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 21st, 2005 25


1 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) (np) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) (np) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 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 ) (np) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) 18 William Henderson ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 22 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) 24 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 25 Michelle Pong ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) 8 9 Ian Smith ) 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 ) (np) 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 ) (np) 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 ANNA PRODANOU, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 12 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 52 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 55 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Walter Myrka 66 11 Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Megan Ferrier 67 12 SHELLEY SPIEGEL, Affirmed 13 Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Megan Ferrier 69 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 136 15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 140 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 141 17 Cross-Examination by Ms. Melissa Panjer 144 18 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 158 19 Cross-Examination by Mr. Basil Alexander 160 20 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 163 21 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 171 22 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 179 23 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 183 24 Cross-Examination by Mr. Walter Myrka 189 25 Certificate of Transcript 195


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-732 Document Number 1012311. Faxes, 4 two (2), from J. Bangs to S. Spiegel 5 September 06/'95; two (2) OPP news 6 release's Sept 06/'95; Memo to 7 P. Sturdy Sept. 06/'95. 124 8 P-733 Document Number 1011852. Fax from 9 Julie Jai September 08/'95. 129 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, Mr. Smith. I think you're on. 8 MR. IAN SMITH: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. Thank you. I thank you for letting me go 10 out of order this morning. 11 12 ANNA PRODANOU, Resumed; 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 15 Q: Good morning. I'm Ian Smith. I act 16 for Mr. Runciman. 17 A: Good morning. 18 Q: I just have a couple of questions for 19 you. And I'm interested in the meetings you attended on 20 September 5th and 6th which you've testified about 21 yesterday. 22 First of all, did you know before those 23 meetings who Katherine Hunt was? Had you met her 24 previously? 25 A: I had not.


1 Q: And when you arrived at the meeting 2 on September 5th, did you understand that she was part of 3 Mr. Runciman's political staff? 4 A: Not initially. 5 Q: Not initially but it became -- it had 6 become clear over the course of the meeting or the next 7 meeting? 8 A: That's correct, it became clear over 9 the time of the meetings. 10 Q: Okay. And one of the reasons I'm 11 curious about that is that your notes on September 5th 12 don't reflect any reference so far as I can see, and I'd 13 be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but they don't 14 reflect any reference to Ms. Hunt saying anything on 15 September 5th. 16 And please feel free to take a look -- 17 that's -- I understand it's at Tab 4 which I think is 18 Exhibit 730. 19 A: Yes, I'm just checking. I do not 20 have her name entered. It's possible that I wasn't quite 21 aware who she was at that time. But she may have said 22 something that I jotted down because I didn't always 23 attribute the statements in the notes. 24 Q: And that's fair enough. But do you 25 have any specific recollection now of her having said


1 anything at that meeting? 2 A: I do not remember. 3 Q: Okay. And I'm interested in, a 4 little bit, in the way you characterized your evidence 5 in-chief in particular. You made several references to - 6 - to political staff, generally having a view about 7 issues and how things should be done and there being a 8 tension between political staff and non-political staff 9 at that meeting. 10 I'm going to suggest to you that nothing 11 Ms. Hunt said at the September 5th meeting contributed to 12 -- to your understanding or that -- that impression that 13 was created in your mind. 14 A: I have no way of knowing because at 15 that time I didn't know who she was. But I did identify 16 a number of political staff whom I had seen and knew who 17 they were before. 18 Q: All right, thanks. Now, with respect 19 to -- I'm going to make the same suggestion with respect 20 to the September 6th meeting. And that is simply that 21 nothing Katherine Hunt said at that meeting contributed 22 to this clash of ideas, if I can call it that, between 23 what you describe between political staff and non 24 political staff. 25 Now, you do have a couple of references to


1 Ms. Hunt in the September 6th meeting -- 2 A: I do. 3 Q: -- at Tab 5 which I understand has a 4 couple of exhibit numbers, 548 and 638. 5 The first one's at page 2 near the bottom. 6 And that as I read it it's simply indication that 7 solicitor general won't get involved in the day to day 8 operations. I take it that's a reference to the day to 9 day operations of the OPP? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And then the next -- just if I can 12 help you out, the only other reference I've seen is on 13 page 4, again near the -- about three-quarters (3/4's) of 14 the way down that page: 15 "Katherine: They may return to the 16 Park." 17 Which I take it to be simply an 18 observation that if people are removed from the Park, 19 they may return. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And do you remember anything else 22 about that comment? 23 A: I think there were -- there was some 24 discussion preceding this with respect to serving them 25 with a notice and that it may not be effective.


1 Q: Right. 2 A: Even if they do leave, they may 3 return to the Park again. 4 Q: Is it possible that that comment's a 5 reference to what Ron Fox has said just above there, 6 about the laying of criminal charges? 7 A: Yes, it may flow from that. There 8 may have been one (1) or two (2) other things said in 9 between those two (2) statements but it logically flows 10 from that. 11 Q: Okay. And do you have any other 12 recollection today of Ms. Hunt saying anything at that 13 meeting -- anything else at that meeting? 14 A: I don't recall independently. 15 Q: Okay. Let me then just return to the 16 suggestion I put to you at the outset which is that 17 nothing she said really contributed to this -- to the 18 tension in the room that you described. 19 A: I'm afraid I can't say one (1) way or 20 the other because she was not someone that I recognized 21 initially and later all I recall is what I have in the 22 notes. 23 Q: Okay. That's great. Thanks so much. 24 That's -- those are all my questions, Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much. 2 Mr. Rosenthal...? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Good morning, Ms. Prodanou. 13 A: Good morning. 14 Q: My name is Peter Rosenthal, I'm one 15 (1) of the counsel for a group of Stoney Point people 16 under the name Aazhoodena and George Family Group. I 17 just want to ask you a few discreet things, a few aspects 18 of your testimony and your notes, and so on. 19 Now, you -- you told us that I believe it 20 was at the September 5th meeting that a male political 21 staff person who you're not sure you remember who it was 22 exactly said something to the effect of comparing the 23 people occupying the Park to having Hell's Angels on -- 24 on one's front lawn. Do you recall telling us that? 25 What I'm interested in is, can you tell us


1 what you observed about the reaction of other people at 2 the meeting when such a statement was made? 3 A: I think people were taken aback, but 4 there wasn't much discussion specifically to respond to 5 that comment in terms of the comparison to Hell's Angels. 6 But there was discussion with respect to the difference 7 in -- 8 Q: Respect to the difference? 9 A: -- the difference -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- in the trespass. It was trying -- 12 the effort was to characterize the occupation as a simple 13 trespass. And the tone of -- of the meeting in terms of 14 the legal experts that were there were trying to explain 15 that it was not a simple trespass, that it was a more 16 complicated scenario. 17 Q: I see. Okay. Thank you. If you 18 could turn to your notes of the September 6th meeting 19 which are at your Tab 5? 20 Now, if you could look, please, at page 2 21 of those notes at the very bottom of that page there's a 22 number 1: 23 "We should get a civil injunction 24 ASAP." 25 You were asked by counsel for Mr. Harnuck


1 -- Harnick yesterday if that was as a result of Mr. 2 Harnick's instruction, a question to that effect. 3 Now, in connection with that if you would 4 turn to page 3 of the notes, in the middle you've 5 written, if I read it correct: 6 "Instructions have been given to 7 Attorney General to seek an 8 injunction." 9 Now, first, did I read that correctly; 10 more or less right in the middle of page 3? 11 A: Yes, you did read it correctly, yes. 12 Q: It seems to be plain language that 13 somebody has instructed the Attorney General to seek an 14 injunction. There is suggestion that there might be 15 evidence that in fact the Premier might have instructed 16 the Attorney General, at some point, about an injunction. 17 Do you recall anything more than you've 18 written about the nature of an instruction that the 19 Attorney General might have received? 20 A: No, I -- I think this is probably 21 referring to the fact that the recommendation from the 22 Committee is -- has been given to the Attorney General to 23 seek an injunction. 24 I think, perhaps, my word of instructions 25 is not as appropriate as it could have been, because I


1 think at this point the Committee was recommending to the 2 Attorney General that an injunction should be issued. 3 Q: I would suggest to you that if the -- 4 if it were merely the Committee recommending to the 5 Attorney General you wouldn't have written, "instructions 6 have been given to him." 7 The Committee -- you wouldn't have 8 conceived that the Committee could instruct the Attorney 9 General would you? 10 A: No, it's not a very appropriate 11 phrase here. 12 Q: But, as I indicated there has been 13 some suggestion that there might be evidence that the 14 Premier instructed the Attorney General. 15 Now, I take -- I know it's ten (10) years 16 later but -- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: -- is it possible that that's what 19 you understood at the time, that would have been a 20 possible instruction from the -- from someone who maybe 21 have the authority to instruct the Attorney General as 22 opposed to the Committee making a recommendation? 23 A: I really can't say for sure at this 24 point. I certainly don't remember that there was any 25 such direct message from the Premier, that it was put


1 that way, that the Premier has given instructions to the 2 Attorney General to seek an injunction. 3 So, if someone put it this way, they 4 didn't leave -- they didn't specify where the 5 instructions came from. 6 Q: I see. In general, you tried to be 7 as accurate as you could in your note taking, I presume? 8 A: I have. But, there are gaps. 9 Q: Oh, of course. But you would try to 10 capture the word -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- and if you wrote, "instructions 13 having given" can we -- is it fair to assume that 14 somebody said, "instructions have been given" or use the 15 word 'instruction' probably or you wouldn't have written 16 it? 17 A: Hmm hmm. I probably would have 18 written what was said at the time as opposed to trying to 19 use my own language. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: But, I don't remember who -- what the 22 source of the instructions is. My recollection of the 23 meeting, as a whole, was that the Committee recommended 24 an injunction. It sought approval from the Attorney 25 General and the Attorney General gave instruction to


1 issue the injunction. 2 This was fairly early on. Later there 3 were other meetings where, I think, there were 4 instructions to change the nature of the injunction -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- judging by e-mails I'd received. 7 But, I think at this point, there -- there may not have 8 been other instructions and the recommendations of the 9 Committee. But, I can't say for sure. 10 Q: We all appreciate that -- 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: -- ten (10) years later it's very 13 difficult to remember these things. Now, the attitude of 14 Ms. Hutton at the meetings, do you agree that she seemed 15 to be interrogating members of the Committee from time to 16 time; is that fair to say? 17 A: Yes. She -- she asked some very 18 hard- nosed questions. 19 Q: And she -- her attitude was she was 20 impatient with people, right? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And critical, in general, of the -- 23 of Committee members it seems? 24 A: She didn't specifically say -- except 25 at the end when she said she wasted her time. She didn't


1 specifically say, You're going the wrong way. She simply 2 kept asking aggressive questions; why we're not doing 3 this and why we're not doing that. 4 Q: And -- and the questions were 5 aggressive not only in content but also in tone; is that 6 fair to say? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And would you agree with a 9 characterization that someone has made that her attitude 10 was imperious? 11 A: She was haughty, yeah. Very haughty 12 and very self confident and somewhat, sort of, dismissive 13 of what was going on. She had sort of a sense of -- I - 14 - yeah, dismissive and haughty, hmm hmm, would be the 15 best way to describe it. 16 Q: I'm sorry, my hearing is -- 17 A: Dismissive and haughty. 18 Q: Thank you. And perhaps for other 19 people's too, if you could move a little closer to the 20 microphone. Thank you. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, if we could then move to 23 September 7 and you have your notes of a meeting on 24 September 7 at your Tab 11. Before turning to the notes, 25 you told us that one of the purposes of this meeting was


1 to do some damage control; is that correct? 2 A: That's a -- sort of a common phrase 3 one uses in -- in the communications language. If you 4 want me to rephrase it, it would be to give directions of 5 how to handle the crisis situation in terms of 6 communications, in terms of who was to do what. 7 Q: Yes. But the use of the phrase 8 'damage control' -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: -- is because of the nature of the 11 situation. Am I correct that -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- it was something that had happened 14 that the Government might well blamed for and there is a 15 need, on the part of the Government, to try to lessen the 16 blame that they'd be facing? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: That's what it means, right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And that was one (1) of the main 21 things that people were concerned about at that point, 22 September 7? 23 A: Yes, I think that's fair to say. Hmm 24 hmm. 25 Q: So, 'damage control' doesn't refer to


1 controlling any damage to the people or to the Park or to 2 anything like that, but to the news, right? 3 A: To the -- yes, to the news, to the 4 perception to possible other emergencies that could arise 5 from it. 6 Q: Now there -- 7 A: There was concern that it might 8 spread; that that direct action might spread. 9 Q: Yes. Now, if we could turn then to 10 your notes of that meeting which have been made Exhibit 11 P-731 to these proceedings and are Inquiry Document 12 1006193. 13 Now, first, on page 1 of your notes, most 14 of the way down, there's something, I can't read the 15 first word, but then it says: 16 "Ten (10) to 11:00 p.m. a member of 17 Band Council was driving on Army Camp 18 Road. Confronted by First Nations 19 occupiers. Vehicle damaged. He was 20 threatened." 21 Have I read it correctly, first off? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: So -- and approximately what time did 24 this meeting take place on September 7? 25 A: Tenish in the morning. It was in the


1 morning. 2 Q: So, approximately ten o'clock in the 3 morning? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: And early on in that meeting you were 6 given this information? 7 A: This information was a recounting of 8 what the police report by one (1) of the people at the 9 meeting who received either e-mail or press release 10 communication from the OPP. 11 Q: Yes. Now, did -- did you find out 12 that there'd been press releases by the OPP that gave a 13 different impression as to what -- the incident that had 14 happened from what is written here? 15 Did you find that out at the time or -- 16 A: No, not at the time because I was not 17 a recipient of any direct correspondence or communication 18 from the OPP. Julie would have been the contact. 19 Q: I see. Now, you wrote down this 20 information at the beginning of a description as to what 21 had happened or perhaps in the middle. 22 Was it because you were led to believe 23 that the incident that had happened the previous evening, 24 the killing of Dudley George had arisen at least in part 25 as a consequence of this vehicle damage that was being


1 reported to you? 2 A: I'm not sure I understand the 3 question. 4 Q: Sorry. I phrased it, perhaps, very 5 poorly. 6 I'm wondering why -- can you assist us as 7 to why you would have written down something about damage 8 to a vehicle, around a trivial thing, when they were 9 talking about the aftermath of the killing of a human 10 being? 11 How did they -- why did they mention that? 12 A: I think that must have been in the 13 OPP press release and I just wrote down what -- what was 14 reported at the meeting. And obviously, at that point, 15 that was the only information we had so that's what I 16 wrote down. 17 Of course I was extremely upset about the 18 killing. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: I'm -- you know, my notes on the 7th 21 are somewhat I think poorly written and my hand was 22 shaking and I was very upset. 23 Q: Oh, certainly. 24 A: So, of course this minor fact does 25 not compare to the killing, but it's --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- just something I wrote down 3 because it was said in the room. 4 Q: But I'm suggesting that you would 5 have probably written it down because you were told that 6 it's somehow related to the killing and perhaps -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- perhaps it was the event that 9 precipitated the officers marching on the demonstrators 10 which ended with the killing? 11 A: It's not that I was told. This was I 12 think almost read out from something. I think Julie had 13 a paper when she reported it. She -- it was very quickly 14 reported. And the -- the reason I wrote above it, 15 "report from police," underlined, is this is not our 16 opinion or that we have any independent knowledge of what 17 really happened. 18 This is what the police reported and 19 that's what I wrote. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: And there may have been other reports 22 since then about what really happened, so I'm not saying 23 that this is what really happened, this is what the 24 police reported. 25 Q: Yes, no, I understand. Thank you.


1 On page 3 of those notes, approximately a quarter of the 2 way down, you wrote, attributing it to Ron Vrancart, I 3 gather, "communication lacks context." 4 Do you see that there? 5 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 6 Q: Now what did that refer to? Which 7 communication lacked what context? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: The next phrase there, "how long 12 incident in the making". I imagine it's the 13 communication regarding the shooting, but communication 14 from whom I cannot say. 15 Q: Now, you had responsibilities with 16 respect to communicating with the press, in general, as 17 part of your role -- 18 A: Not around this issue. 19 Q: Sorry? 20 A: I wasn't -- I wasn't responsible for 21 communication around this issue. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: In the course of exercising those 25 responsibilities, did you examine the press releases that


1 the OPP had released, concerning the issue? 2 A: I did after I received them, which 3 was after this meeting. I was not a recipient of the 4 press releases at the time of the meeting. 5 Q: And that was on September 7th, as 6 well, after the -- after the meeting later in the day? 7 A: When did I say the press releases? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: It was some time after the 7th. I 10 can't say if it was exactly on the 7th or -- or later. I 11 was receiving piles of information at that point, press 12 releases and mostly clippings and broadcast transcripts 13 and quite a stack of media. 14 Q: And then did you use any of that 15 information in preparing subsequent press releases? 16 A: No, I did not prepare any press 17 releases. 18 Q: Or suggest any input into any press 19 releases? 20 A: No, I did not. 21 Q: And -- 22 A: The only communication piece that I 23 prepared was the historical backgrounder. And my role on 24 that was mostly to edit it for media in terms of 25 legibility and media style.


1 The historical content was provided by 2 experts at ONAS. 3 Q: Now, right under the portion of your 4 notes that we were looking at, you wrote: "Michelle: 5 There is expertise", and you explained yesterday that 6 Michelle was suggesting that there is expertise right 7 here in the Committee? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And you meant on what, the context, 10 or on providing information, or what? 11 A: I can't say what she had in mind, but 12 I know she was referring to the people in the room that 13 there is expertise in terms of Aboriginal issues. 14 Q: And what does it say right after that 15 line in your note? 16 "Ron", does it say? 17 A: I think so: 18 "Ron: Importance re. what has been done 19 so far." 20 Q: Importance, or impatience, could it 21 be? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: I think it's --


1 Q: I can't read my handwriting either, 2 so I am sympathetic to you. 3 A: I think it's importance, because I 4 make an 'r' in a -- in a way that's the lower case 5 printing kind of 'r' and that it -- I think it's 6 'importance'. 7 But even though it's 'importance', I'm not 8 quite sure what it refers to, so I can't explain. 9 Q: But, what could that possibly mean, 10 "Importance in what has been done so far"? 11 "Impatient -- importance in what has been 12 done so far", I can't understand any reasonable meaning 13 of that, whereas "impatience in what has been done so 14 far", I can understand the meaning. 15 A: I'm sorry I can't say one way or the 16 other. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Just 18 before you answer, yes, Mr. Myrka? 19 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Mr. Commissioner, just 20 to assist My Friend I just -- it might be helpful if the 21 Witness -- if the Witness could clarify. She's just 22 simply recording what somebody said at the meeting. It - 23 - she's not in a position to explain what the author of 24 the comment said. 25 If it's an editorial comment that she --


1 she may be able to assist us. It's just I'm not sure the 2 question has been asked precisely what the context is and 3 if she's simply recording what she heard. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Well, 5 I think at the moment he's just trying to determine if 6 the word is 'importance' or 'impatience'. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Yes. But, I think it's implicit in 10 what has gone so far that she was trying to record what 11 other people had said. Am I correct that this is an 12 attempt -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- at recording what had been said? 15 A: Yes. All my notes have been -- I did 16 not interject with editorial comments in the notes. 17 Q: Yes. So, I would ask you if you 18 could stare at that word a little bit more and try and 19 assist us because -- 20 A: All right. 21 Q: I would suggest to you that it looks 22 like the 't' comes the second letter after the 'p' and 23 then it looks like 'i-a-n-c-e' after that, no? 24 A: It could be one, it could be the 25 other. I just --


1 Q: It could be either 'impatience' or 2 'importance'? 3 A: Yes. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, turn to page 4, please. 8 Approximately, a little bit beyond the middle of the 9 page, below the middle of the page, it says: 10 "This is a law and order issue, not a 11 Native issue." 12 Right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And then underneath that, am I 15 correctly reading it: 16 "Intelligence gathering should be 17 discreet." 18 Is that correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now was that a suggestion then by Mr. 21 Vrancart that the Committee or the -- or ONAS should be 22 involved in some intelligence gathering? 23 A: I think because there was concern 24 that there might be other emergencies arising from the 25 occupation of the Park, there might be other direct


1 action incidents. Because ONAS had good stakeholder 2 relations with a number of Aboriginal communities and 3 First Nations, the suggestion here was that if we heard 4 of any brewing trouble spots that that should be made 5 known to management. 6 Q: And it should be done discreetly? 7 A: That's correct. That's what he's 8 asking. 9 Q: Yes. Now, had ONAS, prior, had that 10 kind of relationship with Aboriginal peoples that they 11 would gather intelligence on them in a discreet way, as 12 much as a police service way. 13 A: Well the word 'intelligence' is -- is 14 -- sounds rather nefarious. I think, as the role of the 15 Blockade Committee was to be aware of incidents, as 16 demonstrated by its role with respect to the occupation 17 of the Park to anticipate incidents. 18 So, yes, there was an effort to be aware 19 of possible problems. And the way to deal with it was to 20 try to find out what the concerns of the community were 21 and to try to diffuse these problems. 22 Q: Now, I have -- 23 A: That would not have been the way, in 24 the past, ONAS staff would have put it, gather 25 intelligence.


1 Q: No. It -- it's a break from the 2 past. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And just the way it's being 5 conceptualized; is that not fair? 6 A: The wording is not the kind of 7 wording that would have been used ordinarily. 8 Q: And it might be suggested that the 9 wording reflects a different attitude. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, I have difficulty reading the 12 next line after that. Is it -- perhaps, you could read 13 it if you would? 14 A: We're in the middle of the page? 15 Q: Yes, after: 16 "Intelligence gathering should be 17 discreet." 18 And then under it it's, "the" Is it -- 19 A: Okay. 20 "The government does not want 21 confrontations around the Province." 22 Q: Yes? And then the next line, please? 23 A: "A record of Committee should not be 24 matter of public record." 25 Q: "The record of the Committee should


1 not be a matter of public record." 2 Now, which committee is being talked 3 about, the Interministerial Committee? 4 A: The Blockade Committee, yes. 5 Interministerial Committee. 6 Q: And so -- and the concern at this 7 point was that the record of what had happened on 8 September 5th and 6th at those meetings, in particular, 9 should not be available to the public? 10 A: I think that's what's intended; 11 that's the way we took it. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And then could you assist me in 16 reading the next line too, please? 17 A: "How to deal with external contact 18 with people we do business with." 19 Q: Now, moving to the next page, page 5, 20 about a third of the way down there's a part that begins 21 with the word 'threat', I believe. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And perhaps -- could you please read 24 those several lines. I have difficulty with some of the 25 words.


1 A: "Threat assessment analysis. How to 2 deal with threat assessment, context 3 and history re. Aboriginal contacts -- 4 Aboriginal relations [REL is for 5 relations] and contacts." 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: "If there is..." 8 Q: Is it, "If that is"? 9 A: "If that is contained [I think] we'll 10 see as a symbol of, at least for the 11 time being." 12 Q: I see. And then -- sorry, could you 13 continue reading the rest of that page just to make sure 14 that -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- we have what it says? 17 A: Okay. "Context" This is a beginning 18 -- this is -- I believe this is after the deputies left. 19 The group remained in the room and were trying to 20 determine what tasks we were going to perform and the 21 areas broke down into a number of topics. 22 So "Context" was one (1) of the topics and 23 the areas were: 24 "OPP, Law Enforcement, How -- how level 25 or Low-Level Options.


1 Official's level, do nothing. Contact 2 at senior level." 3 And then Yan Lazor, who was there, 4 summarized the areas that -- 5 Q: So, that means that Yan Lazor was 6 doing the summarizing at this point? 7 A: Yes, he began to chair the meeting as 8 the senior member of management group that remained in 9 the room and determined the tasks that we would be 10 performing and suggested who should work on what. And I 11 have a number of names in the margin of the people who 12 would be supporting the effort. 13 Q: And then he summarized what was to be 14 done, and perhaps if you could just read us the points 1, 15 2, 3, 4, 5 that he summarized? 16 A: Hmm hmm. So: 17 "Prepare -- preparedness document: 18 1. High-risk areas and how to deal. 19 2. How to contact First Nations and 20 options. 21 3. How to support nerve centre. 22 4. Michelle Yan in contact with the 23 Feds. 24 5. Q's and A's and backgrounder." 25 Q: Thank you.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, you told us that there was a Mr. 4 Wallace (phonetic) who was the director of negotiations 5 for ONAS -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- is that correct? What did -- what 8 did that mean, director of negotiations? 9 A: He was the director of the branch 10 that carried on land claims negotiations that had been 11 accepted for -- 12 Q: I see. 13 A: -- for negotiation. 14 Q: If you could please look at your Tab 15 18. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Tab 18 is Inquiry Document Number 20 1003886. It's not been made an exhibit. 21 Tab 18 appears to be several documents 22 related to a letter in which a person who identifies 23 themselves as a First Nations person, has written 24 complaining to the Premier and then a response by the 25 Premier to that letter; is that correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And the front page is entitled, 3 Correspondence Control Manager Routing Slip, and has a 4 number of persons on the page who was -- who were on the 5 route, I guess, to get -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- to get this document. And it -- 8 the first person listed there is yourself, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And it says, "for review". 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So, I gather that you did receive 13 these documents and review them; is that correct? 14 A: I did -- one of the tasks that I did 15 have is on occasion to deal with letters from the public 16 around Ipperwash. We entered these letters using 17 messages that were given to us by the nerve centre. 18 Q: And what is your responsibility when 19 you review a letter like this? 20 A: My responsibility would be to make 21 sure it's consistent with the Government's communication 22 messages in a case -- a high profile case like this. 23 In the case of less contentious issues, 24 one of the senior officers would write the letter, I must 25 just review it for style. It would not have the same


1 kind of messaging control. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now, if I could turn back to your Tab 6 4 for a moment. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Tab 4 is exhibit P-730 to these 11 proceedings and it's Inquiry Document Number 1006191. 12 And it's your notes of the September 5th meeting. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: About two-thirds (2/3) of the way 15 down you wrote, "the rationale being the burial site"; is 16 that correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So early -- two-thirds (2/3) of the 19 way down the first page, so early in the meeting of 20 September 5th it became known that the occupiers were 21 indicating that there was a burial site, at least in 22 their view, in Ipperwash Provincial Park, and that was 23 one of the reasons that they occupied it, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now, if you could now turn to Tab 16


1 of your document. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: That includes a document entitled, 6 Backgrounder. And I gather that you prepared this 7 document? 8 A: I'm sorry? 9 Q: Did you prepare this document? 10 A: The -- the research support branch 11 prepared this document and -- with their researcher, John 12 Van West and the Negotiation Branch prepared the content. 13 I edited it -- it for media release; not substantively 14 but in terms of style. 15 And I was assigned the role of being a 16 possible media contact along with Ken Tuffts from 17 Ministry of Sol Gen. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That 19 document that you're referring to now is Exhibit P-518? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry. Yes, 518 I 21 believe, thank you, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Inquiry 23 Document Number is 1008858? That's right? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Yes, I 25 forgot to include both of those pieces of information.


1 Thank you. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, if you could turn to the bottom 5 of the first page of that document, it reads as follows: 6 "In 1972 Provincial Government 7 archaeologists conducted a survey of 8 the Park and located no burial sites. 9 There have been no burial sites in the 10 Park identified under the Cemeteries 11 Act." 12 That seems to be the only reference to 13 burial sites in this document; is that correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Would you agree that the impression 16 intended to be conveyed by that paragraph is that any 17 claim that there might be burial sites in the Park does 18 not have any substance to it? 19 A: At the time the only thing we had to 20 go on in terms of factual evidence, was what is cited 21 here. We knew that there were claims but they were not 22 in any way at that time substantiated until evidence 23 flowed into ONAS some time later. 24 Q: Yes. But, you do agree with my 25 characterization of the impact of that paragraph that it


1 would imply to any reader that any claim that there might 2 be burial sites is very unlikely to have any substance 3 because there was a serious study done and didn't find 4 any, right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now, at some point, evidently, and 7 I'm not sure of the exact timing, the Interministerial 8 Committee or persons involved in these discussions, 9 became aware that that 1972 survey was not to be highly 10 respected, one might say. 11 Now, I -- I gave your counsel a document 12 yesterday which I -- he told me he was going to give a 13 copy to you of and he did put it on your table yesterday. 14 It's P-17 to these proceedings, Mr. 15 Commissioner. And I have a copy for you as well, Mr. 16 Commissioner. It's P-17 and it's Inquiry Document Number 17 1011882. 18 Do you have a copy of that? 19 A: I'm sorry I don't. 20 Q: It seems I did give you two (2) 21 copies, can I have yours back for the moment? Or -- or 22 perhaps, sorry, that's not necessary. Perhaps, if you 23 could give her the exhibit copy please, P-17. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: Thank you. 2 Q: The -- or the top of this is a fax 3 cover sheet, and then if one opens the document, inside 4 the first page is entitled, Notes Regarding Peter 5 Hamaiainen's 1972 Report: Report of an archaeological 6 survey of Ipperwash Provincial Park. 7 And then in the middle of that page one 8 reads: 9 "A few comments concerning the value of 10 this report. 11 The methodology used at the time does 12 not agree with current archaeological 13 survey standards." 14 Second bullet point. 15 "This report cannot be used to say, 16 with authority, there are no burial 17 sites within Ipperwash Provincial Park. 18 The methodology as described in the 19 report would not likely uncover 20 possible sites." 21 And then 3rd: 22 "It is unlikely burial sites will be 23 found in the Park since no evidence of 24 long term human habitation has been 25 found."


1 What I'm interested is, you can gather in 2 the first two (2) bullet points especially, with respect 3 to the value of this report which is referred to in the 4 backgrounder that we just looked at. 5 Now, this fax cover sheet is dated 6 September 12, 1995 and this backgrounder, I believe, was 7 on September 8, 1995, a couple of days prior to the fax 8 cover sheet. 9 But, as to when the problems with that 10 1972 survey became apparent, I -- I don't know. 11 Do you know? 12 A: No, and this is the first time I'm 13 seeing this. 14 Q: You agree that if you had been aware 15 of the first two (2) bullet points that I read to you 16 from this document, you would not have written what was 17 in the backgrounder with respect to that survey; is that 18 correct? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Myrka? 21 MR. WALTER MYRKA: I understood from Ms. 22 Prodanou's evidence that when this document was prepared, 23 the historical portion of the document was prepared by -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 25 think the microphone you're speaking into is working. I


1 can see Counsel straining and so am I. Unfortunately we 2 have to use that mic. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I heard what he was 4 saying and I am happy to rephrase my question to take 5 into account what he just said, if -- if I may? 6 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Yeah, the point I was 7 making is I understood from this Witness' evidence that 8 she was not involved in the historical preparation and we 9 haven't heard yet -- well, I think I just did, that she's 10 never seen the report and therefore was not involved in 11 reviewing it back in 1995. 12 So, I don't know how she can assist us 13 with some of the questions that Mr. Rosenthal has put to 14 her. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Myrka. You're going to -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think I can 18 rephrase the question in a way that accommodates My 19 Friend and is more accurate, in fact. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: So, you told us that you, as a person 23 with press experience, looked over this backgrounder as 24 far as style and so on; is that correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: But, also if you had found a factual 2 error in there you would bring that to the attention -- 3 A: I would have questioned it, hmm hmm. 4 Q: And also if you -- if there was 5 something that you found to be misleading in there you 6 would suggest -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- correcting that as well, would you 9 not? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And would you agree that if the 12 information that I've just referred you to about the 1972 13 report is accurate, that the methodology at the time does 14 not agree with current survey standards and that the 15 report cannot be used to say with authority there are no 16 burial sites, if you -- if one was in possession of that 17 information, then this would be misleading, the paragraph 18 in the backgrounder that spoke of that report as if it 19 was scientifically valid? 20 A: I don't think it would have been 21 stated in that way, no. 22 Q: It would not be appropriate to state 23 it in that way if you were aware of this other 24 information? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Yes. Now, to your knowledge, we know 2 that by September 12 at least, this other information was 3 available. 4 Was there ever any correction issued to 5 what appears to be the misleading reference to that 6 report in the September 8th backgrounder? 7 A: There wasn't any by myself because my 8 role, with respect to supporting the so-called nerve 9 centre, was basically finished. 10 We were -- ONAS was asked during that 11 first day, September the 7th, after the shooting, to 12 prepare these background documents for the use of this 13 nerve centre, as the nerve centre was being constituted. 14 We provided that information and then the 15 nerve centre basically took over the role of 16 communication, disseminating -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: -- any information flowing in and 19 out. It did become apparent very shortly after that 20 there were valid claims to a burial ground. 21 And there was information that came from 22 INAC shortly thereafter and it hit the papers. I can't 23 say what the source of the information to the papers was, 24 whether it came from the Feds or whether it came from us, 25 but that was certainly corrected in the public mind.


1 Q: I see. Okay, thank you. Now, I 2 believe you attended towards the end of Ms. Hipfner's 3 examination yesterday; is that correct? 4 You heard the last part of Ms. Hipfner's 5 examination? 6 A: No, I wasn't here. 7 Q: Oh, you weren't here, I'm sorry. 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay, I misunderstood. But, she 10 mentioned you, in particular, in the following paragraph. 11 She said that you, who's about to testify next: 12 "Left the Native Affairs Secretariat in 13 large measure because she just couldn't 14 deal with the pressure and the secrecy 15 and being a part after the fact of 16 these events." 17 These events, meaning the events that 18 we've been talking about. Is that accurate? 19 A: Yes. Not so much even the secrecy 20 but just the whole -- everything. Everything was 21 different. 22 Q: Yes. And she described her own 23 difficulties -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: -- at greater length than -- than she


1 did yours, and indicated that she felt that not only she 2 but a number of other civil servants felt extraordinary 3 pressure from these events? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And one (1) of the concerns that she 6 had -- she indicated was about possible retribution if 7 she spoke out in some way or did something. 8 I understand that the Federal Government 9 has protection for whistle-blowers as it's called, for 10 people who -- civil servants who do speak out when they 11 see something amiss in government. 12 Is there any such protection that you're 13 aware of for Ontario civil servants in -- in any 14 legislation? 15 A: I don't know. 16 Q: Did you at some points in the ten 17 (10) years from September 5th, 1995 to the present day 18 feel constrained in your speaking out of -- about what 19 you -- some things that you might have thought might have 20 been improper because of your role as a civil servant? 21 A: I did and because of the number of 22 legal cases that were launched I felt that I should not 23 speak about what I knew. 24 Q: Has your testimony here been limited 25 by those concerns?


1 A: I'm sorry? 2 Q: Has your testimony in front of this 3 Inquiry been limited by those concerns? 4 Are there some things that you have held-- 5 A: No. 6 Q: -- back on because of fear of 7 retribution -- 8 A: No. 9 Q: -- and -- 10 A: I feel very relieved that I've this 11 opportunity to get it off my chest. 12 Q: Yes. Is it likely that if there were 13 protection for whistle-blowers in the Ontario Government 14 that that might have given you and some of your 15 colleagues a little more freedom to speak out about what 16 you thought was -- was improper? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 18 Myrka...? 19 MR. WALTER MYRKA: He's asking the Witness 20 to speculate. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 22 that that's -- 23 MR. WALTER MYRKA: I'm not sure where 24 this is going. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I


1 don't know where it's going, but I think it's almost 2 finished. 3 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Okay. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It is. It is 5 almost finished and it's -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think I 7 know where -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I think it's an 9 appropriate question and -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said she 11 didn't know. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it -- it -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, she did 14 say she didn't know whether or not there was any -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. She didn't 16 know if there was any such -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Not knowing, 18 I don't know how you can be asking her much more. I 19 mean, if she didn't know there was any and it didn't 20 constrain her, the fact that there would be. I'm just 21 not sure if she can be helpful. That may be a good 22 suggestion for you to make. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 denying that, but I'm not sure that this Witness can be


1 any more helpful in making the point that you may want to 2 make. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I do anticipate the 4 possibility of making a recommendation that you, Mr. 5 Commissioner, make such a recommendation. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I would love 7 to do that. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And -- and I 9 thought it might be of assistance if -- if for example 10 this Witness though it might have given her and some of 11 her colleagues some assistance then it might assist you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She didn't - 13 - I'm sorry, carry on. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That was -- that 15 was the reason I asked the question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: If there had been such legislation, 20 some clear legislation that protected civil servants who 21 -- who when they thought something wrong had happened, 22 brought it to the attention of the proper authorities -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The reason 24 was -- see, the reason why the question is not proper of 25 this Witness is she didn't know that there wasn't any


1 protection. She doesn't know if there is or there isn't. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 4 that it would have constrained her in any way, shape, or 5 form if she didn't know whether it existed or it didn't. 6 So -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, I -- 8 I would think that if there did exist such legislation 9 she would have been aware of it, as a civil servant, if 10 there were such legislation protecting her and I 11 understand that it came in in the Federal Government 12 route only recently. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said she 14 didn't know though. You asked her that question. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I'll just 16 leave it there then if I may, Mr. Commissioner. Thank 17 you very much. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Rosenthal. 24 I thought Mr. Neil was next, but I see Mr. 25 Scullion there.


1 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: No questions. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No 3 questions. 4 Mr. Horner...? 5 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Good morning, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 morning. 9 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Good morning, Ms. 10 Prodanou. 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 14 Q: My name is Matthew Horner and I'm 15 counsel for the Chiefs of Ontario. And I just have a 16 couple of questions, just to clear up some -- one 17 question I had from your testimony yesterday. 18 You highlighted, in your testimony 19 yesterday, that at -- at the September 5th meeting there 20 were -- there was three (3) categories of options that 21 were, sort of, being discussed by the Committee. 22 There was the option of waiting, waiting 23 to get more information from the -- from the occupiers. 24 There was the option of the injunction. 25 And then there was the option of doing


1 something more urgent and taking more -- more drastic 2 action. 3 Correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it was your view that this more 6 urgent approach was being favoured by political staff -- 7 by the political staff there; is that correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Yes. And as an example of this more 10 urgent approach, you raised the -- the -- this Hell's 11 Angels metaphor that -- that was brought up by one of the 12 political staff; is that correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And -- and I'm -- I just want to 15 clarify what was -- what your understanding of this 16 metaphor was. 17 This metaphor was raised to mean that, as 18 an example, that if the Hell's Angels were to show up on 19 your lawn, you would just call the police and the police 20 would come and remove them; is that correct? 21 A: That's pretty well what was said. 22 Q: And so -- and that the under -- your 23 understanding was -- would be the police would just come 24 and there would be no court process involved prior to 25 removal of the -- of the trespassers.


1 A: That's -- that's what was suggested 2 in the Hell's Angels example. 3 Q: And so your understanding was that 4 this more urgent -- one of the options under this more 5 urgent approach, this third option, would be to move 6 without any court process. 7 A: That was never articulated that way. 8 Q: Thank you very much, Ms. Prodanou. 9 Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, those are my questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much, Mr. Horner. 12 Mr. Roy...? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good morning, Mr. 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 19 morning, Mr. Roy. You made a twenty (20) to thirty (30) 20 minute estimate and you said it was based on what 21 questions were asked, is your estimate still accurate? 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: I was about to address 23 that, Mr. Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think I'm more like


1 ten (10) minutes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 3 very much, Mr. Roy. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think I'm more like 5 ten (10) minutes. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 8 Q: Good morning, Ms. Prodanou. 9 A: Good morning. 10 Q: Am I pronouncing your name right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Thank you. I like you if you would 13 to turn to Tab 11, please. And specifically Tab 11, page 14 3. Mr. Commissioner, this is P-731. 15 And Tab 7 -- or sorry, Tab 11 is notes of 16 an IMC meeting on September 7th; is that correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Now, I want to take you to that page 19 3 portion specifically. And it's under -- 20 A: IMC and senior management. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: Not the entire IMC, senior ONAS 23 management. 24 Q: All right. It's -- it's IMC, absent 25 the political staff, correct?


1 A: Yes and certain other 2 Interministerial members from other ministries. 3 Q: All right. The deputy ministers were 4 all there. 5 A: Pardon me? 6 Q: The deputy ministers were all there 7 for the three (3) -- 8 A: Yes. So it's a very different kind 9 of group. 10 Q: Okay. Nevertheless, there's a lot of 11 ONAS staffers who were at the meeting? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Okay. Now I'm -- I'm taking you to 14 the heading at the top of the page, on page 3. It says, 15 "Ron V". 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: That's a reference to Ron Vrancart? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And then there's -- right after, "Ron 20 V." it says "Communications", correct. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And that heading is underlined? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And then there's a number of notes 25 that you make underneath that heading, correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Before it goes to another heading, 3 Larry Taman; do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: I'm right in saying that the 6 discussion underneath that heading is about this issue of 7 communications concerning the incident, correct? 8 A: It certainly starts that way. It may 9 have veered off to other areas. I don't necessarily 10 subheading every change of topic -- 11 Q: I see. 12 A: -- if it drifts into another area. 13 It may not be about communication. But I think it 14 started about communication. 15 Q: Now Michelle Fordyce -- rather, 16 'Michelle' is referred to underneath that heading; do you 17 see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And Michelle Fordyce is the Assistant 20 Deputy Minister Responsible for ONAS; is that correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: So, she's a fairly senior person 23 within ONAS? 24 A: She was, yes. 25 Q: Yes. And in fact she's right beneath


1 Larry Taman in terms of the chain of command at ONAS; is 2 that right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, what -- the reference you have 5 is: 6 "Michelle: Here is expertise." 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And what she's saying or what you 10 understood she was saying is that here, meaning in this 11 room, is expertise on Aboriginal issues as it pertains to 12 communications; is that correct? 13 A: I think expertise, generally, about 14 Aboriginal issues. 15 Q: And that would include expertise on 16 communications, correct? 17 A: I think she meant -- generally, yes, 18 so that would include communications as well. 19 Q: Thank you. And -- and in the room, 20 you've already told us there was a lot of ONAS staffers 21 and -- and did you understand that in terms of expertise 22 on Aboriginal issues, she was referring primarily to the 23 ONAS staffers who were in the room? 24 A: I'm sorry? 25 Q: In terms of what your understanding


1 of what Michelle Fordyce was saying, she was -- when she 2 was referring to expertise on Aboriginal issues, she was 3 referring to -- primarily to the ONAS staffers in the 4 room; is that right? 5 A: That's how I understood it. 6 Q: Yeah. And now I'm going to suggest 7 to you that you would agree with the assertion that -- of 8 Michelle Fordyce that ONAS would have some expertise in 9 communications, particularly as it relates to First 10 Nations issues? 11 A: I do. 12 Q: Yeah. And you're part of that 13 expertise, correct, or you were at the time? 14 A: I was, so -- I was a new employee, 15 but I was part of that group, yes. 16 Q: And part of having expertise on 17 communications on First Nations issues involves an 18 awareness of unfortunate stereotypes that are out there 19 in the media concerning First Nations people; is that not 20 right? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That's something that you have to 23 deal with when you're doing communications for ONAS; is 24 that correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And what you want to do is you want 2 to try and frame -- when you're doing communications on 3 Aboriginal issues, you want to frame the communications 4 in a way that you're not exacerbating those stereotypes 5 that are already out there; is that correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And I -- I take it that when you 8 prepare -- when you're involved in preparing a press 9 release of some kind, there's some kind of vetting 10 process where you get approval on that press release from 11 people up the chain of command; is that correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And who would that be, in terms of -- 14 within ONAS, if you were to be instructed to draft a 15 press release, who would it have to go through before it 16 went out into the -- into the public -- 17 A: It would be initialled by all the 18 senior management. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: It would go -- it would have, at that 21 time, gone to my director of communications, Janina 22 Korol, and either Yan or Michelle -- or Michelle. There 23 was some, at that point, mixing of responsibilities with 24 Yan being, primarily, because he was a legal director, 25 responsible for this area.


1 Q: So -- 2 A: But it would have been initialled all 3 the way to the top; not as far as the deputy Attorney 4 General but the ADM within ONAS. 5 Q: All right. And that form of checks 6 and balances is -- is -- this press release gets vetted 7 up the chain of command, is part of how you ensure that 8 the message that goes out is not something that's going 9 to exacerbate the stereotypes about First Nations; is 10 that correct? 11 A: That's one of the objectives. 12 Q: Yes. Now, ONAS was not given 13 responsibility for communications on the Ipperwash 14 incident, either before or after the shooting; is that 15 correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Now this notion of not exacerbating 18 stereotypes about the First Nations people, in order to 19 do that it really puts an onus on the Government to be 20 accurate in terms of the facts that its communicating 21 about First Nations; is that correct? 22 A: I think it puts an onus on the 23 Government to communicate accurate information under any 24 circumstances. 25 Q: Yes. But that's particularly so when


1 it's communicating about a group that's already subject 2 to some unfortunate stereotyping; is that not correct? 3 A: I think there would have to be 4 additional sensitivity applied. 5 Q: So, if you were going to make an 6 allegation, for example, that First Nations people had 7 fired on OPP officers, you'd want to make sure -- you 8 might want to take some extra care, giving stereotyping 9 about First Nations people, to ensure that that statement 10 is accurate before it's circulated in the public domain; 11 is that correct? 12 A: It's hard for me to answer that. 13 There was a press release issued, I believe, by the OPP 14 recounting the incidents. I have no way of verifying 15 what happened on the scene but absolutely it should be 16 very, very accurate, just as a -- as an objective, as -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: -- a goal, any press release should 19 be accurate. 20 Q: Yes. Your point is government should 21 always try their best to be accurate. But what I'm -- 22 what I'm suggesting to you, and I think you're agreeing 23 with me by your last answer, is that when it comes to a 24 group that's already suffering in terms of -- of how it's 25 being portrayed that there's almost an additional onus on


1 government to really make sure that -- that they get it 2 right. 3 Am I right about that? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 5 Myrka...? 6 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I'm not 7 sure I understand the question. Perhaps if he rephrases 8 it. If he's referring specifically to a group that would 9 be I think more relevant to the circumstances here. 10 If he has a specific question to ask, he's 11 referred to a group that has been already suffering and 12 I'm not sure where this is going and I'd like -- 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: So -- 14 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- to hear what -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. 16 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- what it is that 17 he's asking the Witness, specifically. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: My -- My Friend didn't 19 understand that I was referring to stereotypes about 20 Aboriginal people through my line of questioning. I 21 guess if he didn't understand that I can make my question 22 more clear for him. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Try to make 24 your question more -- 25 MR. WALTER MYRKA: I understood it --


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: Would you like me to do 2 that Mr. Commissioner? 3 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- to be more specific 4 than that. 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: I can do that. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are 7 referring at the moment to Aboriginal people? 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes, I am. I -- I 9 thought that was implicit in my line of questioning and I 10 -- I thought that it was apparent to everybody that there 11 are these stereotypes and apparently My Friend -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- I wasn't clear to My 14 Friend, but I'll continue and be a little more specific. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 17 Q: When we're talking about First 18 Nations people and --and what you've already told us 19 about unfortunate stereotypes about that group of people 20 that there's an additional onus on government when 21 they're engaging in communications about First Nations 22 people to ensure that they're accurate and not making it 23 worse; is that correct? 24 A: Yes. And over time, as I'm sure 25 you've noticed, there would have been changes in the


1 language used in referring to Aboriginal people -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- native versus First Nation versus 4 Aboriginal. There's a lot of discussion about what 5 phraseology to use and there is sensitivity. 6 Q: And that's an expertise that -- that 7 ONAS can really bring to bear on a situation like that; 8 is that correct? 9 A: We were particularly sensitive to 10 that, yes. 11 Q: To the extent that you were permitted 12 to have responsibility; is that correct? 13 A: I'm sorry? 14 Q: To the extent that you were permitted 15 to have responsibility for communications about this 16 incident? 17 A: We have communicated -- 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: -- on a number of issues in the past, 20 yes and still do. 21 Q: All right. Those are my questions. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Roy. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much. 25 Thank you very much, Ms. Prodanou.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 Mr. Myrka, do you have any questions? 3 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Just a couple of 4 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 7 Q: The September 7th meeting, and just 8 so we're clear, was that an IMC meeting or was it a 9 different meeting, because I understood that the 10 participants were primarily ONAS staff? 11 A: Yes, that's correct. It was mostly 12 ONAS staff and the core of the people who attended the 13 IMC meeting on the previous days. 14 Q: And you had two (2) deputy ministers 15 who attended that day? 16 A: Yes, they came late but they did 17 arrive and attended part of the meeting. 18 Q: And the ONAS staff remained 19 afterwards to discuss amongst other things steps that 20 would be taken? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Okay. Thank you. Those are my 23 questions, Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much, Mr. Myrka.


1 Do you have any re-examination, Ms. 2 Ferrier? 3 MS. MEGAN FERRIER: Thank you, 4 Commissioner, I just have one (1) very brief question for 5 Ms. Prodanou. 6 7 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 8 Q: If you could turn to Tab 5 of the 9 book of documents in front of you, just to go back to 10 your handwritten notes from September 6th, which are 11 document number 1011763 and have been entered as Exhibits 12 P-548 and P-638. 13 And yesterday, Ms. Prodanou, you had 14 helped us read through your notes and they were entered 15 into the transcript. 16 If you turn to page 2 of your notes it's 17 come to my attention that in the transcript, if you look 18 at where it says, "Peter Sturdy," underlined, towards the 19 top of the page? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And then the second line below that, 22 the transcript from yesterday reads: 23 "Anxiety from land resident." 24 And I just wanted to clarify whether the 25 third word might actually be, "local residents?"


1 A: Yes, it's, "local residents." 2 Q: Okay. Thank you. 3 At this point I'd just like to take the 4 opportunity then to thank Ms. Prodanou for attending and 5 also to ask if she has any -- anything further to add at 6 this point? 7 A: No, no. And thank you for hearing me 8 out. 9 Q: Thank you very much. 10 11 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much for coming and giving us your testimony. Thank 15 you very much. 16 I think this is a good time to take our 17 morning break and then we'll move to the next witness. 18 Thank you very much. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 10:11 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 10:36 a.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now


1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 MS. MEGAN FERRIER: Commissioner, the 3 Commission calls as its next witness Shelley Spiegel. 4 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Ms. 5 Spiegel. 6 MS. SHELLEY SPIEGEL: Good morning. 7 THE REGISTRAR: Do you prefer to swear on 8 the bible, affirm, or use an alternate oath? 9 MS. SHELLEY SPIEGEL: I will affirm. 10 THE REGISTRAR: Very good. 11 12 SHELLEY SPIEGEL, Affirmed; 13 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hello, Ms. 15 Spiegel. 16 THE WITNESS: Hello. 17 18 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 19 Q: Ms. Spiegel if we could begin by 20 going through a bit of your educational and professional 21 background? 22 First, you received your LLB from Ottawa 23 University in 1980; is that correct? 24 A: Yes, it is. 25 Q: And you were called to the Bar in


1 1982? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And from August of 1985 until 4 September of 1990 you worked as a senior policy advisor 5 for Ian Scott when he became Attorney General and 6 Minister responsible for native Affairs? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And in that job you were part of his 9 political staff? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And if you could, if you could 12 describe for us, just generally, the policy areas for 13 which you had responsibility in that job? 14 A: Initially I was hired to be his 15 policy advisor in Aboriginal issues or native affairs, 16 and that would have encompassed anything to do with 17 native issues during his time in office. 18 At some point in time I also took on the 19 responsibilities of advising him in family law, court 20 reform, alternative dispute resolution and delay -- 21 various issues that were on the court reform agenda. 22 Q: Okay, thank you. And then in 23 November of 1990, you joined the Ontario Government as a 24 senior policy advisor in the Ontario Native Affairs 25 Secretariat?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And in this job you were then a 3 public servant? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And again, if you could maybe just 6 describe, generally, the policy areas for which you had 7 responsibility in that job? 8 A: Attorney General, Solicitor General, 9 women's issues, health, social services, anti-racism and 10 human rights, I think. There may have been another, but 11 that was essentially... 12 Q: Okay. So, in that job you wouldn't 13 have dealt with policy issues around, for example, self- 14 government or land claims? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Then in March of 1993 you were 17 seconded to the Cabinet Office as a senior policy 18 advisor? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And Julie -- at that time Julie Jai 21 was your supervisor? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And in that role, again, if you could 24 describe for us the policy areas for which you had 25 responsibility?


1 A: Ministry of the Attorney General and 2 women's issues. 3 Q: Thank you. And then in September of 4 1994 you became acting executive coordinator in the 5 Cabinet Office? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And that then was your role in 8 September of 1995? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And then, again, in that role, your - 11 - the policy areas for which you were responsible, 12 included? 13 A: As the acting executive coordinator; 14 Solicitor General, Attorney General, women's issues, 15 consumer/commercial relations, Native Affairs, human 16 rights. 17 I'm trying to think if there are any 18 other. And then at some point I took on, just the policy 19 advisor role, as well in Native Affairs and that was 20 because we were in transition and weren't rehiring staff 21 as they were leaving. And so I just assumed the policy 22 role as well as the executive co-ordinator role. 23 Q: Okay. And just to finish in terms of 24 your background. You left public service then in 25 November or December of 1995?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And just so that we know what -- what 3 is your work now? Or what does it -- 4 A: I administer my husband's labour 5 arbitration practice. 6 Q: Okay. Thank you. So just to go back 7 a step, if you could describe for the Commission, then, 8 the role of the cabinet office, that would be helpful. 9 A: The cabinet office was -- was and is 10 the bureaucratic or public service support for the 11 Premier's office and the cabinet decision making process. 12 So, we would provide both content policy, advice and 13 input as well as process of getting decision making 14 points through cabinet. 15 Q: Okay. And while in cabinet office 16 was Rita Burak your supervisor? 17 A: In September of 1995. She -- she was 18 not my immediate supervisor, I had an ADM. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: But she was the secretary of cabinet. 21 Q: And what would her role have been? 22 A: She was the senior public servant in 23 the Ontario Government and she was the secretary to 24 cabinet. She would have been the equivalent of the 25 Premier's deputy minister.


1 Q: And how -- what was the relationship 2 between deputy ministers and the cabinet office? 3 A: And the cabinet office? 4 Q: Would there have been any reporting 5 relationship? 6 A: Yes. They would report to Rita 7 Burak. Q: As well then as to their ministers? 8 A: Yes. There was a dual role, I 9 believe, deputy ministers got a responsibility, actually, 10 to the Premier and to the minister and Rita Burak, being 11 the Premier's senior official, there was obviously their 12 relationship -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- reporting in that direction as 15 well. 16 Q: Okay. And then if you could maybe 17 describe a bit more for us in general terms, what your 18 duties were while with the cabinet office as acting 19 executive co-ordinator. So I guess maybe initially and 20 then if -- if you wanted to describe in -- over the 21 summer of 1995. 22 A: I would have had four (4) or five (5) 23 policy staff who reported to me and they would have had 24 sectoral responsibilities for the various justice 25 portfolios that we -- that we managed.


1 And so they would have, by and large, 2 dealt with the line ministries on items, whether or not 3 it was bringing a cabinet submission through to the 4 system and through, finally, for cabinet decision. That 5 they would have reported to me and I would have been part 6 of the regular briefings of the Premier or the Premier's 7 staff on those issues as they were going through the 8 system. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: And we might have gotten involved in 11 things that weren't necessarily going to cabinet but were 12 of significance for the Government or for the Premier. 13 And then when I took over at some point 14 the -- the specific policy area of Native Affairs, I 15 would have, as well, just been that policy advisor doing 16 the day to day contact with the line ministries on Native 17 issues. 18 Q: And did you continue to have a 19 relationship with ONAS or work with ONAS? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: As a -- as a cabinet office policy 23 advisor you would work really closely with the line 24 ministries -- 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: -- that were effected. 2 Q: And I think you mentioned and just to 3 go over this again, that you had staff who were policy 4 advisors working for you. But then I'm not sure if you 5 said, but is it correct, then, that in the Summer of 1995 6 you had fewer policy advisors working for you. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you took on more of a policy 9 advisor role then? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And if you -- what was the context 12 for that? 13 A: I'm not sure if it was during the 14 election, before the election or after the election, but 15 many of the staff at cabinet office were seconded from 16 other ministries. 17 And as their contracts came up or as they 18 had other job opportunities they would move on and 19 because theoretically or possibly we were looking at a 20 time of transition there was a decision not to re-hire 21 those positions. 22 Q: Turning now to your involvement with 23 Aboriginal issues, if you could describe for us your 24 involvement on a professional basis with issues affecting 25 Aboriginal people in the province of Ontario. And I


1 guess if you could -- maybe the easiest way is if we go 2 back to your time working for Ian Scott to start with, 3 when you were a member of political staff. 4 A: When I worked for Mr. Scott I would 5 have had an all-encompassing role in any aspect that 6 dealt with Aboriginal issues in the province. As 7 Minister Responsible for Native Affairs he had an -- an 8 overarching responsibility as well. It was a priority 9 area for him so there were a lot of things that -- that 10 were -- were taken on to move the Government in that 11 area. 12 And so any issue inviting -- involving 13 Native Affairs, I would have been involved in from land 14 claims to constitutional to justice issues. There 15 wouldn't have been any that I wouldn't have had some 16 involvement because he would have been involved in every 17 issue. 18 Q: And over that time do you recall 19 meetings of a blockade-type committee or meetings -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- in response to a blockade or -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- occupation issues? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And did you attend those meetings?


1 A: Many of them, yes. 2 Q: And so you attended as a member of 3 political staff? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And do you recall, just in a -- in a 6 general way, what your role would have been -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- at those meetings? 9 A: I would have represented the 10 Minister. I would have -- it could have been an 11 information gathering meeting where I needed to know more 12 information to give to the Minister so he could formulate 13 his view or position that he wanted to feed back into a 14 group meeting. 15 I may have already known what Mr. Scott 16 wanted and I would have articulated that back. 17 Q: And you recall other political staff 18 would also have attended those meetings? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: After 1990 when you joined ONAS and 21 you were no longer a political staff member, did you 22 continue to attend committee meetings in the role that 23 you initially assumed with ONAS as a policy advisor, a 24 senior policy advisor? 25 A: Not to my recollection.


1 Q: Do you recall the next time that you 2 would have been involved again with such committee 3 meetings? 4 A: I -- I believe it was -- I believe it 5 was in September of 1995. 6 Q: And then in your role -- so in your 7 role with Cabinet office you were a member of the 8 Committee? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And what would your role, then, in 11 September of 1995 have been with the Committee? 12 A: I would have been there to support 13 the Premier's office and to look at the corporate picture 14 and probably bring my expertise in history in dealing 15 with blockade issues. 16 Q: And do you recall in either -- well, 17 I'll say in September of 1995, do you recall seeing or 18 receiving any documents dealing with the role of the 19 Committee? 20 A: I don't recall. 21 Q: Dealing with the powers of the 22 Committee? 23 A: I don't recall. 24 Q: Or the responsibilities of the 25 Committee?


1 A: No. But I would have been familiar 2 with them. 3 Q: And what was your understanding of -- 4 of those -- of the -- we'll start with the role of the 5 Committee? 6 A: That it was an Interministerial 7 Committee. Ministries that would have been affected by 8 the particular occurrence would have been called upon. 9 It was chaired by Native Affairs -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- staff from Native Affairs; that it 12 would develop, recommend, look at -- find out 13 information, information gathering and sharing, and make 14 recommendations to the Government as to how to proceed. 15 Q: Did you understand the Committee to 16 have any powers? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Any -- beyond what you've already 19 mentioned any additional responsibilities? 20 A: Well, it would have been all- 21 encompassing. So there might have been a communication 22 attached to it, a communications plan attached to it, 23 whether or not a matter would have to go to Cabinet, who 24 would take the lead on it, that it would make 25 recommendations to the -- to the Government.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. And you've said that you 2 didn't see any documents that you recall dealing with the 3 role of the Committee. Can you say any more about how 4 you came to your understanding of the role of the 5 Committee? 6 A: I believe that I was consulted when 7 the -- the document was established to create the 8 Committee because of my prior -- when I worked at ONAS, 9 because of my prior involvement in Mr. Scott's office, 10 the staff who were developing and formalizing the 11 Interministerial Committee asked for my input on it. 12 Q: Okay. Through your previous 13 involvement when you had participated in meetings as a 14 member of political staff, do you recall, in general, 15 whether there was -- if you could, I don't know if you 16 can generalize or if you can't, but if there was a way to 17 describe the approach taken by the Government to 18 occupation or blockade type situations that would arise? 19 A: The general approach was not to 20 negotiate the underlying issue or grievance that led to 21 the occupation or blockade, whatever we were facing, but 22 to negotiate the removal of the blockade and then a 23 process for dealing with whatever the underlying 24 grievance was. 25 Q: And again --


1 A: Sorry. And that it was very much an 2 Interministerial approach in terms of affected ministries 3 by a particular occurrence. 4 Q: And again with your earlier 5 involvement, do you recall at all how information about 6 events that were occurring was communicated to the 7 meetings? 8 A: Typically the line ministry that 9 might have had the lead or the most pertinent involvement 10 of the issues, so if it was a public road it might have 11 been Ministry of Transportation, if it was Crown land it 12 might have been MNR, would be able to come and through 13 the chain of command and bureaucracy give us an overlay 14 of what was happening, what might have been the 15 underlying grievance, what precipitated it, what was 16 happening. 17 Very often we would have, on speaker 18 phone, somebody who was actually at the site or a local 19 person, whether or not it was the line ministry, 20 sometimes local OPP, and they would be part of the 21 meeting by telephone. 22 Q: And when the OPP might have been 23 involved, what was your understanding or was police 24 independence brought up in the meetings? 25 A: I can't recall if it was brought up.


1 I think it was always understood that the police were -- 2 had independent control over their operational issues. I 3 can't recall if it was particularly an issue. 4 Q: And in terms of your own 5 understanding of that, if you could maybe tell us a bit 6 about how you came to understand, for example, that the 7 OPP are responsible for their own operational issues? 8 A: Well I may have understood it from my 9 contact in a blockade issue, but at least two (2) points. 10 While Mr. Scott was part of the Government he became 11 acting Solicitor General and it was important as his 12 political staff that we understand the limitations of 13 that role. 14 And I recall that there was an academic, 15 but I can't recall his name, who had written in the area 16 and I believe we had some of his papers and I believe we 17 had a dinner with him, so that we understood, in a sense, 18 the anomaly in government that while he may be 19 responsible in the House to answer questions -- 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: -- he had no ability to direct the 22 operational activities of the police, of the OPP. 23 Q: And do you recall at all at that time 24 how -- you didn't use the word 'briefing' but how that 25 information came to be communicated to you as political


1 staff or... 2 A: I believe we, my colleague, would 3 have scouted around for some academic writing in the area 4 and had found the academic. 5 Q: Yes, okay. Turning now, then, to the 6 events of 1995. As we've touched on in June of 1995 7 there was a change in government. 8 I'll sort of try to separate these out, 9 but did you participate after the change in the briefing 10 of any ministers during the first three (3) months? 11 A: Not to my recollection. 12 Q: Did you participate in the briefing 13 of any -- 14 A: Sorry. Transition briefing? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: You mean -- you mean around 17 transition? Because I would have briefed ministers about 18 items going to cabinet committees. 19 Q: More in terms of transition, to 20 start. 21 A: Not to my recollection. 22 Q: Did you participate in the briefing 23 of any ministers' staff? Transition briefings? 24 A: Not to my recollection. 25 Q: Did you have anything to do with


1 briefing ministers or deputy ministers on Aboriginal 2 issues? 3 A: Not to my recollection. 4 Q: Did you have anything to do with 5 briefing political staff on Aboriginal issues? 6 A: I would have been involved in any 7 briefings of political -- of minis -- 8 Q: Of political staff? 9 A: Which political staff? 10 Q: Any? 11 A: Premier's office staff. 12 Q: Okay. The Premier's office staff. 13 Can you recall those briefings? 14 A: I recall there being one (1) briefing 15 in particular -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- where I can recall that it was Guy 18 Giorno who was at the meeting who was the Premier's 19 senior policy advisor at the time, he might have been the 20 director of policy, where he had asked for a briefing on 21 particular issues on the Aboriginal agenda. And I 22 remember attending that meeting. 23 Q: Okay. And just in case it might help 24 you if we can turn to -- this is Inquiry Document Number 25 3001721. It was not included in the List of Documents,


1 but Commissioner, you should have a copy in the folder. 2 It's already been entered as an exhibit, Exhibit P-642. 3 And this -- the front page is a memo dated 4 August 10th, 1995 to Rita Burak. The subject is, 5 Briefing on Aboriginal Issues, and it's from Larry Taman. 6 And the memo attaches what I think is a slide 7 presentation that was made. 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Are you familiar with this document? 10 A: I recall it, yes. 11 Q: Was this document used as part of a 12 briefing meeting? 13 A: Yes. It's the one I'm referring to. 14 Q: Okay. So you attended that meeting? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And again, who else do you recall was 17 present at the meeting? 18 A: I recall that the briefing was 19 conducted by Michelle Fordyce who was an assistant deputy 20 minister at Native Affairs. I recall Guy Giorno there 21 and I don't recall anybody else. But, I'm sure there 22 were more people. 23 Q: Yes. So there may have been 24 additional political staff -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- at the meeting? Do you recall 2 being asked to do anything as part of this briefing or -- 3 A: No, I don't recall. 4 Q: Do you recall attending any 5 additional briefings? 6 A: I don't recall. 7 Q: Okay. And just -- just for the sake 8 of completeness, if we go to -- again this is not in the 9 List of Documents, but it's Inquiry Document Number 10 3001721 and it's been entered as Exhibit P-705. 11 And these appear to be additional slide -- 12 a slide presentation with the title on the front, 13 Additional Information on Aboriginal Affairs for 14 Premier's Office Staff. And the date on the document is 15 August 23rd, 1995. 16 Do you have any recollection of this 17 briefing or -- 18 A: I don't. 19 Q: Have you -- and you don't recall 20 seeing this document before? 21 A: I don't recall. 22 Q: Okay. Again going back to the change 23 in government, were you briefed or otherwise made aware 24 of the Government meaning, I guess, the more political 25 side's policy platform with respect to issues relating to


1 Aboriginal peoples? 2 A: If it was in the common sense 3 revolution, I would have been aware of that. I just 4 can't recall if it dealt with Aboriginal issues in 5 particular. 6 Q: And what did you understand the 7 direction of the new government to be? 8 A: I understood that it would be a 9 change in direction. It wouldn't have been moving I 10 think on the continuum that we had seen in the last ten 11 (10) years to recognizing Aboriginal rights and resolving 12 any of the outstanding issues. 13 That it was going to be a shift. That 14 there had been a steady progression and progress being 15 made in ten (10) years and that that was going to change. 16 Q: And can you say anymore about what 17 you understood about the new approach, that it was -- 18 A: That it wasn't going to be as 19 sympathetic. I can't recall anything. 20 Q: Okay. Turning now, more to the 21 events at Ipperwash in 1995, can you recall what your 22 first awareness of the emerging events there was? 23 A: My recollection is going to the 24 meeting on the 5th. 25 Q: So, then you don't recall additional


1 involvement over the course of the summer? 2 A: I don't recall any. 3 Q: Just for the sake of the -- the 4 completeness of the record, I'm going to take you to an 5 exhibit that's already gone in, but appreciating what 6 you've just said, that you don't recall any other 7 involvement. 8 And this is Exhibit P-644. Again, it 9 wasn't in the list of documents and this is Julie Jai's 10 phone log from the summer which she went through. 11 And if you just turn to the fourth page. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: The year at the top is 1995 and then, 14 "July" is marked in the left-hand column and then 15 "twenty-four (24)" for the date. 16 And towards the bottom there's the name -- 17 well first, the name "Shelley S." appears and then below 18 that, "Shelley". 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And I believe that beside the name 23 Shelley, then, the entry reads: 24 "Deb Hutton [and then] PO [probably 25 meaning Premier's office] critical


1 issues. Will be speaking to Premier 2 re. how to handle." 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Does looking at this in any way 5 refresh your memory as to whether you may have spoken to 6 Julie Jai about Deb Hutton and critical issues? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Okay. Next, if you turn the page 9 over to where the entries for the 25th begin, and your 10 name, "Shelley S.", is included. 11 Does that refresh your memory in any way? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Okay. The next page over, about in 14 the middle of the page, "Shelley S." appears again. 15 And I believe that the note beside it 16 says: 17 "They don't know if the Premier saw our 18 briefing note or not. they're now 19 recommending a letter go out confirming 20 the offer's off the table." 21 Do you have any recollection of that -- 22 A: I don't. 23 Q: -- conversation or message? So can 24 you say whether that might have been in relation to 25 Ipperwash?


1 A: I can't. 2 Q: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: If you skip ahead two (2) pages, I 7 believe. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Does the top of your page say, 12 "August 1st"; the page you're looking at? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And then if you look below where 15 "2nd" is noted, it says, I think "Shelley" and then below 16 that it's "Claude Galipeau". And then the next column 17 references "Brett Laschinger" with the name "Deb Hutton" 18 under his. And then beside his name it says: 19 "Reports to will be attending the 20 meeting." 21 Do you recall any conversation -- 22 A: I don't. 23 Q: -- with Julie Jai? Do you have any 24 suggestion as to what that entry refers to? 25 A: That she was convening a meeting and


1 that she either spoke to me or tried to reach me and got 2 Claude Galipeau or whatever, but Claude Galipeau was 3 attending for me and Brett Laschinger was attending to 4 Deb Hutton -- for Deb Hutton. 5 Q: Okay. Do you have any recollection 6 of being aware in the summer -- in August of 1995 that an 7 Interministerial Committee meeting was being convened for 8 August 2nd? 9 A: I have no particular recollection of 10 it. 11 Q: Do you recall receiving any documents 12 prior to the meeting that may have been circulated? 13 A: I don't recall it. 14 Q: Do you recall whether you received 15 the meeting notes, the minutes that would have been 16 circulated after that meeting? 17 A: I don't recall it, but I would have 18 received them. 19 Q: Okay. So, then going back, and 20 you've said that you think that your first involvement 21 was with the September 5th meeting, can you recall when 22 you first became aware that Ipperwash Park had been 23 occupied by people from the First Nation? 24 A: I don't recall. 25 Q: But, you did attend the


1 Interministerial Committee Meeting -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- on September 5th? Do you recall 4 whether you were present for the whole meeting? 5 A: I believe I was. 6 Q: Did you take notes at the meeting? 7 A: I did. 8 Q: Can you describe for us, maybe, the 9 notes that you took? 10 A: I would have taken very cursory notes 11 knowing that there was official notes being taken and 12 minutes, and they would have been perhaps just decision 13 points, things that I would want to report back to my 14 superiors. 15 Q: And do these notes currently exist? 16 A: They don't. 17 Q: If you could turn to Tab 7 of the 18 binder in front of you. This is Exhibit P-509 and again 19 this contains copies of the meeting minutes that were 20 circulated after the meeting. The first page is a fax 21 cover sheet. 22 If you flip over to the second page you'll 23 see a list of attendees of the meeting there. 24 Have you had a chance to review the list 25 of attendees?


1 A: I have. 2 Q: And do the names on the list accord 3 with your recollection of who was present? 4 A: I wouldn't have a recollection of all 5 of those people. 6 Q: At the time, were you aware that some 7 of them might have been political staff? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Did it strike you as unusual at the 10 time to be at a meeting with political staff? 11 A: Not at all. 12 Q: And maybe if you could just indicate 13 quickly, of the people on the list who you were familiar 14 with? 15 A: Dave Carson, I think Elizabeth 16 Christie, Deb Hutton, Peter Allen, Leith Hunter, Eileen 17 Hipfner, Ron Fox, Julie Jai, and I think Barry Jones. 18 Q: Okay. So, there would have been a 19 mix of people with whom you were familiar and others who 20 you hadn't met? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Next if you could, without reference 23 to notes which you don't have, but if you could tell us 24 maybe a bit about what you recall about the meeting on 25 September 5th?


1 A: I recall that there would be -- we 2 would have gotten an information sharing of what was 3 occurring at the time. We would have looked at possible 4 options for dealing with it and a general discussion of 5 that, pros and cons of looking at various options. 6 Q: In terms of the information that was 7 given to the Committee can you recall who would have been 8 speaking? 9 A: Representatives from the Ministry of 10 Natural Resources -- 11 Q: Yes? 12 A: -- and I believe Ron Fox. So we 13 would have had both sort of the Ministry of Natural 14 Resources' perspective and information plus something 15 with respect to the police at the site, through Ron Fox. 16 And there would have been people on speaker phone. 17 Q: And with respect to Ron Fox, what did 18 you understand his role to be? 19 A: He may have been called Special 20 Advisor, but he was an OPP officer who was seconded to 21 the Deputy Solicitor General to advise on Aboriginal 22 policing issues. 23 Q: And with respect to the people on the 24 telephone did you know who those people were? 25 A: I don't recall. They were -- I don't


1 recall. 2 Q: Okay. And can you recall anymore 3 about the content of the information that they shared 4 with the meeting? 5 A: That there was an occupation in the 6 Park, that it was very small numbers, that the Park was 7 closed, that there were no other members of the public 8 there; that's the essence that I recall. 9 Q: In terms -- you also mentioned 10 options? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: In terms of those options can you 13 recall which options were discussed? 14 A: Yes, it -- it was clear that Deb 15 Hutton, on behalf of the Premier, wanted the occupiers 16 removed so there was discussion of the various options 17 that were available through the Criminal Code, Trespass 18 to Property Act, Public Parks Act, a civil injunction, 19 maybe one (1) other. But, we looked at various options 20 that might be available to have the occupiers removed. 21 Q: And in terms of the discussion around 22 those options, can you recall any more? 23 Can you recall who -- 24 A: there -- 25 Q: -- put forward those options to the


1 Committee? 2 A: On the 5th, I can't recall. They 3 would have been -- the Ministry of the Attorney General's 4 office rep would have talked about the injunctive relief, 5 but I can't recall any other detail. 6 Q: In terms of the options that were 7 addressed, do you recall any discussion around the 8 possibility of negotiating? 9 A: Yes. Deb Hutton made it clear that 10 the Government or the Premier did not want to negotiate. 11 They saw it as an illegal trespass of Crown law -- land 12 that was lawfully owned by the Crown and wanted the 13 occupiers removed. 14 Q: Did you -- how did you understand or 15 receive those comments? 16 A: That there was going to be a change 17 with the new government in their approach to dealing with 18 these issues. And that there was not going to be a 19 negotiation around the removal of blockade or occupation, 20 whatever the incident was. And that it was going to be 21 viewed as an illegal trespass on Crown land, on public -- 22 on public property. 23 Q: You've mentioned that it was Deb 24 Hutton who had put forward a view of wanting the 25 occupiers out.


1 Do you recall anything additional about 2 what she may have said in the meeting? 3 A: I recall that she conveyed an urgency 4 that it should be done quickly, that they didn't want a 5 long process. They were looking for a quick resolution. 6 Q: And when she spoke, how did you 7 understand her role at the meeting? 8 A: That she was speaking on behalf of 9 the Premier. 10 Q: Was that -- and what was the basis 11 for that understanding? 12 A: She may have, in that meeting, 13 referred to a recent conversation with the Premier that 14 she had had by telephone, either the night before or the 15 morning, I can't remember; at one of the meetings she 16 did. 17 It was just clear that she had the voice 18 of the Premier, the ear of the Premier, constant contact 19 with the Premier, and knew what his view was on having to 20 resolve the issue. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Do you recall -- do you know what, if 25 I refer to the statement of political relationship, do


1 you know what that refers to? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Can you describe for us your 4 understanding of the statement of political relationship? 5 A: It was a political non-binding 6 document that was entered into with the First Nation 7 leadership and Premier Bob Rae and Minister Bud Wildman 8 at the time, he was the Minister for Native Affairs, 9 setting out the Province -- I think the significance of 10 it was setting out the Province's recognition of the 11 inherent right to self-government of First Nations 12 people. 13 Q: And you would have been aware -- were 14 you aware of the document in 1992 when you were at ONAS? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Do you recall it being discussed at 17 the meeting? 18 A: I don't recall. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: If you could look at the meeting 23 notes. Again, these are at Tab 7, Exhibit P-509. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: On the third page of the meeting 2 notes, the heading at number 4 is, Next Steps. Have you 3 had a chance to review the next steps that are outlined 4 there? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And are those steps consistent with 7 your recollection of the meeting? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And, actually, just before we go into 13 those a bit more, again just for the sake of the record, 14 do you recall saying anything during the meeting of 15 September 5th? 16 A: I don't recall. 17 Q: Okay. If you could look at Exhibit 18 P-510 which is, yes, again, not in the binder. And this 19 is Inquiry Document Number 1011739 and these are Eileen 20 Hipfner's handwritten notes from the meeting of September 21 the 5th. 22 And if you turn to the page that has 23 number 6 at the top and about a third of the way down, 24 there's a note: 25 "Shelley logistics risk of enforcement


1 has to be carefully considered." 2 Does looking at that refresh your memory 3 in any way? 4 A: It doesn't. 5 Q: So you don't recall having made -- a 6 comment that might have been noted that way? 7 A: I don't recall it. 8 Q: Okay. Again, in terms of the 9 content, we've heard -- of the meeting, we've heard 10 evidence from other witnesses that Deb Hutton may have 11 described the Premier as 'hawkish'. 12 Do you recall that word being used in the 13 meeting? 14 A: I don't recall it. 15 Q: Then, again, looking at the meeting 16 notes again, sorry, at Tab 7. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: To confirm were you involved in the 19 preparation of these meeting notes? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Do you recall receiving the meeting 22 notes after the meeting? 23 A: Yes. I would have received them. 24 Q: Did you review the meeting notes? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Would you have done anything else 2 with the meeting notes? 3 A: I would have put them in a file and 4 kept them in my office. 5 Q: Do you recall, at the time you 6 reviewed them, noting anything that was inconsistent with 7 your recollection of the meeting? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Do you recall, then, what you did on 10 September 5th after the Committee meeting? 11 A: Yes. I would have come back to my 12 office and sent an e-mail to my assistant deputy minister 13 Jane Rush giving her a heads up and sort of a bare bones 14 account of what took place, what any concerns would have 15 been about, that Deb Hutton would have articulated from 16 the Premier about wanting a quick response whatever the 17 next steps were. So I would have done a quick e-mail to 18 my ADM. 19 Q: Can you recall -- we don't have that 20 e-mail I know in the documents, can you recall anymore 21 about that e-mail? 22 A: I would have printed it out and also 23 put it in a file. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: Because I always printed out my e-


1 mails. 2 Q: And if you could maybe explain, you 3 mentioned that it would include the concerns of Deb 4 Hutton and why would that have been what you e-mailed 5 your ADM about. 6 A: Part -- part of my job is to make 7 sure that the hierarchy knows what's going on and so that 8 I -- I may have also -- sorry, to know what's going on so 9 I have to make sure that my ADM knows anything that may 10 be raised by the Premier in a briefing or down the hall 11 or anything that's relevant that I had determined that 12 she should know. 13 Q: So, based on the meeting, you thought 14 -- did you think that the Premier might raise the issue 15 in a... 16 A: Could have, yes. 17 Q: And again, just with respect to that 18 reporting e-mail that you did, can you recall whether you 19 would have reported about the -- anything about the 20 events themselves at Ipperwash? 21 A: I would have given a very, very brief 22 summary of the events themselves. 23 Q: And can you recall at all what that 24 summary would have included? 25 A: I can't.


1 Q: Do you recall any conversations on 2 September 5th after the meeting with members of your 3 office? 4 A: After the meeting? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: I don't recall specifically. 7 Q: Do you recall conversations on 8 September 5th after the meeting with other members of the 9 Committee or attendees of the meeting? 10 A: I -- I recall a conversation but I'm 11 not sure when it took place. 12 Q: Okay. And who was the conversation 13 with? 14 A: I had a conversation with Brett 15 Laschinger who was, I guess, an assistant to Deb Hutton, 16 the Critical Issues Unit of the Premier's office. 17 Q: And what do you recall about when the 18 conversation took place? 19 A: It would have taken place either on 20 the way back from the meeting on September 5th or on the 21 way to the meeting on September 6th, I just can't recall. 22 Q: And was anyone else present for this 23 conversation? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And what -- what did you discuss?


1 A: I explained the -- the role of the 2 Solicitor General and the inability of the Solicitor 3 General to direct the operations of the OPP, operational 4 decisions, and that I thought it would be useful for the 5 Premier's office to ask for a briefing on that issue from 6 either the Deputy Solicitor General or the Solicitor 7 General. 8 Q: And can you recall why you would have 9 made that recommendation at that time? 10 A: Having been a political staff I 11 recall that it was an issue that was -- was hard to 12 understand because it was an anomaly in many ways in 13 government; that a minister didn't have control over -- 14 well, the OPP aren't -- aren't staff, they're -- they're 15 arm's length, but it created an anomaly. 16 It wasn't a usual thing and I -- I 17 recognized that and that it was an important thing for 18 the Premier's office to understand and that the issue we 19 were dealing with really brought it home. 20 Q: And could you maybe say a little more 21 about that? You just said the issue that you were 22 dealing with brought it home; how? 23 A: That there -- there was a -- a 24 singularly illegal occupation and the Government wanted a 25 quick resolution. And it was being explained, well we


1 can't direct the OPP, they have to make their operational 2 decisions of when to go in, how to go in, what manner to 3 go in. 4 They could take the Government's wish that 5 they wanted the occupiers removed, but from there it was 6 the OPP's decision of what to do. 7 Q: And can you recall anything else 8 about that recommendation that you made? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Can you recall anything else about 11 the conversation? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And then just going back to the end 14 of September 5th again, do you recall doing anything 15 further with respect to the work of the Committee or 16 otherwise related to the emerging events at Ipperwash, 17 that day? 18 A: I don't recall. 19 Q: Okay. Turning now then to September 20 6th, did you attend the Interministerial Committee 21 Meeting on September 6th? 22 A: I did. 23 Q: Were you present for the whole 24 meeting? 25 A: I believe I was.


1 Q: Did you take notes at the meeting? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Do these notes -- do those notes 4 currently exist? 5 A: They don't. 6 Q: Again, if you could turn to Tab 7 of 7 the binder in front of you which contains the typed 8 meeting notes, if you flip part of the way through you'll 9 see the notes dated September 6th? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: The minutes? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Yes. Again you'll see a list of 17 attendees on the first page? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Have you had a chance to review this 20 list? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And do the names on the list accord 23 with your recollection of who was present? 24 A: I wouldn't remember everyone who was 25 present.


1 Q: Okay. And then again, just 2 generally, if you could tell us what you recall about the 3 meeting on September 6th? 4 A: I recall it was the meeting where Tim 5 McCabe from the Ministry of the Attorney General 6 attended. 7 Tim was very experienced in dealing with 8 injunctive relief in terms of these kinds of issues and 9 he gave his advice and opinion on an injunction, the 10 timing of it, the viability of going ex parte. 11 And again I think there was an update at 12 the beginning of -- of what was occurring at the location 13 and again a discussion of the most -- the quickest way of 14 having the occupiers removed. 15 Q: And you just mentioned that Tim 16 McCabe spoke about the timing and the viability of going 17 ex parte. Can you recall anything more around -- 18 A: His advice was that the Government 19 would not be able to successfully apply ex parte for an 20 injunction, but that they should just proceed in the 21 normal -- on an emergency basis, there was some urgency, 22 but not ex parte for injunctive relief. 23 Q: Can you recall the basis for anything 24 additional he may have said about that advice? 25 A: I can't.


1 Q: Do you recall in the meeting of 2 September 6th anything about -- do you recall what in -- 3 information was brought to the Committee about the events 4 occurring at Ipperwash? 5 A: I recall at one of the meetings being 6 told that there had been a small fire created, but I 7 don't recall much more. 8 Q: Do you recall the source of that 9 information? 10 A: No. 11 Q: In either of the meetings, do you 12 recall mention of a possible burial ground? 13 A: I don't recall that. 14 Q: From either of the meetings, do you 15 recall discussion around ownership or -- ownerships to 16 the Park -- of the Park? 17 A: I recall that there was no issue from 18 the Ontario Government representatives that the ownership 19 of the Park was in question. 20 Q: Do you recall, and I know it's hard 21 to distinguish between them, whether in the second -- in 22 the September 6th meeting there was any discussion around 23 negotiations? 24 A: I don't recall. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I -- sorry, I think at both meetings 4 there was a view there would be no negotiations. I think 5 that was clearly set out from Deb Hutton. 6 Q: Okay. And also just -- just for 7 clarity, when -- when we go through these things and you 8 say you can't recall, what you -- do you mean that you 9 can't recall either way? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: It's not that -- 12 A: I cannot recall either way. 13 Q: You don't recall, okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Do you recall in the September 6th 18 meeting any discussion about trespass? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And what do you recall about that? 21 A: That this was considered lawfully 22 owned Crown law -- land and that it was being illegally 23 occupied; that the occupiers weren't leaving and 24 therefore it was a trespass. 25 I remember that Deb Hutton was very


1 frustrated in not understanding the view that the police 2 couldn't just come and remove people who were illegally 3 occupying Crown owned land. 4 And I remember her giving an example that 5 I think she referred to a political staff of maybe one of 6 the, either ministers or parliamentary assistants that 7 was in attendance, that, Do you mean to say that if, I 8 think -- I think her example was, If I occupied, whatever 9 his name was, porch, that he couldn't call the police and 10 come and have me removed. 11 And the answer was no, he couldn't have 12 the police have you removed. 13 So, there was an analogy to that kind of 14 trespass on someone's personal property, real property. 15 Q: And do you recall how those comments 16 were received by other members of the Committee? 17 A: I don't. 18 Q: Can you recall any additional 19 discussion around trespass? 20 A: That I think to -- I think that to 21 charge with trespass was not necessarily a satisfactory 22 result in having the occupiers removed. 23 To just lay a charge under the Trespass to 24 Property Act was not necessarily going to result in a 25 quick resolution to having the occupiers removed.


1 Q: And that was a view put forward 2 during the meeting? 3 A: It was either the 5th or the 6th and 4 I think that it was probably both meetings, because I 5 believe those options were discussed at both meetings. 6 Q: And do you recall who said what 7 you've just described? 8 A: I don't. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Do -- can you recall any 13 contributions that Ron Fox may have made in the meetings? 14 A: I believe he made it clear that the 15 OPP would make any determination as to whether or not the 16 police would remove the occupiers, the when, the method, 17 the time -- well, the when and the method; that would be 18 solely if -- if that was going to be the route a decision 19 that the OPP would make. 20 Q: And can you recall during which 21 meeting he made those comments? 22 A: I can't. 23 Q: And can you recall the context for 24 those remarks? 25 A: I thing that there was a frustration


1 on Deb Hutton's part of not really understanding why 2 people who were illegally occupying Crown land, the Park, 3 couldn't be removed quickly and why the police couldn't 4 go in and remove people who were illegally occupying it. 5 Q: You've just used the word, 6 "frustration." 7 A: Yes? 8 Q: And in connection with Deb Hutton and 9 what was the basis for -- 10 A: I think -- 11 Q: -- your perceived frustration on her 12 part? 13 A: I think she made it clear that they 14 were looking for a quick resolution and I think that the 15 options that were being presented didn't offer her that 16 quick resolution that the Premier wanted. 17 Q: How would you describe the meeting? 18 A: I think it was -- the meeting of the 19 6th? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: I think it was a very tense meeting. 22 I think there was frustration on both parts. I think 23 there was a lot of sadness on the part of a number of the 24 public servants to see the shift in this new government's 25 approach to dealing with these kinds of issues. So, I


1 would say it was stressful and quite tense. 2 Q: And you mentioned, just now, 3 frustration on both parts and you've spoken a bit about 4 Deb Hutton. 5 Can you maybe say a bit more about 6 frustration on the other side, on the side of non- 7 political staff? 8 A: I think that there was a reiteration, 9 and I can't remember by which staff, of again trying to 10 explain why injunctive relief made the most sense to 11 accomplish what the Government wanted, which was a 12 removal of the occupants. And that had a certain time 13 frame and -- and really outcome beyond the Government's 14 control because that was going to be a court process, but 15 it was still the best route to take. 16 And I think there was -- Deb Hutton wanted 17 something quick and that was really what the Government 18 lawyers were recommending as the best solution. 19 Q: And just to clarify your last 20 remark, you mean their -- the Government lawyer's 21 solution was in -- maybe in contrast to... 22 A: It was just frustrating. 23 Q: Okay. In terms of that tension that 24 you've described, do you recall the political staff 25 trying to exert influence to control operations?


1 A: There was no political staff that 2 tried to exert control on operations. 3 Q: Also in terms of just characterizing 4 how you perceived the meeting, did you -- was there 5 anything unusual about the meeting, in your view? 6 A: No. 7 Q: During the meeting did you hear 8 anyone say, 9 "Get the fucking Indians out of the 10 Park and use guns if you have to?" 11 A: No, I did not hear that. 12 Q: Did you hear words to that affect? 13 A: No, I did not. 14 Q: And did you hear either of those 15 words or words to that affect at any time after -- 16 A: No -- 17 Q: -- the meetings. 18 A: -- I did not. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And if you could turn again to Tab 7 23 of the book of documents in front of you? And looking 24 again at the September 6th meeting notes, were you 25 involved in the preparation of these notes?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Do you recall receiving these notes? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: What did you do with them? 5 A: I would have reviewed them as soon as 6 I saw them and I would have reviewed them against my 7 notes and my recollection of the events. And I would 8 have put them in my file. 9 Q: And if you could just turn to the 10 third page of the meeting notes. 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: At number 5, "Next Steps," the first 13 point is: 14 "It was agreed that an injunction 15 should be sought ASAP." 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: And then in square brackets: 18 "[Note, following the meeting cabinet 19 directed MAG lawyers to apply 20 immediately for an ex parte injunction. 21 Tim McCabe, Elizabeth Christie and Leif 22 Hunter are preparing the application an 23 compiling the supporting 24 documentation]." 25 I guess, first, do you recall noting this


1 part of the meeting notes? 2 A: I don't. 3 Q: Do you recall having -- do you have 4 any information about how that note came to be included 5 in the meeting notes? 6 A: I don't. 7 Q: Following -- following this meeting, 8 did you -- what did you do? 9 A: Following this meeting? 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: I would have done the same thing 12 following the 5th. I would have done an e-mail to my ADM 13 of what was taking place, where the decision points were, 14 any concerns or any issues that the Premier's office had 15 raised. 16 And I would have printed out my e-mail and 17 put it in the file. 18 Q: Can you recall that e-mail? 19 A: I can't. 20 Q: Can you recall any conversations 21 about the meeting after the meeting of September 6th? 22 A: Yes. I recall walking back with Deb 23 Hutton and -- to our offices, and I recall that she 24 expressed her frustration and displeasure with the 25 Interministerial Committee, both in respect to how large


1 it was and how low le -- the level of the bureaucrats who 2 were in attendance. 3 That she felt uncomfortable about 4 discussing these issues in that venue. 5 Q: Why do you think that would have 6 been? Or how did you understand the comments? 7 A: That these were sensitive issues. 8 That these -- she didn't -- that there were a lot of 9 people at the meeting, that she didn't really know them, 10 and that they were, compared to her experience, which was 11 probably dealing with assistant deputy ministers and 12 deputy ministers when there was a critical issue, these 13 were low lying bureaucrats. 14 Q: And how did you understand the 15 comment about the -- the size of the meeting? 16 A: That if you were going to discuss 17 confidential and sensitive issues, that was a lot of 18 people to be discussing it with. 19 Q: Do you recall anything else about 20 that conversation? 21 A: I don't. 22 Q: Aside from the e-mail update that 23 you've mentioned, did you undertake any other work as a 24 result of the Committee meeting on that day? 25 A: No, not to my recollection.


1 Q: Did you attend a cabinet meeting on 2 September 6th, 1995? 3 A: I did not. 4 Q: Did you usually attend cabinet 5 meetings? 6 A: Not usually. 7 Q: If something were to be discussed in 8 cabinet, would you have been aware of it? 9 A: If it was formally on the cabinet 10 agenda, I would have been aware of it. But if it was an 11 item that was just raised or what we would have said, 12 walked onto cabinet, I wouldn't be aware of it. 13 Q: Can you recall being aware of whether 14 Ipperwash was discussed at cabinet? 15 A: I have no recollection of that. 16 Q: On September 6th? 17 A: I have no recollection. 18 Q: Were you aware of events at Ipperwash 19 being discussed at cabinet at any other time? 20 A: I have no recollection. 21 Q: Did you attend any other meetings 22 that dealt with the events at Ipperwash on September 6th? 23 A: Not that I recall. 24 Q: Were you aware of any other meetings 25 on September 6th?


1 A: Not that I recall. 2 Q: If you could turn to Tab 10 of the 3 book of documents in front of you. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Yes? 8 Q: Do you recognize this document? 9 A: Only because it was presented to me 10 in this binder. 11 Q: All right. Okay. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: It's a fax from Jeff Bangs. The 16 first page -- it's dated September 6th and it's addressed 17 to you, Shelley Spiegel, on the fax cover sheet. It 18 attaches a memo to Kathryn Hunt, David Moran, Deb Hutton, 19 Dan Newman, Shelley Spiegel and Bill King. 20 Do you recall -- are you familiar with 21 this memo? 22 A: Not -- 23 Q: Do you -- 24 A: -- accept for being presented in 25 these materials.


1 Q: Okay. I should be mention it's 2 Inquiry Document Number 1012311. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Looking at the document, can you -- 7 do you know why you would have been included among the 8 recipients of this memo? 9 A: To keep me apprised about what's 10 happening on the issue. What -- this looks like a 11 critical issues note for the minister, if he is scrummed 12 or asked any questions about the issue, how to respond. 13 And it wouldn't be inappropriate to give me a copy of 14 that as well. 15 Q: And would you have forwarded this 16 type of information to anyone else? 17 A: Likely not, because of who was cc'd, 18 because Deb Hutton had already gotten it and the 19 communications, I think, advisor in the Premier's office 20 had already gotten it. 21 I might have forwarded it on to the civil 22 servants who were the corresponding side to critical 23 issues in Cabinet Office. 24 Q: Yes. Commissioner, may I just have a 25 moment?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, 2 certainly. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. MEGAN FERRIER: Commissioner, I 7 apologize. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No reason 9 to. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 12 Q: Okay, if you could continue looking 13 at the same document. If you turn three (3) pages or so 14 along there's another fax cover sheet to Shelley Spiegel 15 from Jeff Bangs dated September 6th, indicating nine (9) 16 pages. 17 And then there's another memo to the same 18 recipients as the previous memo, including yourself, also 19 dated September 6th, 1995, attaching various documents. 20 Are you familiar with this memo? 21 A: Only as it was presented to me in the 22 binder. 23 Q: And would your answers be the same... 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Even though you don't remember the 2 memo, would you probably have received it? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And would that be true for the first 5 memo that -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- we looked at from Jeff Bangs? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And as with the other memo, what 10 would you have done with a memo like this and the 11 attachments? 12 A: I should go back and say I would have 13 probably sent it to -- when I -- when I said the critical 14 issues people on the bureaucracy and Cabinet Office, it 15 probably would have been the communications staff. 16 I would have -- if none of these people, 17 and I just can't remember, were officials or bureaucrats 18 on -- in Cabinet Office on communications, I would have 19 sent this to them to make sure they had it, that's what I 20 would have done with it. 21 Q: Okay. Commissioner, I would request 22 that we mark this Inquiry Document which includes both of 23 the memos as the next exhibit? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 THE REGISTRAR: P-732, Your Honour.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 2 didn't hear you. 3 THE REGISTRAR: 732. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 732. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-732: Document Number 1012311. 7 Faxes, two (2), from J. Bangs 8 to S. Spiegel September 9 06/'95; two (2) OPP news 10 release's Sept 06/'95; Memo 11 to P. Sturdy Sept. 06/'95. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 14 Q: Turning now from the events during 15 your day of September 6th, do you recall how you learned 16 of the shooting death of Dudley George? 17 A: I don't recall exactly. I -- I 18 believe I -- I learned about it through the media but I 19 don't recall. 20 Q: Along those lines just to confirm, if 21 you turn to Tab 11 of the book of documents in front of 22 you and it's Inquiry Document Number 1012542 and this has 23 already been entered as Exhibit P-516. And I believe 24 these are handwritten notes of Julie Jai from the morning 25 of September 7th.


1 On the left-hand side at the bottom of her 2 notes in the left column there's a note: 3 "7:00 a.m. arrived at work. Called 4 Janina, Shelley S." 5 Does that refresh your memory in any way? 6 A: It -- it doesn't. 7 Q: So you -- do you recall any 8 conversations with Julie Jai on the morning of September 9 7th? 10 A: I don't recall. 11 Q: What work did you do on September 7th 12 related to events at Ipperwash? 13 A: I don't recall doing anything. 14 Q: Did you attend any meetings having to 15 do with Ipperwash on September 7th, 1995? 16 A: Not to my recollection. 17 Q: We've heard evidence that there was a 18 meeting of some members of the Interministerial Committee 19 on September 7th attended by Larry Taman and by Ron 20 Vrancart. Did you attend that meeting? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Do you recall being briefed on that 23 meeting? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Do you know anything about that


1 meeting? 2 A: No. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: If you could turn to Tab 19 of the 7 book of documents? This is Inquiry Document Number 8 1003524 Exhibit P-718, and the title of the document is, 9 "Work Groups?" Are you familiar with this document? 10 A: Only as it was presented to me last 11 night. 12 Q: In the fourth row on the page there's 13 a heading, "Wallace's Group?" 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And a list of names and your name is 16 included. 17 A: Yes? 18 Q: Do you -- can you recall anything 19 about being involved -- working with the other people 20 listed there? 21 A: I can't recall it. 22 Q: The -- it looks -- a backgrounder is 23 noted in the handwriting notes at the side, do you recall 24 being involved in the preparation of a backgrounder 25 document?


1 A: I don't recall. 2 Q: If you had been involved what would 3 your role have been in that type of work? 4 A: It was -- I'll say it was somewhat 5 interministerial. It would have been just to assist in 6 making sure that it was a clear and complete backgrounder 7 and providing questions and answers which is the other 8 part here; that it looks like it was a backgrounder in 9 Q's and A's. 10 Q: And after September 7th, 1995 did you 11 have any further involvement with the Ipperwash file? 12 A: Not to my recollection. 13 Q: Did you attend any further meetings? 14 A: Not to my recollection. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: If you could turn to Tab 13 of the 19 book of documents in front of you. This is Inquiry 20 Document Number 1011852. It's a fax cover sheet dated 21 September 8th. The fax is from Julie Jai and there's a 22 list of recipients and you're listed as one of them. 23 Are you familiar with this document? 24 A: Only as it was presented to me in the 25 binder.


1 Q: Can -- do you -- did you probably 2 receive this document? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And what would you have done with a 5 document like this? 6 A: It would have gone in my file. I 7 would have read it. Sorry, I would have read it and it 8 would have gone in my file. 9 Q: Would you have forwarded to anyone 10 else? 11 A: I would have, again, forwarded to 12 whoever was my counterpart. I most likely would have 13 forwarded to whoever my counterpart on the communication 14 side of the cabinet office. 15 Q: And would you have received documents 16 like this just for your information? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: You would not -- would you have been 19 expected to do anything as a result of this -- 20 A: This kind of document? 21 Q: -- the information? Commissioner, I 22 would request that this document, Inquiry Document Number 23 1011852 be entered as the next exhibit. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-733, Your Honour. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 733.


1 2 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-733: Document Number 1011852. Fax 3 from Julie Jai September 4 08/'95. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. MEGAN FERRIER: 7 Q: And along the same lines, just 8 turning to the next tab, Tab 14 of the book in front of 9 you. This is Inquiry Document Number 1008858, Exhibit P- 10 518. There's a fax cover sheet dated September 8th, 11 1995, it's a fax from Julie Jai. 12 Did you receive this fax? 13 A: I don't recall. 14 Q: Did you probably receive this fax? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And again, it would have been for 17 your information? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And I might just note in this 20 document that was dated September 8th on the cover sheet. 21 The fax transmission information indicates September 22 13th. 23 A: Right. 24 Q: If you did receive that on September 25 13th, I guess after the 7th you were still receiving


1 information. 2 A: It would appear so. 3 Q: And as you said, you would -- you 4 would put it in your file. 5 A: I would have read it. 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: And I would have kept it in my file. 8 Q: And turning to Tab 15 of the Book of 9 Documents in front of you. This is Inquiry Document 10 Number 1008859, Exhibit P-693, a fax dated September 11 14th, again from Julie Jai and you're listed as a 12 recipient. Are you familiar with this document? 13 A: Only as it was presented to me in 14 this binder. 15 Q: Would you probably have received this 16 document? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And again, it would be for your 19 information? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Those are my questions about your 22 evidence. One of the things that we've asked virtually 23 all of the witnesses who have attended at the Inquiry, 24 well firstly, whether there's anything else that you 25 would like to add that we haven't covered in terms of


1 what you remember. 2 And secondly, whether you have any 3 recommendations that you would like to make to the 4 Commissioner for his consideration in fulfilling his 5 mandate. 6 A: There's nothing else that I recall 7 that I'd like to add. And no, I have no recommendations 8 for the Commissioner. 9 Q: Thank you very much, Ms. Spiegel. 10 Those are my questions, Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 12 very much. We'll now do a canvassing of which of the 13 parties may wish to ask some questions and get an idea of 14 how long it might take. Does anybody have any questions 15 for this Witness? 16 Mr. Downard, how long do you think you 17 might be? 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Fifteen (15) minutes 19 or less. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you able 21 to pick this up. You were mentioning earlier that you 22 couldn't because of where it's coming from. But if you 23 can't, if it's -- well, I don't want to ask you to come 24 forward. 25 I think if you could repeat it.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'll just -- I'll just 2 repeat it for the record. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That'll be 4 fine. That's fine. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's fifteen (15) 6 minutes for Mr. Downard. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 8 Horvat...? 9 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Five (5) minutes. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Horvat, for Mr. 11 Harnick, is five (5) minutes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 13 Smith...? 14 MR. IAN SMITH: Five (5) minutes or less. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Smith, for Mr. 16 Runciman, five (5) minutes or less. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sounds like 18 we're doing a roll call in the House, in the Legislative 19 Assembly. 20 Mr. Hodgson -- is Mr. Hodgson's Counsel 21 here? Anybody representing -- no, no questions? 22 Mr. Sulman, on behalf of Mr. Beaubien? 23 No. 24 MR. DOUG SULMAN: No, thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 On behalf of Ms. Hutton? 2 MS. MELISSA PANJER: About half an hour 3 to forty-five (45) minutes. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Panjer that's a 5 half hour to forty-five (45) minutes for Ms. -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Tuck- 7 Jackson on behalf of the OPP? 8 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Less than five 9 (5) minutes. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's five (5) 11 minutes for the OPP. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see nobody 13 from the municipality or the Coroner. 14 Mr. Alexander...? 15 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Five (5) to ten 16 (10) minutes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 18 Esmonde...? 19 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: I might be twenty 20 (20) minutes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Twenty (20) 22 minutes. 23 Mr. Scullion...? 24 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Maybe fifteen (15). 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Maybe


1 fifteen (15) minutes. 2 Mr. Horner...? 3 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I'd say fifteen (15) 4 minutes, Mr. Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Roy...? 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: I may be fifteen (15) 7 minutes, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you 9 don't know until you've heard everybody else, Mr. Myrka 10 on behalf of the Province? That's fine. 11 MR. WALTER MYRKA: I think ten (10) or 12 fifteen (15) minutes, it just depends on -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 I get an idea of what we're looking at and we should be 15 able to finish, with a little bit of luck, this 16 afternoon. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's right, thank 18 you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we'll 20 take a lunch break now and we'll start the cross- 21 examination right after lunch. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 23 adjourned until 1:15 p.m. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 11:57 a.m.


1 --- Upon resuming at 1:16 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed. Please be seated. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 6 we begin perhaps -- there's a couple of administrative 7 matters that I simply wanted to address. 8 The first is Ms. Spiegel referred to some 9 e-mails this morning and we've made a request of Ms. 10 Twohig and Mr. Myrka to try to locate those e-mails. We 11 won't have them, of course, today but we'll -- once we 12 get them then we'll distribute to the parties. 13 And secondly, with respect to the 14 witnesses, hopefully Ms. Spiegel will be done this 15 afternoon, given the estimate she should be. Tomorrow 16 morning we have Mr. Elijah returning and he will start at 17 ten o'clock tomorrow morning. 18 The -- we don't -- we then go over to 19 Monday. On Monday, we'll have Elizabeth Christie. And 20 Elizabeth Christie now practices medicine and she's 21 coming from Kingston and she has -- she will be here for 22 Monday and Tuesday, because she had to make arrangements 23 to cover her medical practice. 24 And then on Monday and Tuesday -- then 25 Wednesday will be Mr. Tim McCabe.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 2 very much, Mr. Millar. 3 Yes, Mr. Downard? 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Good afternoon, 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 afternoon. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 10 Q: Ms. Spiegel, my name is Peter Downard 11 and I appear for former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and I 12 just have a few questions for you. 13 Now, clearly your -- your recollection 14 with respect to the events of September 5th and 6th is 15 unaided by the notes you made at the time of the 16 meetings, right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And that's because you do not have 19 the notes that you made ten (10) years ago. 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And as I understand your evidence, 22 those notes were in any event very cursory? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And these meetings were several hours 25 in length, correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And it's fair to say you don't have a 3 recollection of the discussions at these Interministerial 4 Committee meetings in, that is, a very detailed 5 recollection; is that fair? 6 A: I recall certain things in detail and 7 some things not. 8 Q: But, by and large, it's a general 9 recollection? 10 A: Except for the actual things I've 11 already testified to, specifics. 12 Q: Okay. All right. All right. Now, 13 you testified that Deb Hutton made it clear that the 14 Government or the Premier did not want to negotiate, that 15 they saw the occupation as illegal trespass of Crown land 16 and wanted the occupiers removed and that that was what 17 Ms. Hutton conveyed on September 5th, right? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. Now, what I want to do is 20 refer you to some notes of Julie Jai -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- that are in your book at Tab 8. 23 And have you had a chance to review these notes? 24 A: I have. 25 Q: Okay. And as you may know then the


1 notes at the front of the tab are for September 6th and 2 the notes for -- towards the back of the tab are for -- 3 for September 5th. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Right. Okay. Anyway, I want to 6 refer you to the notes for September 5th and the page 7 numbered 6 at the top. And it's about the -- I have it 8 as about the 6th last page under the tab if that's of any 9 help. 10 A: Sixth last page? 11 Q: Yes. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Page 6, right? 16 Q: Right. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And you'll see that just below the 19 middle of the page there's a note which Ms. Jai has made 20 which says, quote: 21 "We could hold discussions w. them [I 22 take -- I take it that 'w' means with] 23 not negotiations." Unquote. 24 Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. Now, would you dispute that 2 that was said at the September 5th meeting? 3 A: I wouldn't dispute it. 4 Q: All right. And if you turn over the 5 next page you'll see on the page numbered 7, just several 6 lines from the top, there's a note that reads, and I 7 quote: 8 "OPP are to be the 'negotiators' [and 9 negotiators is in quotes] but don't 10 want to give legitimacy to any of their 11 claims." Unquote. 12 Do you see that? 13 A: I'm just looking. Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Would you dispute that that 15 was said at the meeting? 16 A: No. 17 Q: All right. Now, coming back to the 18 notes at the front of the tab for September 6th that Ms. 19 Jai made, the second page of her notes which is actually 20 the page that has the circled number 1 in the upper left- 21 hand corner. 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And you'll see down -- further 25 down the page it reads, quote:


1 "Prem..." 2 And I take it that's a short form for 3 Premier. We've heard evidence to that effect. Quote: 4 "Premier doesn't want anyone involved 5 in discs [We've heard that that's a 6 reference to the word 'discussions'] 7 other than OPP and possibly MNR." 8 Unquote 9 And then there's a reference to, quote: 10 "Doesn't want chief or others involved. 11 Doesn't want to get into negotiations." 12 Unquote. 13 So, would you dispute that those words 14 were said at the September 6th meeting? 15 A: I wouldn't dispute that. 16 Q: And so -- and so, in fact, those are 17 my questions. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 19 Mr. Downard. 20 Ms. Horvat...? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 25 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Spiegel. My name


1 is Jacqueline Horvat and I'm here on behalf of Charles 2 Harnick. 3 Now, I just have a few questions regarding 4 a meeting on the morning of September the 6th. 5 Do you recall anybody -- anyone stating at 6 that meeting what Minister Harnick's views or 7 instructions were regarding an injunction? 8 A: I don't have an independent 9 recollection of it. 10 Q: Do you recall anybody stating that 11 Minister Harnick took an ex parte injunction off the 12 table? 13 A: I don't recall that. 14 Q: Thank you. Those are all of my 15 questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 Mr. Smith...? 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 20 Q: Thank you, Commissioner. Good 21 afternoon, Ms. Spiegel. I'm Ian Smith, I act for Mr. 22 Runciman. I just have a couple of questions for you. 23 Do you have your binder in front of you? 24 If you could go to Tab 7 where you'll see, 25 collected together, the minutes of the two IMC meetings


1 on the 5th and 6th. And if you could turn to the -- 2 A: Yes? 3 Q: -- second page after the fax cover 4 page. You said in-chief, in response to questions from My 5 Friend Ms. Ferrier, you -- you went through and you read 6 out the names of the people who you knew or remembered, 7 and you'll forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I don't 8 think you said the name 'Kathryn Hunt'; is that right? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: So you didn't know who she was? 11 A: I don't now know who she was. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: I may have at the time. 14 Q: Well, that cuts out some of my 15 questions. Can you tell me, do you have any recollection 16 of Kathryn Hunt saying anything at this meeting? 17 A: I -- I don't. 18 Q: Or anything at the next meeting on 19 the 6th? 20 A: I don't. 21 Q: Do you have any recollection of 22 anyone on behalf of Mr. Runciman saying anything at this 23 meeting? 24 A: I don't. 25 Q: Or at the one on the following day?


1 A: I don't. 2 Q: Okay. And I'm just -- the reason 3 that's a concern to me is a couple of times in your 4 evidence in-chief you referred to the -- to the views of 5 political staff, generally; political staff thought that 6 it was an urgent issue, or they were frustrated, and so 7 on and so forth. 8 Are you able to tell us today whether 9 those conclusions or inferences you've drawn are based on 10 anything said by political staff for Mr. Runciman? 11 A: I'm sorry, would you repeat the 12 beginning of the question? 13 Q: Well, are you able to say that your 14 conclusions about the views of political staff, 15 generally, were based on anything that was said on behalf 16 of Mr. Runciman by his political staff? 17 A: I'm not able to say that. 18 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 19 questions. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 very much. Counsel on behalf of Ms. Hutton? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good


1 afternoon. 2 MS. MELISSA PANJER: Good afternoon. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 4 afternoon. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MELISSA PANJER: 7 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Spiegel, my 8 name's Melissa Panjer and I'm one (1) of the lawyers 9 representing Deb Hutton. I think you'll be relieved to 10 know I won't -- probably won't be a half an hour. 11 In your evidence, you testified about your 12 experience as a member of the Interministerial Committee 13 and that you understood, as of September 5th and 14 September 6th, 1995 that the Committee's mandate was not 15 to engage in substantive negotiations with the occupiers; 16 is -- is that correct? 17 A: The Committee's mandate was to make 18 recommendations to the Government as -- 19 Q: And -- 20 A: -- to how to proceed. 21 Q: And as part of their role, they did 22 not make recommendations that they should engage in -- 23 that the Government should be engaging in substantive 24 negotiations -- 25 A: You mean --


1 Q: -- with the entire -- 2 A: -- in this particular circumstance? 3 Q: Generally. 4 A: No, they may recommend that there be 5 some negotiation about the removal of whatever the unrest 6 is. 7 Q: But not substantive negotiations in 8 the sense of negotiations to address the underlying 9 issues? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Thank you. And my question is, did 12 the Committee have the same -- this same mandate with 13 respect to substantive negotiations to address the 14 underlying issues under previous governments, when you -- 15 when you were a part of the Committee? 16 A: I was never part of the Committee 17 under previous governments. 18 Q: I thought -- I understood your 19 testimony that you were a part of the Committee when you 20 -- when you were working with Mr. Scott? 21 A: It wasn't a committee as formalized 22 as this one. It wasn't -- there wasn't a set-out, 23 formalization and entrenchment of a committee at that 24 time. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: That came in, I believe, with the 2 NDP. 3 Q: Do you know if within this body, 4 whether it was formalized or not, whether this was the 5 mandate? 6 A: There was a general view that you do 7 not negotiate the underlying grievance while there is a 8 blockade or some civil unrest. 9 Q: Okay. And I'd like to ask you about 10 a document which is not included in your binder. I gave 11 a doc -- a copy of the document to your Counsel before 12 lunch. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at 13 it. 14 It's document 1012134 and it's an exhibit 15 -- it's Exhibit P-703 and I have an additional copy. 16 A: I don't believe it was given to me 17 before the lunch break. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Do you 19 have an extra copy for me, I'd appreciate it. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. MELISSA PANJER:


1 Q: This is a confidential draft slide -- 2 what appears to be a slide presentation of proposed 3 procedures for Aboriginal emergencies dated November 4 27th, 1995. And we've heard evidence that this document 5 did not simply propose new procedures, but reiter -- 6 reiterated some existing procedures, so you may have some 7 information about the contents of the document. 8 If you could turn to page 14. And that's 9 -- the fourteen (14) appears in the top right hand 10 corner. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 And there's the heading, Ending Legal 15 Occupations, Blockades, Et Cetera, Once They Are In 16 Place, and the last bullet point states: 17 "Do not negotiate substantive issues 18 while blockade or occupation is 19 underway as it encourages illegal 20 action and queue jumping." 21 Have you -- have you ever seen this 22 document, first of all? 23 A: Not to my recollection. 24 Q: And as I understand it, queue jumping 25 refers to a concern that people who take some form of


1 direct action, such as an occupation, could have their 2 claims dealt with ahead of other claimants who have been 3 waiting to have their claims dealt with through existing 4 processes. 5 My question to you is: Did you 6 understand in September 1995 that the rationale for not 7 entering into substantive negotiations with occupiers was 8 the same rationale as expressed in this document? 9 A: I'm not familiar with the document, 10 so I can't speak to its context and its completion, but I 11 would say that the issue of what you call queue jumping 12 would have been one of the considerations. 13 Q: And also the issue of not wanting to 14 encourage illegal action? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Thank you. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And would this also be the rationale 21 under the Liberal government when you served with the non 22 formalized body that was later formalized into the 23 Interministerial Committee? 24 A: It would have been part of it. 25 Q: Okay. Thank you. And you testified


1 this morning that the Interministerial Committees on 2 September 5th and 6th related to the occupation of the 3 Park. And you also testified about a change in approach 4 in dealing with direct action. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A: I don't recall that being my exact 7 words in terms of direct action. 8 Q: And -- and you recall a change in 9 approach in dealing with these emergencies? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And these Interministerial Committees 12 on -- on the 5th and the 6th, the meetings were not 13 dealing with that general approach but they were actually 14 dealing with this specific situation at Ipperwash Park? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And we've also heard evidence that a 17 legal subcommittee was struck to analyse the legal 18 options after the meeting on September the 5th. 19 Do you recall the -- if you knew about the 20 legal subcommittee? 21 A: I don't recall. 22 Q: And the legal subcommittee prepared 23 an memorandum which I apologize because I don't have an 24 additional copy but it's Exhibit P-549 and it's Inquiry 25 Document Number 1011745.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: We've heard evidence that this was 4 prepared by members of -- of the legal subcommittee. And 5 do you recall seeing this memorandum? 6 A: Sorry. I have the minutes of 7 September 5th as my exhibit. 8 Q: Perhaps -- perhaps we can have it put 9 on the screen. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Maybe we -- 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. MELISSA PANJER: 13 Q: Oh, it is on the screen. 14 A: Can I move to see it? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 16 minute. We'll sort it out. The Document Number and the 17 Exhibit Numbers have to correspond. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Happily this 22 doesn't happen very often so. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. MELISSA PANJER: 25 Q: Sorted it out. It's actually Exhibit


1 P-639. Part of the same document within the database. 2 But first I'd like to take you to the minutes for 3 September the 6th which I believe are Tab 7. 4 A: Okay. Thank you. 5 Q: Actually I think it's September the 6 5th. 7 A: September 5th. Hmm hmm. 8 Q: And if you turn to the first page or 9 the -- not the first page, I apologize. The second page, 10 at the bottom it refers to the options, criminal charges, 11 trespass offences as civil injunction proceeding. 12 And then it states: 13 "It was agreed that more work is needed 14 to evaluate the legal risks, logistics 15 and timing related to these options. 16 It was agreed however that staff would 17 recommend that ministers approve an 18 injunction." 19 And on the next page under next steps it 20 refers to: 21 "Lawyers from MAG, ONAS and MNR 22 evaluating the legal options outlined 23 above in order to brief the Committee 24 at its next meeting." 25 Does that refresh your memory with respect


1 to the legal sub-committee? 2 A: It doesn't particularly. 3 Q: Okay. And now turning to Exhibit P- 4 639, have you seen this memo before? 5 A: No. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Well you told us that at -- at the 10 meeting on September the 5th, somebody at the meeting 11 reviewed a number of options, and I'm going to suggest to 12 you that although someone listed various statutes, none 13 of the lawyers provided a detailed review of how these 14 options applied in this situation. 15 A: My recollection is that the more 16 detailed review was done on the 6th, but that there was a 17 cursory pros and cons of the various options. 18 Q: And also at the meeting on the 5th, 19 none of the lawyers provided any further explanation or 20 advice as to what rights under civil or criminal law a 21 property owner -- the Government, as a property owner, 22 might have? 23 A: Sorry, could you repeat the question? 24 Q: On the 5th, none of the lawyers 25 provided any further explanation or advice as to what


1 other rights under civil or criminal law the Government, 2 as a property owner, might have? 3 A: You mean as opposed to the five (5) I 4 spoke to? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: I have no specific recollection but I 7 remember four (4) or five (5) statutes and avenues were - 8 - were discussed. 9 Q: Okay. And on -- on the -- September 10 -- at the meeting of September the 5th, after a brief 11 review of the background or an update what -- of what 12 happened at the Park, one of the first options discussed 13 at the meeting was an injunction; is that right? 14 A: I don't remember the order of the 15 options. 16 Q: But in any event, you understood that 17 at the meeting, the injunction was the OPP's preferred 18 approach? 19 A: I am not sure I have an independent 20 recollection of that or from reviewing some of the notes. 21 Q: Did you generally understand that 22 this was the OPP's approach in these situations? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And can you tell me if you knew what 25 the rationale for that approach was, as of September 5th


1 and September 6th, 1995? 2 A: My recollection is that even with 3 issuing a -- a summons or a -- under the provincial 4 Offences Act under Trespass to Property Act, or the Crown 5 -- Crown Law Act what -- that you couldn't necessarily 6 remove the people. 7 You would issue the summons and then legal 8 process would take place in terms of appearing before a 9 Court et cetera. 10 Whereas on an injunction, you could serve 11 the injunction -- ask the people to leave, serve the 12 injunction, if they refuse, then go back to Court for an 13 Order of Contempt and then remove the occupants. 14 Q: And can you explain for us why the 15 OPP preferred the injunction approach versus the other 16 approach? 17 A: I can't explain why the OPP prefer 18 that. 19 Q: Your understanding of why the OPP 20 preferred? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, that assumes she 22 has an understanding -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- as a person -- it 25 assumes she has an understanding and we haven't laid a


1 foundation for that. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And she can't speak 4 unless she has some facts as to what was the OPP's -- in 5 the OPP's corporate mind or the individuals at the OPP's 6 mind. 7 MS. MELISSA PANJER: I understood that 8 she said she generally understood why the OPP preferred 9 this approach and I was just exploring that a little 10 further. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you say 12 that? 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If she said 15 that, then you could explore it. I don't remember her 16 saying that but if she did, then you should be able to 17 explore it. 18 Do you want to ask her the first question 19 first? 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. MELISSA PANJER: 22 Q: Did you -- did you have a general 23 understanding that what the OPP's approach was and the 24 rationale for it? 25 A: In this situation?


1 Q: Generally. 2 A: Because I think it would change 3 depending on the situation they were confronting. 4 Q: In a situation involving an 5 occupation generally. 6 A: Yes. I think that the OPP -- my 7 experience was that the OPP wanted a peaceful resolution 8 of what was, in a sense, a peaceful demonstration with as 9 -- avoiding confrontation to whatever extent they could. 10 Q: And -- and the injunction would 11 assist that, is -- is that what you understood? 12 A: That it was the best avenue to pursue 13 to further that. 14 Q: And you -- you say that you don't 15 recall exactly whether you knew on September 5th or 6th 16 what this rationale was, you -- if you understood that 17 this was the OPP's preferred rationale? 18 A: Well, I presumed the consistent 19 rationale given my experience in these issues. 20 Q: But you don't recall if it was 21 specifically articulated at the meeting fully to all of 22 the members? 23 A: I don't have an independent 24 recollection, I see in the notes that it was. 25 Q: Can you point me to that --


1 A: I think they were in Julie Jai's 2 written notes, handwritten notes, but it would take me a 3 while to find them, but I -- I thought that she had noted 4 that the OPP preferred that. 5 Q: What I'm specifically asking about, I 6 should have been more clear, is -- is the rationale, 7 whether -- whether the rationale was articulated? 8 A: I can't recall that. 9 Q: Okay. Thank you. And we've also 10 heard some evidence that the Ontario Native Affairs 11 Secretariat was asked and looked into the statutory 12 framework under the Cemeteries Act and reported to the 13 IMC in that regard. D o y ou recall that? 14 A: I don't have any independent 15 recollection of that. 16 Q: Do you recall Ms. Hutton indicating 17 at the meetings that once the occupation was over and if 18 a burial ground was an issue that the relevant minister 19 should be ready to speak to the issue? 20 A: I don't have an independent 21 recollection of that. 22 Q: Just one (1) moment, please? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. MELISSA PANJER: 3 Q: And -- and just one (1) final 4 question. I just wanted to confirm that the consensus, 5 as you recall, at the end of the meetings was to seek an 6 injunction as soon as possible? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. 11 I think Ms. Tuck-Jackson is next. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good afternoon, 16 Mr. Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 afternoon. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 21 Q: Ms. Spiegel, my name is Andrea Tuck- 22 Jackson and I'm counsel on behalf of the OPP. 23 I'm interested in your observations of 24 then-Inspector Ron Fox and you've told us that at one (1) 25 of the two (2) meetings Ron Fox indicated that if the


1 occupiers were to be removed from the Park when that 2 occurred and how that occurred fell within the exclusive 3 jurisdiction of the OPP? 4 A: Yes. I actually recall it being made 5 clear by Deb Hutton that the Government wanted the 6 occupiers removed from the Park and that Mr. Fox made it 7 clear that he understood that that was what the 8 Government wanted, any decisions about that; how it would 9 take place, when it would take place would be in the 10 purview of the OPP. 11 Q: Thank you. And I'm going to suggest 12 to you by way of follow-up that nothing by his words or 13 his actions at either meeting suggested to you that he 14 was seeking direction from the Committee on police 15 operational matters? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And further I'm going to suggest to 18 you that nothing by way of his words or his actions 19 suggested that he was taking direction from the Committee 20 on police operational matters? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Thank you, Ms. Spiegel, for your 23 time. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much.


1 Mr. Alexander...? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes...? 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: 8 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Spiegel. 9 A: Good afternoon. 10 Q: My name is Basil Alexander and I'm 11 one (1) of the counsel for the Estate of Dudley George 12 and several members of the George Family including Sam 13 George who is sitting here beside me. I'll be very brief 14 in terms of the questions I'd like to ask you. 15 The first one is I want to talk about your 16 general experience. From what I understand from your 17 testimony most of your experience in government seems to 18 be working on the high level policy side, correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: So that's the perspective that you 21 would bring to the meetings and your observations as a 22 result. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: As a result, you wouldn't be familiar 25 with things like civil injunctions, whether they be with


1 or without notice? 2 A: Well I would in terms of my previous 3 life as a lawyer but not in my government role. 4 Q: Not in your government role. And you 5 wouldn't be familiar with the concept of full and fair 6 disclosure for injunctions brought without notice? 7 A: I probably would have at the time, 8 again because I was a lawyer. 9 Q: But you don't recall anything of that 10 from the -- you don't recall necessarily anything of that 11 -- any of that discussion from the September 5th or 6th 12 meetings? 13 A: I have no particular recollection of 14 that. 15 Q: Okay. Now I understand you're also 16 relying generally on your general recollections without 17 the aids of your notes and -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- you've also indicated that your 20 notes were very cursory in nature. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: We understand -- and you also rely 23 generally on the minutes of the IMC meetings that were 24 prepared under the supervision and with the involvement 25 of Ms. Jai?


1 A: To some degree, yes. 2 Q: Do you have any opinions or comments 3 about any notes or any minutes prepared by Ms. Jai that 4 you've encountered in the past? 5 A: Yes. My experience with Ms. Jai 6 having worked for her when she was the executive co- 7 ordinator of cabinet office and our job was to take notes 8 of cabinet committee meetings also in priorities meetings 9 and translate those to minutes, was that she was very 10 good at it. 11 She took very thorough notes. She was 12 just very good at it and that I would to the extent rely 13 on her notes. Now in these minutes I would have had 14 immediate recollection because the -- the timeliness in 15 which I received the minutes. But Julie was excellent at 16 taking notes. 17 Q: So you would have no problem with 18 anything that's written in Ms. Jai's notes? 19 A: I would have no problem. 20 Q: Or the summaries that resulted in the 21 minutes that we now have in your books and that kind of 22 thing? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Thank you, Ms. Spiegel, those are my 25 questions.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 2 Mr. Alexander. 3 Mr. Rosenthal or Ms. Esmonde? 4 It's Mr. Rosenthal? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Just to surprise 6 you, Mr. Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 Just to keep me on my toes. 9 Yes, Mr. Rosenthal? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good afternoon, 11 sir. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Spiegel. 15 A: Good afternoon. 16 Q: My name is Peter Rosenthal. I'm one 17 of the counsel for a group of Stoney Point people under 18 the name Aazhoodena and George Family Group. 19 You just told us about your -- how your 20 experience makes you regard Julie Jai as an excellent 21 note taker. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And given that, I'd like to turn to 24 her notes. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Which you have at Tab 8 and these are 2 Exhibit P-536 to these proceedings and Inquiry Document 3 Number 1012579. Just want to turn you to page 3 of the 4 notes of September 6th. And it's a little way down it 5 says, "Tim," with that part. And then it reads after 6 that: 7 "Minister can say instructions have 8 been given to AG to seek an injunction 9 as soon as possible. Not a case for ex 10 parte injunction. Should give notice. 11 We could go into court to seek an 12 abridgement of the three (3) days 13 notice." 14 That's the passage I want to fasten on. 15 And you recall some discussion to that affect; is that 16 correct? 17 A: I'm not sure if I have independent 18 recollection or if the notes had aided my recollection of 19 it. 20 Q: Now in particular I'm interested in 21 Mr. McCabe's apparent assertion that it was not a case 22 for an ex parte injunction. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And do you remember -- remember some 25 discussion of that issue whether it should be ex parte or


1 a normal injunction? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And Mr. McCabe was a senior lawyer. 4 A: He was. 5 Q: And his opinion that it was not a 6 case for an ex parte injunction was respected by other 7 legal people present such as yourself? 8 A: He was highly respected by me. 9 Q: Now we know that, in fact, the next 10 morning an ex parte injunction was indeed applied for. 11 Are you aware of that? 12 A: I am. 13 Q: And we have some evidence to suggest 14 that the decision to go ahead ex parte might have been 15 made by the Premier of Ontario. 16 But what I would like to ask you if you 17 acquired any knowledge in the course of these events as 18 to how it came to be that an ex parte injunction was 19 applied for the next day? 20 A: I have no knowledge of that. 21 Q: Well in particular did you have any 22 discussions with Mr. McCabe as to how he came to apply 23 for an ex parte injunction? 24 A: I have no knowledge of that. I have 25 -- no, sorry, no recollection of that. I don't -- I


1 don't believe I did. 2 Q: I see. Do you recall when you first 3 became aware that there had been -- been an ex parte 4 injunction applied for? 5 A: I don't. 6 Q: Whenever it was, were you surprised 7 having -- having heard Mr. McCabe's strong statement that 8 it was not a case for an ex parte injunction? 9 A: I can't recall. 10 Q: Okay. Thank you. Now, you -- you 11 told us that you had some notes with respect to September 12 5 and 6 meetings. You told us they were rather cursory, 13 but there still might be a gem or two (2) in those notes 14 when we're trying to reconstruct matters ten (10) years 15 later. 16 Now, what happened to those notes? 17 A: They -- they were notes that I -- I 18 would keep running notes on a stenographer's notepad; 19 that was just my method of keeping notes and 20 conversations. It was my to-do list. It was just, sort 21 of, my running list of things. I wasn't an official note 22 taker or minute taker. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: And when I left -- and I had all my 25 notepads and when I left Cabinet office I consulted -- we


1 had a Records Retention Division and I consulted with 2 them about what to do with the stenopads and they told me 3 they were my personal notes and I didn't need to have 4 them put in my file and I took them home and I can't 5 remember when, but a year or two (2) later I threw them 6 out. 7 Q: When was it that you left Cabinet? 8 A: 19 -- 1995. 9 Q: It was in -- it was in 1995? 10 A: November or December. 11 Q: I see. And at that time already 12 though it was known that there might be an -- a serious - 13 - some serious issues arising out of these events of 14 September 1995; isn't that fair? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: So, when you spoke with whoever you 17 spoke to about retaining those notes, was it explicitly 18 discussed that you had notes concerning what happened at 19 the meetings surrounding Ipperwash in September of 1995? 20 A: I can't recall. I believe it was 21 because I believe I was concerned about notes that I took 22 as my personal notes in meetings that there were later 23 official minutes. 24 Q: Yes, and -- and so who was the person 25 who told you to just take them home?


1 A: I -- I can't remember, he would have 2 been a -- a low-level official who was involved in 3 records retention in Cabinet office. I wouldn't remember 4 his name. 5 Q: Do you know what -- what title such a 6 person would have? 7 A: I don't recall. 8 Q: But, somebody is called some kind of 9 records official in Cabinet? 10 A: He would have been in an 11 administrative position. 12 Q: I see. And you had some other 13 involvement with Ipperwash besides attending these two 14 (2) meetings of September 5 and 6; is that correct? 15 A: I don't have any recollection of it, 16 I may have. 17 Q: In any event you would have 18 presumably had some folder, perhaps very thin, perhaps 19 not -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- that would have been titled, 22 Ipperwash -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- or something to that effect? 25 A: Before this event?


1 Q: Well, at any time. 2 A: I don't believe I would have before 3 the occupation. 4 Q: Yes, but you would have started one 5 (1) -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- upon the occupation -- beginning 8 to occupy your time? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And what -- what about the contents 11 of that folder? 12 A: That would have been file. I would 13 have kept that; that would have stayed in Cabinet office. 14 Q: I see and do you know if those 15 documents were produced to this Inquiry? 16 A: I have no knowledge. 17 Q: Do you have any recollection of what 18 documents you may have had in that file? 19 A: I would have put the minutes in. 20 Q: Yes? 21 A: I would have put my e-mails in to Dan 22 Rush (phonetic) that I referred to earlier following each 23 meeting. Anything I would have gotten that has now been 24 -- my memory's been, I guess, refreshed about certain 25 things that I received after, that all would have gone


1 into the Ipperwash -- would have -- would have actually 2 been under a 'Blockades' head file and it would have been 3 subfiled, Ipperwash. 4 Q: And that would have included any e- 5 mails that you had received in connection with the 6 matter? 7 A: Yes, I would have printed out any e- 8 mails that I would have received. 9 Q: And also any that you might have sent 10 out? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you can't assist us as to where 13 the contents of that file may be now? 14 A: I can't. It would have -- when I 15 moved on it would have -- I would have left my files for 16 the next person. 17 Q: I see. The next person who succeeded 18 to your office? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And then do you know what procedures 21 would eventuate with respect to such files then? 22 Would that person -- would it become that 23 person's file then to -- to manage or do you know? 24 A: I wouldn't know. 25 Q: I see.


1 A: I would presume. 2 Q: I see. Okay. Thank you very much. 3 Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 5 Mr. Rosenthal. 6 Mr. Scullion...? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 11 Commissioner. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 14 Q: Good afternoon. 15 A: Good afternoon. 16 Q: My name's Kevin Scullion and I'm one 17 of the Counsel for the residents of Aazhoodena, probably 18 better known to you as the Stoney Point Group. 19 Not surprising, I'll also be asking you 20 questions about the September 5th and September 6th 21 meetings, but as opposed to specific detail I'm looking 22 for what you recall on -- sort of what went on, the 23 atmosphere and input. 24 A: Sorry, and input? 25 Q: And input from people. To that


1 extent, my notes from your testimony this morning was 2 that when you received information that you were to be 3 attending at those meetings, at least from my notes was 4 that you thought you'd bring your expertise to the 5 Committee in dealing with Aboriginal issues; is that 6 fair? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You saw that as an important role for 9 you in attending at that meeting? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. And by that time, you'd been 12 with the Government for ten (10) years. 13 A: With a bit of a break, yes. 14 Q: Yes. You had certain roles as senior 15 policy advisors and you're, at that point in time, with 16 the Cabinet Office. 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: You consider yourself a high level or 19 high ranking civil servant by that point in time? 20 A: I would say a middle high. I would 21 say that I wasn't a particularly high ranking civil 22 servant, but I dealt with political -- the Government, 23 the ministers, the Premier, deputies, so I dealt at a 24 high level. 25 Q: Yeah, let me approach --


1 A: I was -- 2 Q: -- it from a different -- 3 A: I was not particularly a high level 4 civil servant. 5 Q: Part of your testimony this morning 6 was one of Ms. Hutton's frustrations was she expressed to 7 you she was dealing with low-level bureaucrats. 8 I take it you wouldn't consider yourself a 9 low-level bureaucrat at that point in time? 10 A: I would have been a middle-middle- 11 high. I think -- I think the nature of what I was had to 12 with -- at the level I dealt with, which was as I say, 13 ministers, Premiers, deputies, not the -- not necessarily 14 my title. 15 Q: Okay. When you spoke about what you 16 did while you were working alongside or as a senior 17 advisor with Mr. Scott, part of what you brought to what 18 I think have been termed informal Blockade Committee 19 meetings was both some information on the views of Mr. 20 Scott and also a role of bringing information back to him 21 so he could make some decisions? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Would that be -- would you have been 24 in a similar position going into the September 5 and 6 25 meetings, that you be expressing views as well as


1 bringing information back? 2 A: I'm sorry, views of whom and 3 information back to whom? 4 Q: Well, when you attended September 5th 5 and 6th, the meetings, did you see your role as part of 6 this meeting as expressing a view from the cabinet office 7 or was it for the purpose of bringing back information to 8 the office? 9 A: There would not have been a view of 10 Cabinet Office, as such. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: I think it would be more to support 13 the Premier's office representing the Government and what 14 the Government wanted to do, supporting their direction. 15 Q: Okay. So, you would be bringing to 16 this meeting some information on the direction of 17 government or some views from the Government? 18 A: No, I wouldn't because I would not 19 have the discussion with anybody about the issue; that's 20 what Ms. Hutton was doing. 21 Q: That was her role. All right. We've 22 heard a number of witness talk about the role of the 23 Emergency Committee or the Blockade Committee and one of 24 the important parts of what they describe as their role 25 was a situation of bringing in somebody, or possibly


1 bringing in somebody to negotiate, not the substantive 2 issues, but the procedural or the process. 3 Would you agree that that was one of the 4 roles of the Committee? 5 A: That's certainly one of the 6 articulated roles in the documentation. 7 Q: Right. And if I can take you to Tab 8 6, I presume we're both working from the same page. If 9 you go to -- 10 A: Right. 11 Q: -- the number at the top of the page 12 is two (2), but it's six (6) pages in, I believe. 13 A: The appendices? 14 Q: The appendices. It's number 11 15 regarding the Committee's discretionary powers. 16 Do you see that? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Do you see that paragraph? 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: There's an a) to g). And the first 23 is reflecting the Committee having a discretionary power 24 to define problems and to agree to negotiating agenda 25 with all parties.


1 It goes further: 2 "c) Make decisions on third party 3 intervention. 4 d) Appoint a facilitator/negotiator. 5 e) Involving the ICC or Indian 6 Commission of Ontario. 7 f) Second Ontario public servants on 8 an emergency basis. [And then] 9 g) Recommend that legal action be 10 taken." 11 You'd agree with those eight (8) or a) to 12 g) points as items that the Committee would discuss at 13 such a meeting? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: That the Committee may discuss at 17 such a meeting. 18 Q: They may. They have discretion to 19 discuss that. And we've heard evidence from witnesses 20 and I speak from a general view, that it would have been 21 an option and a preferred option to have somebody discuss 22 or go down and discuss the situation with the occupiers 23 to the extent that they could determine what they were 24 looking for, what their grievances were and to bring that 25 back.


1 Would you agree that that would have been 2 an option that the Committee could discuss? 3 A: It would have been an option. 4 Q: All right. And would you agree that 5 that option was taken off the table when Ms. Hutton said 6 the Premier's view was it was a law and order issue and 7 that you are to look at how to get them out? 8 A: I don't recall those specific words 9 of Ms. Hutton's but the gist was that it was to be viewed 10 as an illegal occupation and the occupants were to be 11 removed. 12 Q: Right. We skip a) to f) and we go 13 straight to g) looking for legal -- recommending that 14 legal action be taken and looking at what type of options 15 are available; is that fair? 16 A: I'm sorry, repeat the question. 17 Q: Is it fair that a) to f) were skipped 18 and went straight to g) in terms of determining options 19 available at that Committee meeting? 20 A: No, a) was definitely done, defining 21 the problem. And then went to g). 22 Q: All right. So other than defining 23 the problem we skip b), c), d), e) and f' and we go 24 straight to g) and we analyse the three (3) options that 25 you've talked about this afternoon.


1 A: Yes. But I think there was more than 2 three (3) options. 3 Q: Okay. So at least those three (3) 4 options. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And I bring that up because I heard 7 from you the term when there was -- questions were put to 8 you relating -- or from Ms. Hutton's lawyer regarding 9 what the OPP wanted and their preferences. 10 And my note was that the injunction was 11 the best avenue to further that. 12 Do you recall giving that evidence? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I suggest to you that what you meant 15 by that was it was the best avenue in the circumstances 16 and that another option would have been to simply send 17 somebody down there to speak with the occupiers. 18 A: It was the best option to fulfill 19 what the Government wanted to accomplish. 20 Q: Right. Once you received the 21 directive as reiterated by Ms. Hutton at the meeting, 22 that was the best option at that point in time? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And only because it's so close 25 to the events you left the office in October or November


1 of 1995? 2 A: Yes. November or December of 1995. 3 Q: November or December. Was one of the 4 reasons that you left office -- did it have to do with 5 the Ipperwash matter? 6 A: Not directly. 7 Q: Did it have to deal with the 8 Government's dealings with the Ipperwash matter? 9 A: Not directly. It was a complica -- 10 it was a complex of both professional and personal 11 reasons why I left the Government. 12 Q: Okay. And I don't want to get into 13 all the other reasons and I'm trying to skate around 14 that. 15 A: It was not directly because of 16 Ipperwash. 17 Q: All right. Thanks for your time. 18 Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 Mr. Scullion. 21 Mr. Horner...? 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATIO N B Y MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 24 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner, 25 good afternoon, Ms. Spiegel. My name is Matthew Horner


1 and I am counsel for the Chiefs of Ontario. 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: I just have a couple of questions and 4 -- and just to follow up on some questions asked by My 5 Friend Mr. Rosenthal regarding the reporting e-mails that 6 you sent to Dan Rush -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- following the September 5th and 9 6th meetings. 10 I just want to clarify, would you have 11 copied any other persons on those e-mails? 12 A: Not to my recollection. It's 13 possible Rita Burak, but I can't recall that. 14 Q: Possibly Rita Burak. And would you 15 have expected to receive -- have received a response to 16 such an e-mail? 17 A: Not necessarily. 18 Q: No? And you spoke of your practice 19 of printing out e-mails that you sent out and e-mails 20 that you received. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Was that a common practice within 23 government? 24 A: I don't know. It was my practice. I 25 -- and I still do that. I still like hard copies of


1 everything in a file. 2 Q: But you're not familiar that that was 3 a -- 4 A: I'm not. 5 Q: -- general government practice? All 6 right. 7 And at any time prior to your departure in 8 November, December, were you asked by anyone in 9 government if you had any documents in your file relating 10 to the Ipperwash matter that might be -- that might be 11 required to be disclosed to other parties or -- or 12 Courts? 13 A: Sorry? 14 Q: That was a -- 15 A: Up until November and December of 16 1995? 17 Q: Up until when you left government. 18 A: Up until when I left? Not to my 19 recollection. 20 Q: Have you been asked -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- since then? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. And you informed those 25 persons of the documents in your file?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. And in your experience, 3 working in government and at the Cabinet Office, the -- 4 was it the practice to preserve such files and documents? 5 A: Yes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And you spoke that there was a 10 records retention division that took care of the 11 retention of such documents? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And you wouldn't suspect that in the 14 normal course such documents would be thrown away or 15 destroyed? 16 A: I wouldn't expect them to be thrown 17 away or destroyed. 18 Q: And to your -- just to finish it off, 19 to your knowledge do you have any idea of what might have 20 happened with these e-mails? 21 A: None. 22 Q: So to the best of your knowledge, 23 these e-mails should still be in the possession of the 24 Ontario government? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Thank you very much. 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Roy...? 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good afternoon, Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 afternoon. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think I said I was 13 going to be twenty (20) to -- no, I said I was going to 14 be fifteen (15) minutes. 15 I think I'll even be less than that, for 16 what it's worth. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. Thank 18 you, Mr. Roy. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 21 Q: I want to ask a couple of questions 22 of you, ma'am -- by the way, good afternoon. 23 A: Good afternoon. 24 Q: I want to ask you a couple of 25 questions about your role as a middle-middle-high


1 bureaucrat. 2 You might be selling yourself short a bit, 3 because it sounds very impressive from your description 4 of the work that you did, but as I understand your 5 evidence, you were a senior policy advisor on First 6 Nations issues among other things, in the cabinet Office; 7 is that correct? 8 A: I was for a short time. I was the 9 executive -- acting executive co-ordinator that oversaw 10 that issue amongst other portfolios. 11 And then for a short time, around 12 transition, I also took on the hands on. 13 Q: Okay. Then you went backwards and 14 you did the policy advice and you were also the co- 15 ordinator; is that correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And you did both those roles because 18 the person who'd been the policy advisor, their contract, 19 it was up, and they were leaving and there was a 20 transition coming, correct? 21 A: Or they moved on for other reasons, 22 but yes. 23 Q: Now, after the new government came in 24 in 1995, do you know whether or not there was another 25 person appointed, a dedicated person appointed as a


1 policy advisor concerning First Nations issues? 2 A: I don't. 3 Q: Okay. When you left at the end of 4 the year in 1999, were you involved in any transition 5 discussions about whether or not there would be a person 6 dedicated on that issue. 7 A: 1995 I left. 8 Q: Yeah. Did I say '99? 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: I meant -- 11 A: 1995. 12 Q: I'm sorry. 13 A: I'm sorry, was I involved? I don't 14 recall. 15 Q: Okay. So you can't help us as to 16 whether or not -- in the new government whether or not 17 there was a dedicated policy advisor on First Nations 18 issues? 19 A: No, I don't know. 20 Q: Okay. But you do know that, or do 21 you recall rather, that -- that native Affairs lost its 22 own deputy minister? 23 A: That was at the time of the new 24 government taking office, yes. 25 Q: Yes. And do you -- do you have any


1 information as to how that decision was made or why? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. Now the Deputy Minister you've 4 told us would have a function in terms of liaising with 5 the Cabinet office; is that correct? 6 A: Amongst other things -- 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: -- we may be involved in discussions 9 with the Deputy Minister. 10 Q: Yeah. And among other things what 11 they would be liaising about, potentially, is -- is 12 vetting or consulting on -- on submissions to Cabinet; is 13 that correct? 14 A: Typically you wouldn't involve -- be 15 involved with the Deputy Minister at that level, you'd be 16 involved with -- it could be a policy advisor, it could 17 be anybody up the ladder. 18 If it was a more contentious issue or it 19 needed a higher level of attention, then the Deputy 20 Minister might have been involved, but at the level of 21 bringing forward a Cabinet submission you wouldn't really 22 be involved with the Deputy Minister. 23 Q: Okay. And that would be something 24 though that the -- I guess the Policy Advisor within 25 Cabinet -- within the Cabinet office would consult with


1 somebody at their level within for example ONAS; is that 2 correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: I -- I mean it could have been 6 anyone, it just depended on the issue and what was 7 involved. 8 Q: All right. Now, you mentioned in 9 your evidence that you made a suggestion to, I think it 10 was Mr. Laschinger, about a potential briefing of the 11 Premier's office by somebody from Sol. Gen. on this 12 issue, this tricky issue about the relationship between 13 police and politicians. 14 Do you remember that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. Do -- do you know what was Mr. 17 Laschinger's response to your -- your suggestion? 18 A: I don't recall his specific response. 19 Q: Okay. And do you have any 20 recollection as to whether or not that briefing actually 21 took place? 22 A: I have no knowledge of whether it 23 took place or not. 24 Q: Now, am I right and I think I 25 understood your evidence this way that at the meeting it


1 was clear that Ron Fox was speaking from the police 2 perspective in terms of what was going on on the ground 3 at Ipperwash; am I right? 4 A: That's my recollection. 5 Q: And I'm talking of course about the 6 September 5th and 6th meetings? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay. And it was clear from -- from 9 what Mr. -- what Ron Fox was saying was that he was in 10 contact with police officers on the ground there; is that 11 correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now, you told us about our -- your 14 impression of -- that Ms. Hutton was -- was speaking for 15 the Premier? 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: Do you recall that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now, you have an interesting 20 experience in the sense that you -- you were political 21 staff and you were also civil service, correct? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And there are ways that political 24 staff and civil servants talk to one another in ways to 25 communicate who they're speaking for; is that right?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And when you work in the environment 3 you're very attuned to those types of cues; is that 4 correct? 5 A: I was, yes. 6 Q: Yeah. And -- and you -- you had that 7 experience when you were hearing what Ms. Hutton was 8 saying at the meetings, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And you were picking up all those 11 cues that made it clear to you that she was speaking for 12 the Premier, correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I believe Mr. Rosenthal and -- and 15 Mr. Horner have covered the rest of my questions. So 16 those are -- thank you very much, Ma'am, those are my 17 questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 19 Mr. Roy. 20 Do you have any questions, Mr. Myrka? 21 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Just a few. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTER MYRKA:


1 Q: Ms. Spiegel, you described in your 2 evidence after the September 6th meeting leaving the 3 meeting together with Deb Hutton? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the conversation that you had in 6 which she expressed frustration and displeasure, I think 7 those were the words you used. 8 And if I understood your evidence there 9 were two (2) specific issues that you recall her raising 10 and one (1) was the size of the meeting, the number of 11 people that were there and secondly, the level of the 12 people in terms of where they are in the -- the hierarchy 13 of the civil service? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Are you able to recall anything 16 further that she told you about those two (2) issues? Or 17 to put it another way, are you able to assist us with why 18 that might have been a concern or source of frustration 19 for Ms. Hutton? 20 A: I -- I think I indicated in my chief 21 that these were sensitive issues and that it was a big 22 group and that she -- I'm not sure if in my chief I said 23 that -- that she would have mostly likely been used to 24 dealing at a higher level in the bureaucracy on a 25 critical issue.


1 Q: And had you -- had you known Deb 2 Hutton or worked with her before the September 5th and 3 6th meetings? 4 A: I definitely knew her. I can't 5 remember if we had any issues -- when I say issues, I 6 mean critical issues to work on together, prior to this. 7 But I definitely knew her. 8 Q: Okay. And did you attend other 9 meetings with her with large groups such as the one at 10 the Interministerial Committee meeting? 11 A: I have no recollection of that. 12 Q: Okay. I have a note of something you 13 said earlier in your evidence. And if I have this 14 correctly, you said that there was no issue for 15 government representatives that ownership of the Park was 16 in question. 17 Do you recall saying that or words to that 18 affect? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And I think that was in reference to 21 the September 5 meeting. 22 A: I can't recall. 23 Q: It -- it was one of the two (2) 24 meetings. 25 A: Generally, yes.


1 Q: Okay. Can you tell us your 2 understanding of that? 3 A: Whether or not -- my understanding 4 and recollection is that we would looked at whether or 5 not there was a land claim with respect to the Park land 6 or an assertion that it wasn't lawfully owned by the 7 Government. And it would have been the Government's view 8 that it was owned by the Government. 9 Q: So it was the Government's view that 10 there was no issue about the title of the land that it 11 was owned by the Province. 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Okay. You also testified that -- and 14 if I recall you were quite emphatic about this. That 15 there were no political staff who tried to exert control 16 over the OPP. 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Okay. What about the -- the civil 19 service at -- staff at the meetings? 20 Did they try to exert any control over the 21 OPP? 22 A: No. No. 23 Q: Did any one at those meetings? 24 A: No. No, with respect to any 25 operational as I've discussed about how to proceed, when


1 to proceed, what to do, no. No one exerted any -- tried 2 to exert any control. 3 Q: Okay. At the time of the September 4 5th and 6th meetings, did you know Leslie Kohsed Currie? 5 A: I did. 6 Q: And what was her position then, or 7 did you know, or can you recall? 8 A: I think she was a negotiator, maybe 9 for self government or for land claims. I think she did 10 negotiations for ONAS -- 11 Q: So she -- 12 A: -- at that time. 13 Q: At that time. And either -- 14 A: I think. 15 Q: -- at the time of the meetings or 16 afterwards, did you have any discussions with her about 17 what happened at those meetings? 18 A: I don't believe I did. 19 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Okay. 20 Thank you, Commissioner, those are my 21 questions. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Myrka. 24 Do you have any re-examination, Ms. 25 Ferrier?


1 MS. MEGAN FERRIER: No, Commissioner. I 2 would just ask whether Ms. Spiegel has anything that she 3 wishes to add. 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 MS. MEGAN FERRIER: And then I would just 6 thank you very much for your attendance today. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I would like 8 to add my thanks as well. Thank you for coming and 9 giving us your evidence. 10 11 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 12 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, as they say, 14 Commissioner, the best played -- laid plans of mice and 15 men gang aft aglay. I don't have -- we don't have 16 another witness for today. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tsk, tsk. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And we will start 19 tomorrow morning with Mr. Elijah at ten o'clock. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We haven't 21 had this situation of not having a witness and having a 22 break for a long time. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's right. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 25 will be welcomed by counsel.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Hopefully it won't 2 happen again. I know tomorrow we may be short but 3 hopefully not after that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much. We'll adjourn now and will reconvene tomorrow 6 morning at ten o'clock. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 8 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 22nd at 9 10:00 a.m. 10 11 --- Upon adjourning at 2:20 p.m. 12 13 14 15 Certified Correct 16 17 18 19 20 21 ________________________ 22 Dustin Warnock 23 24 25