- were aware of 5 information of the nature that we've looked at about the 6 existence of a burial site in the Provincial Park, given 7 everything that was going on around this time in 8 September of 1995, before the shooting, it is reasonable 9 to expect that that -- that would be the kind of 10 information, if you had it, that would have been shared 11 with the lead ministries on this, Attorney General and 12 Solicitor General? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: You certainly would have expected 15 that would have occurred? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. Now, your -- your 18 Minister, Mr. -- Minister Hodgson had a press conference 19 on September 5th, 1995 and I take it that was after -- 20 after the time that you had prepared the briefing note 21 for him? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you didn't attend; you said that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: I would like to take you to a
2551 transcript of his press conference and ask you a couple 2 of questions about it and whether you had had discussions 3 about Minister -- about those issues with Minister 4 Hodgson before the press conference. 5 Now, if I could refer you to a document 6 which is I think in the inside of the binder that I've 7 put before you. And it's the one labelled at the top 8 Questions and Answers. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And it's Inquiry Document 1010534. 11 Have you seen this before? 12 A: Well I think I have but I can't be -- 13 I can't be certain. Is -- is this suppose to be a record 14 of the press conference? 15 Q: It appears to be a transcript of what 16 the Minister said at that press conference and what he 17 was asked at that press conference on September 5th, 18 1995. It says Questions and Answers, the Honourable 19 Chris Hodgson, Minister of Ministry of Natural Resources 20 News Conference re Ipperwash Provincial Park, September 21 5, 1995. 22 And then appears to be a transcript of 23 things that were said. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well do you 25 know anything more about who prepared it? Or when it was
2561 prepared? Or? 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well I expect we'll 3 get that information from the Minister Hodgson when he 4 comes to testify. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that our 6 information? I don't know where -- if that's the case 7 then I think it should be -- you should move on and use 8 it. But I don't know. There's no indication where it 9 came from on the document. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: I'm afraid I can't 11 say, Commissioner, other than it appears to be part of 12 our production. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Think it 14 might be -- 15 MR. DONALD WORME: It does bear an 16 inquiry document number. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. We're 18 assuming that it's an official -- sort of an official 19 transcript of the press conference. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. I understand 21 this -- the documents that I have before you is just a 22 transcript. It was attached to a fax cover sheet which 23 says from -- I think it was -- I'll find out for you in a 24 minute. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just would
2571 like to know what it is, that's all. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It's attached to a fax 6 dated September 6th, 1995 from Jeff Bangs to a number of 7 individuals. Katherine Hunt, a number of other senior 8 individuals. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And it's -- 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And it says: 11 "Attached is a number of things 12 including the transcript of Chris 13 Hodgson's new conference." 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 15 Why don't you go ahead and ask him about it then. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I hope that's helpful. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 That's helpful. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: I just want to take you to two (2) 22 specific entries in that document and ask you to comment. 23 On the first page the question: 24 "What is the remedy that you're looking 25 at?"
2581 And the Minister says: 2 "Well we are going to examine for 3 example, the use of an injunction, 4 other possible measures." 5 And I am just particularly interested in 6 the word term 'other possible measures' and what that 7 means. 8 Is it your understanding based on what you 9 had briefed Minister Hodgson that he would have been 10 referring to things like criminal charges, provincial 11 offences or other options. 12 A: Trespassing. 13 Q: Trespass. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Anything else? 16 A: I don't think so. 17 Q: Okay. And the next point is the 18 following question -- oh, the answer I should say. The 19 Minister says -- oh the question is: 20 "It doesn't sound like you are looking 21 at consultation at this point." 22 And the Minister says: 23 "Well there is not much to consult 24 about. They're illegally trespassing." 25 And what I'm interested in is the
2591 terminology they are not -- 'there is not much to consult 2 about'. 3 Is that issue that -- that -- or the words 4 used or the topic that it refers to something that you 5 briefed Minister Hodgson on beforehand? Did you tell him 6 there was not much to consult about in this situation 7 with the First Nation? 8 A: That was not my advice. My advice 9 was that there was much to consult about but perhaps what 10 he was saying here is that before we have any 11 discussions, we would like them to leave the Park. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: And then we will consult. 14 Q: That's -- that's helpful, thank you. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Now I want to ask you at the 19 beginning of my questioning about the September 6th 20 dining room -- Premier's dining room meeting and the 21 decision to go ex parte that you said was made at that 22 meeting. 23 I'm wondering if you have any more 24 detailed recollection than just the fact that you 25 understood a decision of that nature was made?
2601 A: More detailed recollection about? 2 Q: The decision to have an injunction on 3 an ex parte basis, do you know who it was decided by, 4 first of all? 5 A: It -- if there was a recommendation 6 that came to that meeting from the -- I guess from the 7 blockade committee and supported -- supported by the -- 8 by the Ministry of the Attorney General, I would -- I 9 would presume that it -- that it was the Ministry of the 10 Attorney General that was bringing that recommendation 11 forward to -- to the Premier. 12 Q: But you're speculating, your -- 13 A: Yes, I am. 14 Q: -- you have no recollection, right? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Okay, maybe it's not useful to probe 17 further, then. 18 I want to ask you about a couple of 19 documents that relate to this meeting in the Premier's 20 dining room on September 6th. 21 I'm going to take you to a couple of 22 documents which I've also included in the document brief 23 I've put before you. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2611 2 Q: And the first one is Exhibit -- it's 3 Exhibit P-515 and it's doc -- it's the one entitled "Ron 4 Fox" at the top? 5 A: Yes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this in 10 the document brief that you've provided? 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I included it in the - 12 - in the -- in the pocket on the front cover, 13 Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, yes, I 15 have it. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY: MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 19 Q: It's Exhibit P-515, Inquiry document 20 3001088. Now what I want to ask you about and -- and see 21 if this assists you at all in terms of what happened at 22 that meeting. 23 It's -- it's a short memo, so I'll read 24 the first part of it. 25 "Tim has asked [I understand it's Tim
2621 McCabe, who's a local government 2 lawyer] asked for someone from OPP to 3 give viva voce evidence today -- 4 evidence before a Judge today in 5 Sarnia. Now OPP commissioner is 6 involved, decision will be made at his 7 level. He was called into cabinet [I 8 think that's probably referring to Ron 9 Fox] Larry Taman was also there and was 10 eloquent [and this is the part I want 11 to ask you about]. 12 He cautioned about rushing in with ex 13 parte injunction." 14 So, the statement "He cautioned about 15 rushing in with ex parte injunction", you weren't sure 16 before about what kind of injunction Mr. Taman was taking 17 a position in favour of. 18 Does this help you at all or is this..? 19 A: Well, if -- if this is an accurate 20 record of Mr. Taman's comments at -- at this dining room 21 meeting, then clearly he was not in favour of an ex parte 22 injunction. 23 I think, you know, I -- I would like to 24 go back to my earlier evidence where -- where I indicated 25 that Mr. Taman did express a preference for one or the
2631 other, I wasn't sure which one. 2 And if -- if I had a chance to answer your 3 earlier question again, I would probably say on the basis 4 of this, that his preference was for an ex parte, but I - 5 - without this don't have any independent recollection of 6 that. 7 Q: I do appreciate that, thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: And the other document that's inside 12 that binder I have before you is a note, Exhibit number 13 P-550, Inquiry document 3000776. 14 And I understand this is a note from Larry 15 Taman and the -- dated Wednesday, September 6th. And it 16 says: 17 "ONAS meeting re. Ipperwash. AG 18 instructed by P [and I think that means 19 Premier] that he desires removal within 20 twenty-four (24) hours. Instruction to 21 seek injunction." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes, thank you for interpreting that. 24 Q: I think that's what -- I think that's 25 what it says. And I'm sure we'll hear from Mr. Taman if
2641 it's not. 2 Now did you see -- I'm not exactly sure 3 whether this refers to the September 6th dining room 4 meeting or not. So I want to ask you some questions and 5 -- and -- because it appears that maybe. 6 Did you see or hear any communication to 7 this effect, that the Premier desires removal within 8 twenty-four (24) hours? 9 A: I -- I don't recall, you know, the 10 twenty-four (24) hour dictum. 11 Q: But that's consistent with what you 12 interpret it or saw happen at the meeting that there was 13 a desire to move quickly. 14 A: It's possible, yes. 15 Q: Now I want to ask you a few questions 16 about the discussion about the injunction and -- and -- 17 now we've discussed about the September 6th Premier's 18 dining room meeting and we've discussed that. But I want 19 to ask if it's -- I don't know how many of these kinds of 20 situations you've been involved where there has been an 21 injunction sought. 22 Is there -- is this the only one or have 23 there been several where you've been involved where there 24 was an injunction being sought by your Ministry that you 25 were involved in, in some way?
2651 A: I -- I can recall perhaps in my 2 career dealing with situations that involved injunctions 3 on two (2) or three (3) occasions, this being one of 4 them. And I -- and don't ask me what they were, I can't 5 recall. 6 Q: We will not. Is it -- was it your 7 experience on those occasions that the Premier would have 8 been involved in the way he was in this kind of 9 situation? 10 A: No. 11 Q: So this -- this was different than 12 the experiences that you've had. 13 A: I think so. 14 Q: All right. Do you have any -- can 15 you enlighten us as to why that may have been? 16 Do you have any understanding as to that? 17 A: Well it was -- it was clear that -- 18 that the Premier's office had taken an interest in this 19 issue. For what reasons I don't know. And having -- 20 having expressed an interest that it involved his 21 executive assistant and his communications director, it 22 quickly found its way into the Premier's office and -- 23 and therefore he became part of the discussions. 24 Q: Okay. Maybe I -- I'll make a 25 suggestion to you and see if it accords with your
2661 understanding or interpretation of the situation. Now it 2 was clear that there was an injunction that was to be 3 sought. Normally that's a decision that doesn't involve 4 the Premier from your experience at least. 5 And we've heard evidence that from at 6 least one witness that the Premier seemed perplexed about 7 the timing of the injunction during the course of this 8 meeting. And there's a note that appears to say that the 9 Premier wanted removal within twenty-four (24) hours. So 10 we've seen all that or heard that before. 11 I just suggest to you that this situation 12 was different than other situations in that while the 13 decision to make and to go with an injunction could have 14 been made without involving the Premier, the Premier was 15 at the very least concerned about the timing that it 16 would take for an injunction to be sought. And that's 17 one of the reasons why he appeared to be involved in this 18 situation. 19 I'm suggesting that to you, is that accord 20 with your understanding? 21 A: That could be the case and -- and if 22 indeed he stated that he wanted the occupiers removed 23 within twenty-four (24) hours, then that may have been 24 his motivation, yes. 25 Q: Was it apparent to you that --
2671 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 2 minute. 3 Yes, Mr. Downard...? 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Given that the 5 contentious position that some parties have taken on this 6 area, I -- I don't think it's useful to invite 7 speculation of the witness. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I'm 9 uncomfortable with this as well. He doesn't know that 10 the Premier said Get them out in twenty-four (24) hours. 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And I appreciate that. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's saying 13 if he did and it's not really helpful to probe too much 14 in an area where he doesn't have any recollection or 15 first information. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I appreciate that but 17 I didn't know what his answer would be so I didn't know 18 whether he could speculate or do more than that. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I know. 20 But it gets difficult, we can see that now. 21 22 CONTINUED BY: MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 23 Q: Then maybe I'll ask you a bit more -- 24 bit more clarity. 25 Is it -- was it apparent to you that part
2681 of the reason that the Premier was involved and -- and 2 that this meeting was occurring was that the Premier was 3 concerned and wanted to talk about the timing of an 4 injunction -- the timing of an injunction? 5 Was that apparent to you? 6 A: It wasn't apparent to me, no. 7 Q: Those are my questions, thank you. 8 A: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Zbogar. Where are we now? It's 4:15, where are we 11 now, Mr. -- 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, I've 13 spoken to Mr. Neil as well as to Mr. Roy and they both 14 indicated to me that -- that the time that they had 15 estimated roughly thirty (30) and forty-five (45) minutes 16 respectively, they intend to take that time. 17 I would suggest that it is not probably 18 prudent for us to proceed today. I've alerted Mr. 19 Vrancart to the possibility he may have to return and 20 while I'm sure he wishes not to, he is certainly prepared 21 to do so. 22 Mr. Myrka has questions as well, and so 23 it's probably -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're not 25 going to finish today if we push ourselves, so we might
2691 as well break now. As you can see, I've been struggling 2 with a cold all day so I think -- it's 4:15, this would 3 be a good time to break and -- 4 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we'll 7 come back on Monday morning at 10:30. Thank you very 8 much. 9 10 (WITNESS RETIRES) 11 12 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 13 adjourned until Monday, October 31st at 10:30. 14 15 16 --- Upon adjourning at 4:17 p.m. 17 18 19 Certified Correct 20 21 22 23 __________________________ 24 Carol Geehan 25