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


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


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


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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 6 4 5 EILEEN LOUISE HIPFNER, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jackie Esmonde 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 42 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 45 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 129 10 11 ANNA PRODANOU, Sworn 12 Examination-in-Chief by Ms. Megan Ferrier 136 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jennifer McAleer 213 14 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 230 15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 233 16 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 270 17 Cross-Examination by Mr. BASIL Alexander 276 18 19 20 Certificate of Transcript 284 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-728 August 20/'97 Hansard. 108 4 P-729 September 03/'97 Hansard. 109 5 P-730 Document Number 1006191. Ms. Anna 6 Prodanou's handwritten notes 7 (Interministerial Committee meeting) 8 September 05/'95. 149 9 P-731 Document Number 1006193. Ms. Anna 10 Prodanou's handwritten notes, Sept. 11 07/'95. 194 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:02 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 7 EILEEN LOUISE HIPFNER, Resumed; 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. Good morning. 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 13 Ms. Esmonde is up. 14 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Good morning, 15 Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 17 morning. 18 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Good morning, Ms. 19 Hipfner. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 22 Q: My name is Jackie Esmonde, I'll be 23 asking you some questions on behalf of the Aazhoodena and 24 George Family Group. 25 A: Thank you.


1 Q: I'd like to begin by touching on -- 2 clarifying a couple of matters that you've testified 3 about previously and first in respect to Mr. Beaubien. 4 Now, you have testified that you were made 5 aware that Mr. Beaubien's efforts were not resulting in a 6 calming down of the situation locally and that other 7 activities by Mr. Beaubien may have been exaggerating the 8 situation? 9 A: Exacerbating. 10 Q: Exacerbating? 11 A: Not -- not -- not help -- I don't 12 think I used that word actually, but they weren't 13 helpful. 14 Q: Okay. I think you may have used that 15 word, but in any event I'd like to ask you if you could 16 let me know what activities were you aware of and what 17 were you referring to when you said he was exacerbating 18 the situation? 19 A: I don't remember anymore. 20 Q: You don't remember? 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: Okay. Now, I'd also like to ask you 23 about your knowledge of information in government files 24 relating to assertions or claims by First Nations to the 25 parklands.


1 Now, yesterday Ms. Perschy had asked you 2 about, for example, a bailiff's order in 1993 that arose 3 in the May 21st, 1993 Interministerial Committee Meeting 4 and I believe you said that you don't recall anything 5 about that bailiff's order? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: Okay. Could you take a look -- I 8 provided you with a document yesterday; I have a copy for 9 the Commissioner as well. This is a memorandum to Julie 10 Jai from John Van West; it's been marked as P-677 in 11 these proceedings. 12 It's Document 1011868 and it appears to be 13 a memorandum summering (sic) information in government 14 files -- in some government files with respect to 15 assertions or claims to the Park land. 16 Have you seen this memorandum before? 17 A: I don't think I have. 18 Q: Okay. And you weren't cc'd on it so 19 -- and you don't remember having seen it in the course of 20 your employment? 21 A: After September 7th, as I said, while 22 I continued to work on -- on dealing with the situation 23 at Ipperwash, until Julie Jai left I was often 24 contributing information and efforts toward things that I 25 -- I never the final product.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: So, it's entirely possible that I may 3 have contributed something to this, but I didn't see the 4 final product. 5 Q: Okay then. John Van West, he -- he 6 was a researcher for Land Claims in ONAS; is that right? 7 A: He still is. 8 Q: He still is? Okay. Well, without 9 specifically referencing the document then were you -- 10 are you aware that in 1975 the chief of the Kettle and 11 Stony Point Band was quoted in the media as saying that 12 the band had documentation that the Park was not legally 13 surrendered and that the band would probably lay a claim 14 to the Park in the near future? 15 A: Was I aware of that in September of 16 1995? 17 Q: Are you aware now? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Okay. Then you probably weren't 20 aware in September 1995 either. 21 A: Well, there were things that I was 22 aware of -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- in September 1995 that I don't 25 recall now. But, I don't recall being aware in 1995 of


1 that fact and I don't think I'm -- 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: -- aware of it now. 4 Q: Okay. Similarly and I'll -- I'll ask 5 you in -- if you aware in September 1995 -- 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: -- that the Kettle and Stony Point 8 Band had advised the Ministry of Natural Resources in 9 1989 that the parklands formed part of the lands reserved 10 to the Kettle and Stony Point people in the context of a 11 preliminary management plan for the Park? 12 A: I don't recall whether I was aware of 13 that. 14 Q: Okay. Were you aware in September 15 1995 that on July 13th, 1993 the Stoney Point First 16 Nation requested financial assistance from the Provincial 17 Government to assist in securing its traditional homeland 18 which included the Park? 19 A: I don't recall whether I was aware of 20 that. 21 Q: Okay. Now, with respect to the 22 Special Advisor on First Nations, I understand from your 23 testimony that when you were with the Ministry of the 24 Solicitor General, you had occasion to work with the 25 Special Advisor for First Nations?


1 A: Special Advisor First Nations 2 Policing. 3 Q: Policing, okay. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And in your time with the Solicitor 6 General, there were a number of different people who 7 filled that position? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: They -- but they were always members 10 of the OPP? 11 A: They were on secondment -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- to the Deputy Minister's -- the 14 Deputy Solicitor General's office. 15 Q: But, they were OPP officers who were 16 seconded to -- 17 A: I think they were always inspectors, 18 too. 19 Q: Okay. Right. And in your testimony 20 you referred to Ron Fox as Inspector Fox -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- so you were aware that he had 23 attained that -- that rank? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: In September of 1995?


1 A: I was aware of that in September of 2 1995. 3 Q: And you recall that Ron Fox was a 4 frequent contributor to the meetings, the two (2) 5 Interministerial Committee meetings that you attended? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: September 5 and 6? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I believe in response to 10 questions from Ms. Tuck-Jackson, you testified that in 11 the course of the Interministerial Committee meetings, 12 Ron Fox advised the group that the position of the OPP 13 was that they wanted an injunction to be obtained? 14 A: That they preferred -- 15 Q: That was their preference. 16 A: Yes, that it was their preference. 17 Q: And in general, was it not the case 18 that Ron Fox made it clear in his comments during these 19 meetings that he was putting forward a perspective on 20 behalf of the OPP? 21 A: Yes, I'd say that's accurate. 22 Q: And as well, he provided an update to 23 the -- to the group on what was happening at the ground - 24 - on the ground at Ipperwash? 25 A: Yes, he provided some information to


1 the group. 2 Q: And were you -- did you have any 3 knowledge of the source of that information? 4 A: I don't recall whether he told us 5 what the source -- who the source -- who the source of 6 his information was. My assumption was that it was a 7 police source, an OPP source but -- 8 Q: Yes. Was your assumption that it was 9 a -- a police source that was operational on the ground 10 at Ipperwash? 11 A: I don't recall. 12 Q: Okay. And you've also told us that, 13 I believe on the both the September 5 and 6th -- 14 September 6th meetings, that Ron Fox had said he was 15 going to check information? 16 A: I recall that, yes. 17 Q: Right. Did he tell you that he was 18 going to be checking with the incident commander, John 19 Carson? 20 A: I don't recall what he said. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, you've noted in your testimony 25 previously that the people in the Park were not a group


1 that you felt had authority to make a claim? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: And you were aware that their actions 4 were not supported by the Indian Act Band Council? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: And in your experience with First 7 Nations occupations and blockades, that would not be 8 unusual for a group that was taking action to not have 9 the support of the -- of the Band Council? 10 A: I don't know that I can, sort of, 11 speak in any general way about what would be unusual or 12 not in -- in a blockade situation. 13 Q: Okay. Have you had a -- 14 A: I should also say, of course, that 15 when I -- in September of 5th, I had only been at the 16 Native Affairs Secretariat for a year and a half and so - 17 - and I don't recall extensive involvement with 18 Aboriginal blockades or occupations during my three and a 19 half (3 1/2) years at Solicitor General. 20 So, I'm not sure I'm in a -- in a -- in a 21 position to speak -- to speak to what was usual or not at 22 that time. 23 Q: Fair enough. Now, could you turn to 24 Tab 11 of your binder? 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, the -- I'm not interested in the 4 first page which is a briefing note; I'm interested in 5 the appendix. 6 Do you have a document there, Appendix 7 Guidelines for Responding to Aboriginal Emergencies and 8 Blockades? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: No. 13 Q: Okay, it's not in your binder. Could 14 she be provided with P-498? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: My apologies, I thought that was in 19 your -- in your binder. 20 A: Did you say Tab 11? 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: Thank you. 23 Q: This is Guidelines for Responding to 24 Aboriginal Emergencies Blockades. Have you -- are you 25 familiar with that document?


1 A: Yes, I've seen it before. 2 Q: Okay. And had you seen it prior to 3 the Interministerial Committee meetings of September 5th 4 and 6th, 1995? 5 A: Probably. But, I don't specifically 6 recall seeing it before then. 7 Q: Okay. Well in general terms the 8 information contained in the Appendix which -- in the 9 Guidelines, for example number 3 states that all efforts 10 will be made to ensure timely lifting of any blockades 11 through a negotiated resolution. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And you understood that that was a 14 principle that guided the actions of the Interministerial 15 Committee? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I set out in number 11 which is 18 on page 2 of the Appendix, I take it you were aware that 19 the Committee had discretionary powers to appoint a 20 facilitator/negotiator? 21 A: Actually I have seen this somewhere 22 in my document index and in reviewing the document I 23 remember being a little bit surprised about some of the 24 powers of the Committee. And that was one of the ones 25 that surprised me.


1 Q: Oh, I see, okay. So, you -- you were 2 not aware until you saw this document in preparation for 3 your testimony that -- that it -- 4 A: That it could appoint as opposed to - 5 - I'm sorry, I'm puffing here -- as opposed to 6 recommending the appointment of -- 7 Q: Oh, I see. 8 A: -- of facilitators. I would have 9 thought that that was, again, a political function and 10 not something that the Chair of the Committee with the 11 support of the Committee could do. So, that -- that 12 actually surprised me a little bit. 13 Q: Okay. So, you understood that one 14 (1) -- one (1) objective of the Committee was to 15 recommend a solution that would end the blocka -- end the 16 blockade peacefully? 17 A: Of course, yes. 18 Q: And that a negotiated solution was 19 one (1) of the principles guiding the -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And that it could -- your 22 understanding was that it can recommendations with 23 respect to negotiations? 24 A: And -- and concerning a broad range 25 of measures.


1 Q: Right. Now, Ms. Jai when she was here 2 testified, regarding the powers of the Committee with 3 respect to negotiations, and she had drawn a distinction 4 between what she called a -- I believe, process 5 negotiations and substantive negotiations. 6 And were -- were you familiar with that as 7 a distinction? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: So, you understood that one of the 10 policies was that negotiations could be entered into with 11 respect to setting up a process that would address an 12 underlying grievance or concern? 13 A: Setting up a process or directing 14 people to an appropriate existing process and explaining 15 to them how they might make use of it. 16 Q: But, that negotiations would not be 17 entered into that addresses substantively the -- 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: -- grievances that led to the 20 blockade or occupation? 21 A: That was my understanding. 22 Q: Now, turning then to the September 23 5th and 6th meetings and the discussions that took place 24 there, is it your recollection that Ms. Hutton was clear 25 that it was the position of the Premier that there would


1 be no negotiations of any kind that would be entered 2 into? 3 A: I think I've testified that -- that 4 it wasn't clear to me what was permissible and what 5 wasn't permissible from the perspective of -- of the 6 Premier and -- and that -- well certainly it was clear 7 that there were to be no substantive negotiations. 8 I left the meeting feeling confused as I 9 said about what level of discussion or what kind of 10 discussion might be acceptable to them. Certainly, I 11 recall, and I should refer to my notes here... 12 Q: Your notes from September 5th are at 13 Tab 14. 14 A: September 6th is what I'm looking at. 15 Q: At Tab 17? 16 A: At page 2 -- 17 Q: Sorry, for the record that's P-636, 18 Document 1011784. 19 A: Ms. Hutton says, or I have recorded 20 Ms. Hutton as saying it toward the top of page 2, 21 "The Premier is firm that at no time 22 should anybody but OPP/MNR be involved 23 in the discussions despite any offers 24 that might be made by third parties, 25 because we get into negotiations and we


1 don't want that." 2 So, I think it's fair to say that they, at 3 least on the 6th, were contemplating discussions of some 4 kind, but it was never quite clear to me how far any 5 discussions could go. 6 Q: All right. And the OPP, certainly, 7 wouldn't have had the authority to enter into process 8 negotiations, if I could call them that? 9 A: No, they wouldn't have had that 10 authority. 11 Q: And I take it you would agree with 12 that in entering into discussions to try to resolve a 13 blockade, it would be important that whomever was 14 engaging on those -- in those discussions on behalf of 15 the Government would have the trust of the occupiers? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And -- 18 A: Or be able to develop that trust. 19 Q: Right. 20 A: I think that's something that I 21 should point out, is that discussions of this nature can 22 take time to ripen and evolve because, you know, the 23 trust isn't necessarily there immediately. 24 Discussions like this have to be given, 25 sometimes, a bit of space and time to -- to evolve and


1 for that trust to develop. 2 Q: Yes. And Ms. Jai, in her testimony, 3 had set out a number of reasons why she felt the 4 Committee was not able to appoint a facilitator/ 5 negotiator in the course of its meetings on September 5th 6 and 6th and one reason that she gave was that the 7 Premier, she said, wanted action in a day or two (2). 8 I understand you don't remember a 9 particular timeline being placed -- 10 A: I wouldn't want -- 11 Q: -- that you can -- 12 A: I would have been concerned if I'd 13 heard it, about the Premier placing that kind of 14 timeframe around any discussions that could happen. 15 And what I remember, of course, is that -- 16 is that Ms. Hutton communicated to us that the Premier 17 wanted the -- the occupation of the Park to be resolved; 18 ended, very quickly. 19 Q: Right. And putting aside the 20 question of a day or two (2), would you agree with Ms. 21 Jai that one reason the Premier -- sorry, that one reason 22 that the Committee was not able to appoint a 23 facilitator/negotiator was because of the quick timeline 24 that was being imposed from the Premier's office? 25 A: I don't think that we entered into


1 any discussion at the Committee meetings about appointing 2 -- not anything sort of significant about the appointment 3 of a facilitator/negotiator. 4 There seemed to be more of a focus on how 5 quickly we -- you know, what an injunction would entail 6 and how quickly we could move with that. 7 Q: Now, Ms. Jai also testified that the 8 Committee wasn't able to appoint a facilitator/negotiator 9 because of direction from Ms. Hutton that the Premier 10 didn't want the occupation to be viewed as an Aboriginal 11 issue. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You recall that being raised -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- at the meeting? 16 A: Yes. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And Ms. Jai also testified that after 21 September 7th, 1995, the reconstituted Interministerial 22 Committee, it was called a support group, I believe -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- had recommended that a negotiator 25 be appointed.


1 Do you recall that being done? 2 A: It would be consistent with -- with 3 my recollection of events generally after September 6th 4 and 7th 1995, but I don't specifically recall a 5 recommendation being made, and I may not have been 6 involved in it. 7 Q: Okay. Are you aware of whether the 8 Provincial Government after September 6th, 1995 appointed 9 a person to negotiate with the people in the Park, with 10 the occupiers? 11 A: I'm aware of it now by virtue of 12 having reviewed the documents in my document file, but 13 it's not something I have an independent recollection of. 14 Q: Okay. And do you have a -- do you 15 know when that happened? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Was it in September of 1995? 18 A: No, much later. 19 Q: Much later? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And... 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: Well, no, what I'm speaking to is my


1 memory of reviewing the document. I don't recall. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: I'd have to return to my original 4 answer. I simply don't recall the Government appointing 5 a negotiator, apart from having encountered it during my 6 review of the -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- notes in my document binder, and I 9 don't remember what the date was. 10 Q: Could you turn to Tab 75? 11 A: This is the House booknote? 12 Q: Attached to the House booknote 13 there's a background? 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: And I believe that the second last 16 page of the tab, the second last paragraph states that 17 on -- 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: -- May 17th, 1996 the Ministry of 20 Natural Resources confirmed that it had made arrangements 21 for Lloyd German (phonetic)? 22 A: German. 23 Q: German. To represent the Government 24 in discussions with the First Nation aimed at addressing 25 the issues underlying the occupation of the Park.


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: Is that the document that you're 3 referring to or one (1) of the documents? 4 A: It's one (1) of the documents -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- that I'm referring to having seen. 7 Q: And I understand that your 8 recollection is you don't recall independently, you're 9 basing your testimony on the documents that are in -- 10 A: That's -- 11 Q: -- the binder. 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: It says that the -- there would be 14 discussions with the First Nation. Do -- and you may not 15 recall because I know you -- I'm just going to ask, do 16 you recall if that was with the -- the Band -- the 17 official Indian Act Band Council or with the -- the 18 Stoney Point First Nation? 19 They were claiming they were a separate 20 nation. They do claim they're a separate nation. 21 A: When I talk about a First Nation I 22 mean an Indian Act Band. 23 Q: Okay. My question had been whether 24 you were aware of whether the Provincial Government had 25 appointed a negotiator to negotiate with the people in


1 the Park? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. So, you're not aware of that 4 ever happening? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Okay. And with respect to Lloyd 7 German could you turn to Tab 71? 8 A: Before you say anything, this is a 9 document about which I have some difficulty and had 10 requested that if it was going to be admitted into 11 evidence that it be redacted in some measures, so 12 somebody may have to address that issue. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 14 referring to the document at Tab 71? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: A moment's brief 20 indulgence, Mr. Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, after


1 a brief discussion, we've agreed that the document itself 2 could be admitted as evidence but with the name in the 3 last paragraph redacted out. And Ms. Esmonde may have 4 some questions which do not require her to refer to the 5 name in the last paragraph. 6 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Commissioner, 7 we're also content with that arrangement if it suits -- 8 suits you as well. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Will you do 10 the redaction after we admit the document then? 11 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 15 Q: I just have a few questions about 16 this document and then I won't refer to the person's 17 name. 18 A: Thank you. 19 Q: I'll just refer to him as the 20 negotiator. 21 A: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The date on 23 the document is '96, is May '96 right? 24 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yes, I am aware. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: This is an e-mail from you to Yan 3 Lazor, and it's Document 3000076. And it contains some 4 informa -- some discussion about the negotiator that had 5 been appointed. You note -- 6 A: No, I don't think -- a facilitator 7 had been -- 8 Q: Sorry, facilitator, thank you. Well, 9 it says -- it says Peter and Ron Vrancart have an idea 10 about a negotiator for Ontario? 11 A: Yes. But, he hadn't been appointed. 12 Q: Right, okay. And you note that it's 13 someone about whom you know very little except that he 14 had some connection to Temagami at some point in the 15 distant past. He is a Tory which pleases Chris Hodgson 16 and he has other connections that I don't want to commit 17 to writing but which you will be interested in. And this 18 makes him very appealing from an MNR perspective. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And what were those connections that 21 you didn't want to commit to writing? 22 A: I have no idea. 23 Q: What was it that you felt made him 24 appealing from an MNR perspective? 25 A: I don't remember.


1 Q: Do you know anything further about 2 his connection to Temagami? 3 A: No, I don't. I know nothing more 4 actually than is written on the page. 5 Q: Okay. then I won't ask you any 6 further about that. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: So with respect to Ms. Hutton and her 9 participation in the two (2) -- the September 5th and 6th 10 meetings, I take it you would agree with me that she did 11 not limit her participation in those meetings to learning 12 information that she could communicate back to her 13 minister? 14 A: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that 15 question? 16 Q: She did not limit her participation 17 in the meetings to learning information that she could 18 take back to her minister? 19 A: I think that's accurate. 20 Q: And, in fact, she assertively put 21 forward a perspective that she claimed was that of the 22 Premier? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I believe that -- it appeared to 25 you that she was trying to convince the meeting that this


1 was an urgent situation that required quick action? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: I believe you've previously described 4 her behaviour as imperious. Do you stand by that 5 characterization today? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you've testified that the most 8 heated point of the September 6th meeting related to the 9 issue of directing the OPP? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And that heat arose because of Ms. 12 Hutton's apparent view that the Government could direct 13 the OPP? 14 A: I think to the extent that it was 15 heated it arose because Ms. Hutton appeared to be 16 resisting the advice that she was being given that there 17 could be no interference with OPP operational matters. 18 Q: And as you recall, the issue had 19 arisen on September 5th? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you believed at the end of the 22 September 5th, '95 meeting that the issue was resolved? 23 A: Yes, I don't think it -- I don't 24 think there was any extensive discussion about it -- 25 Q: Hmm hmm.


1 A: -- but I think the issue was 2 addressed and I had thought it was resolved by the end of 3 the September 5th meeting. 4 Q: And by resolved, so you believe that 5 everyone including Ms. Hutton understood that the 6 Government could not direct the OPP? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: So, you were frustrated when it was 9 discussed again on September 6th? 10 A: I was surprised, yes. 11 Q: Hmm hmm. And at the end of the 12 September 6th '95 meeting, there were some main 13 communication messages that were agreed upon? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: One of which was that the police have 16 been asked to remove the occupiers from the Park. Do you 17 recall that? 18 I can turn you to the minutes if you -- 19 A: That sound right. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Yes. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Are you aware of how that request was


1 made to the OPP? 2 A: No, I'm not. 3 Q: No. Okay, or -- 4 A: I don't recall it. 5 Q: Or who made the request? 6 A: I don't know. 7 Q: Or when it was made? 8 A: I don't know. 9 Q: Okay. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Now, Ms. Jai had testified that at 14 the September 6th meeting, there was discussion at the 15 possibility of using a mischief charge? 16 A: Is that reflected in my notes as far 17 as you know? Sorry. 18 Q: I'm not sure that it's reflected in 19 the September 6th notes; those are at Tab 17. 20 A: Well, certainly Elizabeth Christie 21 had identified -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- the Criminal Code charges as among 24 the possible legal options during the meeting of 25 September 5th.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: I don't recall -- 3 Q: I don't believe I've seen it in your 4 notes. 5 A: Okay, and I don't recall -- 6 Q: You don't recall -- 7 A: -- it arising again on September the 8 6th. It would be consistent with the discussion that we 9 were having; I don't recall it, though. 10 Q: Okay. Now, did you personally 11 communicate with the OPP directly on September 5th or 12 6th? 13 A: I talked to Ron Fox and Scott Patrick 14 and I've -- I've recounted some of that -- 15 Q: And you've -- 16 A: -- discussion, but that was the limit 17 of any discussion. It was the only discussion that I had 18 with anybody representing the Ontario Provincial Police. 19 Q: Okay. Are you aware of any other 20 person in government who was communicating directly with 21 the OPP with respect to Ipperwash on September 5th or 22 6th? 23 A: No. 24 Q: You testified yesterday that the OPP 25 have discretion with respect to how and when they enforce


1 the law but not why they enforce the law? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: Did you mean by that statement that 4 every time a police officer becomes aware that a -- the 5 law has been violated, they must lay a charge? 6 A: Well, no, that goes to the issue of 7 how and I think -- I think police generally are -- the 8 preference is to resolve these matters informally through 9 discussion if and when they can. 10 Q: Right. So, they do have some 11 discretion with respect to whether -- when it's not in 12 the public interest -- let me rephrase that question. 13 Would you agree with me that the police 14 have a discretion to not lay a charge in circumstances 15 where it would not be in the public interest to do so? 16 A: I think the police have broad 17 discretion in that respect. 18 Q: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Could you turn to Tab 83? 23 A: 83? 24 Q: 83. This is Document Number 25 10037979. It is an e-mail from David Carson to you and


1 it's dated June 14th, 1996 and it appears to be -- it's a 2 discussion with -- with respect to drafts of a 3 communications roll-out. 4 Was that communications roll-out with 5 respect to Ipperwash? 6 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: I'm just a little 7 -- I'm -- I'm not objecting I'm just raising a point of 8 concern that we're getting further and further beyond the 9 events of September 6th, 1995. 10 So, I would urge, you know, caution in 11 terms of how far Ms. Esmonde will be going with this and 12 other documents from this date and timeline. Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the -- 14 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yeah. No -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the first 16 thing is to make sure it has something to do with 17 Ipperwash. You can't tell from the document. 18 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Right. 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't know. 20 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: You don't know? 21 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't recall this 22 document and I don't recall the -- the subject matter. I 23 don't -- nothing comes to mind when I read it, so I -- I 24 can't say for sure that it relates to Ipperwash. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: Okay. Were you ever instructed to 3 shred any documents relating to Ipperwash? 4 A: I don't' recall ever being asked to 5 shred documents related to Ipperwash. 6 Q: Are you aware of whether or not any 7 documents were shredded by others with respect to 8 Ipperwash? 9 A: No. 10 Q: We heard from Ms. Jai that in 11 September of 1995 ONAS was part of the Ministry of the 12 Attorney General reporting to -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- Deputy Minister, Larry Taman? 15 A: The Deputy Attorney General Larry 16 Taman, yes. 17 Q: I -- yes, thank you. Pardon me. 18 And that ONAS did not have its own 19 separate deputy, there was one (1) deputy for the 20 Attorney General? 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: Okay. And is that -- 23 A: I'm sorry, yes. 24 Q: Yes. You're still with ONAS today? 25 A: Yes, well...


1 Q: Like, how -- how -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- is it structured now? 4 Is ONAS part of the Ministry of the 5 Attorney General? 6 A: No. Not very long ago the portfolio 7 was moved. And the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal 8 Affairs as it's now called is not part of the Ministry of 9 Natural Resources, but reports to the Ministry of Natural 10 -- the Minister of Natural Resources through the Deputy 11 Minister of Natural Resources. 12 Q: Okay. So, it does not have its own 13 deputy minister? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Now, as a lawyer with ONAS who was 16 your client? 17 A: Well, that's alway a subject of 18 intense debate within government. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: Who -- who is the client is a -- is a 21 very interesting issue. Ultimately, of course, the 22 client is the Government of Ontario. 23 Q: So, you said there's some debate 24 around that question? 25 A: Well, it's an interesting, sort of --


1 it is an interesting issue that arises from time to time. 2 It engages the lawyer -- it engages the lawyers within 3 government, but I think -- I think it's fair to say that 4 ultimately the -- the client is the Government of 5 Ontario. 6 Q: And as you've been testifying over 7 these days, in your mind, you've been careful to not 8 enter into areas that are covered by, in your mind, 9 solicitor/client privilege? 10 A: No, I have recognized that there -- 11 that solicitor/client privilege has been waived to some 12 extent in respect of matters related to this Hearing. I 13 think I've indicated when I've not been certain whether a 14 subject area that I was about to touch on might -- might 15 raise the issue. 16 And certainly I initially indicated about 17 the -- the legal -- the 1990 -- 1993 legal opinion that I 18 had been advised that it -- that privilege had been 19 waived in respect of it. 20 Q: Okay. And in your mind, what are the 21 areas that are covered by solicitor/client privilege? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 23 what that question is elicited to achieve, or why it's an 24 appropriate question. I don't think that's an 25 appropriate question.


1 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner, I think you've stated my objection. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 4 not -- 5 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Well, I'm just 6 trying to explore to what extent her testimony has been 7 affected by the -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Joint -- 9 carry on. I don't want to disrupt you. 10 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: -- to what extent 11 her -- her testimony has been affected by solicitor/ 12 client privilege. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 14 not sure that that's a legitimate area for exploration at 15 this point. 16 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: The Witness has 17 been quite clear where she's had concerns. She's 18 identified those areas that she -- where she had a 19 concern. And if there's a particular area already 20 identified by the Witness that Ms. Esmonde has concerns 21 about, I believe those have all be thoroughly canvassed 22 and any issues resolved. 23 So -- but, the Witness has identified 24 where she -- where she considered things to be 25 potentially the subject of solicitor/client privilege.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 2 Yes, Mr. Roy? 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: May I please address you 4 on that briefly? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 6 you'll get your opportunity, Mr. Roy. I mean, I think 7 you -- 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. It's just 9 that I may get close to this area as well in my 10 examination. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 12 do we'll -- 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: So, do you want me to 14 leave it until then? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 16 get close to it, we'll deal with it when and if you do. 17 Let's deal what Ms. Esmonde now. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 21 Q: Thank you, those are all of my 22 questions. 23 A: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much. I think you're next.


1 On behalf of the Residents? 2 MR. CAMERON NEIL: Mr. Commissioner, in 3 light of previous testimony, no questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much. 6 MR. CAMERON NEIL: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I don't 8 think that the First Nation has any questions. The 9 Chiefs, Mr. Horner? 10 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Good morning, Mr. 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 16 Q: Good morning, Ms. Hipfner. My name 17 is Matthew Horner and I represent the Chiefs of Ontario. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: I just have a few questions for you 20 this morning. You had mentioned in your testimony, Ms. 21 Hipfner, you described the IMC committee, and my 22 understanding of -- of your evidence is that the IMC 23 committee do not have any decision making powers but 24 would make recommendations up to the deputy ministers to 25 the ministers, and then the ministers were free to make


1 their own decisions. 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And in her testimony Ms. -- Ms. Jai 4 described to us that as Chair of the IMC meeting, she 5 would attempt to build a consensus around a 6 recommendation. 7 Is that your recollection of how the 8 meetings operated? 9 A: Yes. Yes. 10 Q: And I -- I could take you to the 11 notes of the meetings but my understanding of your 12 testimony is that the consensus crafted at the September 13 6th meeting was to seek an injunction as soon as possible 14 but that there was not a case for an ex parte injunction? 15 A: My understanding is that -- is that 16 the Committee supported the application for an injunction 17 on -- on a normal basis, not on an ex parte basis, based 18 on Tim McCabe's advice to us, that there was not a strong 19 case to be made for an ex parte injunction. 20 Q: Thank you. And I don't recall from 21 your testimony Ms. Hutton having indicated her expressly 22 her agreement with this consensus. 23 Do you recall that? 24 A: What I would say is that she voiced 25 no objection to it.


1 Q: She did not object to it but she did 2 not voice any support -- 3 A: I don't recall her saying, Yes, I 4 agree, that's appropriate. 5 Q: Now, you testified at the -- that at 6 the end of the September 6th meeting, you heard Ms. 7 Hutton remark that, quote: 8 "This is the most useless meeting I 9 have ever attended. It was a complete 10 waste of my time." Close quote. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And from this comment you did not 13 understand Ms. Hutton to be particularly interested by 14 the work that the Committee had done that day? 15 A: I -- I thought it was just sort of a 16 bad tempered remark suggesting frustration with -- with 17 the meeting that day. 18 Q: Did you understand that comment -- 19 from that comment that Ms. Hutton was supportive of the 20 consensus reached? 21 A: I don't think I turned my mind to 22 that issue. 23 Q: And in fact Ms. Hutton from your 24 understanding of how the IMC meetings worked, was free to 25 recommend to the Premier a course of action different


1 from the consensus that had been reached at the meeting? 2 A: Yes, absolutely. 3 Q: And, in fact, at the end of the day, 4 the Government did not follow the recommendations of the 5 Committee? 6 A: Tim McClay -- I'm sorry, Tim McCabe 7 and Elizabeth Christie sought an ex parte -- an 8 injunction on an ex parte basis, yes. 9 Q: Thank you. Thank you, those are all 10 my questions. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 12 very much, Mr. Horner. 13 Yes, I think you're up now, Mr. Roy. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 morning. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good morning, 20 Commissioner. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 23 Q: Good morning, Ms. Hipfner. 24 A: Good morning. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Thank you very much. I want to start 4 by asking you about what you told us were feelings of 5 disquiet regarding Ms. Hutton's comments on September 5th 6 and I want to move on from there. All right? 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: Now, I -- I take it that by September 9 6th Ms. Hutton's comments were causing you more disquiet 10 that on September 5th. 11 Am I right about that? 12 A: My sense of disquiet continued. 13 Q: Yes. And your sense of disquiet got 14 to the point where you raised the Oka example in 15 addressing Ms. Hutton in the meeting, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, it was suggested to you by other 18 Counsel that you were exaggerating or being over dramatic 19 by raising that example. 20 Do you recall that cross-examination in 21 that regard? 22 A: I don't recall it being described as 23 exaggerating or overreacting. 24 Q: Okay. Now, I take it that you didn't 25 raise the Oka example lightly, did you?


1 A: No. 2 Q: No. And you raised it because you 3 felt that it was applicable to what Ms. Hutton was 4 raising at the meeting? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you stand by your comments today, 7 do you not? 8 A: Firmly. 9 Q: Thank you very much. Now, you've 10 already told us why, in general, Ms. Hutton's comments 11 gave you some concern and -- and I'm just summarizing 12 here before I move on to something -- before I build on 13 that. 14 But as I understand, in summary, your 15 concerns were that Ms. Hutton was expressing that the 16 Premier wanted to move quickly in connection with the 17 occupation; that was one aspect, correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And the other aspect was the notion 20 that somehow the Premier's office could be directing an 21 OPP operation, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now, am I right in saying that 24 regardless of whether or not the Premier's direction is 25 actually followed, would you agree with me that the


1 effort to give such direction is a problem because it 2 creates a perception? 3 A: I'm sorry, I don't understand your 4 question. 5 Q: It's probably because it was a 6 terrible question. 7 Do you agree with me that at a minimum the 8 notion that there's an effort made by the Premier's 9 office to direct the OPP, that that creates a bad -- or 10 that could create a bad perception? 11 A: What effort are you talking about? 12 Q: Ms. Hutton's comments that you've 13 been describing. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 15 Twohig...? 16 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, as I 17 understand the evidence, Ms. Hipfner had expressed a 18 concern about Ms. Hutton's apparent belief that direction 19 could be given, but not that direction had been given and 20 I submit that's an important distinction. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is 22 but I -- 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: I -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think 25 you understand the distinction. I'm sure you understand


1 the distinction -- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: I do and I -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and it's 4 just a question of how you put the question. 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: I can clear it up. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 8 Q: You were aware or you -- you came to 9 the belief that Ms. Hutton had a perception that the 10 Premier's office could direct the police because of 11 things that she was saying, correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And the things that she were saying 14 were suggestions about how the OPP ought to proceed with 15 the situation, correct? 16 A: She was indicating that the 17 occupation of the Park should end very quickly. 18 Q: Yes. And you took that as a 19 direction or an attempt to direct the OPP to end -- 20 A: No, I did -- 21 Q: -- the occupation quickly? 22 A: -- take that as an attempt on her 23 part to direct the OPP. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: My understanding -- my sense was that


1 her comments were directed at obtaining the support of 2 the IMC for what she was proposing, but I did not at any 3 time believe Ms. Hutton to be attempting, at that 4 meeting, to direct the Ontario Provincial Police. 5 Q: Okay. But the notion that the 6 occupation would -- was to end quickly, that was 7 something that would be involving the OPP, would it not? 8 A: That was my understanding -- 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: -- yes. 11 Q: Now, after the shooting, you've 12 described how you and you felt other members of ONAS were 13 in shock as to what you heard had happened, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, am I right in saying that part 16 of that reaction of shock was due to the fact that you 17 had understood the OPP approach was a go slow approach? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you didn't expect that there was 20 going to be any physical contact between the OPP and the 21 occupiers on the evening of September 6th, correct? 22 A: No, I didn't. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Now, in your evidence, you described 2 how many people at ONAS felt that you possessed some 3 information that, although itself may not be significant, 4 contributes something to the larger piece; do you 5 remember giving that evidence? 6 A: Yes, I do. 7 Q: Now, I want to explore that for a 8 second, all right? Okay? 9 A: Yes. Do I have a choice? 10 Q: Well, others have a choice, but if I 11 ask a question and nobody objects to it, I guess the 12 answer's no. But, I'll try not to -- I'll try not to make 13 it difficult. 14 A: Thank you. 15 Q: I take it that you were among those 16 people that felt that you were in possession of 17 information that may have contributed something to the 18 larger piece, correct? Yes? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. Are you all right? Do you 21 want a break now? Okay, can we break? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we'll 23 take an early morning break. 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 25 for fifteen (15) minutes.


1 2 --- Upon recessing at 9:54 a.m. 3 --- Upon resuming at 10:14 a.m. 4 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 6 resumed, please be seated. 7 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 11 Q: Ms. Hipfner, I want you to understand 12 a little bit where I'm going, all right -- 13 A: Thank you. 14 Q: -- because I want you to understand 15 that we're going through this for a reason. 16 One of the things that an Inquiry may do, 17 an Inquiry may address recommendations, in this case, in 18 particular, to the civil service and the way it's 19 structured and the mechanisms that are available there, 20 to make people in your job -- to make it easier for you 21 to do your job. 22 And that's the point of the questioning 23 that I want to get into with you. 24 So there is a point to it, all right? 25 A: Okay.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: And I just want to say -- this is a 3 very difficult issue for me to talk about. 4 Q: I understand that. 5 A: But I will do what I can to assist 6 the Commission. 7 Q: And what I want to -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll just 9 take our time and work our way through it. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 12 Q: And what I want to do, I want to make 13 it, for the next people, other civil servants who may be 14 in your situation, to make it a little easier for them to 15 address the issues that they confront. All right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. Now, what I'd asked you just 18 before the break -- just to position us back to where we 19 were, was you told me that you were part of the someone 20 or the -- or the many of us that felt that information 21 that you possessed may be significant or may have 22 contributed to the larger piece. 23 Do your remember that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. Now, in your case, the


1 information that you possessed that you were concerned 2 about was the information about how Ms. Hutton had 3 conducted herself at the meeting; is that correct? 4 A: And the ideas that she had expressed 5 at the meeting, yes. 6 Q: And -- and the larger piece that you 7 were talking about was the tragic death of Mr. George, 8 was it not? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: So, what you were wondering about in 11 your mind, in the shock of hearing about the shooting, 12 was whether or not what you heard at that meeting from 13 Ms. Hutton, had some way contributed to the death of Mr. 14 George; is that not right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Thank you. Now -- 17 A: And I want to make it clear that I -- 18 I don't think anybody assumed that it had or operated on 19 the basis that it had. We wondered whether it had and -- 20 and we functioned in an environment where we simply 21 didn't know what the story was. 22 Q: You've anticipated my next four (4) 23 or five (5) questions. 24 You're not in any way suggesting that you 25 knew one (1) or the other Ms. Hutton's conduct in some --


1 in some way contributed? 2 A: We didn't know. 3 Q: No. But you worried about it, right? 4 A: Yes, very much. 5 Q: And you've worried about it for the 6 last ten (10) years, correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Do you remember when I asked you 9 about perception, about how Ms. Hutton's conduct could be 10 perceived and that's a problem? 11 Do you remember when I was asking you 12 about that? 13 A: I think I've developed short-term 14 amnesia. Could you remind me? 15 Q: It's all right. I suggested to you 16 that there's a problem with perception in -- 17 A: Yes, I didn't understand your 18 question. 19 Q: Yeah. It was a terrible question 20 again. 21 What I suggested to you earlier that there 22 was a problem about perception when someone in Ms. 23 Hutton's position says the things that she does and the 24 context in which she did, correct? 25 A: It can create impressions.


1 Q: Yeah. And what you're talking about, 2 your concern over the last ten (10) years, you're 3 wondering whether or not it contributed in some way; 4 that's an example of that perception, correct? 5 A: I -- I still don't understand your 6 question. 7 Q: All right. I'll -- I'll keep moving 8 and hopefully -- 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: -- my questions will get -- will get 11 more clear. 12 A: Thank you. 13 Q: Now, you -- you talked about the 14 atmosphere of secrecy that surrounded what happened in 15 the meeting in the aftermath? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, that atmosphere of secrecy 18 prevented you from doing anything to address what Ms. 19 Hutton had done at the meeting; is that correct? 20 A: What had Ms. Hutton done at the 21 meeting that needed to be addressed? Sorry, Counsel, 22 is... 23 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm sorry. I'm afraid 24 that there's an underlying assumption there that Ms. 25 Hipfner could have done something to address the


1 situation and I don't think that was intended perhaps. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Hipfner 3 raised another aspect, as well, so I'm not sure. Perhaps 4 you'd better ask the question again and see if you can 5 overcome some of these... 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'll try. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 9 Q: The atmosphere of secrecy that you 10 talked about that -- that sort of enveloped ONAS after 11 the shooting, that atmosphere of secrecy prevented you 12 from raising any concern up the chain concerning what Ms. 13 Hutton had done at the meeting? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's a suggestion, Mr. 16 Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. All 18 right. I think if you understand the question... 19 THE WITNESS: I would have raised any 20 concerns internally. And internally there was an 21 understanding of what Ms. Hutton had said and done at the 22 meeting. 23 So, I'm not sure that there was any point 24 in my -- in my doing anything more than I did because the 25 knowledge already existed within -- within the structure


1 of our organization. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 4 Q: Okay. And can you tell me some 5 indication or give me some indication of how far up the 6 chain did this knowledge about... 7 A: I knew that Larry Taman who was the 8 Deputy Attorney General had been involved himself in -- 9 in the events of those days. 10 Q: Okay. So, it was your impression 11 that Mr. Taman had been apprised of -- of what Ms. Hutton 12 had said at the meeting? 13 A: I don't know that I knew that he'd 14 been apprised of what she had said in the meeting. I 15 knew that he was himself involved in the events of those 16 days, not in attendance at the meeting, but involved in - 17 - in the events of those days. I don't know who -- who 18 communicated what to him about what had occurred at those 19 meetings. 20 Q: Sure. But, the -- the reason why I'm 21 asking is -- is because of your evidence just a few 22 minutes ago -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- that is was your impression it 25 wasn't really necessary to raise a concern about what Ms.


1 Hutton had said at the meeting because it was sort of 2 common knowledge within the organization. 3 And what I'm trying to focus you on is -- 4 is I would like to know from your point of view how far 5 the common knowledge spread. All right? So, presume -- 6 A: Well, let me tell you, I don't know 7 how far the common knowledge spread because we didn't 8 talk about it. 9 One (1) of the reasons that the lunch that 10 I had with my colleagues on September the 6th stands out 11 in my mind, is because that was the last time, the first 12 and last time, I ever discussed Ipperwash or the meetings 13 in a very normal way, you know, as -- as part of business 14 with colleagues of mine. 15 And the reason it stands out in my mind is 16 simply that after that day I could no longer discuss 17 anything about Ipperwash with my colleagues including the 18 people who had attended the meetings. 19 And that's a situation that's lasted for 20 ten (10) years. We're hearing each other's stories for 21 the first time now, because there has always been, not 22 only a reticence but a self-imposed moratorium on talking 23 about what happened back on September 5th and 6th and 24 7th, 1995. 25 Q: Okay. And -- and what is motivating


1 this -- this self-imposed moratorium? 2 I want to try and understand from the 3 point of view of somebody in the civil service, why this 4 is such a problem. 5 A: Well, as I said the other day, I 6 think there was an understanding that -- that there were, 7 almost immediately, demands for some kind of public 8 accounting of -- of what had occurred and we certainly 9 have understood that -- that we might be asked to 10 contribute information to that, you know, whatever 11 process was selected. 12 So, you know, for a long time it appeared 13 that there was -- it was going to be subject of a civil 14 action and -- and that's become a -- it is in fact that 15 the form of choice is -- is a public inquiry. So, I 16 think there has been a concern about -- about -- related 17 to knowing that we would sooner or later have to testify 18 to these events. 19 A concern too, about the fact that over a 20 period of ten (10) years, you know, I've known that my 21 memory about events is -- is eroding and so a concern 22 about, you know, that -- that's been a concern too. 23 But, I think the reason we didn't talk to 24 one another after the events of September 6th and 7th -- 25 5th and 6th and 7th is that we were afraid to.


1 Q: Okay. And what were you afraid of? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Retribution. 6 Q: Okay. And retribution from who? 7 A: Sanctions -- I don't -- I don't know. 8 Invoking the anger of a government that didn't seem to 9 like to be crossed at all. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: I -- I certainly, personally, felt 12 because I was so intensely involved in all of this, a 13 personal failure. A sense of failure every time there 14 was a leak to the media. 15 I mean, it was, sort of -- I felt a sense 16 that I had to -- a personal sense of having to try to 17 keep things together and a feeling of failure whenever 18 there was sort of another leak that I was -- I was 19 reading about to the media. 20 I think -- I think the problem 21 fundamentally could be described this way. Civil 22 servants must serve all governments impartially. If we 23 like a government, we don't serve it better and if we 24 don't like the a government, we don't, you know, don't it 25 less well; that we serve all governments well and


1 impartially. 2 And I think -- I think for some of us and 3 certainly I'm one of those people, the events of 4 September 5th and 6th and 7th created a real moral 5 quandary. And so people like me who elected to stay, had 6 to work through the moral quandary that they were 7 experience about -- experiencing about possibly serving a 8 government that had engaged in -- impropriety and -- and 9 that our efforts may be actually part of an effort to 10 camouflage; that impropriety. 11 But again, not knowing that that was the 12 case. Only recognizing it as a possibility and not 13 knowing whether that was the case. 14 So, I -- I think that the moral issues 15 that some of us faced at the time were very difficult. 16 And I know that I experienced losses during that time. 17 Ron Fox said to me when he left his 18 position as Special Advisor on First Nations Policing, 19 that he had never run away from a job in his life. But, 20 that he was running away from this one because he could 21 no longer cope with the pressures that -- that were 22 created by the shooting. And he went off to the London 23 Detachment at the Ontario Provincial Police. 24 Julie Jai left the Ontario Public Service 25 and went to Whitehorse because she said she could not


1 serve a government that couldn't respect Section 35 2 rights, that felt it had an option about whether it would 3 respect Section 35. 4 Anna Prodanou who's about to testify next 5 left the Native Affairs Secretariat in large measure, 6 because she just couldn't deal with the pressure and the 7 secrecy and -- and being a part, after the fact, of these 8 events. 9 I elected to stay. I had only been 10 negotiating land claims for a year and a half, and I 11 loved that work. I loved that work and wanted to 12 continue doing it and wanted to continue being part of a 13 group of civil servants who made sure under this new 14 administration that -- that the legal and constitutional 15 rights of Aboriginal people continued to be addressed in 16 this way in particular, you know, through the negotiation 17 of land claims. 18 But, I don't think anybody should 19 underestimate the tremendous emotional toll that these 20 events took on the civil servants who stayed and did 21 their jobs and served this government well, served this 22 government well for the next eight (8) years. 23 But it took a tremendous emotional toll on 24 many of us and I certainly include myself in that. 25 Q: All right. I want to -- I want to be


1 a little bit more precise in my questioning, because 2 there's some precise areas that I want -- 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: -- you to address your mind to in 5 terms of your evidence. And that is -- is you mentioned 6 that you weren't sure if Mr. -- I believe the gist of 7 your evidence is you weren't sure if Mr. Taman had been 8 fully apprised about what Ms. Hutton had said at the 9 meeting. 10 A: My assumption was that he knew, but I 11 can't point to anything to prove that that was the case. 12 Q: Okay. Now, do you think it would 13 have been -- given your experience in the civil service, 14 that it would be a useful thing for the Deputy Minister 15 to know that that kind of thing is going on at a -- 16 A: I think he did know. 17 Q: -- meeting of this nature? Okay. 18 That's not really my question, though. I just want to 19 keep us a little bit on track. 20 Is it useful information for a Deputy 21 Minister to know that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. In fact, it's essential for 24 him to know that, right? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Because of the Deputy Minister's role 2 in providing this interface between the political staff-- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- and the politicians and the 5 professional civil service -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- correct? 8 And given this atmosphere of silence and 9 tremendous stress that you've described for civil 10 servants in a situation like this, in a crisis situation, 11 do you think it would be useful to have some sort of 12 mechanism to ensure that these types of issues get raised 13 with the Deputy Minister? 14 A: I think those mechanisms exist. 15 Q: Okay. And what are they? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 17 Twohig...? 18 OBJ MS. KIM TWOHIG: I object to this 19 question on the grounds that it is irrelevant. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 21 believe that what -- well, Mr. Roy do you want to explain 22 what you think the relevance is? 23 I think I know, but I think you should 24 explain it. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. It's my respectful


1 submission that one of the issues, one of the main issues 2 in this Inquiry, in my respectful submission, it 3 certainly will be in our submissions at the end of the 4 day, that there are some -- some issues or some areas 5 with respect to how politicians and civil servants relate 6 to one another that may need some assistance from this 7 Inquiry. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: And that's what I'm 10 directing these questions at. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I want 12 to be careful, though. I agree and I -- 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm trying to be 14 responsible and I don't -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- want to go on and on 17 with this. I'm just canvassing -- introducing the issue 18 and there are other witnesses -- I'm sorry to cut you 19 off, Mr. Commissioner -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- but I want to let you 22 know where I'm going. There are other witnesses who are 23 going to be in a much better position to address this 24 issue. 25 I wanted to introduce it through somebody


1 on the ground and then perhaps address it later on 2 through other evidence. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 4 the question is relevant, and I will allow you to ask it, 5 but I want to say that there are -- your standing in this 6 Inquiry, to some extent, is based on your experience with 7 Aboriginal matters in general -- 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 10 experience with Aboriginal contact with authority in 11 government -- 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in 14 particular and so on. And some of the questions that you 15 ask may be more appropriately dealt with in our policy 16 review, or Part II. 17 But you need a factual foundation. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I 20 understand that and that's what you're doing to some 21 extent. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And with 24 limited leeway -- 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think 2 that that's a -- 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: And let me -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- question-- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- let me just add to -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- where 7 you're going. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Let me just add to that 9 a little bit. ONAS, in terms of its role within the 10 civil service -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- is critical in terms 13 of how First Nations issues are addressed within 14 government. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: In this case, we have a 17 particular example of that relationship between 18 politicians and -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- the actual organ of 21 the civil service that deals with Aboriginal people. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: These are 23 issues that I will be interested in dealing with -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in my


1 recommendations and that's why, for a factual -- this is 2 a fact witness, but she does have some experience and she 3 can be helpful. 4 The question you asked so far I think -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is 7 legitimate. How far is appropriate -- 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Was -- was -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is 10 proper. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: What -- what -- my -- my 12 question, just -- just so we're all on the same page was: 13 What is in place right now -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- in terms of -- of an 16 avenue? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As far as 18 she knows -- 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- from her 21 perspective. 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: If I may, Mr. 23 Commissioner, I have understood the question, and I trust 24 My Friend will correct me if I'm wrong, that the Witness 25 was not being asked about relationships between


1 politicians and civil servants, but rather what systems 2 were in place within this civil service to address 3 perhaps personnel issues or individual concerns that 4 civil servants may have. 5 And in my submission, that is completely 6 different from the interrelationships between politicians 7 and civil -- and civil servants. 8 Furthermore, Ms. Hipfner has expressed her 9 desire not to make recommendations to this Commission and 10 I'm concerned that My Friend is attempting to force her 11 to do so. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't have 13 that impression, Ms. Twohig, and I think the question so 14 far as I've said is, in my view, an appropriate one. How 15 far you go remains to be seen. I hope you don't go much 16 farther, but that's an appropriate question. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm -- I'm trying to 18 keep it very limited. I understand the limitations that 19 we are at -- at this stage. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 21 does Commission Counsel have any comment on this? 22 I mean if you do I'd be happy to hear it. 23 If not then, prepared to move on. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, I agree with you, 25 Commissioner, on this point.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 Thank you very much. 3 Yes, Mr. Roy...? 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 6 Q: We were about to address what your 7 understanding of what was in place at the time in terms 8 of a pipeline to the Deputy Minister to raise these 9 concerns about -- about how politicians are relating to - 10 - to you -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- as a civil service and I'm 13 wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on that? 14 A: Certainly, if I had a concern that I 15 didn't think was shared by somebody up the line or that I 16 had new information to contribute, important information 17 that I thought my Deputy Minister should know I would 18 talk to my director. At that time it was Julie Jai; she 19 knew what I knew -- 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: -- and more. Julie would have 22 discussed it with the Secretary for Native Affairs who at 23 that time was Yan. Yan would have talked to the Deputy 24 Attorney General and the Attorney General would have done 25 whatever was necessary. And although that sounds, sort


1 of, like a time consuming, length process in fact it's 2 not. You know I think people tend to think of government 3 as some kind of monolithic structure. 4 I -- I -- my experience is that, within 5 government, we can respond very quickly to measures. If 6 -- you know I would go directly to Yan if -- if I felt I 7 had a concern and if it was significant enough and Yan 8 wasn't there I would go plant myself on the eleventh 9 floor and deal with Larry directly. 10 So, I think there's lots of flexibility 11 within government, within the bureaucracy to ensure that 12 matters are addressed quickly if they seem to demand it. 13 Q: Okay. And you -- you didn't do that 14 yourself because you assumed that Ms. Jai was going to be 15 doing it and your understanding was that she was; is that 16 correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, one (1) of the things that -- 21 that got my attention in your evidence just a few minutes 22 ago was this -- this concern about reprisals as a civil 23 servant, a concern about reprisals in -- in raising 24 issues. 25 Do we have to be concerned if we're


1 thinking about mechanisms for having these issues raised 2 that we should address those mechanisms to a concern 3 about -- about reprisals? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again I'm 8 not sure that she could answer -- 9 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I think this is a 10 disguised question as to whether she has a recommendation 11 about this. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 13 not sure that that's a question or not. 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, I -- I didn't 15 address Ms. -- Ms. Twohig's suggestion that this Witness 16 because she was asked once whether or not she has any 17 recommendations that any other counsel that addresses 18 recommendations is somehow forcing her to do something 19 she doesn't want to do. I didn't address that at that 20 point. 21 In my respectful submission I'm entitled 22 to elicit evidence that might support a recommendation or 23 even ask this Witness given the evidence that's come out. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 25 think you're right.


1 Mr. Downard, do you have a different 2 objection or the same? 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I'm -- I'm going to 4 wait a little longer in -- in case I need to make it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Maybe we can pull up a 7 chair for Mr. Downard -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you're 9 going into territory -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm happy to do that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that may 12 raise some objections if you go too far. I've said 13 that -- 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- as well. 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm -- I'm dealing with 17 this. I want everybody to understand, I'm dealing with 18 this generically -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- in terms of a system 21 -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- and how -- how we 24 might address systems -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right.


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- to deal with issues 2 such as this. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And at the 4 moment you have a fact witness on the stand -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and I 7 want you to ask questions about what she knows, 8 experiences, or can help us with -- 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's right. And 10 she's -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 12 rather than the larger issues which will be dealt with in 13 a different forum. 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: She's raised the issue 15 of reprisal. And as -- as a twenty (20) year -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said 17 that. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- civil servant, she 19 understands the dynamics within government. And what I'm 20 addressing is -- if we are going to have -- and I use the 21 term generically some kind of complaint mechanism where 22 these issues can be raised, what -- what kind of 23 safeguards ought -- do we have in place so that a person 24 in that position can feel safe enough to raise the 25 concern?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 2 she can answer that question, that's all. I'm not sure 3 she can answer whether or not there ought to be some 4 mechanism for dealing with reprisals. 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: Only you can answer that 6 question. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, all 8 she can say it what she felt and what she experienced and 9 what she was concerned about. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think I'm going to 15 move on. I think we've had enough evidence on this. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 17 everybody's going to breathe a sigh of relief, so carry 18 on. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 21 Q: You mentioned another thing in your 22 evidence earlier that -- that got my attention and that 23 was the quote from Ron Fox about how you talk and talk 24 and talk until you're talking to a skeleton. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: I take it that discussion happened 2 after the shooting. 3 A: No, it happened after the meeting on 4 September the 6th. He was -- Ron and -- and Scott 5 Patrick were leaving the meeting and had to pass by my 6 office to get out -- out of our offices and they stopped 7 in for a few moments. 8 Q: Okay. I want to fast forward a 9 little bit to some of the work that you did after the 10 shooting all right? 11 Because as I understand your evidence from 12 February 1996 onward, you're occupied virtually full-time 13 on what we might call Ipperwash files; is that correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And if -- do you have your Book of 16 Documents from the Commission? 17 A: I do, I do. 18 Q: If we could -- if you could turn up 19 Tab 75, please. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 And for counsel's reference, or rather for 24 your reference, Mr. Commissioner, that's Inquiry Document 25 1003904. Unfortunately my printout doesn't have those


1 Inquiry numbers. Are you there, Ma'am? 2 A: It's a House booknote dated May 29th, 3 1996? 4 Q: Okay. Now, I take it the purpose of 5 a House booknote is, generally speaking, for the purpose 6 of briefing a minister who's going to be answering 7 questions in the legislature; is that correct? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: And from February 1996 onward, you 10 had some role in briefing the Minister in that regard, 11 did you not? 12 A: This was one of my very significant 13 jobs, yes. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: And probably before February of '96 16 as well. 17 Q: And -- and when did it continue 18 until? 19 A: Today. 20 Q: Okay. So, you've continuously 21 performed that function of briefing the Minister as it 22 pertains to the Ipperwash file? 23 A: Yes. Although gradually over time, 24 the breadth, the range of issues that I've been 25 responsible for addressing has -- has narrowed.


1 Q: All right. But this note relates to 2 May 1996. You were certainly also doing that function in 3 1997? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you were solely responsible for 6 that function were you not? 7 A: Yes. Well solely in the sense of -- 8 of bing the person responsible for generating these 9 notes. And then of course Yan Lazor who was the 10 secretary -- the Native Affairs Secretariat, approved 11 them. We work together on revisions and things and then 12 they went upstairs. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: So I worked collaboratively with Yan. 15 Q: All right. And I think there's 16 probably three (3) or four (4) of these Ipperwash 17 booknotes in the materials we have. I take it there 18 would be more than just three (3) of four (4), right? 19 A: Many, many fore than three (3) or 20 four (4). This was a daily occurrence. 21 Q: Okay. And am I -- let me ask you 22 this. Beyond actually sending the note upstairs as you - 23 - as you say to the Minister, would you actually be 24 involved in verbally briefing the Minister? 25 A: I don't ever recall briefing the


1 Minister on Ipperwash. 2 Q: Okay. It would all be in the form of 3 these -- these Ipperwash booknotes? 4 A: Yes, and if there were briefings they 5 were done by somebody other than me. 6 Q: Did you have an understanding that 7 Yan Lazor would have been involved in briefing the 8 Minister? 9 A: If there were briefings Yan would 10 have conducted those briefings. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: I don't know that there were 13 briefings. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, the significance I'm going to 18 suggest to you of these booknotes is that -- that they're 19 for the purpose of -- of assisting the Minister in 20 answering questions that he gets in the House -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- right? 23 A: And in the media as well. 24 Q: Yeah. So, this is part of a very 25 important accountability mechanism in terms of the


1 Minister; is that not correct? 2 A: What do you mean by that? 3 Q: Well, the -- his answering questions 4 in the House is very important from the point of view of 5 accountability? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And when you're drafting these notes 8 you would be very careful in the information that you put 9 in there to make sure that you weren't misadvising the 10 Minister or misinforming the Minister such that this 11 accountability mechanism couldn't function properly? 12 A: And the responses were -- or the 13 recommended responses were often vetted extensively -- 14 Q: Yeah. 15 A: -- by other lawyers and other 16 branches of government. It was -- we were very careful 17 about -- about developing the responses. 18 Q: And part of your function in terms of 19 briefing the Minister you would keep track to some extent 20 of what ended up happening in the House in terms of the 21 questions that were getting asked? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: You'd have to know that in order to 24 sort of prepare the next briefing potentially? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Yeah. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: I remember reading a lot of Hansard 6 in those days. 7 Q: Do you -- and that would include 8 1997? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Could I have your indulgence for just 11 one (1) moment? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: I've had -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- discussions with your 16 Counsel about something and I -- I just want to address 17 it with you very briefly. May I? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure, by all 19 means. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 24 Q: Now, if -- if something -- if the 25 Minister was questioned about Ipperwash, maybe perhaps


1 outside the actual sitting of the Legislature at perhaps 2 a standing committee or something like that you would 3 also be on top of those types of comments if the Minister 4 had to answer those, correct? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you might read transcripts of 7 those also, correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. I -- I provided some documents 10 to your Registrar for the purpose of being put in front 11 of the m -- the Witness. And this is -- these are 12 documents that I've notified Ms. Twohig about. And they 13 were what I was speaking to your Counsel about just a 14 moment ago. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Have -- I want to take you to the 19 first one, August 20th, 1997, the two (2) pager? 20 A: And -- and what is this? 21 Q: This is -- 22 A: This is Hansard? 23 Q: This is Hansard is my understanding. 24 Could -- have you had an opportunity to read this? 25 A: No, it's just been handed to me.


1 Q: Okay. Could you take -- could you 2 take a moment, please? 3 A: Is there any place I should start? 4 Q: You could start with Mr. Gerry 5 Philips' question about one-quarter (1/4) of the way 6 down. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 8 going to address this? 9 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: I'm sorry, 10 Commissioner, you have a copy in front of you. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do. 12 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 14 where this is going. We had a discussion about this 15 before. 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: We did. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 18 staying within those general guidelines that we -- 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm sure Mr. Millar is 20 not shy about telling me if I -- if I step one (1) inch 21 outside of -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 Well we'll just -- he seems to be occupied at the moment. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: I know we didn't have a 25 break at the ordinary time, Mr. Commissioner, I'm -- I'm


1 going to -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll have 3 another break before lunch but -- 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm going to suggest 5 that -- that perhaps we have it now so that the Witness 6 can -- can maybe read these without us all looking at 7 her. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 If you want to. That's fine. Let's take -- it will be 10 an ordinary break now then. Thank you. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess. 14 15 --- Upon recessing at 10:46 a.m. 16 --- Upon resuming at 11:03 a.m. 17 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 19 resumed. Please be seated. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 22 Q: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. Good 23 morning again, Ms. Hipfner. 24 A: Good morning. 25 Q: Have you had an opportunity to read


1 the documents that were provided to you? 2 A: I have. 3 Q: Thank you. Now, what I want to 4 direct you to is on -- on the April 20th excerpt from -- 5 from Hansard. Sorry, August 20th, I apologize. I get 6 those two (2) mixed up all the time. August 20th. 7 Now given your evidence before, you would 8 expect that you would -- given your evidence about your 9 role in briefing the Minister, you would expect that you 10 would have reviewed Mr. Harnick's comments after he made 11 them in the House some time after. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. That would be your 14 expectation? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. And -- and that would go the 17 same for the -- the transcript of the Standing Committee 18 on Estimates? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. Now, if we could go to the 21 August 20th -- I almost said April again, but the August 22 20th, 1997, and in particular where Mr. Harnick starts 23 speaking. In -- in the second line of Mr. Harnick: 24 "An ex parte injunction was sought at 25 the recommendation of government


1 lawyers." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: You know that that's not correct 5 given your participation in the meeting, correct? 6 A: Well, no that's not quite the case. 7 I know that that's not the understanding that was arrived 8 at by the Interministerial -- the members of the 9 Interministerial Committee. I don't know what legal 10 advice was provided to the -- to the Attorney General 11 subsequently. 12 Q: Okay. Did you take any steps given 13 your knowledge about what happened at the 14 Interministerial Committee meeting? 15 Did you take any steps to clarify what 16 legal advice Mr. Harnick was referring to here? 17 A: To clarify at what time? 18 Q: Well, you know what, let me ask the 19 question differently. 20 Did you brief Mr. Harnick on this answer? 21 A: No. No. 22 Q: Okay. So, you did not brief him to - 23 - to tell the House that an ex parte injunction was 24 sought at the recommendation of government lawyers? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Because you didn't know that was the 2 case one way or the other, correct? 3 A: That -- that's right. Well no, 4 that's not entirely true. No, you know what, that 5 probably is true. 6 Q: Okay. Not entirely true and probably 7 true. That's the kind of -- 8 A: Well at some -- 9 Q: -- things that the lawyers can't 10 resist. 11 A: Yeah, I know. 12 Q: So, could you please explain that? 13 A: I think that Tim or Elizabeth at some 14 point expressed concern to me about having had to proceed 15 on an ex parte basis. So, at some point, I think, I 16 developed the impression that -- that it had not been 17 done at their recommendation. 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: But I don't know when I knew that. 20 Q: Okay. And to your knowledge they 21 were the only government lawyers that were giving advice 22 to the Minister on the -- the nature of the injunction 23 that was being provided or being pursued? 24 A: I know that there were other lawyers 25 involved in preparing the materials like Leith Hunter at


1 the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I think to some 2 extent Julie, but I don't know what role they would have 3 played in advising the Minister about the nature of -- of 4 the injunction application. 5 Q: So, to your knowledge it was 6 primarily Tim McCabe that would have been responsible for 7 providing that advice up -- up -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- the chain of command? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And -- and from discussions with them 12 you didn't get the impression that they had given Mr. 13 Harnick that advice, correct? 14 A: From discussions with them after -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- the -- after September 7th? 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: You had the impression that it wasn't 20 Mr. Cabe -- Mr. McCabe's idea to proceed with an ex parte 21 injunction, correct? 22 A: That was my impression, yes. 23 Q: Okay. Now, after Mr. Harnick said 24 what he did in the House and you've told us about how you 25 would have seen this, can you recall any steps that you


1 might have taken to clarify what Mr. Harnick had said? 2 A: I -- I don't -- well, I believe that 3 I would have seen this in the normal course of events. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: I don't actually have a specific 6 recollection today of having seen it -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- or of having responded to it in 9 any -- in any way. 10 Q: All right. So, it follows from that 11 that you don't recall taking up this issue with Mr. 12 Harnick or any of your superiors about -- and -- and you 13 -- you winced a little bit when I -- when I suggested 14 that -- 15 A: Well, I don't think -- I don't think 16 we normally take up with our ministers -- 17 Q: Right. 18 A: -- the issue of what they've said in 19 the House. 20 Q: Okay. How would that -- how would 21 that be pursued? 22 A: I don't know that it would be 23 pursued. 24 Q: Okay. So, if Mr. Harnick said 25 something in the House that you thought was perhaps


1 incorrect there'd be no process for you to take steps to 2 ensure that it was corrected? 3 A: If it became an issue it might be 4 something that would have to be addressed in the next 5 House booknote -- 6 Q: Sure. 7 A: -- so that we could prepare, you 8 know, recommended responses to questions that we thought 9 might be raised in relation to this statement. 10 Q: Yeah. 11 A: I don't recall that happening in 12 relation to this statement. It's not something that I 13 certainly dealt with. 14 Q: Okay. But, you -- you talked about 15 there being regular House booknotes that were prepared on 16 an ongoing basis? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So there would have been in the 19 ordinary course within a couple of days perhaps of -- of 20 this statement some kind of House booknote that would 21 have been prepared? 22 A: It would depend on whether there was 23 a perception within government that this was something 24 that needed to be addressed. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: And -- and generally that's a -- a 2 political consideration not a -- not a bureaucratic one. 3 Q: So, it would be Mr. -- up to Mr. 4 Harnick and his office to -- to sort of direct the civil 5 service to -- to see whether or not there's any kind of 6 problem with his statement in the House? 7 A: Yeah. I -- I just don't recall. I - 8 - as I said, around this time -- oh, this is August of 9 1997 isn't it? 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: I simply don't recall there being any 12 response to this bureaucratically. 13 Q: Okay. But, what I'm -- you made a 14 more general statement and I -- I want to get some idea 15 of what the process, the ordinary process that would be 16 involved in addressing a statement like this in -- in the 17 House. 18 And what I'm asking you, is there any 19 mechanism within the civil service if let's say 20 hypothetically -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- a civil servant hears that a 23 minister has told something that's incorrect in the 24 House, is there a mechanism for that civil servant to 25 somehow take that up and ensure that proper information


1 is given to the Opposition and to the public about... 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see Mr. 3 Downard on his feet now. 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My only concern, sir, 5 is that at some point we start to move beyond facts 6 surrounding the death of Dudley George and we get into 7 discussions about statements that are made in the House 8 and processes for -- I take it from My Friend dealing 9 with what he would suggest is the accuracy or inaccuracy 10 of statements. 11 And if we wanted to get into that in 12 connection with this matter I'd like to have Mr. Hampton 13 (phonetics) here perhaps, perhaps Mr. Phillips. 14 If we are dealing with matter at that 15 level there's -- it cuts -- it cuts both ways at least, 16 but in my submission that isn't really what we're here to 17 address. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, some of 19 these questions, as I said, Mr. Roy, I might be 20 interested in in my policy review and I think I am -- 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: Oh... 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and we'll 23 find some way to perhaps pursue -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- some of


1 these, but what you're entitled to here is provide a 2 factual basis. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And if 5 you're asking fact questions -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- of this 8 Witness' knowledge, what she knows, what she -- 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- then I 11 think you're able to ask them. But when you go beyond 12 that, this isn't the time or the place to do that. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yeah. What I'm doing -- 14 what I'm -- the facts that I'm trying to develop through 15 this Witness, and this Witness is uniquely qualified to 16 inform this Inquiry about, is -- is what -- she's been a 17 civil servant -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- for twenty (20) 20 years. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I 22 understand. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- She would know what 24 process is involved. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but she


1 has -- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: Something an academic 3 might not know -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 5 understand. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- as a practical matter 7 what mechanisms there are for a civil servant to address 8 a -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- statement like this in 11 the House and that was my question. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask if she 13 knows. Yes. If she knows of anything she could tell 14 us -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: That was my question 16 that Mr. Downard objected to. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if she 18 doesn't she'll say. That's fine. Ask the question. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay. Thank you very 20 much, Mr. Commissioner. And I'm sorry I keep -- I'm very 21 enthusiastic and -- and I'm talking over you a bit and I 22 apologize. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 2 Q: What I'm -- what I'm asking you about 3 is in general, is there a mechanism for a civil servant 4 in your position, if hypothetically a minister said 5 something that to the knowledge of the civil servant was 6 inaccurate? 7 Is there a mechanism for that civil 8 servant to ensure after the fact that information was 9 corrected and that proper information was given to the 10 opposition and to the public? 11 A: Civil servants swear oaths of office 12 and secrecy when they become civil servants and so we 13 cannot directly advise the opposition or the public of 14 errors, if we believe there is an error in a statement 15 made by the Minister. 16 One way of communicating with a minister 17 about possible errors that he has made or in addressing 18 the repercussions of a possible error that he has made, 19 of course, is to prepare a House booknote that outlines 20 the statement that was made and you know, proposed 21 responses for addressing that. 22 And there are different ways in which that 23 matter can come to the attention of a civil servant like 24 me. Sometimes a request comes directly from the 25 Minister's office. We -- we need a House booknote. We


1 need it to address this matter. 2 Sometimes it will come from the deputy 3 minister's office or -- and it can often come from a 4 communications branch; We think this is going to be an 5 issue, could you please prepare a House booknote that 6 addresses this and proposes some responses. 7 It can also be self initiated. I'll crack 8 open the newspaper, you know, the Globe and Mail over 9 breakfast and go, Oh my goodness I think this is going to 10 be an issue, go to the office and -- and say, Look this 11 is -- this is in the newspaper, should we being 12 something, in a kind of anticipatory way to assist the 13 Minister to address this if it should become an issue for 14 him in the House or in the media. 15 So, there are a variety of mechanisms that 16 -- that -- a variety of ways in which something that a 17 minister has said or ought to say can come to the 18 attention of a civil servant like me and -- and that we 19 can -- we can do something to assist the Minister to 20 address it. 21 Q: I understand. So -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 23 complete answer. I would like to move on from this 24 point. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: There's one (1) -- one


1 (1) other question -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: One (1) 3 other question. All right. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- Before I get to the 5 next excerpt that I want to ask questions about. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 8 Q: But, on this excerpt one other 9 question is if we wanted to know what the civile service 10 response was to Mr. Harnick's statement on August 20th, 11 1997, what we'd want to do is take a look at the next few 12 House booknotes to see if it was addressed there. 13 Because what you're telling me is that's 14 the mechanism where an issue like that would be 15 addressed. 16 A: If it was identified as an issue that 17 might need to be addressed, it might appear in subsequent 18 House booknotes. 19 Q: Thank you. If we could go to the -- 20 to the next document which is the Standing Committee on 21 Estimates. 22 A: I should also add that of course it's 23 not restricted to House booknotes. There are often 24 informational briefing notes that are prepared for a 25 minister that don't relate to, you know, his -- his


1 duties in the House or proposed responses to questions he 2 might receive in -- in -- during question period, that I 3 suppose if something comes up that you think a minister 4 ought to know about, including things like errors he may 5 have made, that there's also the option of simply 6 preparing a briefing note for him and sending that 7 upstairs. And it's not something that becomes, you know, 8 part of a House book. 9 And also I think those kinds of things are 10 very much the concern of a deputy minister in his 11 dealings. And I -- I'm not a deputy minister and I'm not 12 a minister and so I'm not sort of privy to these sorts of 13 things that they discuss. 14 But the Deputy Minister as a senior civil 15 servant and liaison between the rest of the civil service 16 and the minister, I think probably routinely advises the 17 Minister about all kinds of things. And I suspect it 18 would it would include errors that he has made. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 That's fine. I think, you know, that's fine. Carry on. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay I just -- there are a 22 variety of mechanisms. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask your 24 next question. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, I was interested


1 in the mechanisms because -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, well I 3 wish the Witness would, but you said you don't know what 4 a Deputy might do -- 5 THE WITNESS: Okay, I'm sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but then 7 you say what a deputy does or might do. I think it's 8 important that we ask the Witness what she knows and what 9 she can help us with. Beyond that there are other 10 witnesses who would be more -- 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: I did. But I thought -- 12 I thought the general tenure of this -- this Witness' 13 evidence, well she does have some appreciation for the 14 mechanisms that are above her and how they -- how they 15 work their way out -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: To the 17 extent that she -- 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- because she has to 19 know that to do her job and -- and communicate the advice 20 and information that she does. And I didn't think that 21 she was going beyond that. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 23 think you've pursued that so let's move on. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay. Thank you. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 2 Q: We're at the September 3rd, 1997 and 3 this, to be fair, is not -- I should alert -- I think 4 I've already alerted you but this is not questions and 5 answers in the legislature; this is a standing committee. 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: But you've already told me that a 8 standing committee in proceedings, you might have, in 9 your job, you might review those as part of your duties 10 in briefing a minister, correct? 11 A: Yes, yes. 12 Q: Okay. Now, I want to direct you to 13 Mr. Harnick's statement on the first page of the excerpt, 14 please? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Just the cover page. 19 A: You know, I'm sorry. As I'm thinking 20 about, I'm not sure how often I would have seen the 21 minutes or the transcript of proceedings before a 22 standing committee. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: That's perhaps less -- actually, as I 25 think about it, less -- I'm less certain that I would


1 have seen something like this. 2 Q: But, it's possible that you might 3 have? 4 A: Possible, yes. 5 Q: Yes. And what I want to ask you 6 about is Mr. Harnick's comment on the first page of the 7 text. 8 "It was left to government lawyers as 9 to how to proceed once I made a 10 decision that we would seek an 11 injunction. The lawyer who dealt with 12 this was a lawyer by the name of Tim 13 McCabe who's probably the foremost 14 expert in government in dealing with 15 these kinds of situations. 16 It was his considered opinion that an 17 ex parte injunction be applied for." 18 What I want to ask you is: Did you brief 19 the minister to say this in front of the Standing 20 Committee? 21 A: No, no. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: And it would -- and Mr. Harnick's


1 statement is inconsistent with your understanding as to 2 how the facts unfolded on September 5th and 6th of 1995, 3 correct? 4 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Mr. Commissioner? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 6 Hensel? 7 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: I believe with his 8 previous question, Mr. Roy hit the limit of the 9 relevant -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: I can -- 11 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: -- questioning 12 that this Witness can answer. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: I can move on. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Ms. Hensel. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: Remember when I said 18 that Counsel -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You wouldn't 20 be -- 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- would -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- shy about 23 stepping there. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Exactly. That's what I 25 meant.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 3 Q: If we could go to the next page in 4 the exchange between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Harnick? 5 A: Yes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And the question by Mr. Phillips: 10 "Was it the Government's [sorry] -- was 11 it the government lawyers or the 12 cabinet that made the decision?" 13 And you've read the entire -- just as an 14 aside, you've read the entire excerpt and you know what 15 he's talking -- the decision he's talking about -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- whether it's an ex parte or a 18 regular injunction -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- am I right? Okay. And Mr. 21 Harnick's response: 22 "It was absolutely the government 23 lawyers that determine how the 24 injunction would be applied for and the 25 kind of proceedings they would take to


1 obtain that injunction. 2 Mr. Phillips: So, it was not the 3 cabinet that made the decision to seek 4 an ex parte injunction? 5 Mr. Harnick: The decision was made by 6 Mr. McCabe." 7 You see that? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: Did you brief Mr. Harnick to say 10 those things in front of the Standing Committee? 11 A: No. 12 Q: And I'll roll up all my previous 13 questions about the aftermath of -- of these statements. 14 Do you have any recollection of any -- 15 anything that was done from the civil service side to 16 address these comments that Mr. Harnick made in front of 17 the standing committee? 18 A: I don't recall doing anything myself 19 and I would have no knowledge of what steps other people 20 took, other civil servants took. 21 Q: Okay. And you've already told us 22 about the sources of information that we'd have to look 23 at to find out what, if anything, was done about it, 24 correct? 25 A: Hmm hmm, yes.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: Well, there's -- 3 Q: And -- 4 A: And I wouldn't suggest they're 5 exhaustive. There are lots of informal mechanisms that 6 never -- never get committed to paper. 7 Q: Sure. And those would include things 8 like exchanges between the Deputy Minister and the 9 Minister in your understanding? 10 A: If you might -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I see 12 Ms. Horvat on her feet now. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: You know what? I can 14 withdraw that question and -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 16 should and move on. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- keep moving. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 19 Horvat? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How much 24 longer do you think you might, Mr. Roy? You estimated a 25 certain amount of time, I think you've exceeded it. But


1 we've had some breaks -- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: I estimated one and a 3 half (1 1/2) to two (2) hours. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes and -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I thought, actually, 6 to be candid with you, I approached your Counsel and told 7 them I'd be less than that. So, I am over what -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you're 9 almost -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm under what I 11 originally said, but over what I -- my update to your 12 Counsel, to be honest with you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 14 close to the end now? 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: I am very close to the 16 end. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 21 Q: I want to ask you about some -- some 22 more housekeeping-type matters, all right, that arise 23 from the questions of other Counsel and in particular the 24 part -- before we move on there's a housekeeping matter. 25 I'm -- I'm wondering if perhaps we should


1 make these Hansard excerpts the next two (2) exhibits. 2 Oh, sorry, the Hansard and the Standing Committee given 3 that -- the parliamentary privilege, that assertion is no 4 longer being maintained, and that we've made -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 6 a problem. Do you see a problem? I don't see a problem 7 with making these exhibits. The next two (2) exhibits. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much. 9 THE REGISTRAR: Both documents as 10 exhibits, Mr. Roy? 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, I'm in -- I'm in 12 the Commission's hands as to whether or not they be made 13 collectively one (1) exhibit or -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 15 they should each have their own exhibit number. The 16 first one is August 20th/'97, the Hansard and that would 17 be Exhibit... 18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P-728, Your 19 Honour. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-728: August 20/'97 Hansard. 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 728. And 24 the next one would be the Standing Committee of September 25 3rd/'97.


1 THE REGISTRAR: P-729. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-729: September 03/'97 Hansard. 4 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: Now, I -- I notice that 6 the copies that I've provided have -- have some sidebar 7 on them, I can fix that and -- and replace them. I think 8 they probably shouldn't have my sidebar on them. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They should 10 probably be clean copies if we have them. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I apologize for 12 that. I -- I can undertake to replace these with the 13 proper copies. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much, Mr. Roy. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 18 Q: Back to the housekeeping matter which 19 is -- which arises from Ms. Perschy's questions, Counsel 20 for Ms. Hutton? And she was asking you about the legal 21 opinion from 1993 pertaining to the obligations of the 22 OPP to take steps to eject trespassers. 23 Do you remember giving some evidence about 24 that? 25 A: It -- it set out legal mechanisms.


1 It was a jurisdictional question primarily. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And she asked you if -- if you spoke 5 to Inspector Carson about that legal opinion. 6 Do you remember that? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And she took you to some references 9 in Carson's -- Inspector -- rather, Inspector Carson's 10 notes, then-Inspector Carson's notes, that suggested some 11 interaction between the legal department of the Solicitor 12 General and himself regarding that legal opinion? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And there's a reference to Mr. 15 Spring. Who -- who is Mr. Spring? 16 A: David Spring was then senior counsel 17 in the -- the Legal Services Branch at Solicitor General 18 and Correctional Services. 19 Q: So, he would have been your immediate 20 supervisor? 21 A: Yeah. Yes. 22 Q: And I remember your evidence was that 23 -- that you don't recall having any discussions with Mr. 24 Carson, Inspector Carson, about your legal opinion? 25 A: No.


1 Q: And to be fair, you -- you didn't 2 even recall, apart from the fact that you have that memo, 3 you don't even recall being involved in -- in analysing 4 that legal issue; is that correct? 5 A: No, I do remember the legal opinion. 6 Q: Okay. I mis -- 7 A: I remember producing the legal 8 opinion. 9 Q: I misunderstood your evidence then. 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: But, in any event you don't recall 12 neither -- you don't recall having a discussion with 13 Inspector Carson, but you also don't recall having a 14 discussion with Mr. Spring, do you? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Now, in the course of preparing the 17 memo that you did I take it that you didn't just write a 18 first draft and -- and the one that we see as a final? 19 A: I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty 20 hearing you -- 21 Q: I'm sorry. 22 A: -- over the air conditioner. 23 Q: I'm sorry. I -- I take it that when 24 you were preparing that legal memo that you did, that in 25 the course of preparing it you would have other notes and


1 -- and -- and drafts of that memo would you not? 2 A: That were retained? 3 Q: I -- well, I'm not asking you that. 4 A: This -- this was -- the version that 5 I sent out on June 2nd, while it turned out to be 6 incorrect in one (1) respect -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- would -- would have been -- would 9 have been the final product and there would have been 10 earlier versions of it. 11 Q: Yeah. And -- and along with those 12 earlier versions might be notes that you might have taken 13 regarding that issue, correct? 14 A: I don't remember. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: Sorry. 17 Q: But, just in accordance with your 18 normal practice would it be normal that you would create 19 a file if you were directed to create a memo on an issue 20 like that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And in that file you would 23 have your own notes about perhaps your instructions on -- 24 on what you were to do in the memo? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms.


1 Twohig...? 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, I'm 3 concerned that this is irrelevant. We have the opinion. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MS. KIM TWOHIG: We know what was 6 prepared. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are 10 you going now? 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: With respect, well -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are 13 you going now? You've got the opinion? 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes, we do. What we 15 don't know is -- is whether or not that opinion was 16 communicated in any other form to the incident commander. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why -- I'm 18 sorry, whether that opinion was communicated in any other 19 form -- 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: To the incident 21 commander. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to the 23 incident commander. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Mr. Car -- John Carson. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She has no


1 recollection of having -- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: She -- you're right, she 3 has no recollection and I'm now -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- exploring the issue 6 of whether or not there might be files or records that 7 might assist her in her recollection. For example, if 8 she had a telephone discussion with Carson, my next few 9 questions are about whether or not she would expect 10 notations of those. 11 I don't have that file and I know that 12 there's been -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- a broad assertion of 15 privilege about it. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not a 17 broad assertion. 18 Oh, is that where you're going, because I 19 need to know where you're going so we can deal with this. 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, what I'm -- in my 21 respectful submission it's absolutely critical for us to 22 understand what is in the incident commander's mind, and 23 that would include any legal advice that he might have 24 received prior to September 5th and 6th, 1995. 25 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Perhaps --


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: The memo -- I'm sorry. 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: It wasn't clear to me 3 whether My Friend was asking was asking whether Mr. 4 Hipfner communicated the 1993 opinion in 1995 and if he's 5 wondering -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: No. 7 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- about that perhaps he 8 could simply ask her. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 10 what I say, ask -- 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: No, that's how I'm 12 asking. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's 14 not -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's not what I'm 16 asking. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 18 don't know what you're asking. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yeah, well -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just hold it 21 for a minute. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Perhaps, before other -- 23 if nobody understands where I'm going, maybe I should be 24 more -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I certainly--


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- clear about it. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- didn't. 3 I certainly did not, so -- 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay, well maybe I'll -- 5 before everybody addresses it, maybe I'll be a little 6 more clear. 7 We have evidence that Ms. Hipfner prepared 8 a memo on legal issues arising from the Army Camp 9 occupation. Amongst those legal issues are what are the 10 OPP's obligations to take an active role in physically, 11 or otherwise, ejecting occupiers or trespassers at the 12 request of the property owner. 13 That's one of the issues that's addressed 14 there. There's a reference in John Carson's notes that 15 Ms. Perschy raised with this Witness that allude to the 16 fact that he's consulting Mr. Spring or there's a 17 reference to Mr. Spring being consulted. And there's a 18 reference to Eileen. 19 And in putting two (2) and two (2) 20 together and maybe I'm getting five (5) instead of four 21 (4), but putting two (2) and two (2) together, it seems 22 to be -- they seem to be talking about accessing Ms. 23 Hipfner's opinion. 24 Now, this Witness, given the fact that 25 it's twelve (12) years ago and Ms. Perschy examined on


1 this, that she does not today have a recollection about 2 whether or not she was called. 3 Now, I'm asking questions about what might 4 be out there to assist her in her recollection because 5 the issue, in my respectful submission, is critical. 6 What the impressions John Carson may be 7 under, in terms of what his legal obligations as an OPP 8 officer, are potentially very important. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: And we've heard -- we 11 heard the evidence about that they -- in the memo about 12 the narrow discretion the OPP have. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 14 understand that. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: And the Witness has 16 corrected that. She said it's a broad impression, but -- 17 or a broad -- a broad discretion. But we're talking 18 about -- if you remember, John Carson is the incident 19 commander in 1993 and presumably he doesn't -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- once he's informed of 22 something it may, to some extent, play on his -- play 23 into his decision making. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 You've explained where you're going to some extent.


1 Yes, Mr. -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: With respect, this 3 Witness can be asked if she remembers talking to John 4 Carson. John Carson was in the box for nineteen (19) or 5 twenty (20) days and many of those days were days Mr. 6 Falconer asked questions. 7 The -- this opinion is 1993. The events 8 that we're looking at are 1995 and Deputy Commissioner 9 Carson, when he was in the box, explained everything that 10 he did and why he did it. And this is simply some sort 11 of fishing expedition that he also testified that he got 12 advice; he told us what he -- what the advice was and 13 what he did, which was he wasn't going to do anything 14 without an injunction. 15 And with respect, I think that he can ask 16 if she remembers, if she doesn't remember, and with 17 respect, it's irrelevant. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I agree 19 with that submission and I'm going to ask you to -- 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: May I reply to that? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm 22 going to ask you move on, if that's all right. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 24 Commissioner. I'm sorry but your Counsel's 25 representations must be dealt with.


1 We do not have to accept every word that 2 John Carson said. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm not 4 suggesting that you do. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, your Counsel 6 seemed to be suggesting that. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I had my 8 own reasons for not -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And he seemed to 10 say that because Mr. Carson said he would not move 11 without an injunction, we should accept that that was 12 what was in his mind. The fact is he did move without an 13 injunction. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He did move. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 17 understand that. I must -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And we have to 19 explore why. And we can't be -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This isn't 21 the time for argument. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- be can't be 23 fettered in that explanation, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is not 25 the time for argument. I don't want to hear any argument


1 on the substance of this. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh yes. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I have to respond to 4 this. And -- and only because this is 1993 and he said 5 that he would not go into the Army Camp without an 6 injunction and he's testified. And these documents, if 7 Mr. Roy was so interested, or Mr. Falconer was so 8 interested, these documents are in the database, they 9 could have asked John Carson. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but 11 that's not the -- I understand that, Mr. Millar, and I 12 agree with that. The point that I thought you were 13 making was you want to know if there was anything else 14 out there that might have -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 17 that's the question. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When you say 20 "anything else out there" -- 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what do 23 you mean? You mean documents? 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, she's already 25 testified that --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you mean 2 documents? 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: Potentially her notes, 4 yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And my 6 understanding is that all documents that are relevant to 7 this Inquiry have been produced to this Inquiry. All 8 documents. 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's not my 10 understanding. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That is my 12 understanding. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm the 15 Commissioner -- 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and it's 18 my responsibility to ensure that. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. Well -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 21 satisfied that all documents -- there's still a couple 22 that there are some questions being asked as we speak. I 23 understand that. But, the ground rules are, we ask for 24 all documents that are relevant and that we examine those 25 documents.


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's not my 2 understanding. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 4 your understanding? 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: It is not, because what 6 I understand is there's been an assertion of privilege 7 which means over some documents. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That doesn't 9 mean that we don't see them. We do see them. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 12 way the ground rules are. And that's the point I'm 13 making. All documents that are relevant to Ipperwash are 14 produced to the Commission and we examine them. My 15 Counsel, on my behalf and if necessary, me. 16 And we decide whether or not the assertion 17 of privilege is appropriate. That's the way our rules 18 read. That's the way our Order in Council reads. That's 19 the way all inquiries operate. And if we agree, there's 20 no problem, that's the system. 21 If we don't agree there's a provision for 22 bringing it to me or to a judge. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'll let Mr. 25 Millar explain that if you need to have it explained.


1 But, if that's what you're doing or what you're trying to 2 do, then I think that's the point on which I'm asking you 3 to move on. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. Could I -- could I 6 then make a -- I'm sorry to interrupt My Friend but maybe 7 I can short circuit his submission by saying this. 8 There are times when issues that an 9 earlier assessment of relevance has to be revisited given 10 other evidence that comes before the Inquiry. And Ms. 11 Perschy was quite diligent in finding a lot of these 12 references. 13 It now appears that there's a possibility 14 that a legal opinion by Ms. Hipfner may have been 15 communicated to John Carson in some other form. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It -- 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I'm asking formally 18 your counsel to revisit that file to satisfy themselves 19 that -- that given Ms. Perschy's examination, that there 20 isn't something there that we need to be concerned about. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 If that's what you're doing, that's not what I'm saying. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I think I've 24 established -- I think I've established through the 25 evidence that -- that it's her practice that there would


1 be a file with notes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 3 Mr. Roy. I understand now but that's not what you were 4 doing and it's what you were saying. You were saying 5 you're wondering if there's something out there. If 6 you'd like my counsel to revisit or review or look at 7 whatever, then that's fine. 8 Mr. Millar, do you want to say something 9 about this privilege issue? 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Just -- yeah. Just so 11 that -- that the parties and the public understand, the 12 privilege issue is dealt within Rule 32. Rule 32 13 provides a procedure. 14 If there's a claim for privilege, what 15 happens, and has happened in all cases with the exception 16 of the issues that we have over the discipline documents, 17 the party claiming priv -- privilege provides a copy to 18 the Commission counsel. 19 Commission counsel reviews the document 20 and determine the validity to the claim for privilege. 21 As a practical matter that involves discussion with 22 counsel for the party. 23 If the issue is to resolve the documents 24 produced, if a party disagrees with the decision of the 25 Commission counsel, or if Commission counsel says it --


1 sometimes Commission counsel may agree that it is 2 privilege then it's not produced. 3 But, if a party agrees -- disagrees with 4 the decision that had been produced, they can go either 5 to you or to -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or to a 7 court. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- a procedural judge 9 of -- in Toronto -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- who decides the 12 issue. And that procedure has been followed -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In this 14 Inquiry. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- in this Inquiry 16 with other parties with the Ontario -- with Aboriginal 17 parties with the Ontario Provincial Police and it's -- 18 with the Government. 19 And we've reviewed a number of documents 20 over which privilege was claimed by the Government; we're 21 in the process of reviewing some others and where the 22 Government has -- sometimes the Government's agreed with 23 our determination and the documents have been produced. 24 Sometimes we've agreed with their position 25 and the documents haven't been produced.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And that's the 3 procedure we've been following. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 5 exactly right. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: In this -- in -- in -- 7 and I'm not disputing what My Friend is saying -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- but what I'm -- my -- 10 my concern is -- is that the process that he's described 11 resulted in those documents, the legal opinion, a 12 determination was made that they were not -- that they 13 were privileged. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: And they were 16 accidentally disclosed. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They were 18 inadvertently -- 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Inadvertently disclosed. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: So an initial position 22 was taken that they were privileged and -- and you know 23 Ms. Perschy and myself, people on two (2) sides of the 24 issue both consider them to be important and -- and there 25 -- there may be underlying documents that relate to that


1 and that's all I'm saying. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'll -- I'll look for 4 the -- I'll look to see if there are any notes as 5 requested by Mr. -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If there are 7 I want to see them as much as -- 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- as Mr. 10 Roy does. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'll -- I'll... 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm not -- I'm not 13 suggesting that there's any -- anything wrong with this. 14 This is an ordinary process of the way an inquiry works, 15 is that sometimes issues of relevance have to be 16 revisited and that's... 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: I was -- in -- in order 19 to -- resist the -- the suggestion that I was engaging in 20 a fishing expedition I thought it was incumbent on me -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- to establish to this 23 Witness that there might that type of material 24 available -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've


1 undertaken to look for them and if they are I assure you 2 we'll produce them to you and to this Inquiry. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: And -- and I apologize 4 if I appear to be -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- critical of anybody 7 because that's not what -- what my point was. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Mr. Roy, I appreciate that. Are you done now? 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: If I could have a minute 11 to review my notes, I'm nearly done. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Absolutely. 13 Absolutely. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: If I could have just ten 18 (10) more seconds, please? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Absolutely, 20 Mr. Roy, don't feel rushed. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 25 Q: There -- there are some other areas


1 that I want to canvass, but I'm going to not canvass them 2 because I -- in the interest of time I think -- they're 3 not sufficiently important that -- that I need to occupy 4 your time with them so those are my questions. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I 6 value and appreciate the role that Aboriginal Legal 7 Services is playing at this Inquiry. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can be 10 very helpful and for the most part you have been. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: We're approaching this 12 from the point of view that it's Counsel's responsibility 13 to be economical with the time that we have and -- and I 14 try to do that on a question-by-question basis and this 15 is another example. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Roy. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Twohig, 20 do you have any questions? 21 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, 22 just a couple. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 25 Q: Ms. Hipfner, you were asked about the


1 lunch that you attended with some of your colleagues on 2 September 6th after the Interministerial Committee 3 Meeting, and I'm wondering if, before the meeting, did 4 you hear anyone at any time say: 5 "Get the fucking Indians out of the 6 Park and use guns if you have to."? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Did you ever hear that comment made 9 after that meeting? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Is it possible that you have -- may 12 have mistakenly attributed that comment to Ms. Hutton or 13 the Premier in your conversation with anyone -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- at the lunch or elsewhere? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And why do say that? 18 A: Because Ms. Hutton didn't make that 19 statement at the meeting. I don't recall anybody making 20 that statement and I don't invent stories. 21 Q: Thank you. Now, you were asked 22 whether you remember -- remembered when a request was 23 made to the OPP to remove the occupiers from the Park and 24 you said you didn't remember. And as I recall you were 25 also asked if you knew who made the request and you said


1 you didn't know. 2 I'm wondering if you know whether a 3 request was ever made by anyone to the OPP to remove the 4 occupiers from the Park? I should say anyone in 5 government? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Okay. Now, in the absence of any 8 objection by Counsel, have you failed to answer any 9 question fully and truthfully because of any concerns of 10 solicitor/client privilege? 11 A: No. 12 Q: And you've testified about comments 13 that Ms. Hutton made and the manner in which she made 14 them at the Interministerial Committee meetings, and 15 about her apparent resistence to advice. 16 But as I understand your evidence, Ms. 17 Hutton did not give directions to anyone at the 18 Interministerial Committee meeting; is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Okay. And if she had given any 21 directions at the Interministerial Committee, do you 22 believe, based on your experience as a civil servant, and 23 your acquaintance with the others in attendance at the 24 meeting, that anyone would have followed those directions 25 without seeking instruction through the appropriate


1 channels? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Thank you, those are my questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 Did you have an objection -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: She's just made a -- the 7 last question, she's just made a suggestion that was 8 flatly inconsistent with the evidence of Ms. Jai. 9 She was directed on the issue of whether 10 or not a negotiator should be appointed, so she just 11 suggested to her that Ms. Jai wouldn't have taken 12 direction and we've already heard from Ms. Jai on that. 13 My respectful submission is that it's a 14 totally improper question. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 16 not sure. I -- perhaps I didn't get the significance of 17 the question. What was the question -- 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, maybe I'm -- maybe 19 I'm overstating the -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- significance of the 22 question; that's also possible. But in my respectful 23 submission, it's improper. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What was the 25 question again?


1 MS. KIM TWOHIG: The question was, 2 essentially, whether Ms. Hipfner believed, based on her 3 experience as a civil servant and her acquaintance with 4 the other attendees -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- at the 7 Interministerial Committee meeting, whether they would 8 have taken any direction at that meeting from anyone else 9 in attendance, without going through the proper channels, 10 i.e., without seeking instructions from the appropriate 11 supervisors or persons in authority. 12 And I believe her answer was no. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I 14 suppose if you've got a different answer on the record, 15 then you can deal with that in your argument. 16 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I don't believe there 17 was -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 19 sure -- 20 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- a different answer on 21 the record. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- there 23 was. It was a general enough question that I think will 24 be difficult to say that there is a different -- there 25 might be, but --


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: On reflection, I think - 2 - on reflection I think that's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 6 Mr. Roy. 7 Okay, where are we now? We're now at the 8 point where if you have any re-examination, Ms. Hensel. 9 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: I wanted to take 10 this opportunity to thank Ms. Hipfner and also ask if she 11 had any further to add at this point? 12 THE WITNESS: I just like to make one 13 comment and that is that I very much want to express my 14 condolences to the George family concerning the death of 15 their son, brother, uncle, Anthony George, and to 16 acknowledge that they've waited a very long time for 17 answers to their questions; to assure them that many of 18 us have waited a long time for answers to our questions. 19 And that's all. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 very much. 22 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Thank you, Ms. 23 Hipfner. Those are my questions. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much for coming and giving us your testimony. Thank


1 you very much, I know it wasn't easy for you. It's not 2 easy for a lot of witnesses, but thank you very kindly. 3 THE WITNESS: All right. 4 5 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 6 7 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: Mr. Commissioner, 8 in light of the fact that there's a, you know, another 9 witness to bring in and other Counsel to examine that 10 witness I wonder -- I know it's very early but if this 11 might be an appropriate time to take a lunch break. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think so. 13 I think we'll take a lunch break now. 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 15 adjourned until 1:00 p.m. 16 17 --- Upon recessing at 11:46 a.m. 18 --- Upon resuming at 1:03 p.m. 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 21 afternoon. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good afternoon, 23 Commissioner. 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 25 resumed. Please be seated.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Should have waited for 2 the Registrar. 3 The next witness is Ms. Anna Prodanou and 4 she's going to be led by Megan Ferrier who's one of our 5 Commission counsel. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 afternoon, Mr. Ferrier. 8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Ms. 9 Prodanou. 10 MS. ANNA PRODANOU: Good afternoon. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 afternoon, Ms. Prodanou. 13 THE REGISTRAR: Do you prefer to swear on 14 the Bible or affirm or use an alternative oath? 15 MS. ANNA PRODANOU: I'll swear on the 16 Bible. 17 THE REGISTRAR: Will you please take it 18 in your right hand and state your name in full for the 19 record please. 20 MS. ANNA PRODANOU: Anna Prodanou. 21 22 ANNA PRODANOU, Sworn; 23 24 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 25 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Prodanou.


1 A: Good afternoon. 2 Q: Just to begin, we'll go over a bit of 3 your educational and professional background as is 4 relevant. You received an MA in sociology from the 5 University of Toronto in 1969; is that correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And your professional background is 8 in journalism and communications? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Would you care to speak a bit more, 11 just in general terms about your experience? 12 A: Well my -- my journalism experience 13 briefly is, I worked with a researcher and broadcast 14 journalist for CBC Radio, CBC Television. I worked as a 15 correspondent for McLean's Magazine, I worked as producer 16 for TV Ontario and I worked as a senior editor for a 17 national magazine. 18 Q: Thank you. And you joined the civil 19 service with the Ontario Government in 1992; is that 20 correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: As a communications officer and 23 communication manager? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And at that time in 1992, what was --


1 what were your areas of responsibility? 2 A: It was principally speech writing, 3 media relations, press releases, public education 4 materials, conferences and conference materials. 5 Q: And at that time you were working 6 within the Women's Directorate of the Government? 7 A: That's correct. Ontario Women's 8 Directorate. 9 Q: Okay. And then in 1994 you became 10 the Senior Communications Officer and Acting Manager with 11 the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat; is that correct? 12 A: I became Senior Communications 13 Officer. Only Acting Manager towards the -- around '95 14 when my director became -- was promoted to become 15 Director of the Ministry of Attorney General. She asked 16 me to stand in for her. 17 Q: Okay. And that director would have 18 been Janina Korol. 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And for how long did you occupy that 21 position? 22 A: I occupied it from around '95 until 23 '96 or so, and then I went on secondment to -- 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: -- Public Guardian and Trustee for


1 about ten (10) months. And then I returned to ONAS as a 2 communications officer and then I moved onto my present 3 position. 4 Q: And so in the relevant period, in 5 September of 1995, you were the Senior Communication 6 Officer and had become the Acting Manager of 7 Communications with ONAS? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And can you describe for us just in 10 general terms, what your duties were while in that 11 position with ONAS? 12 A: They were similar to my previous 13 position. I was responsible for speeches, press 14 releases, public education materials, backgrounders, but 15 in addition to that because of ONAS' role in land claims, 16 I also worked in support of public consultations, 17 sometimes preparing materials, sometimes helping to 18 organize contacts with various stakeholders. 19 Q: Thank you. Ms. Prodanou, if you 20 could maybe move the microphone over just a little bit -- 21 A: Towards -- towards me? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Okay. Sure. 24 Q: Thank you very much. 25 A: Let me know if this works.


1 Q: Okay. Moving now to 1995, as you're 2 no doubt aware a new government took office in June of 3 1995. 4 Did you participate in the briefing of any 5 ministers or their staff after their appointment during 6 the first three (3) months the Government took office? 7 A: No, I did not. 8 Q: And were you briefed or otherwise 9 made aware of the Government's policy platform with 10 respect to issues relating to Aboriginal peoples? 11 A: Not briefed formally. I was -- I was 12 aware it from various meetings in which I -- I sat in, 13 press. It was something that one absorbed, that there 14 was a change that would be occurring. 15 Q: Okay. And turning to now to the 16 events in Ipperwash in 1995, what was your first 17 awareness of the emerging events there? 18 A: I became aware of the events at Camp 19 Ipperwash though the media. 20 Q: Okay. Okay. I'm going to ask you 21 now, if you could, to look at the document -- the loose 22 document that I've provided you within the clip. 23 It's Document Number 1003358 and it's 24 Exhibit P-646. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And this is an e-mail from Julie Jai 2 and you're among the recipients. It's dated August 1st, 3 1995 and the subject is possible emergency Ipperwash. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Are you familiar with this document? 6 A: No, I saw it probably for the first 7 time today. 8 Q: Okay. So, you do not recall 9 receiving this e-mail? 10 A: No it probably was sent to me, but I 11 was away for a month in Greece that summer. 12 Q: Okay. And so then, just to confirm, 13 it -- the e-mail refers to a meeting that was to be held 14 and we've heard from other witnesses, was held, the next 15 day on August 2nd -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- 1995. You did not attend that 18 meeting? 19 A: I did not. But, I would not have 20 been probably invited to it anyway, because I'm -- was 21 not a member of the Interministerial Committee on 22 Aboriginal Issues. 23 Q: So, at that time, I guess just 24 following up from that, why do you think you would have 25 received that e-mail?


1 A: Just probably FYI, because I was a 2 communications acting manager. 3 Q: Okay. So, that being away at that 4 time -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: You wouldn't have been aware that the 7 situation at Ipperwash was discussed by the Committee on 8 August 2nd? 9 A: I was not. 10 Q: Okay. What was your first 11 involvement with the Interministerial Committee? 12 A: My first involvement was on the 13 morning of September the 5th when, that same morning, my 14 director Janina Korol who was a standing member of the 15 Committee, asked me if I would sit in for her and take 16 her place because she had other emergencies that she was 17 dealing with. 18 So, I -- I just walked into the Committee. 19 Q: And before attending the meeting, did 20 you receive any kind of briefing about the role of the 21 Committee? 22 A: No, I had not and it was very common, 23 and still is in public service, for a senior manager to 24 just call someone -- call one of her staff at the last 25 minute and say, Sit in for me, take some notes, let me


1 know if there's any action items stemming from the 2 meeting. 3 And that's what happened. 4 Q: And do you recall having seen any 5 written documents about the role of the Committee, ever? 6 A: No, not at the time that I went to 7 the meeting. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But, I did know that such a Committee 10 existed. 11 Q: And what -- what understanding did 12 you have about the role of the Committee. 13 A: I understood simply that it was a 14 Committee that would deal with various forms of direct 15 action, the road blockades or disturbances and it was -- 16 the Committee's role was to facilitate a process towards 17 resolution of the -- of the crisis or emergency. 18 Q: And prior, then, to being asked to 19 attend the September 5th meeting, had you been involved 20 in any other Aboriginal blockade or occupation-type 21 issues or similar issues while with the Government? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. Turning now to September 5th, 24 1995, when did you become aware that Ipperwash Park had 25 become occupied by people from the First Nation?


1 A: I became aware during that meeting of 2 September 5th. 3 Q: Okay. And were you present for the 4 whole meeting on September 5th? 5 A: I believe I came in late because the 6 phone call that I received was just as the meeting was 7 convening. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But, not very late because the 10 updates were still going on. 11 Q: Okay. And you took notes at the 12 meeting? 13 A: I did. 14 Q: Before we go to your notes, do you 15 have any recollection, independent of the notes, of the 16 meeting of September 5th? 17 A: I do. I remember the meeting was in 18 the green room which was the largest boardroom at ONAS. 19 It was attended by quite a few people from several 20 different ministries. 21 It was attended by Dan Newman the 22 parliamentary assistant for Native Affairs and his staff. 23 There were several political staff there. There were a 24 number of staff there who I did not know and had never 25 seen.


1 I was a fairly new employee at ONAS and -- 2 and did not attend to that -- up to that date many 3 Interministerial meetings and -- and Deb Hutton was there 4 as well. 5 Q: If you could -- just dealing with the 6 issue of who was at the meeting, just for the sake of the 7 record if you could turn to Tab 6 of the binder in front 8 of you? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: This is Exhibit P-509. It's made up 11 of two (2) different Inquiry numbers but the one we'll be 12 looking at is 1012288. 13 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 14 Q: These are the minutes of the meeting 15 prepared by Julie Jai's office. The first page is just 16 the fax cover sheet and I note you're not included in the 17 list of recipients. But, if you turn to the second page 18 which is actually the first page of the minutes, under 19 the list of people in attendance I note that your name 20 does not appear there, that Janina Korol's name does 21 appear? 22 But obviously you were in attendance at 23 the meeting? 24 A: Yes, and Janina was not. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: Yes, and I was. 2 Q: Hmm hmm. Okay. Going back -- 3 actually to stay with the list -- 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: -- for just another moment, when you 6 went into the meeting were you aware that political staff 7 were present in the room? 8 A: Once I -- I sat down yes, I was. 9 But, I didn't know what to anticipate before I went in. 10 Q: Okay. And did it strike you as 11 unusual at the time to be at a meeting with political 12 staff? 13 A: I had never been to a -- the Blockade 14 Committee Meeting and I really didn't know what its 15 composition was. So, I certainly was surprised that Deb 16 Hutton was there speaking on behalf of the Premier, but 17 whether there would have been political staff there in 18 the past or whether they should have been there I -- I 19 didn't have an opinion. 20 Q: Hmm hmm. Going back to your 21 recollections of the meeting independent from your 22 handwritten notes we've talked a bit about who was there. 23 Do you have other recollections of what 24 happened at the meeting? 25 A: Yes, I remember the meeting was very


1 tense. Initially, it started up with updates and fact 2 finding and -- and speculation about what it was that led 3 to the occupation of the Park and what -- what is it that 4 the protesters wanted. 5 There was discussion about various 6 remedies in terms of using different kinds of legislation 7 to -- to charge them. There was talk about an 8 injunction. 9 But, as the meeting progressed there 10 seemed to be more and more tension between the political 11 staff and the Ministry's government employees who were 12 providing various forms of advice, efforts at trying to 13 determine messaging, and ways in which the emergency 14 could be addressed. 15 So, there was an impatience on the part of 16 the political staff, considerable impatience to -- to 17 deal with this effectively and quickly. 18 Q: And in terms of that impatience how 19 was that evident to you? 20 A: Well, there was discussion about the 21 fact that this was to be dealt with as a trespass issue 22 not as an Aboriginal issue, that the occupiers of the 23 Park were there illegally and that they should be 24 removed. 25 And I remember in particular in one (1)


1 instance someone use a metaphor to say well, if someone - 2 - if a group of Hell's Angels landed on your front lawn 3 and set up camp there would you not be able to call the 4 police and have them removed? 5 Q: And -- 6 A: So that really stuck in my mind, that 7 metaphor. 8 Q: And do you recall who made that 9 comment? 10 A: It was a male member, political 11 member but I can't put a name to it. 12 Q: And did -- do you have any other 13 recollections before we turn to your notes? 14 A: I think my notes will refresh my 15 memory. 16 Q: Okay. If I could take you then now 17 to the document at Tab 4 of the binder in front of you. 18 This is Inquiry document number 1006191; do you recognize 19 this document? 20 A: Yes, these are my notes from 21 September the 5th. 22 Q: And can you tell us, just briefly, 23 what your practice was with respect to making notes? 24 A: Well, as a former journalist I had a 25 compulsive habit of taking notes wherever I went and also


1 because I thought that I might have to debrief my 2 director, I took fairly thorough notes. 3 With respect to these notes in some cases, 4 I don't have the name of the speaker because I didn't 5 know the speaker; a lot of the faces were new to me. 6 In some cases, I did note the speaker when 7 I knew and sometimes I tended to leave a blank when a 8 speaker changed. 9 Q: And were your notes taken 10 contemporaneously with what was said? 11 A: Yes, they were. 12 Q: Commissioner, at this time I would 13 request that these notes be entered as the next exhibit. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-730, Your Honour. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-730. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-730: Document Number 1006191. Ms. 18 Anna Prodanou's handwritten 19 notes (Interministerial 20 Committee meeting) September 21 05/'95. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 24 Q: And have you had a chance to review 25 these notes, to refresh your memory?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And just for Commissioner, your and 3 everyone else's clarity, we will -- I will be taking Ms. 4 Prodanou through her notes to some extent that may just 5 involve reading the notes into the record. 6 Where possible, though, of course, Ms. 7 Prodanou will identify where she recalls things 8 independently from the notes or where she's just going by 9 what's written there. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 13 Q: So if we start then at the beginning 14 of page -- what's noted as page 1 of your notes. 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: If you just want to start. 17 A: Yes, and I apologise I won't be 18 speaking in sentences because there's sometimes bullet 19 points or fragments and phrases. So I won't be filling 20 in that much and some of the statements won't mean a 21 great deal, but in most cases they do. 22 So, I'll begin: 23 "Two (2) legal actions -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 25 you do, I think the date is -- is the date September 5th,


1 '95? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. I noticed that 3 for some reason I wrote '96, it's '95. 4 Okay: 5 "Two (2) legal actions; old land 6 claims, 1825/1827 treaties. There is 7 no land claim or legal action with 8 respect to the Park. MNR official Park 9 title is Ontario's. Never made a claim 10 on the basis of burial ground. 11 MNR has allowed people to visit the 12 site repeatedly." 13 Q: And if I could just stop you there -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- for a minute. There's reference 16 to a burial ground. Do you recall any more about how 17 that issue came up or whether there was additional 18 discussion around? 19 A: Not -- not at this point, I don't 20 recall. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 "7:30 p.m. Stoney Pointers entered the 24 Park. 6:00 p.m. Park closed for the 25 season. Notice served that they are


1 trespassing. Officer unable to serve 2 notice -- written notice. 3 They refused to accept it and he was 4 told to leave." 5 Q: If I could stop you again? 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: One question, is there any 8 significance in your notes to the blank lines that appear 9 between some of the handwriting? 10 A: It's usually when a speaker changes, 11 but I can't guarantee that it happened every time. 12 Q: Okay. And with respect to that block 13 of text can you -- do you recall who was speaking at that 14 point? 15 A: I think this was the report from the 16 MNR staff on site. 17 Q: And do you recall whether any 18 additional information as to the people who had entered 19 the Park, whether additional information was given at 20 that point? 21 A: There may have been, but I didn't 22 take it down. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: Should I go on? 25 Q: Yes, please.


1 A: "They have not issued any statements 2 or press releases, no media in Park. 3 This [and this is in quotes] -- the 4 Park is ours now. They'll be paying us 5 now, the rationale being the burial 6 sites." 7 This is in quotes because this was related 8 as a third party statement by one (1) of the MNR 9 employees, being one (1) of the native protestors said 10 this. 11 Q: Okay. Hmm hmm. 12 A: "Stoney Point is number 43, it's the 13 number assigned that -- for the land 14 that is being claimed, but there is no 15 number 43." 16 I can't clarify what that means. 17 "Municipality may be going for an 18 injunction for blockage of municipal 19 road." 20 And then someone says: 21 "Call INAC, Ministry of Defence in the 22 loop. Also municipality in an effort 23 to liaise with other levels of 24 government. MNR, Peter Allen, 25 speaking. MNR contingency plan."


1 And there's a line that has been cut off 2 in many of the xeroxes and that is: 3 "There has been no discussion as to 4 what they want." 5 It's a line that doesn't appear in the 6 Xeroxes. 7 "If municipality wants to issue, i.e. 8 an injunction, good. MNR must be 9 cautious. Is there physical plant 10 under threat. Aboriginals want 11 government to take action, i.e. 12 injunction. The Deputy wants 13 injunction ready, but not serve now. 14 Park not being used. There is another 15 park fifteen (15) minutes away." 16 Q: And if I could just stop you there. 17 Do you recall, those notes that begin at the top of page 18 2 -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- are they attributed to the same 21 speaker who is speaking at the bottom of page 1? 22 A: I think that's a continuation of what 23 Peter Allen said. 24 Q: And in terms of the final two lines: 25 "Park not being used. There's another


1 park fifteen (15) minutes away." 2 What did you understand those comments to 3 mean? 4 A: Well, the Park is closed and that the 5 public can use a -- a nearby park. 6 Q: And what was the significance of 7 that? 8 A: That reopening the Ipperwash Park, I 9 think the speaker is saying the reopening of Ipperwash 10 Park is not a pressure on MNR because there's another 11 park fifteen (15) minutes away. 12 Q: Okay. And one (1) final question 13 before you go on. On the right side of the page the 14 word, "Deb," is written at an angle. 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: And that -- is that your handwriting? 17 A: No, it isn't. It seems as if it's a 18 sticky that appeared there for some reason at some point. 19 Q: Later after you had taken notes? 20 A: Yes, after I submitted the notes. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: Because the next speaker is Jeff. 23 "MNR minister, staff, if we get an 24 injunction we'll have to act." 25 And then I have a horizontal arrow with


1 the word, "escalate." I use a horizontal arrow sometimes 2 as a shorthand to indicate cause and consequence that as 3 a consequence of that -- 4 Q: Hmm hmm. 5 A: -- it'll escalate, or as a result of 6 that there'll be an escalation. 7 "Let's wait to hear what they're 8 statement -- let's wait to hear what's 9 their statement. The Court will expect 10 you to act on an injunction and execute 11 [arrow] therefore remove occupiers." 12 And then someone said -- it may be the 13 same speaker, maybe someone else, probably someone else: 14 "Public safety not an issue." 15 And then someone is asking: 16 "What is the tolerance level of 17 government? What about potential 18 damage to buildings? [And] Diffuse 19 issue." 20 Just a simply phrase, "Diffuse issue." 21 Oh, sorry, no. 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: "Different issue." And it's almost - 24 - I underlined it as if there was a change of topic here 25 --different issue.


1 Q: Just before going on -- 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: -- to go back to the line where 4 you've noted public safety not an issue, can you recall 5 any additional conversation around public safety? 6 A: Not at this point. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: So: 9 "Different issue re: Serpent Mounds." 10 Someone is saying: 11 "We have a lease and pay rent to use 12 that land." 13 And then I remember Deb asking: 14 "Why didn't this Committee meet re. 15 Serpent Mounds. 16 The Premier is hawkish. We are being 17 tested." 18 And I put this in quotes because I think 19 those were her words. 20 Q: And just in terms of that, because 21 we're going through your notes, do you, independently 22 from your notes, recall Deb Hunter using the word 23 'hawkish'? 24 A: I can't say at this point whether my 25 recollection of the word 'hawkish' comes from the notes.


1 I know that it became a bit of an issue later. 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: And was in the press and so I -- I 4 know that she said that because I wrote it and I take 5 very accurate notes. 6 Q: And can you recall the manner in 7 which it was said or how the discussion was going at this 8 point? 9 A: Well the discussion as my further 10 notes will -- will show, was -- was moving towards the 11 political staff taking a harder line. Taking a line that 12 the Premier is interested in this. That the Government 13 needs to be seen to be acting. 14 And that sitting around and talking about 15 it and spinning messages isn't going to get us anywhere. 16 That was my impression. 17 Q: Okay. And going back to your notes. 18 A: Okay. Someone asked, have not dealt 19 with SPR: 20 "We have not dealt with SPR." 21 Q: And what is SPR. 22 A: SPR, as I knew it, because it was 23 created before I joined ONAS, was the Statement of 24 Political Relationship. It was a -- a sort of a mission 25 statement that guided the relationships between the


1 Government and Aboriginal people and it had certain 2 protocols attached to it about who would speak to whom, 3 under what circumstances and it recognized aspirations to 4 self government of Aboriginal people. 5 Q: And do you recall when you became 6 aware of the Statement of Political Relationship? 7 A: I became aware of it gradually as I 8 started working at ONAS because some people had it pinned 9 to their pin-board. Not the whole document, I'm aware 10 now there is a longer document. 11 But they had a -- a small embossed card 12 with the vision statement and signatures of chiefs and 13 politicians. 14 Q: And so when the comment was made in 15 the meeting, "have not dealt with SPR," what did you 16 understand that to mean? 17 A: I understood that to mean that there 18 has -- the relationship between the new government and 19 the Native people is in limbo. That there has been no 20 new protocols established or new ways of communicating 21 and -- and at that time no one really knew what the 22 status of the SPR would be, as well as many of the other 23 policies that we were governed by. 24 Deb is speaking next: 25 "We have clear ownership of property.


1 Maybe we should act." 2 And again, I put this in quotes because 3 those were her exact words. 4 "Concern will grow from Township and 5 Chief Tom Bressette." 6 Now I don't know whether she said that but 7 I assume she did as well. 8 "Tom Bressette gave government support. 9 Gave government support to action of 10 government against the occupiers." 11 And here we have the numbers. Someone 12 reported on the numbers, that there are eighty (80) 13 people at the base. Forty (40) in the Park. And someone 14 said all together this is more than the entire number of 15 Stoney Pointers. 16 "And therefore there may be other 17 people from elsewhere in the province 18 there." 19 So, my statement says: 20 "Others from the Province there. It's 21 a difficult scene for police to secure. 22 There are neighbours, cottages, 23 Residents Association." 24 So this is probably someone again from MNR 25 speaking. Because this is reporting from the site.


1 Next speaker is Liz Christie and she's 2 outlining a number of legal options that we might, or the 3 group might have been able to avail themselves of. 4 "Five (5) options, Criminal Code 5 mischief, civil injunction, Trespass to 6 Property Act, Public Lands Act, 7 Provincial Parks Act [and then] 8 injunction again." 9 So there was some discussion, considerable 10 discussion about this. 11 Q: And so you recall there was 12 considerable discussion around there. Do you recall more 13 details about that discussion or...? 14 A: Not that I can reconstruct, no. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: Someone -- the next speaker speaks: 17 "Process to save the OPP or MNR..." 18 Q: I think -- 19 A: "Serve the OPP or MNR would lay 20 charge and brought to Court. You may 21 still have a problem getting them off 22 the land. We would serve them with a 23 notice of proceedings re. injunction, 24 but problem if they don't comply 25 without Court Order [arrow] contempt


1 charges would be laid. 2 Peter Allen, no evidence there's a 3 burial site in the Park. To prove it 4 is extremely expensive." 5 Q: And just before going on, just to 6 confirm that -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- the two (2) portions of your notes 9 before you've noted Peter Allen, do you recall who is 10 speaking at those points? 11 A: Yes, Peter Allen. 12 Q: Before he was -- 13 A: Oh -- 14 Q: Sorry. 15 A: -- before him, sorry. 16 Q: Yeah, that's okay. In the notes 17 before. 18 A: Process to serve the OPP -- no. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: Before Peter Allen, no, I can't 23 attribute that. 24 Q: So turning then to page 4 of your 25 notes.


1 A: Hmm hmm. This is Deb speaking: 2 "Premier wants to deal with group as if 3 they were non-aboriginals. Ron [and I 4 think this is Ron Fox] saying is 5 different. Jeff is saying SPR, again 6 raising the SPR, in context." 7 Jeff speaking, and here I think we're 8 starting to try to arrive at some messaging, public 9 messaging. 10 "Park closed to all users. All users 11 have left. MNR is being denied access. 12 Group has been informed that they are 13 trespassing and told -- and told them 14 to leave. 15 We will be seeking an injunction from 16 the Courts. We have clear title to the 17 Park. It's our Park we will be taking. 18 We will be taking appropriate action to 19 remove them." 20 And then quotes: 21 "This government treats aboriginal and 22 non-Aboriginal people the same." End 23 of quote. 24 Q: And do you recall who made that 25 comment?


1 A: I assume it was Jeff but because I 2 have a space there, I can't be 100 percent sure. It may 3 have been Jeff, it may have been Deb; it was one of the 4 political staff. 5 And again: 6 "We're playing with messages. We have 7 clear title to the Park. We have 8 informed the group we will be taking 9 appropriate action. We will be 10 removing the dissidents. This will be 11 at OPP discretion. Only MNR minister 12 will speak. Refer to OPP for specific 13 questions on the ground." 14 This is referring to who would be the 15 public -- have public carriage of -- of media, to the 16 media. 17 Refer to specific questions on the 18 ground to OPP. Meet tomorrow for 19 further direction." 20 That line's probably very faint on other 21 copies. And that's the end of the meeting. 22 Q: And do you recall -- was there 23 anything that you were supposed to do as a result of the 24 meeting? 25 A: Well, I took notes.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: I phoned Janina. I don't think we 3 actually -- I don't know whether we made contact that day 4 and I was -- my main responsibility was to keep track of 5 clippings and media coverage and to monitor that. 6 Q: And in your notes you had noted that 7 MNR would be doing messaging, so you -- 8 A: It was very clearly stated in the 9 meeting that MNR would be responsible for communications 10 since this was their Park and that was the practice of 11 the Committee. If it was a road blockage, then it would 12 be MTO. If it was an MNR issue then it would be MNR. 13 Q: So you would not be responsible for 14 messaging then? 15 A: Not in this instance, no. 16 Q: Okay. If you could turn to Tab 6 of 17 the binder in front of you, it's again Exhibit P-509 and 18 Inquiry Document Number, at least for the first pages, is 19 1012288. 20 And again these are the meeting notes sent 21 around by Julie Jai. Were you involved in the 22 preparation of these notes? 23 A: No. 24 Q: And do you recall receiving the 25 meeting notes?


1 A: I don't think I received the meeting 2 notes of the 5th right after the meeting. I may have at 3 some point later as I pulled files together on this. 4 Q: And if you turn to page 3 of the 5 actual meeting notes. Point number 4 is headed, "Next 6 Steps," and the first bullet point says: 7 "Each ministry is to be responsible for 8 briefing its minister regarding this 9 issue." 10 Did you play any role in briefing your 11 minister on this issue? 12 A: No. No, it would have been Julie and 13 Yan. 14 Q: Okay. And I think you've already 15 said, but just to confirm your involvement on the 16 Ipperwash issue for the balance of the day included 17 watching media coverage? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: And other duties that I had at ONAS, 21 but -- 22 Q: That would not -- 23 A: -- that's all it is. Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- have related to this particular 25 file?


1 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 2 Q: Yes. Okay. Moving now to September 3 6th, 1995, did -- did you attend the committee meeting on 4 September 6th? 5 A: I did. Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And you were again instructed by 7 Janina Korol to attend in her place? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And were you present for the whole 10 meeting? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you again took notes of the 13 meeting? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And again before we go to your notes, 16 do you have any recollection of the meeting, the 17 Interministerial Committee Meeting of September 6th, 18 independent of your handwritten notes? 19 A: There was a lot more talk about an 20 injunction. There seemed to be more sense of urgency in 21 particular from the political staff about it. 22 At some point Deb Hutton suggested that 23 she would speak to the Premier and I also remember, and 24 this is not in my notes, as the meeting concluded and 25 everyone rose to pick up their files and she and staff --


1 Deb Hutton and colleagues were walking out of the office 2 or out of the boardroom. She said, I can't believe I 3 just wasted so much time at this meeting. 4 Q: And just to go back to a couple of 5 those, the -- in terms of your last comment what did you 6 understand from Ms. Hutton's remarks about having wasted 7 time at the meeting? 8 A: Well, it really stuck in my mind 9 because at that time we were all looking for signals from 10 the Government as to what our role would be at ONAS. We 11 knew that that role might be changing. We were looking 12 for signals and to have the work of the committee 13 dismissed so casually was to me a signal and a very 14 disappointing one. 15 Q: And to go back to the other thing 16 that you had mentioned about Ms. Hutton I think you said, 17 but please correct me, that you thought that she was 18 consulting with the Premier or speaking with the Premier? 19 A: That's what she seemed to convey, but 20 I didn't follow her out of the room so I don't know what 21 happened. 22 Q: So, at some point Ms. Hutton left the 23 meeting -- 24 A: Left the meeting, the boardroom. Hmm 25 hmm.


1 Q: And did she say that she was speaking 2 with the Premier? 3 A: When she came back I don't think she 4 told us whether she reached him or not. But when she -- 5 but she did convey that she would be speaking with him 6 during the meeting. 7 Q: And what did you understand from 8 that? 9 A: I thought she probably wanted to 10 update him on where the Committee was going and perhaps 11 get some direction, I -- I don't know. 12 Q: Okay. And I think at this point we 13 will turn to your notes. 14 A: What tab are we on? 15 Q: It's Tab 5 of the binder in front of 16 you. And this is Inquiry Document Number 1011763. And 17 for the sake of the record, I'll just mention they've 18 been -- these handwritten notes have been entered twice 19 as exhibits. 20 First at Exhibit P-548 at which time they 21 were identified as notes from an unidentified person. 22 And then also entered as Exhibit P-638. 23 So again, these are your notes taken at 24 the September 6th, 1995 Interministerial Committee 25 meeting?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And did you take these notes 3 contemporaneously with what was said? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you've had a chance to review 6 these notes to refresh your memory? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: So again, just starting at the 9 beginning on page 1, if you could take us through them. 10 A: Yes. I numbered the first four (4) 11 agenda items; minutes, press coverage, briefings and 12 steps. This is abbreviated. There was some discussion 13 about negotiations: 14 "Diffuse their land claim. We are not 15 in negotiations. No effort being 16 used." 17 I'm not sure who the speaker was. I 18 underlined the word 'not' because someone said this 19 emphatically. Another speaker: 20 "OPP reports Stoney Pointers have an 21 interim spokesperson. Bert Manning 22 related to Rose Manning of the 23 occupation of the army base. 24 OPP to schedule meeting with him at 25 twelve noon. Made no demands but said


1 'Their land and burial ground.' 2 Numbers of people, thirty-five (35) to 3 forty (40). Not reduced to seven (7) 4 but only sited at a point. 5 Aerial surveillance. Chief of Band 6 said position same as on camp. 7 'Splinter group not acting on behalf of 8 that Band and council.' 9 Three (3) parties responsible for 10 weapons, charges and damage. Warrants 11 for arrest for these. Fire started. 12 When officers responded to fire on 13 road, officers stoned. 14 Army Camp Road. No evidence of 15 firearms." 16 Q: And just to stop you there to take 17 you back to a couple of things on the first page of your 18 notes. After the itemized agenda at the top, there's 19 reference to negotiations. 20 And you've noted, "We are not in 21 negotiations"; what did you understand or what do you 22 understand that to mean? 23 A: I understood it to mean that we were 24 not to give the impression or no impression is to be 25 given that this would be a subject for negotiations.


1 That the occupation would be a subject for negotiations. 2 But I don't remember who was speaking and 3 I don't know whether this is direction from political 4 staff. I think so. 5 Q: And then for the next block of text, 6 it starts with "OPP Report" on the first page of your 7 notes. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Do you recall who was speaking then 10 or who was providing that information? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Or do you recall the source of that 13 information? 14 A: No. But it was someone on the 15 ground. Either one of the MNR employees or MNR employees 16 using OPP reports. 17 Q: Okay. And if you want to continue 18 then with page 2 of your handwritten notes. 19 A: "Inspector Carson incident commander. 20 There is, 'no negotiations, no offers 21 from Band. This is a police issue.' 22 Peter Sturdy [that's Peter Sturdy 23 speaking} buildings broken into being 24 used. Anxiety from land residents. No 25 confirmation of automatic fire. And


1 directions from ministers." 2 Q: And just before we go on, the note 3 "no confirmation of automatic fire"; but do you recall 4 discussion around there having been automatic fire? 5 A: No but there was some speculation 6 either they armed or are they not armed and this issue 7 came up once or twice in both meetings. 8 And in this instance the report was that 9 there was no confirmation of automatic fire. 10 Q: And then -- 11 A: Shall I go on? 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: "Directions from ministers. MNR 14 media accountability between eight (8) and ten (10)." 15 I don't know whether that's time or I'm 16 not sure what that refers to. 17 "Minister stuck to his script. Hartson 18 (sic) does not want to carry it longer. 19 Municipality upset because DND said the 20 situ [which is my shorthand for 21 situation] would be contained to base. 22 This did not happen. 23 Now that charges have been laid, how 24 much can any minister say? 25 Dave: Direction from AG [this is


1 probably the AG's EA, Dave Moran]. 2 Direction from AG if we are being asked 3 to seek injunction, will do so ASAP. 4 Who has public carriage? 5 Katherine: Longstanding protocol. SG 6 not involved in day to day operations." 7 This is a little fragmented. 8 "Julie: We should get a civil 9 injunction ASAP." 10 Q: And just a question about that before 11 you go on. Do you recall why or is there any reason why 12 that has a number 1 in front of it or do you recall the 13 discussions around -- 14 A: Yes, because -- 15 Q: -- that point? 16 A: -- the next page has 2 and 3 and this 17 is an effort, again, to arrive at some kind of a 18 consensus as to public messaging and we went through 19 those rounds several times with different people, trying 20 on different messages to see what would gain consensus. 21 So: 22 "(1), we should get a civil injunction 23 ASAP. Public safety paramount. 24 [That's number 2]. 25 (3) Criminal charges up to OPP


1 discretion as a police matter." 2 Q: And then again if I could just stop 3 you. Do you recall with respect to number 2, public 4 safety paramount. You've said that it was -- that at 5 this point in the meeting you were -- or messaging was 6 being worked out, but do you recall the source of that 7 comment or earlier discussion around public safety? 8 A: I think it was generally accepted in 9 the meeting that that was -- would be an important 10 guiding consideration with respect to anything that would 11 be done. 12 So, that was repeated several times. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: Shall I go on? 17 Q: Yes, please. Thank you. 18 A: And then Peter Allen. 19 "We have kept these issues local. A 20 local spokesperson." 21 I think he was looking for a local 22 spokesperson. 23 "The Committee has vetted news release 24 [and Deb is speaking], the issue has 25 already hit highest level but not


1 averse to it being a Provincial 2 Government action." 3 Q: And what did you understand that 4 comment to mean? 5 A: That this issue has reached the 6 highest level and -- 7 Q: What would it -- 8 A: Cabinet, Premier. She was speaking 9 for the Premier. I didn't particularly stop to try to 10 figure it out, but I think she was speaking for Cabinet, 11 Premier. And when she said, Not averse to it being 12 Provincial Government action I understood it to mean that 13 the Government would be -- would be comfortable with seen 14 taking leadership on this issue. 15 Again trying to message: 16 "Seek injunction [number 1]. Number 2, 17 remove occupiers. Reiterating goals 18 here. Instructions have been given to 19 Attorney General to seek an injunction. 20 Notice shall be served on people in 21 Park that injunction being sought." 22 Q: And -- I'm sorry, just to stop you -- 23 A: Yes? 24 Q: -- again there. Where your note 25 indicates instructions have been given to Attorney


1 General to seek an injunction, can you recall who is 2 speaking? 3 A: No, I can't. No. 4 Q: And do you know who gave the 5 instructions referred to? 6 A: No, I don't remember. 7 Q: Thank you. 8 A: Oh, as I read further down this -- 9 there is more here about a three (3) day notice. And it 10 may have been one (1) of the two (2) MAG lawyers who were 11 going to -- who were working on the injunction because 12 they had the information about time lines, about what if 13 evidence would be sufficient, what kind of an injunction 14 should be sought? 15 So, there is quite a bit here about the 16 requirements for the injunction. 17 Q: And do you recall who the two (2) 18 lawyers were in the meeting? 19 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. Tim McCabe and 20 Elizabeth Christie. 21 Q: Okay. If you want to continue then 22 with that discussion? 23 A: Yes, so the injunction is being 24 sought. 25 "We would go to court. Even rules


1 provide for three (3) days' notice. We 2 ask for that to be abridged. We have 3 to go to court with material that this 4 is a Provincial Park. We want these 5 appended to the affidavit, a title 6 history. Leith Hunter getting 7 documents from Sarnia Office. Best 8 date Friday." 9 Q: And just before we go on, since that 10 -- those notes dealt with the idea of an injunction do 11 you recall discussion around getting an ex parte 12 injunction? 13 A: There were several injunctions 14 mentioned and not being a lawyer I was not really very 15 clear on what kind of an injunction. There were ex 16 parte, interim, civil, several different kinds of 17 injunctions, and I understood that some of them required 18 stricter evidence, could be obtained quicker, and others 19 took longer and there would be a waiting period. 20 Q: And do you recall additional comments 21 about -- around ex parte injunctions? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. We'll continue then with your 24 notes. 25 I think you were at the second line from


1 the bottom of page 3. 2 A: Yes. I have the word here 'Premier' 3 underlined and I think this must be Deb speaking on his 4 behalf that the longer the occupiers are there, the more 5 chance for occupiers to get support and arms. 6 There was concern that there may be others 7 -- there might be a magnet for other dissident group -- 8 groups. 9 Q: And do you recall any more about why 10 that was a concern? 11 A: Well, there had been Oka, Gustafson 12 Lake; it's -- it was in -- I think against the background 13 of those events that the concern occurred. 14 Q: And do you recall a discussion in the 15 meeting about those events at Gustafson Lake and Oka? 16 A: No, I don't recall a discussion, no. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: "Tim: That suggests to criminal 19 charges." 20 I don't know why he just said that one (1) 21 line there. 22 And then Ron Fox speaking. He's 23 summarizing here: 24 "A closed provincial park (appearance). 25 Occupiers can leave peaceably.


1 Criminal law is severe. This is 2 mischief. Dispute over property. We 3 need long term solutions. Injunction 4 more palatable. Imprudent to rush in. 5 Forms of individuals will change as a 6 result of pressure from community. 7 Example, Branford." 8 Still, Ron Fox. 9 "Communication AG re. injunction. OPP 10 will never communicate time of 11 intervention. Warrants for arrests of 12 three (3) individuals issued. OPP will 13 serve these. Laying of criminal 14 charges will assist application for 15 injunction." 16 Q: And just to stop you there. If you 17 go -- do you recall whether all of these comments can be 18 attributed to Ron Fox? 19 I mean, he's noted at the second line of 20 the page and then also a bit further down. 21 Do you recall whether other speakers were 22 making comments? 23 A: I think he can definitely be 24 attributed at the top part of the page, but as I move 25 down I -- I don't know --


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- whether that's him summarizing or 3 someone else summarizing abound the warrants and the 4 charges. 5 Q: And do you recall -- you've noted an 6 example I think Branford? 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Do you recall what that was in 9 reference to? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Please continue if you would. 12 A: Okay. 13 "Katherine: They may return to the 14 Park." 15 And here Peter from MNR. 16 "Gunfire has occurred. MNR staff 17 accompanying OPP. There are cottagers 18 and residents. Access to beach blocked 19 -- blockaded. 20 Two (2) individuals run away. Tables 21 removed." 22 Q: And then with respect to the notes, 23 gunfire has occurred. Do you recall the source of that 24 information? 25 A: Well, it's Peter speaking but I don't


1 know where he got the information. 2 Q: Thank you. And then page 5 of your 3 handwritten notes. 4 A: "Tim: Order granted Friday. Police 5 can enforce order." 6 And then he used, sort of, a metaphor in 7 quotes: 8 "Good cop, bad court." 9 I understood by that, that he felt this 10 would make the job easier for the police to go in and 11 say, Look, we've got to get you out of here, we have a 12 court order, that the court has ordered us to do this. 13 "OPP says they have to go. If they 14 refuse to go, they're in breach of 15 court order. 16 Police have laid charges, issued 17 warrants for arrest of four (4) 18 individuals." 19 And then Dave speaking. And that's Dave - 20 - I'm sorry? 21 Q: I was going to ask if you recall 22 which Dave is speaking. 23 A: This would have been Dave Carson, our 24 legal counsel -- 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: -- because he speaks about various 2 requirements under the Cemeteries Act. He's speaking 3 about: 4 "Provincial obligation is there -- is 5 in a -- is a burial site. Even if 6 there are human remains, the title 7 resides with Ontario. 8 Cemeteries Act contains requirements. 9 Person discovering burial site would 10 notify coroner and police. MCCR would 11 receive notice of burial site and 12 investigate -- instigate investigation. 13 It is mere conjecture that there are human 14 remains. 15 If there were, it would be an 16 unapproved Abor [or Aboriginal 17 cemetery]. 18 [Arrow pointing to] then notice would 19 be given to local Band Council, then 20 negotiations for disposition of remains 21 and possibility of arbitration. 22 Chris: Someone to diffuse tensions. 23 Consistency of message." 24 Q: And do you recall who Chris was? 25 A: That was Chris Buhagiar. He was an


1 aide to MPP Dan Newman. And then Deb speaking: 2 "Political direction to Provincial 3 Police? MNR as property owner has right 4 to remove. Cannot insist OPP remove. 5 Only ask." 6 And that's someone else speaking. 7 Q: So, the last line there was not -- 8 A: I think it was an answer to her -- to 9 her question about political direction to OPP. 10 Q: And what -- what does that mean, or 11 that note mean? 12 Can you recall what the -- 13 A: The last two (2) -- two (2) lines? 14 Q: No I was just wondering about the 15 first line, "political direction to Provincial Police." 16 If you recall the discussion around that 17 or the context? 18 A: I don't recall the discussion, no. 19 But there was some discussion, I think, even earlier 20 about the time of any intervention and that it's entirely 21 to OPP discretion. I think that's in my notes. 22 So, maybe this is just revisiting it. 23 Q: Okay. That concludes your notes, 24 then, from the September -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: -- 6th, 1995 Interministerial 2 Committee meeting. 3 Is there anything else that you can recall 4 about the meeting, about what happened, or what was said? 5 A: Well, as I mentioned before, on 6 leaving the meeting, I think Deb was very frustrated with 7 the meeting and the rest of us were feeling frustrated 8 too. 9 There seemed to have emerged a plan of 10 action to seek an injunction and Tim and Elizabeth were 11 going to proceed on that, but there was still sort of an 12 air of -- of uncertainty about everything. 13 Q: What -- can you say a bit more about 14 what you mean -- 15 A: An air of unease -- unease, 16 especially on my part. I can't speak of -- for everybody 17 but when I heard that comment about the -- what a waste 18 of time it's been. For me it was extremely informative. 19 I was a new employee, I felt there was a 20 great deal of information that I learned, not having 21 attended these meetings before and I found the process 22 very consultative and interesting. So, I was 23 disappointed that she felt that it was so useless. 24 Q: And again, your impression that she 25 thought that it was useless was based on comments that


1 she made during the meeting, the comments that you had -- 2 A: Well, I -- 3 Q: -- heard her make? 4 A: -- don't know what she had in her 5 mind when she said that. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: But it was apparent from the comments 8 that she made -- she and several other staff, political 9 staff, is that they were frustrated with the way the 10 Committee was trying to get at the issues very slowly, 11 asking questions, raising a lot of different angles, 12 basically talking about it as opposed to doing something. 13 Q: Okay. And during the meeting, did 14 you hear anyone say -- well, I should -- at any point did 15 you -- during or after the meeting, did you hear anyone 16 say, Get the fucking Indians out of the Park and use guns 17 if you have to? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Or other words to that effect? 20 A: No. 21 Q: If you could turn again to Tab 6 of 22 the binder in front of you. This is again Exhibit P-509 23 which contains the minutes from the two (2) meetings. 24 And if we turn to the -- I believe it's the seventh page, 25 the notes from the September 6th meeting are there.


1 And this part of the exhibit is document - 2 - is from Document Number 1012252. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And just to confirm, were you 7 involved in the preparation of these meeting notes? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Do you recall receiving them at the 10 time? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: I don't recall the specific timing of 15 receiving them. They look familiar. I have seen them 16 following the September events. But, yeah, I have 17 received them at some point but I don't receive -- 18 remember the day or the time. 19 Q: Okay. And if you could turn to page 20 3 of the meeting notes. 21 A: I'm sorry, page 3 of? 22 Q: Of the meeting notes. It's the last 23 page. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And at point number 5; Next steps.


1 It then says: 2 "It was agreed that an injunction 3 should be sought ASAP." 4 And then note: 5 "Following the meeting cabinet directed 6 MAG lawyers to apply immediately for an 7 ex parte injunction. 8 Tim McCabe, Elizabeth Christie and 9 Leith Hunter are preparing the 10 application and compiling the 11 supporting documentation." 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Just from looking at that, do you 14 recall any more about the discussion of the possibly of 15 an ex parte injunction at the meeting itself? 16 A: I think it was dismissed that there 17 would not be enough evidence to support an ex parte 18 injunction. 19 Q: Do you recall who it was dismissed 20 by? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Or what was said? 23 A: It may have been Tim McCabe. I don't 24 remember exactly. 25 Q: Do you recall what you did after the


1 September 6th meeting? 2 A: Yes. I went back to my office and 3 continued to keep an eye on media with relation to this 4 file and took on my other duties. 5 Q: If you could turn to Tab 8 of the 6 book of documents in front of you. This is Inquiry 7 Document Number 1011770 and it's already been entered as 8 Exhibit P-653. 9 It's an e-mail from Julie Jai, dated 10 September 6th at 12:54, and the subject is Ipperwash 11 update. 12 Do you recall receiving this e-mail? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Did you do anything as a result of 15 receiving this e-mail? 16 A: I'm sure I forwarded it to my 17 director, Janina Korol. I think I was copied on it FYI 18 and also because I was referenced in it as being the 19 person responsible for the media coverage -- monitoring 20 media coverage. 21 Q: Thank you. And if you could next 22 turn to Tab 9 of the binder in front of you. This is 23 Inquiry Document Number 1003520 and this has already been 24 entered as Exhibit P-654. 25 This is an e-mail from Julie Jai. Do you


1 recall receiving this e-mail? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And did you do anything as a result 4 of receiving this e-mail? 5 A: I would have forwarded all these e- 6 mails to Janina, but no I did not. 7 Q: And also with respect to September 8 6th, nothing to do with this e-mail, were you aware at 9 the time of other meetings held on September 6th after 10 the Interministerial Committee meeting of any other 11 meetings? 12 A: No I was not, until I was later told. 13 I was not aware that other meetings were taking place. 14 Q: On September 6th, you were not -- 15 A: That's right. 16 Q: -- aware? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: Okay. Turning now to the events of 19 September 7th, how did you learn of the shooting death of 20 Dudley George? 21 A: I learned on the radio in the 22 morning. My radio alarm. 23 Q: And do you recall then on going into 24 work what work you did in relation to Ipperwash on 25 September 7th, 1995?


1 A: Well, I tried to speak to as many 2 people as I could make contact with to find out a little 3 bit about it. I tried to reach Janina. I don't think I 4 made -- I was able to reach her. 5 I tried to speak to others in the office. 6 There was a -- an atmosphere that we were all just shell 7 shocked. And I was told that there would shortly be a 8 meeting, senior management meeting, and that we were 9 going to be visited by senior deputies and to come to the 10 meeting. 11 And that was held that morning. 12 Q: And what did you -- what was the 13 purpose of that meeting? 14 A: As the meeting took place and it 15 seemed from -- from what we were told that the purpose of 16 the meeting was to update us as to what happened, we -- 17 none of us really knew exactly what happened, to give us 18 direction as to next steps, to do some damage control, 19 and simply to -- to be there with us, with a group of 20 people who didn't know what had happened or at least in 21 my case I didn't and there were many others on staff who 22 didn't know what happened. So this is senior management 23 coming to update us. 24 Q: And so who -- who do you recall was 25 in attendance at the meeting on September 7th?


1 A: There were the ONAS members of the 2 Interministerial Committee, but there also senior 3 management such as Yan Lazor and Michelle Fordyce, 4 Wallace Smith. And there were about a dozen people there 5 I would think, maybe ten (10) to twelve (12) people. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: And the meeting started -- and Julie 8 of course she chaired it. And the meeting started with - 9 - without the deputies and they walked in a few minutes 10 later. 11 Q: And which deputies are you referring 12 to? 13 A: Larry Taman, AG and Ron Vrancart -- 14 not AG, Deputy, and -- and Ron Vrancart MNR Deputy. 15 Q: So they also attended the meeting 16 that morning? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And just -- did you take notes at the 19 meeting on September 7th? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And again before turning to those 22 notes what else do you recall about that meeting? 23 A: I recall the fact that the deputies 24 gave us some information about what had transpired. They 25 told us that the Interministerial Committee would be used


1 in a capacity of supporting a so-called control centre or 2 nerve centre which would be a very senior government 3 office located in the office of the Deputy Solicitor 4 General. 5 And there would be -- the three (3) senior 6 deputies would be managing the issue together with their 7 communication directors and a number of other designated 8 employees. And that nerve centre would be responsible 9 for information coming in and out of government, 10 communication, policy, everything that had to do with 11 Ipperwash. 12 And we would be cast in a role of -- we at 13 this point this was a mixed group of management and 14 Interministerial Committee. We would be supporting the 15 nerve centre simply by doing some research, providing 16 information, perhaps facilitating contact with the 17 Aboriginal community and creating some kind of a bridge, 18 repairing the relationship. 19 Q: And political staff did not attend 20 that -- the meeting -- 21 A: No. 22 Q: -- on September 7th? And do you 23 recall any explanation being discussed during the meeting 24 about... 25 A: No, we were simply told that there


1 would be no political staff attending the group and that, 2 'political overlay', was the term used, would happen at 3 the nerve centre. 4 Q: Thank you. If you could turn to Tab 5 11 of the book of documents in front of you. And this is 6 Inquiry Document Number 1006193. Do you recognize this 7 document? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Are these notes in your handwriting? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And these notes refer to the meeting 12 on September 7th, 1995 that you've been discussing -- 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: -- and giving evidence about? 15 Commissioner, I would request that these handwritten 16 notes be entered as the next exhibit? 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-731, Your Honour. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-731. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-731: Document Number 1006193. Ms. 21 Anna Prodanou's handwritten 22 notes, Sept. 07/'95. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 25 Q: And you've had a chance to review


1 these notes to refresh your memory? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: With respect to these notes I don't 4 intend that we cover them with the same level of detail 5 as we did with the meetings of September 5th and 6th. We 6 might just go to a few particular portions. If you can 7 take us through them. 8 Starting with -- at the bottom of the 9 first page. It appears to say, "truck drove into OPP," 10 and then if you could maybe help me with the rest of the 11 line? 12 A: Can I start a little bit higher 13 because I have here -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- "Report from police." 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: This is being reported to us as what 18 the report on the ground from the police is. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: And the report from the police was 21 that: "Between ten to 11:00 p.m., a 22 member of Band Council was driving on 23 Army Camp Road confronted by First 24 Nation occupiers. Vehicle charged. He 25 was threatened. OPP called, arrest


1 made. 2 Truck drove into OPP ranks and shot 3 into OPP. Fire returned, one (1) 4 killed, two (2) critical." 5 Q: If we could just go back for a second 6 to the -- after report from police is noted, to the 4th 7 line and where it looks like the first word is "vehicle." 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: And could you maybe tell us again 10 what the second word is? 11 A: Oh, the word -- I think I said, 12 "charged" but I think it's "damaged." 13 Q: Thank you. 14 A: Sorry. 15 Q: That's okay. So do you recall what 16 the source -- well you've said it was a report from 17 police. Do you recall what the source of the information 18 was? 19 A: This would have been something that 20 was reported on by -- I think it might have been Julie 21 who received this information. It would have been 22 someone at ONAS who received this information and was 23 reporting back to our meeting. And this is before the 24 deputies arrived. 25 We were getting an update initially and


1 sharing information among staff and waiting for the 2 deputies to arrive. 3 Q: And then along those lines at the top 4 of the second page, you've noted, it looks like Larry 5 Taman, Ron Vrancart. 6 A: Hmm hmm. "Coming here to update 7 committee." That's, again, probably Julie speaking. 8 Q: And your understanding then of your 9 notes is they weren't yet in attendance. 10 A: Not yet. And the next line says: 11 "Prepare to hear recommendations as to 12 who, how Native people contacted." 13 And we started to make a list of the 14 people that she had received calls. And there's four (4) 15 names there that came up. 16 Q: And then you have notes, are they 17 attributed then to Ron Vrancart? 18 A: Yes. Then I -- I think this is a 19 point at which the deputies came in and then Ron 20 Vrancart's speaking. Do you want me to go through that? 21 Q: Yes, please. 22 A: "Blockade committee is advisory 23 [arrow] meaning now the nerve centre. 24 Chief contact Elaine Todres. Point 25 person on communication.


1 Ron Fox SG is contact person. MNR 2 tuning up information network. 3 Information to flow to Ron Fox [and 4 then his office number]. Another 5 meeting of command centre. Blockade 6 committee will not have political 7 staff. Political overlay will be at 8 the nerve centre. 9 One person at INAC to interface with 10 us. In nerve centre is issues 11 management point for this issue." 12 Ron Vrancart continues: 13 "Communication re incident at 14 Ipperwash. Operational issue. OPP is 15 reporting around the incident. 16 Sensitive -- sensitivity not to 17 exacerbate situ [i.e., situation] and 18 spawn copy cat incidents. 19 Communication lacks context. How long 20 incident in making." 21 And then I have a line here: 22 "Michelle: There is expertise." 23 And -- 24 Q: And who is Michelle? 25 A: I think that's Michelle Fordyce


1 speaking and I think she may have just interjected here 2 that there is expertise here. 3 Q: And what did you understand that to 4 mean? 5 A: That our office has the expertise to 6 -- to deal with some of these matters. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: And then I can't make out the first 11 word there, but: 12 "Impatience in what has been done so 13 far." 14 And then Larry Taman speaking: 15 "We met this morning; Yan, Julie and 16 Larry, after the event. Ron, Elaine, 17 AG, SG, MNR." 18 Do I need to explain the acronyms? No? 19 Q: No. 20 A: "MNR ministers get accurate info 21 flowing in -- in and Ontario -- into 22 Ontario. Government clear focus for 23 decision making. Nerve centre in 24 Elaine Todres' office. Larry, Ron, 25 Elaine, ministers in Premier's office.


1 In and out fax, decision making and 2 messaging. 3 Sol Gen spokesperson re events on the 4 ground." 5 Q: And then do you recall if -- is that 6 who's speaking or is this still Larry Taman? 7 A: I think this is probably still Larry 8 Taman. 9 Q: Okay. Just turning then to the 10 fourth page of your handwritten notes, at the top then, 11 your note seems to, I think, reads: 12 "Role of blockade committee to provide 13 advice from time to time." 14 And do you recall the discussion at that 15 point? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: No. No, except that we were to 20 provide advice. It was just straightforward. 21 Q: Thank you. If you could turn, 22 actually, back to page 3 of your handwritten notes. 23 Sorry about that. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 Q: If you could maybe just read in the 3 final four (4) lines at the bottom and then tell us if 4 you have any further recollection -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- about the discussion at that 7 point. 8 A: The lines at the bottom. 9 "Sol Gen spokesperson re. events on 10 ground." 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: And, quote: "Ongoing law enforcement 13 matter," end of quote. 14 So again, reiterating that this is a law 15 and order issue. 16 "Nerve centre to be supported by police 17 and blockade committee." 18 So, we were to be there in an advisory 19 capacity, if called on. 20 Q: Did you understand that to be a 21 change in the role of the Committee? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: I didn't know what to make of it in


1 terms of what the future role of the Interministerial 2 Committee would be, except that the group that was there 3 at the time, which was senior management group, was to 4 provide advice. 5 So it wasn't clearly stated what the role 6 of the Committee would be except that it was to be part 7 of the advice giving. 8 Q: Hmm hmm. And then turning back again 9 to page 4 of your handwritten notes from the September 10 7th meeting. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Maybe if you could take us through 15 them starting now at the third line. 16 A: Hmm hmm. So: 17 "Prepare for other incidents. This is 18 group of public servants -- this is 19 group of public servants. Political 20 interface will be at another level. 21 Michelle Orian (phonetic) speak to Ron 22 Fox. Meeting at 5:00 p.m. daily." 23 Q: And again, just with respect to your 24 note that political interface will be at another level, 25 do you recall that discussion or any --


1 A: Yes because in the previous 2 statements it was spelled out that it would be at the 3 level of the nerve centre. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: "Another group [GRP is my shorthand 6 for group] marching to Point Pelee 7 (phonetic), may take over." 8 And then I have Ron here. 9 "Each minister will be speaking for 10 their 11 area [that's Ron Vrancart]. Each 12 minister will be speaking for their 13 area that they are responsible for. 14 Intent is to minimize public comment at 15 the political level. 16 Will deal with issues as they arise and 17 contacts will be identified as arise. 18 This is a law and order issue, not a 19 Native issue. 20 Intelligence gathering should be 21 discreet. The Government does not want 22 confrontations around the province. 23 Record of committee should not be a 24 matter of public record. 25 How to deal with external contact with


1 people we do business with. 2 Prepare background Q's and A's. Nerve 3 centre and suggestions with answers and 4 who." 5 And then Kirk Stevens was the director of 6 communications at Sol/Gen and he was identified as the 7 point person for communication matters. 8 Q: So, was he someone you were going to 9 be working with on messaging with respect to this issue? 10 A: I don't think we were responsible for 11 messaging. We were responsible for preparing a number of 12 documents such as names of trouble spots and various 13 other things -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- and -- 16 Q: Sorry. 17 A: -- we were to convey this to Kirk 18 Stevens. 19 Q: And just going back a bit on page 4 20 of your handwritten notes -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- around the middle of the page 23 where you've marked with an asterisk a point: 24 "Intent as to minimize public comment 25 at the political level."


1 Do you recall any more around that remark? 2 A: Any more discussion? 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: No because at this point Ron Vrancart 5 was just basically delivering instructions and speaking 6 to us and he was not really interrupted. Once the 7 deputies came in, they pretty well briefed us as opposed 8 to opening up a discussion. 9 Q: And then towards the bottom of the 10 page where you've noted, "Prepare background Q's and 11 A's," does that correspond with what you were to do 12 coming out of the meeting, is that... 13 A: Yes. This was one of the tasks we 14 were asked to do among other things. We were asked to do 15 a number of tasks and to -- that would support managing 16 the issue. 17 Q: And just -- if you could turn to Tab 18 26 of the binder in front of you. This is Inquiry 19 Document Number 1003524 which has been entered as Exhibit 20 P-718. It's an undated list of work groups. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: And does this relate to the tasks, 23 then, coming out of the September 7th meeting that you've 24 been talking about? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And your name appears under the third 2 work group which is Wallace's group. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And who is Wallace? 5 A: Wallace Smith was the Director of 6 Negotiations for ONAS. 7 Q: And then there's a handwritten note 8 to the side of that. Is that your handwriting? 9 A: No. None of this is my handwriting. 10 Q: But does the note, "back-grounder and 11 Q's and A's reflect what your work group was to work on? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Thank you. Continuing though with 14 your notes which were at Tab 11 of the binder in front of 15 you. We had finished page 4. 16 And then just in general terms can you 17 recall the discussion or what was happening when you were 18 making the notes on page 5; that appear at page 5? 19 A: I think this may have been a point at 20 which the deputies left and -- and we remained in the 21 room and talked about how we would organize ourselves 22 into the groups. 23 And -- and then there was a short break 24 and then people went to the locations that are spelled 25 out on the sheet with the work groups to different


1 boardrooms and offices and tried to pull together some 2 background information. 3 Q: So, the balance of your notes which 4 is the remainder of page 5 and then over to page 6 and 5 then page 7 which appears to have the word 'background' 6 at the top and then 'background' is underlined, has to do 7 with the work that you were doing, coming out of the 8 meeting? 9 A: Yes. Yes, and at the bottom of page 10 5 I have lists of the various groups and who might be 11 assigned to which. 12 Q: Thank you. 13 A: Oh, at the top of page 6 someone 14 reported: 15 "11:30 Tim and Elizabeth have trouble 16 persuading the judge that an injunction 17 would be of any use now." 18 That had nothing to do with the work 19 groups. 20 Q: But that's -- do you recall how that 21 information was communicated to you? 22 A: No, it may have been from -- no, I 23 don't remember. 24 Q: But over the course of the meeting 25 you --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- recorded that in your notes? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: If you could turn to Tab 13 of the 5 binder in front of you, this is Inquiry Document Number 6 1003530 and this has already been entered as Exhibit P- 7 664? Are you familiar with this document? 8 A: Yes, this is a draft of the 9 backgrounder that my group prepared. 10 Q: As a result of the September 7th 11 meeting? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And if you turn to the third page of 14 that exhibit, is that the final version? 15 A: Yes. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Aside from working on the 20 backgrounder document, after September 7th, did you have 21 any further involvement with the Ipperwash file, that you 22 can recall? 23 A: Marginal involvement by way of 24 sometimes being copied on things and having FOI requests 25 directed at me.


1 Q: Did you attend any further meetings 2 having to do with Ipperwash? 3 A: Nothing having to do with the nerve 4 centre. Occasionally there were meetings around 5 responding to letters from the public. Our communication 6 function was really quite menial in comparison to what 7 the nerve centre was handling. 8 Q: Just a moment, Commissioner. Going 9 back for a minute to September 6th, if I may, did you 10 have any discussions at all with Leslie Kohsed-Currie? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Do you know Leslie Kohsed-Currie? 13 A: I knew who she was, but in the normal 14 course of my work I didn't really work with her. 15 Q: And you didn't speak to her on the 16 6th? 17 A: No, I did not. 18 Q: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Those are my questions with respect 23 to your evidence, Ms. Prodanou. One (1) of the things 24 that we've asked virtually all of the witnesses who've 25 attended at the Inquiry is, firstly, whether there's


1 anything else that you would like to add by way of 2 evidence that we haven't covered and, secondly, whether 3 you have any recommendations that you would like to make 4 to the Commissioner for his consideration with respect to 5 fulfilling his mandate? 6 A: No, I don't feel I have enough of an 7 overview of -- of the whole file to be able to offer 8 recommendations. 9 Q: Thank you very much. Those are my 10 questions, Commissioner. 11 A: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much. We'll do a quick canvassing of cross- 14 examination and then we'll take our afternoon break. 15 Anybody wish to cross-examine Ms. 16 Prodanou? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 21 Alexander...? 22 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Very brief. Five 23 (5) to ten (10) minutes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 25 Rosenthal...?


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: About twenty (20) 2 to thirty (30) minutes, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 4 on behalf of the residents, how long do you think you 5 might be? 6 MR. CAMERON NEIL: I'll estimate fifteen 7 (15) minutes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 I think the first examiner is Ms. McAleer. 10 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Approximately half 11 an hour, sir. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And on the 16 minister -- on behalf of Mr. Harnick, Ms. Horvat...? 17 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: I'll be about ten 18 (10) minutes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 20 Ms. Hutton? 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: About an hour, 22 approximately. 23 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Mr. Runciman, 24 fifteen (15) minutes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 OPP...? 2 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Possibly five 3 (5) 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm 5 sorry, Mr. Beaubien? Mr. Sulman, on behalf of Mr. 6 Beaubien...? 7 MR. DOUG SULMAN: Approximately ten (10) 8 minutes, sir, depending on what goes before. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 10 we're just -- and Mr. -- I'm sorry, the Province of 11 Ontario, Mr. Myrka? 12 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I'm 13 thinking about twenty (20) minutes. It depends on the 14 questioning -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Depending -- 16 yes. And on behalf of the Chiefs, Mr. Horner...? 17 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Approximately ten 18 (10) minutes I would say. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. Roy? 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: At this time about 21 twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes depending. I'm last, 22 of course, so that -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 24 this is an estimate, and that's a good indication of what 25 we're doing and give you an idea what to look -- it looks


1 like we can achieve that. 2 Thank you very much, we'll take a short 3 break now. 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 5 for fifteen (15) minutes. 6 7 --- Upon recessing at 2:39 p.m. 8 --- Upon resuming at 3:01 p.m. 9 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 11 resumed. Please be seated. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 16 McAleer...? 17 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Good afternoon, 18 Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 20 afternoon. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 23 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Prodanou. 24 A: Good afternoon. 25 Q: My name is Jennifer McAleer and I am


1 one of the lawyers who's acting for the former Premier, 2 Mike Harris. 3 And although I indicated, Mr. 4 Commissioner, that I would be approximately thirty (30) 5 minutes, I think I'll actually be considerably less. 6 Ms. Prodanou if you could turn to your 7 notes of the September 5th meeting that are at Tab 4 of 8 the brief that Commission Counsel has prepared, I just 9 wanted to ask you about a notation that occurs 10 approximately two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down the 11 page. 12 All right, just one moment. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Just a brief indulgence, Mr. 17 Commissioner. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Sorry, it's actually at Tab 4, just a 22 third of the way down the first page. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Where it's indicated: 25 "MNR has allowed people to visit the


1 site repeatedly." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: No. Is it on the first page of my 4 notes? 5 Q: It's on the first page of your notes 6 of September 5th, which is at Tab and it's about a third 7 (1/3) of the way down the page. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: "MNR has --" 10 A: I see it. 11 Q: -- "allowed people to visit the site 12 repeatedly." 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you have a recollection today as 15 to what site was being discussed at that point in time? 16 A: The Ipperwash Park. 17 Q: Okay. And do you recall there being 18 a discussion about a sacred site in the Provincial Park? 19 A: Yes, I remember there being 20 discussion that there was a site that was visited and a 21 trailer was put up there. And this has happened over a 22 number of several years and at one point the native group 23 that set up the trailer were handing out educational 24 material to the public. 25 Q: Okay. So, it was your understanding


1 that that had happened in years prior to 1995? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: And did you have an appreciation on 4 September 5th that that sacred site referred to a burial 5 ground within the Provincial Park or that it was perhaps 6 something different than a burial ground? 7 A: I did not know that. 8 Q: Okay. Do you remember there being 9 some confusion on September 5th as to this idea of a 10 sacred site versus there being a burial ground? 11 A: No, I don't remember that there was 12 confusion. 13 Q: Okay. And do you recall anybody at 14 the September 5th or the September 6th meeting discussing 15 or -- or raising the possibility that somebody should go 16 and interview some of the local Aboriginal people to try 17 and find out whether or not there was an oral history of 18 a burial ground within the Provincial Park? 19 A: There was a lot of discussion about 20 trying to make contact with Aboriginal people and try to 21 find out what their concerns were and what it is that 22 they wanted. And there was frustration that such contact 23 had not occurred. 24 And there was frustration that there 25 didn't seem to be a spokesperson. But, in the second


1 meeting there was a spokesperson identified and a meeting 2 was to take place at noon with Inspector Carson and 3 everyone was looking forward to that; that meeting never 4 took place. 5 Q: Okay. Do you recall though at either 6 one (1) of those meetings anybody specifically saying 7 that the local Aboriginal people should be interviewed to 8 determine if there was an oral history of a burial ground 9 in the Provincial Park? 10 Do you remember anybody suggesting that at 11 one (1) of those meetings? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And you indicated there was a certain 14 level of frustration with respect to this inability to 15 communicate with the occupiers. 16 Do you recall at the conclusion of the 17 September 5th meeting a decision essentially being made 18 that you would leave attempts at communication to the OPP 19 and to the MNR who were already on the ground at -- in 20 the Ipperwash area? 21 A: It's usually done locally, yes; that 22 was the -- the prevailing wisdom of the committee. 23 Q: Now, if you could turn to page 2 of 24 your notes, please? 25 And now if you could go down to the --


1 two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down the page to the 2 comment about the Premier being hawkish for being tested? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: I just wanted to ask you if you could 5 elaborate a little bit more about the context of that 6 comment. And I'm going to suggest to you that there was 7 a discussion at the meeting that day where some people 8 were proposing that we should simply sit back and wait 9 for the occupiers to make their demands known, whereas 10 others were advocating that the Government should take 11 action such as pursuing a civil injunction. 12 Is that an accurate assessment of some of 13 the dialogue that was taking place on the 5th? 14 A: Yes, there were people that were 15 willing to wait. There were people that were -- there 16 was a majority that wanted a civil injunction. And I 17 would say there was a third position that was to act more 18 quickly to remove the occupiers, but how this would be 19 done was not really gone into. 20 Q: I'm sorry, I missed the last part of 21 your answer. 22 A: How it would be done was really not 23 gone into because that was -- that seemed to be reflected 24 that government could not determine the time or -- or the 25 nature of the OPP handling of the matter.


1 Q: Correct. But what the Government 2 could do would be to explore the option of a civil 3 injunction. 4 Is that a consensus that the meeting 5 reached by the end of September -- 6 A: There was -- there was a consensus to 7 seek an injunction. As I said I'm really not very 8 familiar with the names of the different injunctions. 9 'Civil' sounds right to me. 10 Q: Okay. We'll just say 'injunction'. 11 A: Injunction, yes. 12 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you that 13 Ms. Hutton's comment, "premier hawkish," was raised in 14 this context of the discussion about sitting back and not 15 doing anything versus pursuing a civil -- or an 16 injunction. 17 Does that accord with your recollection of 18 the meeting? 19 A: I wouldn't say so. I think her 20 comment was urging stronger action than a civil 21 injunction or it was -- I think she was impatient even 22 with the notion of a civil injunction. And I think, 23 "hawkish" also referred to what she said later and that 24 was that the Government was not averse to being seen as 25 taking leadership on this issue.


1 Now, what leadership was going to involve, 2 I don't know. 3 Q: Okay. Did you -- did you ask her 4 what she meant by the term 'hawkish'. 5 A: Me? No, I didn't speak at the 6 meeting. I was there just filling in for someone taking 7 notes. I didn't feel I was an expert on the issues at 8 all. 9 Q: Okay. And did you ask -- you said 10 later that was consistent with another statement that she 11 had made and I'm sorry I've lost my train of thought as 12 to what that second statement was, but wanting to be seen 13 to be in control of the situation or to take a leadership 14 role. 15 And I'm going -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- to suggest to you that that again 18 that statement was with reference to pursuing a civil 19 injunction and it related to the public messaging about 20 pursuing a civil injunction. 21 Does that accord with your recollection? 22 A: No. She seemed to be frustrated with 23 the -- with just taking a civil injunction. She seemed 24 to urge stronger action than that. 25 Q: Is there any -- any reference in your


1 notes that would help you or that -- or that supports 2 this idea of Ms. Hutton urging more serious action? 3 A: Well, there the merits of an ex parte 4 injunction were discussed and dismissed. And they were 5 raised by -- by political staff, the notion of an ex 6 parte injunction, and the merits were discussed and 7 dismissed. So I -- I think political staff were more on 8 the side of urging more urgent action. 9 Q: Okay. So, when -- when you said that 10 Ms. Hutton wanted more urgent action, you are referring 11 to this idea of pursuing an ex parte injunction as 12 opposed to an injunction in the normal course? 13 A: I don't know what she had in mind. I 14 know that that was one of the options that was discussed. 15 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Okay. If I could, 16 Mr. Commissioner, I'd like to put one of the Witness' 17 previous answers to undertakings to her on this subject 18 to see if perhaps it would refresh her memory today. 19 It's an answer that she provided back in 2003. 20 And I would just like to give her the 21 opportunity to take a look at it and see whether or not 22 it affects her -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 24 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: -- her answers. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is the


1 document already an exhibit? 2 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: I don't believe it 3 is -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 5 That's fine. 6 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: -- although I 7 stand to be corrected. It's Document Number 3000415 and 8 it's a chart that provides answers to undertakings and 9 this chart was delivered on August 1st, 2003 and it's 10 page 10 of the chart. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: I'm informed it is 15 part of P-531 already. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 18 Q: And Ms. Prodanou, I'll just give you 19 a moment to review the answer that you provided to 20 Question 3294. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. I'm just going to read your


1 answer to you and then ask you if that helps, just your - 2 - your recollection: 3 "Anna Prodanou advises: 4 "Yes, I do recall Deb Hutton saying 5 that the Premier was hawkish. The 6 circumstances were as follows: 7 Ministry staff were advocating caution 8 and debating whether to proceed with an 9 injunction or to wait for the 10 occupiers' demands in order to enter 11 into negotiations with them. 12 Someone said that if the Committee got 13 an injunction it would have to act on 14 it and this would escalate the issues. 15 Someone else said the Committee should 16 wait for their statement, i.e the 17 occupiers' demands. 18 The Court will expect the committee to 19 act on the injunction and to execute it 20 and remove the occupiers. Someone 21 stated that public safety was not an 22 issue. Someone asked what was the 23 Government's tolerance level and that 24 there might be some potential damage to 25 Park property.


1 There was a short discussion about 2 another First Nation site, Serpent 3 Mounds, where there was a disturbance. 4 Deb Hutton asked why this committee, 5 the Interministerial Committee did not 6 meet to deal with Serpent Mounds. Deb 7 Hutton said the Premier was hawkish and 8 that we're being tested. Someone said 9 that the Government had not dealt with 10 SPR, [Statement of Political 11 Relationship]. Deb Hutton said that we 12 have a clear ownership of the property. 13 Maybe we should act." 14 Now, having had the -- by the way, do you 15 recall providing answers to the lawyers who were acting 16 for the Government back in 2003 to answer undertakings 17 that were provided during the examination process? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And does this accord with your 20 recollection of the answers that you provided at that 21 time? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And having read that answer today 24 does that assist you to answer my question which is, the 25 -- the "hawkish" comment, was that made by Ms. Hutton in


1 the context of a discussion regarding whether or not the 2 committee should do anything and simply wait for the 3 occupiers to make their demands known or whether the 4 committee should be recommending that the Government 5 respond to the occupation by pursuing an injunction? 6 A: The committee voiced, especially in 7 the first meeting, a number of options including waiting 8 til a spokesperson was identified and being able to hear 9 what the concerns are. That's what is being referred to 10 when I speak about waiting to hear their demands. It 11 wasn't a long-term plan of action. 12 It became very clear as the meeting 13 progressed that the consensus coalesced around going 14 ahead with an injunction. But, there was an even more -- 15 if you look at it -- at it as a poll of do nothing 16 injunction, do something stronger -- ex parte -- there 17 was again an opinion mostly from the political staff that 18 something more urgent should be done. 19 And that's substantiated by my statement 20 about the Hell's Angel comparison that was raised later 21 in the meeting and Deb Hutton asked if someone -- this is 22 clearly a trespass issue and someone brought up the 23 metaphor of the Hell's Angels and the suggestion was made 24 that the protestors should be removed from the Park. 25 So, there was -- it wasn't an either sit


1 and do nothing or proceed with an injunction, there were 2 many different views advocated and as the meeting 3 progressed the -- the -- the general opinion seemed to 4 coalesce around going ahead with an injunction but not an 5 urgent one, but an ordinary injunction. 6 Q: Thank you. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: I also wanted to ask you about the 9 reference to what is the Government's tolerance level? 10 And I believe that, can take it -- it's also on page 2 of 11 your notes on September 5th and it's actually just right 12 before the "hawkish" comment. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: What is -- sorry, do you see it 15 there? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: "What is the tolerance level of 18 government? What about potential 19 damage to buildings?" 20 And, again, I'm going to suggest to you 21 that the discussion there was with regard to what if we 22 sit back and -- and wait? What is the tolerance of the 23 Government? For example there may be damage to the 24 buildings in the Provincial Park. Is that the correct 25 context that that statement was made in?


1 A: I think, "What is the Government's 2 tolerance level," may be referring to a broader set of 3 circumstances than just damage to buildings. What is its 4 tolerance level with -- with that kind of a disturbance? 5 Q: Do -- do you remember -- 6 A: That's the way I read it. 7 Q: Sorry, I interrupted you. Do you 8 remember who made that statement? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Do you -- was it your understanding 11 that one (1) person made those -- that one statement 12 together, those two (2) sentences go together, 13 "What is the tolerance level of 14 government. What about potential 15 damage to the buildings?" 16 Is that one (1) statement? 17 A: I'm not 100 percent sure. 18 Q: Okay. Again, if we look at your 19 answer to the undertaking at the last sentence of the 20 first large paragraph. 21 You see where it says someone asked -- 22 someone asked what was the Government's tolerance level 23 and that there might be some potential damage to Park 24 property? 25 See --


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: In your answer you seem to have tied 3 the two (2) a little bit more together. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Does that help today to assist your 6 recollection as to context in which that statement was 7 made? 8 A: Well, I guess at the time I provided 9 this -- this undertaking, I seemed to draw that 10 conclusion that there was a connection and then maybe I'm 11 not saying there isn't, I'm just saying I'm not 100 12 percent sure; there may be. 13 Q: That's fine. Do you recall if Ms. 14 Hutton left the room during the meeting on September the 15 5th? You told us about her leaving the room on September 16 6th, but at the meeting on September 5th, do you recall 17 if at one point she got up and left the room? 18 A: I don't recall. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And at the September 5th meeting, do 23 you recall anybody raising the concern that the longer 24 the occupation lasted, the more difficult it would be to 25 conclude the occupation or to bring the occupation to an


1 end? 2 A: I don't know whether that was on the 3 5th or the 6th, but there was a concern that it could 4 become a magnet for other dissidents in that the numbers 5 might grow. 6 Q: Okay. So that the longer the 7 occupation lasted, other supporters might come from 8 across the Province and join the occupiers at the 9 Provincial Park? 10 A: Well, someone raised that concern. 11 Q: Okay. Do you recall if Ron Fox 12 raised that concern? 13 A: I don't remember who it was. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And at either the September 5th 18 meeting or the September 6th meeting, do you recall 19 anybody raising the concern that the longer the 20 occupation lasted, the greater the potential for conflict 21 between the occupiers and the non-aboriginal community 22 that were living in the same general area? 23 A: I don't think it was put quite that 24 way. I think there was already -- there was concern 25 about present tensions and future tensions, but the


1 notion of the time I don't remember being brought in, 2 whether it would grow or decrease or -- I don't remember 3 that. 4 Q: Okay. That's fine, thank you. Those 5 are all my questions. 6 A: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 8 Ms. McAleer. 9 Ms. Horvat...? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 14 Q: Good afternoon. My name is 15 Jacqueline Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick at this 16 Inquiry. 17 A: Good afternoon. 18 Q: I only have a few questions for you 19 and they're all regarding the blockade committee meeting 20 on the morning of September 6th. 21 Do you have any recollection, independent 22 of your notes, of what Minister Harnick's direction or 23 instructions were, regarding Ipperwash? 24 A: Independent of my notes, no. 25 Q: You -- do you recall Julie Jai


1 expressing Mr. Harnick's direction? 2 A: I remember that in some form of 3 communication I think she received approval to go ahead 4 with the injunction; that was the outcome of the 5 recommendation of the Committee meeting. 6 Q: Can I take you to your notes at Tab 7 5. 8 A: Sure. 9 Q: Page 2. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: Now at the bottom you have the 12 heading, "Julie" and the first point is: 13 "We should get a civil injunction 14 ASAP." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Is that the instruction that Julie 17 gave from Minister Harnick? 18 A: I don't have the attribution here 19 that Minister Harnick authorized this. But I believe 20 it's summarized in one of the e-mails from Julie that 21 there was a meeting between her and Yan and Mr. Harnick. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: And that he authorized proceeding 24 with an injunction. I -- I remember that but I don't 25 remember the source.


1 Q: Okay. Do you recall at the meeting 2 on the morning of September 6th if anybody stated that 3 Minister Harnick directed that an injunction be sought 4 but not an ex parte injunction? 5 A: That he specifically said that it 6 should not be an ex parte injunction? I don't remember 7 anyone saying that specifically, no. 8 Q: If somebody had said that, would you 9 have recorded that instruction in your notes? 10 A: Not necessarily. I didn't record 11 every single word. 12 Q: Okay. Thank you, those are all of my 13 questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Thank 15 you very much. 16 Mr. Smith is not here, right? So we'll go 17 to the next and we'll go back to him tomorrow and nobody 18 -- I think the next examiner then will be Mr. Sulman on 19 behalf of Mr. Beaubien. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I have no questions, 21 thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 23 very much. I think the next examiner would be Ms. 24 Perschy on behalf of Deb Hutton. You're estimating 25 approximately an hour.


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, Commissioner. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: Good afternoon Ms. Prodanou. 5 A: Good afternoon. 6 Q: My name's Anna Perschy. I'm here on 7 behalf of Ms. Hutton. Ms. Prodanou, we've heard some 8 testimony at this Inquiry about MNR expressing some 9 concerns at these meetings about physical damage to the 10 Park, cutting down of trees, buildings being broken into 11 and also about safety of MNR staff. And I think there's 12 some references in your notes to that -- to that affect. 13 I take it that, generally, you recall such 14 concerns being raised by MNR representatives at these 15 meetings? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: I was wondering if you could be 18 provided with Exhibit P-44(a), Tab 16. Oh, I'm sorry. I 19 don't -- it's -- it's the transcripts of various 20 telephone calls and it's Tab 16 and this is the phone 21 call between Mr. Fox and Inspector Carson, on September 22 5th, 1995. 23 And we've heard some previous testimony at 24 this Inquiry that Mr. Fox had contacted Inspector Carson 25 following the meeting on September 5th.


1 And if I could just direct your attention 2 to page 119, the numbering system is at the bottom. Do 3 you have the page? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: It says: 6 "Okay, okay. Now the other thing that 7 came up at the meeting, one of the MNR 8 chaps, it wasn't Sturdy, it was the 9 other guy Ron, Carson says Baldwin. 10 Yeah. Yes. 11 And he said that he had just got 12 information that they, meaning these 13 insurgents, had an OPP car. I said no, 14 I very much doubt that." 15 And then Mr. Fox goes onto say: 16 "Well you know, why can't they be 17 charged with mischief. They're cutting 18 down our trees and they're going to -- 19 and I said, I understand they are but I 20 said one has to be identified as the 21 perpetrator for criminal offence." 22 And do I -- can I take it that you recall 23 the MNR representatives making comments along these 24 lines, raising a concern about their trees being cut down 25 and asking if, you know, if these individuals can't be


1 charged with mischief? 2 A: I'd have to find that in my notes. I 3 don't have -- I don't have specific recollection. I have 4 a collective recollection that there were complaints 5 about damage of various sorts; fires started, damage to 6 buildings, tables overturned, perhaps, trees cut. 7 If I didn't -- don't have that in my notes 8 then I can't independently say that I remember that trees 9 were cut, specifically. 10 Q: So you don't recall today if there 11 were any specific references to trees being cut down? 12 A: Specifically to trees? No, I seem to 13 remember damage to buildings, overturned picnic tables, 14 fires started on the road. There very well may have been 15 trees, but I'd have to go through my notes line by line 16 to see if I noted down -- I don't have independent 17 recollection of it. 18 Q: But do you recall that MNR 19 representatives made -- raised these sorts of concerns? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. Well, Ms. Hipfner 22 testified that she recalled that some of the MNR 23 representatives at these meetings sounded very excited 24 and very concerned. 25 Is -- is that your general recollection


1 that they seemed upset and concerned and excited? 2 A: I don't know whether they were more 3 excited than --- people spoke with different levels of 4 volume and perhaps, you know, on -- more excited, I can't 5 -- I can't read how excited they was, I would have had to 6 see them perhaps. It's hard to judge just on a telephone 7 line. 8 Q: Well, you testified that a male had 9 made some hypothetical reference to bikers and no one 10 else who has testified with respect to these meetings has 11 mentioned any such comment. 12 And I'm simply going to suggest to you 13 that if there was such a hypothetical reference it was 14 made by one (1) of the MNR staff in the heat of the 15 moment when they were upset and concerned; is that 16 possible? 17 A: No. It was someone close -- sitting 18 fairly close to Deb Hutton and it was someone that came 19 in to -- to support her view that this was a trespass 20 issue. To give an example I have a vague recollection 21 who it might be, but I would rather not say because I'm 22 not 100 percent sure, but it was one (1) of the political 23 staff because it really took me aback, that comment. I 24 just thought it was really far afield. 25 Q: But you don't have any notes of -- of


1 the hypothetical comment or -- or who -- who would have 2 made it? 3 A: No, I wouldn't have noted that. 4 Q: You just recall that it was -- 5 A: I took -- 6 Q: -- it was a man. 7 A: -- notes on substantive issue and 8 this was a -- sort of an expletive. 9 Q: Prior to your meeting on September 10 5th I take it you didn't know Ms. Hutton before and you 11 hadn't met her? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And you didn't know what her 14 experience was, prior to joining the Premier's office, I 15 take it? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And you didn't know what her specific 18 role and responsibilities within the Premier's office 19 was? 20 A: I knew she was his executive 21 assistant. 22 Q: But -- but beyond that you didn't 23 have an understanding as to her role and 24 responsibilities? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Now, we've heard some evidence that 2 this committee was advised by Elizabeth Christie, early 3 on in the meeting, that Ontario had clear title to the 4 Park. 5 Do I take it that that's your recollection 6 as well? 7 A: Yes. Someone -- one (1) legal source 8 did verify that. 9 Q: So you understood that there were a 10 group of people occupying a Park to which Ontario had 11 clear title and that this was contrary to the -- the 12 Provincial Parks Act, right; that there was some 13 reference to that at the meeting? 14 A: There was reference to provincial tax 15 -- Provincial Parks Act, but I'm not familiar with the 16 Act so I don't know what was breached. 17 Q: And that wasn't explained at the 18 meeting that... 19 A: It was assumed that people understood 20 that because most of the people there were lawyers. 21 Q: Okay. Now, I understood that one (1) 22 of your functions, at least, was to review the press 23 clippings that related to the Ipperwash Park situation; 24 is that right? Did I understand your testimony? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And I was wondering if you could be 2 provided with a copy of P-707 and P-460. P-707 is a 3 London Free Press article dated September 6th, and P-460 4 is a press release of the local Mayor dated September 5 5th, 1995. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: For the London Free Press article, 10 the document number is 100663. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And the exhibit numbers again are P- 15 707 and P-460. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's the 17 document number, the Inquiry document number for the 18 press release -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Oh yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- do you 21 have that handy? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Actually, I do have it 23 handy; I just realized. Inquiry document number 1009983. 24 And I simply wanted to ask you, Ms. 25 Prodanou, starting with the article first which is dated


1 September 6th, do I take it that on September 6th you 2 would have seen a copy of this article? 3 A: I have no way of knowing if I saw 4 this article. There were so many articles, press 5 releases, broadcast transcripts. I assembled them into 6 packages this thick and distributed them to the people at 7 the meeting. 8 I did try to read them all. I may have 9 read it, but I don't remember. 10 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And when you say 11 that you compiled all of the -- all of the clippings, do 12 you know how you went about that? 13 Was there some sort of search done to sort 14 of find all of the articles on the subject? 15 A: We have a clipping service and they 16 were faxed to us and I would separate the Ipperwash 17 clippings because we had aboriginal news on other issues 18 that were mixed with the clippings. 19 So that's what I did mostly. I would read 20 them; I would summarize them. This one may have been in 21 there or not. I can't tell. 22 Q: Okay. If you could turn now to P-460 23 for a moment, and this is a press release that was made 24 at around 1:00 p.m. 25 I'm wondering if you would have seen it


1 shortly after it was -- after -- after it was issued or 2 if somebody brought it to your attention; do you know? 3 There was a press release by the local 4 Mayor at the time. 5 A: Hmm hmm. I'm just going to read it 6 quickly. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: I don't think I've seen this, no. We 11 did not receive -- I don't think we received direct 12 communication from the Town of Bosanquet. We would have 13 received clippings. What was clipped was actual media 14 publications or broadcasts. 15 Q: Okay. So you don't recall seeing 16 this then? 17 A: No. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: But I think you mentioned that you 22 were generally aware that there were some concerns among 23 some of the local residents? You made some reference to 24 -- to some concerns with respect to the tensions in the 25 area?


1 A: Yes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Do you have any knowledge of Section 6 35 of the constitution? 7 A: I don't remember at this point, no. 8 I probably did at the time but that was ten (10) years 9 ago. 10 Q: Did you have an understanding that 11 it's an exception, effectively, to the general rule that 12 everyone, aboriginal or non-aboriginal is equal under the 13 law. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 15 if this is one witness who's not a lawyer and you're 16 asking her her interpretation of Section 35 of the 17 Constitution. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: She was just in 19 attendance at some of these meetings. I -- I'm simply 20 trying to find out whether or not she would have an 21 understanding at the time. As a non lawyer. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What was the 23 Section. Was that Section of the Constitution raised at 24 any of these meetings? I'm not sure. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I don't know. I'm


1 simply asking this -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were 3 asking her about Section 35 of the Constitution. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And I got an answer 5 and I moved actually on -- further on to another 6 principle which is a more general principle of -- of 7 equal treatment under the law. And I was just asking her 8 about that and her understanding in that regard. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were 10 asking her about her interpretation of the Constitution 11 and I'm not sure that she's a witness who can answer that 12 question. 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: She can simply say 14 that she -- she doesn't -- I'm simply asking what her 15 knowledge is. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 17 asking her about her knowledge because it was raised at 18 the meeting or just her general knowledge? 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm asking if that -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't think 21 we need your assistance here, Mr. Roy. I mean if we 22 needed it, I'm sure you'll be quick to offer it. But I 23 think we can handle this. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms.


1 Perschy...? 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was simply asking as 3 to her general understanding at the time, if she has a 4 recollection and then I was just going to be more 5 specific with respect to the meeting. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right 7 then. As long as you don't ask her for her 8 interpretation of the Constitution. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 11 Q: No. That -- that wasn't 12 -- that wasn't my intention. I -- I certainly appreciate 13 that you're a non lawyer. I just wanted to know as -- as 14 a general question whether or not at that time you had an 15 understanding that the general rule is that everyone, 16 Aboriginal and non Aboriginal is -- is equal under the 17 law. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 19 we're getting an objection now and I would like to hear 20 the objection. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well it's actually a 22 mis-statement of the law. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Equal treatment does not 25 mean identical treatment in Canadian law.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Well-- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: And the suggestion 3 implicit in the question is exactly that mis-statement of 4 one of the most important principles of equality law as 5 it's developed in Canadian jurisprudence. 6 And to put it to a non lawyer is totally 7 unfair, in my respectful submission. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I said I 9 don't want to get into an interpretation of this -- of 10 that Section with this witness. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It wasn't an 12 interpretation of the general section -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well you put 14 it -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- I asked her whether 16 she knew about Section 35. I got my answer and I was 17 asking her a different question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So it's got 19 nothing to do with the Constitution or with Section 35? 20 You're asking her -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Let -- let me ask the 22 specific question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Myrka. 24 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Sir, I'm objecting to 25 the question because as I heard it, having asked her


1 about Section 35, she asked a more general question that 2 assumed as I heard the question, that that's what 35 3 meant -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- and that led to the 6 whole series of objections. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes. 8 MR. WALTER MYRKA: In my respectful 9 submission it's got nothing to do with Ms. Prodanou's 10 evidence and I haven't heard anything that the Section 11 35, her recollection is that there was a discussion of 12 that at the meeting. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 14 either. That's why -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was moving in any 16 event and I can assure you that there weren't any hidden 17 assumptions in -- in the question. But I'm moving on in 18 any event. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 22 Q: With -- with respect to the meeting 23 of September 5th, there's some reference to Elizabeth 24 Christie referring to various statutes; do you recall 25 that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: The Criminal Code, the Provincial 3 Parks Act, et cetera, and I'm simply asking you as a non 4 lawyer, appreciating the fact that you're a non lawyer, 5 did you have an understanding that, with respect to those 6 statutes, that generally speaking they would apply to 7 everyone? Did you have an understanding? 8 A: It's not the context in which they 9 were discussed. They were discussed as possible measures 10 that might assist with laying charges or -- or addressing 11 the emergency. 12 Q: But my question simply was: Did you 13 have an understanding as to their application to 14 everyone? 15 A: No. I don't. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I'm 17 not sure what asking this witness that question has any - 18 - helps me in any way, shape or form. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: You mentioned that you were aware of 22 tensions in the local area and I take it that you knew 23 that there was some people -- some of the non Aboriginals 24 who lived in the community who were raising concerns that 25 the occupiers were not being held subject to the law in


1 the same way that non Aborig -- sorry, that non 2 Aboriginals would be. 3 Did you have an understanding that there 4 was that concern? That concern had been expressed in the 5 community? 6 A: No, I did not have much of a sense of 7 specifically what the community had conveyed except as 8 reported by the MNR staff and as recorded in my notes. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Well, you have a couple of references 13 in your notes -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: September 15 the 5th or 6th, Ms. Perschy? 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: September 5th at page 17 4. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 22 Q: And at the top of the page, there's a 23 reference to Deb: 24 "Premier wants to deal with group as if 25 they were non-Aboriginals".


1 Do you see that reference? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And I take it that from the note 4 that's a reference to this particular group of occupiers 5 who are occupying the Park to which Ontario has clear 6 title? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And further down you'd indicated that 9 Jeff Bangs was trying to arrive at some messaging and 10 that there were various points listed. And below that 11 there's a point in quotes: 12 "This Government treats Aboriginal and 13 non-Aboriginal people the same." 14 And I'm going to suggest to you that that 15 was a message, a communications message that was -- that 16 was being suggested as a possible message. 17 A: It may have been. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Julie Jai testified that she didn't 22 recall Ms. Hutton specifying any particular action at 23 either of these meetings and I take it that that's 24 consistent with your recollection? 25 A: Yes, she was just impatient, hmm hmm.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: I was going to ask if we just look at 5 Inquiry Document Number 1001490. It's a transcript of an 6 item on the CBC news on September 5th? 7 A: Is it in my binder? 8 Q: No. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: It will be appearing on your screen 13 shortly with the helpful assistance of Commission 14 Counsel. 15 And it's a transcript of items on the news 16 and I think you indicated -- were you the one who was -- 17 who was summarizing some of this information? 18 A: Yes, I did summarize some, hmm hmm. 19 Q: So, you would have received this 20 information -- this is something that you would have 21 heard on the CBC news? 22 A: Oh, I don't know if I heard it. I 23 may have received the transcript. 24 Q: Oh. 25 A: Can I just walk around to read it.


1 Q: Absolutely. 2 A: I mean, if you're going to ask me 3 questions about it specifically. 4 Q: No. 5 A: No? 6 Q: Why don't you, by all means, take the 7 time to -- to -- to read it. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't 9 you walk around so you can read it. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 12 want to strain. Just take your time and read it. The 13 way the screen is positioned, it's hard to see. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it only 18 the top item that you're referring to, or others? 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It's -- it's two (2). 20 It's the top item, the reference to the transcript at 21 noon where the announcer says: 22 "Here in Ontario MNR plans to ask for a 23 Court injunction to remove a group of 24 native people from Ipperwash Provincial 25 Park."


1 And then also the following one at 1:00 2 p.m. from the CBC news where the third paragraph they 3 say: 4 "Representatives from MNR are in Court 5 today. They want the Courts to tell 6 the occupiers to leave, but that could 7 take a day or two (2)" 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 9 further down. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 THE WITNESS: These would have been the 14 verbatim transcripts that I received. This would not 15 have been the summary that I produced because this 16 actually has the reporter and the time. 17 I produced sort of a one (1) pager saying 18 the general gist of the media coverages or there's been 19 twenty (20) articles in the dailies and five (5) radio 20 reports, so that kind of summary. 21 So, this came from our transcription 22 service. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 25 Q: Now, we've heard testimony at the


1 Inquiry, of course, that the -- the injunction wasn't 2 brought that day, but do you have any information as to 3 how or who may have provided this information to the CBC 4 on September 5th? 5 Is that something that you would have 6 done? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Do you -- do you have an 9 understanding as -- as to -- as to may -- who may -- who 10 on behalf of the Government if it was anybody who may 11 have communicated to -- to the CBC? 12 A: No, I have no idea, probably -- I 13 can't speculate. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 15 know. 16 THE WITNESS: I know that I did not. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you have 18 no idea -- 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- then 21 that's sufficient of an answer. She has no idea. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was wondering if you 23 could just make this -- this -- this page... 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, we know that 25 this --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She has no 2 connection to. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: We went through this 4 before. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, in 6 fact -- pardon me. There is no connection to it. 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I will continue to 8 inquire of other witnesses who may -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- who may have 11 information about this. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 14 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that the 15 two (2) meetings on September 5th and 6th were a little 16 bit different. I suggest that there was a recognition on 17 Wednesday, September 6th that the situation had become 18 more serious than the day before as a result of some of 19 the information that was provided by way of an update at 20 the outset of the meeting. 21 Is that -- is that consistent with your 22 recollection? 23 A: There may have been more of a sense 24 of urgency. 25 Q: And would the sense of urgency have


1 come as a result of some of the information that was 2 being provided by way of update, some of which is 3 referenced in your notes? 4 A: I can't really -- I can't really 5 speculate why any one (1) person there would have felt -- 6 Q: Oh, well, I'm -- 7 A: -- worried about it. 8 Q: I'm not asking you to speculate as to 9 the feelings of -- feelings of others or -- or what may 10 have been the source of their feelings. I'm simply 11 speaking with respect to yourself whether you recall 12 having -- having any reaction to the further information 13 that was being provided by way of update which is 14 referred to in your notes? 15 A: Can you rephrase that again, I'm not 16 quite sure? We've had a back and forth. What is the 17 question? 18 Q: Sure. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You did ask 20 her about her sense of urgency and I had the impression 21 that you were referring to the meeting -- 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- not her. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're


1 referring to her you should be specific. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: With respect to you, in your notes, 5 on the first page of your notes, you have some 6 information, some further updates with respect to what's 7 happening at the -- at the meeting and -- and some of the 8 things that happened overnight. 9 And I'm -- I'm wondering if today you 10 recall any reaction to the information with respect to 11 people being charged, the fire being started, that when 12 the officers -- officers responded to the fire that the 13 officers were stoned, those -- those sorts of details. 14 Do you recall having a reaction to that 15 information at the time? 16 A: Me or the media? 17 Q: You. 18 A: Yes, I -- I remember being concerned. 19 Hmm hmm. 20 Q: I was wondering if you could be 21 provided with a copy of Ms. Hipfner's notes of September 22 the 6th. I believe they're P-636 if I'm not mistaken? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Now, if I can just take you back to 2 your notes for a moment. In respect to your notes of 3 September the 6th you have the four (4) itemized things 4 presumably on the agenda, then the reference to 5 negotiations and that we are not in negotiations. 6 And -- and you weren't quite sure -- you 7 couldn't recall today who may have spoken in regards to 8 that. And I just wanted to see if I could tweak your 9 memory. 10 If you look at Ms. Hipfner's notes next 11 to, 'Peter Allen' there's a reference: 12 "But we shouldn't use term 'negotiate' 13 at all because it denotes certain 14 things that aren't happening; will not 15 happen." 16 Do you have any reason today to believe 17 that your reference in your notes isn't the reference -- 18 isn't effectively the same reference that Ms. Hipfner has 19 in her notes? 20 Do you have a recollection of these 21 comments along these lines being made by Mr. Allen? 22 A: I can't make out her writing. The 23 term negotiate was used, yes. 24 Q: Sorry, the first line is: 25 "term negotiate was used. Police


1 context. But we shouldn't use 'term 2 negotiate' at all because denotes 3 certain things that are not happening; 4 will not happen." 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And my question was simply, do you 7 recall peter Allen making comments along those lines at 8 the meeting? 9 A: No, because I -- I have no doubt to 10 doubt her notes, but my notes do not attribute it, so I 11 don't -- so I don't recall anything. 12 Q: So, it doesn't assist you? That was 13 -- that was my question. 14 A: No. 15 Q: You testified that the 16 Interministerial Committee spent some time on public 17 messaging. And if I could turn you to page 3 of your 18 notes from the 6th. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: There's the -- the reference under 23 the heading, Peter Allen, I think it says: 24 "We have kept these issues local. A 25 local spokesperson, [I think it's]


1 Committee has vetted new release", 2 but it's -- it's your notes. I may be 3 mistaken in that regard. 4 Do you recall a comment, or comments along 5 those lines? 6 A: Yes, I think he was urging that -- 7 that it be handled at the local level in terms of 8 communication, that it should be -- it would help to de- 9 escalate it if it was handled at the local level. 10 Q: And then there's a notation that's 11 attributed to Deb: 12 "Issue already hit highest level, but 13 not averse to it being [I think it's] 14 Provincial Government action." 15 And I'm going to suggest to you that this 16 -- well, actually you -- I think you testified that you 17 understood that this was an indication that the 18 Government would be comfortable taking leadership on the 19 issue. 20 A: To be seen doing something about it, 21 yes. Hmm hmm. 22 Q: And I was wondering if you could just 23 -- if you could be provided with Ms. Jai's notes for 24 September 6th for a moment. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And I believe those are P-536. And I 4 apologize, I don't have the document number. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Were Ms. 9 Jai's notes in the binder that I have, do you know? No? 10 Have you seen them before? 11 THE WITNESS: I've never seen these notes 12 before, either these or Eileen's. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, do you 14 want to just have a minute and have a look at them or 15 what it is in them -- 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It -- I'm just going 17 to direct -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just one (1) 19 part? 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It's just a couple of 21 sentences. Yes -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- it's at page -- I 24 believe it's page 3 of the notes. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 2 Q: And at the bottom there's a reference 3 to Deb right after a comment from Peter Allen. 4 "We want to be seen as having control 5 over this - so, ministers can't duck if 6 scrummed. [And] Premier not averse to 7 this being a Provincial Government 8 action." 9 A: I'm sorry, is this on page 3? 10 Q: I -- it may be page 4. I think my 11 numbering is slightly different. 12 A: Is it 2 -- page 2? 13 Q: My -- my apologies, it's page 2. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Whose notes, though? 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: These are the notes of 16 Julie Jai. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: And I was simply going to ask you, 22 and it's up on the screen actually -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- if you recall comments along those 25 lines at the meeting?


1 A: I don't remember the statement: 2 "Ministers can't deduct this if it's 3 scrummed." 4 I remember: 5 "Premier not averse to these being a 6 Provincial Government action." 7 So she recorded: 8 "Ministers can't be scrummed." 9 I recorded: 10 "It's hit the highest level." 11 Q: Well, that's what I was going to 12 suggest to you -- 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: -- is given the context coming right 15 after Peter Allen's comment that Ms. -- Ms. Hutton was 16 simply speaking about -- and I think you've referred to 17 this -- Queen's Park taking a leadership role in regards 18 to communications and she was acknowledging that from a - 19 - from a communications point of view it was already at a 20 higher level. 21 And I was simply wondering if giving your 22 recollection of the meeting if that -- if that -- that 23 would be -- that would be consistent, given the context 24 of the comment before? 25 A: No, I don't think so. I think it


1 wasn't just communication, it was about removing the 2 occupier, dealing with the emergency. 3 Q: Being seen to be moving? 4 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 5 Q: Now, in your notes... 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Well, let me back up a step. We -- 10 we've heard evidence that there were some reports early - 11 - early on in the meeting, reports of gunfire and that 12 Deb Hutton had asked for confirmation with respect to 13 those -- with respect to those reports. 14 Do -- do you recall reports being made in 15 regards to that, and do you recall Deb Hutton asking for 16 confirmation in that regard? 17 A: I remember, or I have a line in my 18 notes saying that gunfire has been reported, and that's 19 all I have, I don't have any further lines about 20 requesting confirmation. 21 Q: Well, that's what I was just going to 22 ask you. You've got a reference at page 2: 23 "No confirmation of automatic fire." 24 And then at page 4 under the name, Peter: 25 "Gunfire has occurred."


1 And I'm going to suggest to you that 2 during the meeting, while there wasn't a confirmation 3 with respect to automatic gunfire, there was a 4 confirmation with respect to gunfire having been heard. 5 And -- and that was mentioned at the meeting. 6 Do -- do you recall that? 7 A: I think one (1) person said that 8 there wasn't and -- and I think the other person reported 9 that there was. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Ms. Prodanou, you referred to your 14 notes -- some -- some notes that you'd attributed to -- 15 to Ms. Hutton which are at page 5. I think it's the last 16 notation that you have. 17 A: Of September 5 or 6? 18 Q: September 6. And you gave some 19 evidence in regards to that and I just wanted to take you 20 to Ms. Jai's notes of September 6th. Again that's P-536, 21 because she also some notations about this. 22 A: And what page would that be? 23 Q: I believe it's page 6. At the top of 24 the page there's the notation: 25 "Local spokesperson to be OPP."


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And I'll read them out. 4 A: I don't have that on page 6. Maybe 5 the numbering is -- 6 Q: It's -- 7 A: -- different. 8 Q: Yeah, it's up on the screen and I'll 9 just read out what Ms. Jai has in her notations, since 10 it's handwritten. 11 "Deb feels MNR, as property owner, can 12 ask OPP to remove people. 13 Scott: You can ask them to remove 14 them, you can't insist or demand that 15 they be removed. 16 Deb: Has MNR asked OPP to remove them? 17 They could be formally requested to do 18 so but how and when they do it is up to 19 them. Could have that as a 20 communication message. MNR has 21 formally asked that they remove them." 22 And I anticipate that Ms. Hutton's 23 evidence will be that she was well aware of the protocol 24 regarding the Government not being able to direct police 25 even prior to Ipperwash, and I take it you didn't ask her


1 if she was aware of the protocol? 2 Ms. Prodanou, you didn't ask -- 3 A: Did I ask her? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: No, I did not ask her. 6 Q: And I anticipate that Ms. Hutton's 7 evidence will be that her comments on this issue are 8 summarized and reflected in Ms. Jai's notes and that Ms. 9 Hutton will testify that she commented toward her belief 10 that MNR, as a property owner, can ask if the OPP can 11 remove -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 15 Q: And that Scott Hutchison confirmed 16 that and that Ms. Hutton then asked, if as a factual 17 matter, that had been done and added that how and when 18 was up to the OPP and that I anticipate she'll also 19 testify that she then addressed as a possible 20 communication message -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy, 22 what's the question? 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm coming to a 24 question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you


1 coming to a question or are you -- 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I am coming to a 3 question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd rather 5 hear Ms. Hutton's evidence from Ms. Hutton. 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But if 8 you're coming to a question -- 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I am coming to a 10 question. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 13 Q: And that she then addressed the 14 possible communication message about that. And my point 15 is simply this: Your notes on this point are very brief 16 and I take it that they're not verbatim, correct? 17 Your notes on this point are not verbatim? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She has 19 never said that. That's a question you don't need to 20 ask. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She has 23 never said that; nobody has said that their notes are 24 verbatim. Quite the contrary. 25 All the evidence that we've heard are


1 their notes are not verbatim, so I'm not sure why you're 2 asking a question? 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: I'm -- I'm going to ask her an 6 additional question, but I just wanted to make sure that 7 I was clear on that point that they're not verbatim. 8 A: They're point form. 9 Q: Right. And Scott Hutchison, who was 10 a lawyer from MAG Criminal Law Branch, who attended this 11 particular meeting, has testified that he didn't recall 12 anyone suggesting that the Government or ministers could 13 direct police operations and that he would have 14 remembered that. 15 And would you agree with me that your 16 notes may not accurately reflect this part of the 17 meeting? 18 They're just a summary and they may not be 19 accurate. 20 A: My notes simply say: 21 "Political direction to OPP?" 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They may not 23 be complete. 24 THE WITNESS: No, they're not. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think to


1 say that they're not accurate, given what we've heard so 2 far, is not a fair question. 3 To say that they're not complete is a 4 different story. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 7 Q: Well let me put it this way. Ms. 8 Prodanou, with respect to the notations that Ms. Jai 9 made, do you have a recollection that there were comments 10 along these lines as reflected in Ms. Jai's notes, which 11 were a little bit -- 12 A: No, I don't. 13 Q: -- incomplete? 14 A: No, I don't. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And do I take it that you don't 19 recall anything beyond what's in your written notes? 20 A: About -- 21 Q: With respect to this issue. 22 A: -- this specific conversation? 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: No. 25 Q: At the end of this meeting, do you


1 recall that the IMC was going to recommend that the 2 Government proceed with an injunction ASAP, regardless of 3 the technicalities? 4 Whether or not it was going to be on 5 notice or not on notice, do you have a recollection that 6 they were going to proceed -- they were going to 7 recommend that the Government apply for an injunction 8 ASAP? 9 A: That the meeting recommended that? 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: Yes. I have that recollection. 12 Q: Thank you, those are all my 13 questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much, Ms. Perschy. 16 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 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: Ms. Prodanou, my name is Andrea 24 Tuck-Jackson. I'm going to ask you some questions on 25 behalf of the OPP. And if I could begin, Mr. Prodanou,


1 by taking you to Tab 4, your notes of the September 5th 2 meeting which have been marked as Exhibit P-730. And I 3 would like to take you to page 4. 4 At the very top of page 4 you have 5 captured what appears to be a comment made by Ms. Hutton 6 followed by a comment by Ron Fox. Just wait for the 7 Commissioner to -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 9 what -- 10 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Tab 4, sir, 11 page -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 4 of my 13 binder? 14 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Of your binder. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 16 very much. Yes, I've got them. I just didn't mark the 17 exhibit number on them. It's 730? I just didn't mark 18 it. 19 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 23 Q: You've attributed to Ms. Hutton the 24 following comment: 25 "Premier wants to deal with group as if


1 they were non Aboriginals." 2 And then the next entry that you've 3 captured: 4 "Ron..." 5 And you've indicated to us that is 6 referring to Ron Fox. 7 You have to respond verbally. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Thank you. 10 "...is different." 11 And I'm interested in the sentiment that 12 you were trying to capture, which you've attributed to 13 Ron Fox, is different. 14 And I'm going to suggest to you, Ms. 15 Prodanou, that at this point in the meeting, then 16 Inspector Fox was taking issue with Ms. Hutton's 17 assertion that you should be treating the Aboriginal and 18 the non Aboriginal people in the same fashion in the 19 context of this occupation; is that fair? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Thank you. And I take you now then 22 to Tab 5, your notes of September the 6th and they have 23 been variously noted as Exhibits P-548 and P-638. And in 24 particular, I want to take you to again page 4. 25 A: Page 4.


1 Q: Once again you've captured a number 2 of comments that you have attributed to Inspector Fox. 3 And if you just read them to yourself, just remind 4 yourself I want to ask you two (2) questions in relation 5 to those entries. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, you've 11 described already that as the meetings, both on the 5th 12 and the 6th, I want to focus on the 6th of it. Those 13 meetings progressed -- the composition of the attendees 14 started to fall into various camps. 15 And I'm going to suggest to you that 16 Inspector Fox fell into a camp of people who were 17 advocating a slow and cautious approach to the issue of 18 the occupation. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Thank you. And I'm also going to 21 suggest to you that he was one of the individuals who was 22 advocating for a civil injunction before the police would 23 move upon the occupiers in the Park. 24 A: That's consistent with what he said. 25 Q: Thank you. Finally, Ms. Prodanou,


1 I'm going to suggest to you that nothing, by way of Ron 2 Fox's words or actions at either of those meetings, 3 suggested that he was seeking direction from the members 4 of the Committee on police operational matters. 5 A: That he was seeking direction? 6 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that he 7 wasn't seeking direction on police operational matters. 8 A: I don't think he was. 9 Q: And thank you and I also want to 10 suggest to you that nothing by his words or his actions 11 during those meetings suggested to you that he was taking 12 direction on police operational matters from those 13 members of the committee? 14 A: There was nothing that he said to 15 indicate that. 16 Q: Thank you, Ms. Prodanou, those are my 17 questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 19 very much, Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 20 Mr. Alexander...? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Good afternoon, Mr. 25 Commissioner.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 2 afternoon. 3 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Just before I 4 proceed I note that Mr. Runciman is scheduled to go 5 tomorrow -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: -- so this just 8 seemed to be a little bit of an exception. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is. 10 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: I'm -- I'm willing 11 to proceed. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 He's out of order, he's not here. We're going to play 14 through him. If it presents a problem then we'll deal 15 with it. 16 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: No, I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it 18 doesn't then we'll carry on. 19 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: All I would ask is 20 to reserve a right that I may have some questions 21 depending on what Mr. Runciman's counsel asks tomorrow 22 morning. I -- I doubt it, but -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 24 possibility. Okay. 25 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: -- obviously we


1 can't tell. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And playing 3 through somebody raises that possibility. It's only a 4 quarter after. If it's not impossible for you to 5 continue then I think you should and if that does arise, 6 we'll deal with it. 7 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: No, I -- I'm 8 completely confident I'll be able to finish today. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Prodanou. 12 A: Good afternoon. 13 Q: My name is Basil Alexander and I'm 14 one (1) of the lawyers for the Estate of Dudley George 15 and several members of the George Family including Sam 16 George. 17 And all I'm going to be doing is taking 18 you through your notes for September 5th, 6th, and 7th 19 and just asking you some very minor clarifications for 20 the record as well as one (1) or two (2) questions that I 21 just want to put to you so we have your information on 22 that for the record. 23 So -- and I'm just going to do it in the 24 order of your notes. Okay? So the first one I have is 25 at Tab 4 which are your notes for September 5th, 1995,


1 Inquiry Document Number 1006191 which have been marked as 2 Exhibit P-730. Do you have that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: I'm looking at the fourth bullet 5 point. Now, when I heard you read out that point I heard 6 you read: 7 "MNR official park title is Ontario." 8 I'd ask you to re-read that and I'd 9 suggest to you that what that says is that MNR affirmed 10 park title is Ontario's? 11 A: You're right. 12 Q: Okay. The next one I would take you 13 to is on page 2. 14 And at the -- near the bottom of the page 15 where there's the, "Premier hawkish," comment, beginning 16 of quote, "We're being tested," end of quote, and then 17 there appears to be an exclamation mark; is that correct? 18 A: No, that's the end of a quote. 19 Q: Okay. The reason why I'm suggesting 20 to you that it's an exclamation mark is I'm looking at 21 the quote and the original quote seems to be -- the 22 original part of that seems to have a single quote and 23 the end of that seems to be a single quote and there 24 seems to be a little dot underneath the second part. 25 Do you see what I'm looking at?


1 A: Yeah. I don't know whether I would 2 have exercised that kind of precision about dots. I -- I 3 really can't -- 4 Q: You can't tell? 5 A: -- explain why it -- they're 6 inconsistent, the quotes, or whether it's an exclamation 7 mark. 8 Q: Right. And I'm just looking at that 9 particular quote, that it's a single quote. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: So I'm suggesting to you that that is 12 an exclamation mark. 13 A: I'm leaning towards thinking that 14 it's a quote because I -- in -- in notes I don't -- I 15 usually would not do that kind of punctuation, but 16 possibly. 17 Q: If I move on to page 3 near the 18 bottom of the page I just want to be clear what you 19 understood -- what you -- what your notes are meant to 20 convey here. 21 The third last point right before the 22 blank line: 23 "The problem -- the problem if they 24 don't comply with the -- with court 25 order..."


1 Then there's an arrow on -- 2 A: I'm sorry, I -- I -- I can't find it, 3 page 3, third point from the bottom? 4 Q: Third point from the bottom. It's 5 actually the fifth line from the bottom. 6 A: Oh. 7 "You may still have problem getting 8 them off the land?" 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: That line? Okay. 11 Q: So: 12 "Problem, if they don't comply with 13 court order [then there's an arrow] 14 contempt charges." 15 And what I'm focussing on is the arrow. 16 Am I correct in understanding that there'll be a problem 17 if they don't comply with the court order; the arrow 18 would represent next step, contempt charges? 19 A: I think that's what I intended there. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: That's what was mentioned as the next 22 step. 23 Q: Okay. The next point is the last two 24 (2) lines on -- it's on the same page of page 3. It's 25 the last two (2) lines where it says:


1 "Peter Allen, no evidence there's a 2 burial site in the Park." 3 I want to focus on the next line: 4 "To prove it, is extremely expensive." 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Do you have any other recollections 7 with respect to this quote? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. I'm now going to move on to 10 your notes of September 6th, 1995 which are at Tab 5 of 11 your materials, and that's Inquiry Document Number 12 1011763, and those have been marked previously as 13 Exhibits P-638 and P-548. 14 If you could go to page 5? And what I'm 15 interested in is the section about the middle of the page 16 that has the heading, "Dave;" do you see that? 17 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 18 Q: Would you like an opportunity to read 19 that? 20 A: Okay. Out loud or to myself? 21 Q: Just to yourself. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: What I'm going to put to you is that 24 this is a summary of an -- of the obligations under the 25 Cemeteries Act, if I recall your evidence correctly.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Yes, this is the opinion of the 4 person who was to inform the meeting about the 5 obligations under the Cemeteries Act. 6 Q: Do you recall any other discussion of 7 any other obligations aside from those under the 8 Cemeteries Act? 9 A: There may have been discussion about 10 the fact that if human remains are found that the area 11 can be marked off and protected and roped off. 12 Q: So that's more what could happen, 13 but -- 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: -- not necessarily obligations? 16 A: No, I don't recall any other -- I 17 may not have jotted them down. I try to keep up with -- 18 somebody was reading this very quickly. 19 Q: No, that's fair enough and -- 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: -- I understand it's been ten (10) 22 years. I'm just asking -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- if you have any other 25 recollections --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- so that's fine. And the last 3 couple are in your September 7th notes, which are at Tab 4 11, which is Inquiry Document Number 1006193, and it's 5 been marked as Exhibit P-731. 6 And what I'm looking at is page 2, the 7 third last line on the bottom of the page: 8 "Political overlay will be at the nerve 9 centre." 10 And it appears that the words, "nerve 11 centre," are underlined, correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that seems to indicate a certain 14 amount of emphasis of the location as to where the 15 political overlay would be, correct? 16 A: The nerve centre and perhaps because 17 this is the -- the first time this kind of entity was 18 established and it was a novel term to me. Hmm hmm. 19 Q: And my last one is on page 3 of the 20 same set of notes and it's about two-thirds of the way 21 down the page. It's the second point under, "Larry 22 Taman." And what I'm interested in is the second line. 23 Now, when I heard your evidence I heard 24 you say that this read: 25 "Get accurate info flowing into Ontario


1 Government." 2 A: No, it should be: 3 "In and out of government." 4 Q: And that -- that was going to be my-- 5 A: Sorry. 6 Q: -- question to you. Mr. 7 Commissioner, those are my questions. Thank you very 8 much, Ms. Prodanou, subject of course to tomorrow. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Thank 10 you very much. Do you want to start or do you want to 11 wait? We're at twenty-five (25) after now and you've 12 indicated you won't finish. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I would prefer to 14 wait until tomorrow. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you won't 16 finish. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm in your hands, 18 sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 20 think we'll adjourn now. I think we'll adjourn now until 21 nine o'clock tomorrow morning and hopefully Mr. Smith 22 will be here and then we can... 23 All right, Ms. Prodanou? We'll adjourn 24 now until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. 25


1 (WITNESS RETIRES) 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday September 21st at 5 9:00 a.m. 6 7 --- Upon adjourning at 4:24 p.m. 8 9 10 11 12 Certified Correct, 13 14 15 16 __________________ 17 Dustin Warnock 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25