1

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 26th, 2005 25

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 6 4 5 ELIZABETH ANNE CHRISTIE, Affirmed 6 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Donald Worme 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 186 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 216 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Trevor Hinnegan 217 10 11 12 13 14 15 Certificate of Transcript 219 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-735 Document Number 1011749. Elizabeth 4 Christie's Handwritten notes 5 August 02/'95. 56 6 P-736 Document Number 1006442. Fax from E. 7 Christie to L. Hunter attaching Notice 8 of Motion Without Notice, September 9 07/'95. 166 10 P-737 Document Number 3000504. Transcript 11 of court proceedings before the 12 Honourable Mr. Justice Daudlin at 13 Sarnia, Ontario, September 07/'95. 168 14 P-738 Document Number 10003482. Urgent fax 15 from T. McCabe and E. Christie to E. 16 Hipfner re. Endorsement of Justice 17 Daudlin of Injunction Motion, Sept. 18 07/'95. 169 19 P-739 Document Number 1005996. Notice of 20 Motion, Sept. 08/'95. 172 21 P-740 Document Number 1011153. Transcript 22 of court proceedings before the 23 Honourable Mr. Justice Flynn at 24 London Ontario Sept. 08/'95. 174 25 P-741 Motion Record, Sept 11/'95. 176

7

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-742 Document Number 1011749. 4 Handwritten notes of E. Christie 5 from Interministerial Committee 6 meeting Sept 05/'95. 180 7 P-743 Document Number 1005988. Fax from 8 Elizabeth Christie to Mike Sherry, 9 Chiefs of Ontario attaching statement 10 read into court, Sept 11/'95. 181 11 P-744 Document Number 1006498. Minutes 12 Re. Aboriginal Emergencies working 13 group Dunnville Dam and Weir site 14 May 14/'93. 182 15 P-745 Document Number 3000141. 16 Interministerial Officials Committee 17 on Aboriginal Emergencies Meeting 18 notes June 04/'93 182 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8

1 --- Upon commencing at 10:34 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. Good morning everybody. 8 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning, Mr. Worme. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, just by 13 way of scheduling for this week, we of course have 14 Elizabeth Christie as our next witness here today. We 15 expect to call next Mr. Tim McCabe, Q.C., and if we are 16 have sufficient time at the end of this week, then we 17 would propose to call Leslie Kohsed Currie. 18 So, that's the -- the schedule for this 19 week, so. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: At this point then, 22 the Commission would call as its next witness Elizabeth 23 Christie. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Ms.

9

1 Christie. 2 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 3 THE REGISTRAR: Do you prefer to swear on 4 the Bible, affirm or use an alternate oath? 5 THE WITNESS: Affirm, please. 6 7 ELIZABETH ANNE CHRISTIE, Affirmed; 8 9 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME: 10 Q: I would like to address you as Dr. 11 Christie, if that's all right? 12 A: Sure, fine with me. Thank you. 13 Q: And of course the reason for that is 14 that you have recently as of May of '04 and you'll 15 correct me if I'm wrong, received your -- your MD, your 16 medical doctorate. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that was at the University of -- 19 A: McMaster. 20 Q: McMaster University. And you're 21 presently in your last year of residency, as I 22 understand, Dr. Christie, in family medicine? 23 A: Yes at Queen's University. 24 Q: And I understand that as part of that 25 residency, that you were obliged to rotate through a

10

1 number of different specialties in order to ultimately 2 arrive at some examinations that would allow you to 3 practice medicine in the Province of Ontario? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And when are those examinations 6 coming up, Dr. Christie? 7 A: The first of the exams that I have to 8 sit now are -- are -- the first one is coming up at the 9 end of October which is the second part, the final part 10 of the Medical Council of Canada licensing exams. The 11 first part I wrote when I finished medical school and 12 then -- so that's a full day exam at the end of October 13 and then the next set is in early May. 14 Q: All right. And we certainly 15 appreciate your being here and we know that you are here 16 at great inconvenience, not only to yourself but to 17 others. And the two (2) days that you have set aside 18 here are certainly appreciated. 19 Dr. Christie perhaps I can just go back 20 and talk to you about your life before or your previous 21 life, that is as a lawyer. 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: You had graduated from Queen's Law 24 School in 1992? 25 A: Yes.

11

1 Q: And articled then with the Crown Law 2 Office Civil in 1992 and I take it to 1993. 3 A: Yes, that's right. 4 Q: You would have received your call to 5 the Bar then in 1993 or '94? 6 A: At that point you did the Bar exams 7 following the articling process so -- and so I was called 8 to the Bar in February of 1994. 9 Q: And at that time, did you return back 10 to the Crown Law Office Civil? 11 A: Yes, I was hired back; so, 12 immediately following my call. 13 Q: Who were you working with during -- 14 during that time following your call, Dr. Christie? 15 A: I was hired back to take over the 16 portfolio or the case load of the -- the counsel that had 17 been working as junior -- junior Aboriginal litigation 18 counsel to Tim McCabe. 19 So, I walked into that portfolio which 20 meant that I was doing primarily Aboriginal litigation 21 with Tim McCabe and in addition to that some non 22 Aboriginal public litigation. 23 Q: And was the Aboriginal litigation a 24 majority of your -- of your case load -- of your files? 25 A: Yes. Yes, it was.

12

1 Q: All right. And perhaps we can just 2 jump ahead a little bit. You remained at Crown Law 3 office until 1997; is that correct? 4 A: That's right. And I went for one (1) 5 year, towards the end of my time there, I went -- I was 6 seconded to the policy branch of the Attorney General as 7 the Aboriginal issues co-ordinator for the Attorney 8 General. 9 And -- and then I returned to Crown Law 10 office civil for another year before I -- I left Crown 11 law civil. 12 Q: And as the Aboriginal issues co- 13 ordinator, that position or that tenure was in 1996? 14 A: My best recollection is that it was 15 from the summer of 1996, or late summer of 1996 until 16 late summer of 1997, and then I went back to Crown law 17 civil for another year. 18 Q: And you left Crown law office civil 19 in 1998 and -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- I understand -- 22 A: Summer of 1998. 23 Q: Sorry. 24 A: Sorry. I left Crown law civil and 25 joined the Sierra legal defence fund, as Counsel for

13

1 them. 2 Q: Right. You stayed there for how 3 long? 4 A: For three (3) years until I went to 5 medical school in 2001. 6 Q: All right. And graduated, I think, 7 as you've agreed with me earlier, in May of '04? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And you are presently at Queen's? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. And you would do a normal 12 rotation through the various hospitals in Kingston? 13 A: Yes. I'm currently working in the 14 emergency departments at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu 15 Hospital. 16 Q: All right. And you are here by 17 virtue of a summons that was issued? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. Thank you. And turning 20 to the matter at hand, Dr. Christie, when was your 21 initial introduction to the Ipperwash file, that is to 22 say, when did you become aware of the matter that 23 concerns all of us here? 24 A: Well, my initial introduction to the 25 -- to matters involving Ipperwash at all was in 1993,

14

1 when I was still an articling student. 2 I went on behalf of Crown Law Civil and I 3 was asked by Tim McCabe to go and attend that meeting. 4 And my recollection is that, at that point, there was -- 5 it was sort of more of an information session where there 6 was -- there was a group that had entered the Provincial 7 Park to -- for the purpose of handing out information 8 flyers to the public. 9 And so we met to sort of make sure that 10 everybody knew what was going on and whether or not there 11 was any -- there were any implications. 12 Q: Okay. The meeting that you attended, 13 it has been known by various names, we've come to refer 14 to it as the Interministerial Committee. 15 A: That's right, yeah. 16 Q: Okay. It was -- it's also been known 17 by other -- by other names, including the Blockade 18 Committee. Are you familiar with that name? 19 A: I didn't actually -- I don't remember 20 ever hearing it referred to as that when I was there. 21 I've heard -- I've heard of it as being referred to that 22 subsequently, but at the time it was always the 23 Interministerial Committee or perhaps the Aboriginal 24 Emergencies Committee; something like that. 25 Q: And that was the next time I was

15

1 going to put to you. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: So those are the -- those are the 4 various names, but they are one and the same? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. I want to refer you to 7 Tab 1, Dr. Christie, of the binder in front of you. That 8 is Inquiry Document Number 1006498 and it would -- it 9 would appear to be Interministerial -- it's titled, let 10 me -- let me start with this, it's titled, 11 Interministerial officials Committee on Aboriginal 12 Emergencies Working Group Meeting. 13 That is one and the same committee that 14 you've just referred to? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Re. Dunnville Dam and Weir Site; 17 confidential meeting notes. And it's dated Friday, May 18 14th, 1993. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: The meeting would appear to have been 21 located at the ONAS small boardroom in Toronto? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: It ran about, according to these 24 notes, from 1:30 p.m to three o'clock in the afternoon. 25 A: Yes.

16

1 Q: And Dr. Christie, at page 5 of that - 2 - of that document, point 14, right at the bottom of the 3 page, you'll see the notation: 4 "Elizabeth Christie will advise Tim 5 McCabe of the current information 6 regarding the potential bridge 7 blockade. 8 And it continues on the next page: 9 "Elizabeth will also request that Tim 10 speak to Jeff McCombe on the matter of 11 the regional bridges." 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that would be the typical type of 14 item that this Committee would meet in order to discuss? 15 A: Yes, that's right. 16 Q: And would you tell us just a bit more 17 about -- about the function of that Committee and what 18 its duties were, again in a general way, and keeping in 19 mind, Dr. Christie, that we have had other witnesses who 20 have given us some fairly specific information on that 21 operation. 22 A: Sure. So, my understanding at the 23 time of that -- the purpose of -- of that committee was 24 that, from time to time, issues would arise involving 25 Aboriginal groups or -- or First Nations and the Ontario

17

1 Native Affairs Secretariate would call together the 2 relevant parties throughout the Government. 3 So, frequently they would request the 4 presence of people from the Ministry of Natural Resources 5 or the Ministry of Transportation or -- or the -- and 6 usually the Ministry of the Attorney General if there was 7 some possibility that they would be seeking legal advice, 8 potentially. 9 So, we would -- I would be attending as 10 one of the litigators and seeking instructions, sort of, 11 following those meetings, from -- from the relevant 12 authorities. If it was appropriate and if the Committee 13 had recommended that they wanted some sort of legal 14 action, then we'd get our -- our legal instructions from 15 the -- indirectly, from the Attorney General to -- to 16 proceed. 17 So, the Committee was largely -- in the 18 initial stages, the Committee would be called together to 19 share information so that everybody understood what -- 20 what the situation was. 21 There was usually somebody -- a 22 ministerial contact who was on the ground in the -- in 23 the location where the incident or whatever was going on 24 was happening, and they would report to the group about 25 the circumstances and -- and then the group would

18

1 formulate recommendations that they would then each take 2 back to their various ministries at the appropriate level 3 of authority. 4 So, it would depend on the -- on the 5 importance of the -- of the issue, how high that would 6 go. And then, typically, the -- if it was a relatively 7 small matter, that would that. We would meet once, 8 people would then understand what was going on and they 9 would go back and get instructions from their ministries 10 and -- and proceed with the plans. 11 We would usually sort of come up with a 12 recommended plan of -- of action which would involve 13 communications, litigation or not, or, you know, or -- 14 or, as in -- in this case, there was, so get ready in -- 15 just in case, think about whether or not we would -- what 16 we would need for an injunction if that was what we were 17 going to do. I mean, in this case meaning the one that - 18 - that we're referring to at Tab 1 -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- Dunnville Dam Weir site. So, 21 that, I mean, in general terms, that's my -- was my 22 understanding at the time and continues to be of what -- 23 of what the purpose of those meetings were. 24 Q: And, again, just looking back at that 25 document and the notation that I've referred you to at

19

1 number 14, that you would advise Tim McCabe, he was your 2 senior -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- of the current information 5 regarding the potential bridge blockade? 6 Do you have any recollection, Dr. 7 Christie, as to what that was about, if you could help us 8 out at all? 9 A: To be honest, my recollection is 10 pretty vague of this particular circumstance, but I -- I 11 recall, I think it was one of the long weekends, maybe 12 the Victoria Day weekend, and there was a group that was 13 threatening to block a bridge. 14 I don't, quite honestly, remember what the 15 issue was at the time but there -- there was a threat 16 that they might block a bridge. They hadn't actually -- 17 there wasn't actually any blockade at the time, at this 18 meeting. 19 Q: When you say, "a group," it was an 20 Aboriginal group -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- I take it? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Perhaps we can mark that as the next 25 exhibit, Mr. Commissioner.

20

1 THE REGISTRAR: P-735, Your Honour. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. DONALD WORME: My Friend has just 6 advised, Commissioner, that this is already an exhibit. 7 So, perhaps -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought it 9 might be. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: I regret that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you know 12 what exhibit number it is? 13 MR. DONALD WORME: I don't know the 14 exhibit number, and perhaps I can get that and make that 15 -- make that correction. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 18 Q: Dr. Christie, can I refer you then to 19 Tab number 2. This is Inquiry Document Number 3000141, 20 and it would appear to be Interministerial Officials 21 Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies Confidential Meeting 22 Notes, dated Friday, June 4th of 1993. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You had a chance to review this 25 document?

21

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And you'll note that at page 4 of 3 that document, pardon me, first of all at page -- at the 4 bottom of page 2, there's some suggestion of reviewing 5 agreements, and the last bullet on page 2 reads: 6 "Yan will follow up with Eileen Hipfner 7 and Tim McCabe as to legal opinions 8 concerning the options available to the 9 OPP." 10 And then if we go then to page 4, in the 11 middle of the last paragraph, or pardon me, in the middle 12 of the page, rather, the fourth bullet: 13 "Elizabeth Christie will address Brian 14 Blomme's query as to the preparation 15 for an injunction with Tim McCabe." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And can you tell us, do you recall 18 whether that was in connection with the same item we had 19 just referred to, that is the -- the earlier -- earlier 20 document? The Dunnville Dam and Weir site? 21 A: I don't recall this -- this was a 22 different meeting of the same committee. 23 Q: Right. 24 A: And it was a meeting about some 25 events that had occurred at Ipperwash Park.

22

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: So, my recollection is that this -- 4 that -- that prior to this meeting, there had been a -- a 5 -- this -- the kiosk that I referred to earlier had been 6 set up by -- by a group of First Nations people in 7 Ipperwash Provincial Park for the purpose of handing out 8 information pamphlets. 9 And at -- this meeting was called because 10 that kiosk had been removed from the Park and taken over 11 to the Camp, which is the -- the Military Base, and there 12 was some information that there was going to be a rally 13 of some sort, or some sort of event take place at the 14 camp. 15 Q: All right. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And perhaps it might be useful if we 20 just take a look at the document. This meeting was 21 Chaired by Yan -- Yan Lazor? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And the first heading under that is 24 Camp Ipperwash, under a) ONAS, Yan Lazor? 25 A: Yes, at that time Yan Lazor was the

23

1 director of legal services for the -- for ONAS. 2 Q: Okay. And was it typical that the 3 director of legal services would also be the Chair of 4 this Interministerial Committee? 5 A: Yes, that was my -- my experience 6 that was typical. 7 Q: And under the heading b), MNR, Ron 8 Baldwin? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And Mr. Baldwin is -- was an official 11 with MNR? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I take it that he would have 14 given the briefing to the -- to the committee on what was 15 going on there, as it would -- would appear from these 16 notes? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And as you've indicated that there's 19 a suggestion in here that there was a rumour, an 20 unconfirmed rumour, and I quote: 21 "Unconfirmed rumour that a 22 rally/gathering was being organized for 23 the weekend to take place at camp 24 Ipperwash." 25 A: Yes.

24

1 Q: And this meeting was called in 2 relation to that potential? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. You'll note that in the 5 second bullet under that, and perhaps I can read this: 6 "Ron updated..." 7 And I take it that's Ron Baldwin? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: "...updated the Committee that Terry 10 Humberstone met with Elizabeth Thunder, 11 Band Administrator..." 12 And I can tell you, Dr. Christie, that 13 Elizabeth Thunder appeared before this Inquiry and 14 testified. 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: "...met with Elizabeth Thunder 17 instead of Chief Bressette who, at that 18 time, was meeting with Carl George, 19 acting chief, Stoney Point." 20 Let me just stop there. Were you aware 21 that there was, in essence, another group that was 22 presenting itself and that had an acting chief? 23 A: Yes. Yes, my -- there was a -- the 24 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and then there was a 25 -- a ,sort of, another -- another subgroup, if you will.

25

1 Now, if I hadn't been thinking about all 2 of these events recently, would have I known -- would I 3 have been able to say back in 1993 as opposed to 1995 4 that I knew of the existence of the separate group that 5 identified themselves as Stoney Point group, I can't -- 6 can't honestly recall. 7 They certainly -- certainly evolved my -- 8 my knowledge of that certainly evolved what -- and it -- 9 and from this note it would seem that it was already a 10 known issue that there was another group called Stoney 11 Point. 12 Q: And then if we could turn to the next 13 page under item c), OPP, Doug Scott. 14 I take it that the OPP were also informing 15 the Committee? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And under item d) Communications, 18 Sally Hunter. 19 A: Sandy Hunter, yes. 20 Q: Oh, pardon me, Sandy Hunter. 21 Do you know why -- why that would be in 22 there? 23 A: There were often people from the 24 communications departments -- relevant Communications 25 departments that would -- that would update us on what

26

1 communications had if they were relevant communications 2 that had transpired. 3 And then from the bullet point, it says 4 there's a letter from Salter (phonetic) Research Services 5 to the Ministry of Solicitor General was discussed and 6 Doug will draft a response. There were some -- there 7 were relevant communications so it wouldn't be unusual 8 for there to be someone to talk about communications 9 issues. 10 Q: And under Outstanding Issues, the 11 only bullet under there says: 12 "The draft letters to Maynard George 13 and Chief Tom Bressette were discussed. 14 The Committee was in consensus that the 15 Federal Government will not be copied 16 on the responses. Sandy Hunter 17 recommended that information on the 18 Province buying the Park land should be 19 in the first paragraph of the letters." 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And just breaking that down if we 22 would, the consensus that the Federal Government would 23 not be copied, do you have any independent recollection 24 of how that consensus was formed? 25 A: Well, the -- the issue was that --

27

1 that this matter had some relevance to the Federal 2 Government because it involved Camp Ipperwash. So, we 3 were talking about something that was maybe going to be - 4 - there was a rumour that there might be a rally at Camp 5 Ipperwash. 6 So, there was a discussion about whether 7 or not the Federal Government ought to be copied on any 8 kind of response from the Provincial Government and the 9 decision was made that it -- that it ought not to be -- 10 that the Province's response was the Province's response 11 and -- and that it wasn't -- wasn't necessary. 12 And it mean -- the specifics of the 13 discussion I don't recall but that's the gist of it. 14 Q: All right. And the earlier notation 15 I'd referred you to on page 3 of that document where you 16 would address Brian Blomme's query as to the preparation 17 for an injunction with Tim McCabe. 18 Do you have any recollection or any notes 19 with respect to what your instructions would have been at 20 that point? 21 A: My recollection, and -- and frankly 22 largely being reminded by this -- this document is that 23 there was a question as to whether or not there might be 24 some grounds for an injunction. 25 My best recollection is actually that we

28

1 were talking about potentially an injunction to prohibit 2 bringing the kiosk back into the Park. So, this -- there 3 had been this kiosk, right, that was in the Park that had 4 been taken out of the Park. So, was there any point in 5 thinking about getting an injunction in case the group 6 wanted to put the kiosk back in the Park. 7 That's my recollection of what we were 8 talking about and why -- and then I was -- I was asked to 9 go and talk to Tim McCabe. I remember at this point I 10 was an articling student and I was working with Tim on 11 the Aboriginal files and so I was going to talk to him 12 and -- and about whether or not an injunction would have 13 been a viable option. 14 Q: All right. I'd ask to have that -- 15 that document be made the next exhibit, Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this one 17 already an exhibit, does anybody know? 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Is this one of those 19 that's already? 20 THE REGISTRAR: It is. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: Great. Thank you. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 24 Q: In terms of the Interministerial 25 Committee in 1993, Dr. Christie, you've told us,

29

1 generally, the -- the function as you understood it then 2 and continue to believe that function today, with respect 3 to resolving issues, was there a general philosophy, if I 4 can put it that way, insofar as the Interministerial 5 Committee's desire to deal with matters? 6 A: Well, my recollection at -- at the 7 time was that the -- the goal of all the players was to 8 resolve all of these conflicts, certainly, peacefully and 9 through some form of negotiation if possible. And those 10 negotiations would be focused on resolving the -- the 11 particular issue. 12 So, the blockade or the occupation or 13 whatever it might be, not the greater issues that might 14 have -- the negotiations would be always be focussed on - 15 - on resolving that specific event, as opposed to 16 resolving the underlying concern. 17 So, the Government wasn't -- wasn't -- 18 would often, it seems to me, would often, perhaps, agree 19 to set up meetings subsequently, to try and address 20 issues, but -- but the -- the blockade or whatever it 21 was, would have come down first and then we could -- we 22 could discuss what -- what the underlying concerns were 23 or issues were that were driving the event. 24 Q: Okay. In other words, the 25 substantive issues behind the blockade?

30

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. Did the Committee have an 3 authority to deal with those substantive issues? 4 A: No. 5 Q: And turning to the summer of 1995, 6 Dr. Christie, you had attended an Interministerial 7 Committee on August the 2nd? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And you are aware that, as of the 10 29th of 1995 -- of July, that is, that a group had 11 actually now moved into Camp Ipperwash? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. If I can refer you, then, to 14 Tab 6. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Inquiry Document Number 1011749. 19 A: Yes. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Perhaps it might be useful if we can 24 maybe just turn to that, and if you would be so kind as 25 to just review those with us, and tell us what it is that

31

1 it means. 2 If we could start at the -- the pages are 3 not numbered, but it bears front number 0068374. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it says at the top, "Ministers 6 briefing", oh there it is, August 8th of '95? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: If you want to just go ahead. The 9 first point on there, it says, "Stoney Point dissident"? 10 A: Yes. So these are notes of mine from 11 a -- from a briefing of the Attorney General on a number 12 of Aboriginal issues. These are not notes from the 13 Interministerial Committee; they come later. 14 And the first issue in my notes is this -- 15 is titled, Stoney Point Dissident, which is reference to 16 the -- the small -- the breakaway group, the smaller 17 group of the First Nation. 18 And we were bringing the Attorney General 19 up to speed on the significance and issues that might 20 affect the Province relating to the -- to the take over, 21 if you will, of Camp Ipperwash. 22 Q: Okay. And maybe just before you go 23 further, I should simply indicate, Mr. Commissioner, that 24 the first three (3) pages of this document refer to 25 August the 8th, it would seem, and Dr. Christie will

32

1 correct me on this if -- if I'm wrong, at front number 2 0068376, that is the fourth page in, those are the 3 handwritten notes of the Interministerial Committee? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it would seem to bear the date 6 August 3 of '95? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And we have other information that 9 would suggest that the date of that meeting was actually 10 August the 2nd? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: That's my understanding is that there 14 was not -- there weren't two (2) meeting. There was one 15 (1) meeting and I've got the date wrong. 16 Q: Okay. And in fairness to you, Dr. 17 Christie, if I look at that, it looks like there's some 18 scribbling over the -- over the date number three (3). 19 A: Yes. It looks like I might have put 20 the three (3) first and then changed it to a two (2) or 21 vice versa. I'm not very good with dates. 22 Q: So, if we can just refer back to the 23 -- to the first page. Is there anything else of 24 significance that you can tell us about those first three 25 (3) pages, starting with the Ministers' briefing of

33

1 August 8? 2 A: So, some of the -- the points in -- 3 in my first -- well, under Stoney Point dissident and 4 then there are a number of little bullet points. The key 5 things, I think, that we felt the -- that the Minister 6 needed to know was that this was primarily a Federal 7 issue; that the Camp was Federal Lands subject to a 8 dispute, an issue of expropriation and a commitment to 9 give -- to give the land back that hadn't been met. 10 And that was the basis for the -- for the 11 occupation that the Camp was immediately adjacent to 12 Ipperwash Provincial Park, but that title to the 13 Provincial Park was held by the Province in -- under very 14 different terms, that -- so we, sort of, would have 15 explained that to him, that -- that the title -- that the 16 land -- the land for the Provincial Park had been 17 actually purchased by the Province having been ceded 18 earlier. 19 And also that the OPP were watching 20 things. The Ministry of Natural Resources shouldn't have 21 any specific concerns. And then you see, where it says, 22 "Q" and "A," my best recollection would be that those -- 23 that would be a question actually from the Attorney 24 General: 25 "I heard most of the people are not

34

1 members of the local First Nation." 2 And so that's sort of -- and the answer is 3 that there's a description that -- that the understanding 4 at the time was that the core group that had moved into 5 the Camp was -- were either directly or -- or descendants 6 of the families that had been removed from there when -- 7 when the Federal Government took over the lands. 8 And that the -- the information we had was 9 that the First Nation itself, the Chief and Council, was 10 not supporting the -- the decision by this group to -- to 11 actually take over and occupy the Camp. 12 Q: All right. And just the next 13 notation is: 14 "DM should work on communication 15 strategy." 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: I take it those were instructions by 18 the Deputy Minister; would that be correct? 19 A: That would be Deputy Minister, yes. 20 Q: I just want to go back up the page, 21 if I might, to the third -- to the third bullet, 22 following: 23 "Immediately adjacent to Provincial 24 Park, the beach, subject to lawsuit." 25 Correct?

35

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And then the next bullet, if you 3 could just read that, please, and -- and tell us what 4 that means? 5 A: So, the next bullet says: 6 "There is no lawsuit re. Park. There 7 is a ceremonial site." 8 So, my recollection is, as I mentioned 9 before, the whole issue in 1993 of the kiosk and the 10 pamphlets and -- and so on, was that -- that there was a 11 -- an assertion that there was a ceremonial site located 12 within the -- the Provincial Park. And the Ministry of 13 Natural Resources had agreed that -- that the members of 14 the First Nation were entitled to visit that ceremonial 15 site whenever they wanted to. 16 And -- and that there was no lawsuit, 17 there was no active claim in any -- for any -- on any 18 grounds for the Park, for the ownership of the Park, 19 or... 20 Q: And with respect to the suggestion of 21 a ceremonial site, did you have any details beyond that? 22 Is there anything that you can tell us as 23 to what that might mean? 24 A: My recollection is that it was -- it 25 was a point of land within the Park, that it was a --

36

1 there was a -- I don't know if it was a rocky 2 outcropping, but that there was actually a point of land 3 within the Park that was considered to be a sacred 4 ceremonial site. 5 And so, just to sort of clarify in the 6 context of the -- the whole question of burial grounds 7 that will come up, I know, later, that -- this was not -- 8 there was -- my very clear recollection at that point is 9 that there -- this wasn't an assertion of -- of rights to 10 ceremonial activities around a burial site. 11 Q: Okay. We left off just at the bottom 12 of the page. I take it that the next -- the bottom of 13 this page and the next two (2) pages then deal with 14 matters other than Ipperwash; is that fair? 15 A: Yes. So, as I say, we're briefing 16 the Attorney General on a number of Aboriginal issues. 17 Q: And one (1) of the them was Temagami? 18 A: One (1) of them was the -- the recent 19 decision in the Temagami case, another was the Nishnabe- 20 Aski Nation matters, and then Sandy and Cat Lake, and 21 more on Cat Lake. I don't think there's anything else in 22 there relating to Ipperwash. 23 Q: If we can turn then to the next page, 24 the Interministerial Committee. Now this is, Re. Camp 25 Ipperwash, and it is your notes from the 2nd of August

37

1 1995 -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- because you've agreed. I wonder 4 if we can maybe just walk through that, Dr. Christie, and 5 if you could tell what the various notations mean? 6 A: Sure. So, as was typical, we started 7 off the meeting receiving some background information 8 that was either often given by the Ministry of Natural 9 Resources or Ontario Native Affairs Secretariate people. 10 So, the -- the first bullet: 11 "Immediate -- immediate concern of the 12 Ministry of Natural Resources is: Are 13 the people in the Park in any danger at 14 all? The Park holds fifteen hundred 15 (1500) to two thousand (2000) people 16 when it's full and there had been 17 threats." 18 Q: Stopping you there if I may. In 19 terms of that comment that there had been -- there have 20 been threats, do you have any recollection presently as 21 to what was being referred to? 22 A: My -- my recollection is that -- that 23 there -- the only specific threat, if you can call it 24 that, was that someone visiting the Park had been told by 25 a member of the Aboriginal group that -- that they will

38

1 be paying -- you'll be paying us one day. 2 I believe that's the nature of the threat 3 that's being spoken of then. I don't remember if there 4 was something else. 5 Q: Is it fair that that statement, "That 6 you'll be paying us soon," is what precipitated this 7 meeting? 8 A: I'm not sure. 9 Q: Carry on then. 10 A: So, then we have this -- the 11 representative of the Solicitor General was also commonly 12 at these meetings saying just again, giving their update. 13 So, Peter, who's someone with the Ministry of Natural 14 Resources has been dealing with John Carson of the OPP 15 just to sort of indicate that they've been cooperating. 16 There's an occupation, which is the Stoney 17 Point group on the camp. On Sunday there was a larger 18 group that took over the Base so there had been a smaller 19 group that were -- that were on Camp lands if I recall 20 correctly. 21 And then the -- the event of the 29th of 22 July was this -- was the actually taking over the camp -- 23 the base. The OPP were looking into it so it was 24 obviously a matter that the OPP were interested in 25 because -- because of the -- the method that was used I

39

1 guess. 2 And so we get more of an update on -- on 3 what -- the OPP's investigation. There was an issue 4 around the water supply of the Park. Apparently the 5 pumps that fed the water -- the water supply in the Park 6 were -- were operated somehow through the telephone lines 7 which had been cut so that it was having that -- that -- 8 and we need to be, sort of, upgraded on issues that were 9 affecting the Ontario Government interests. 10 So, that was one... 11 Q: And then the next comment reads: 12 "May be moved to take over the Park." 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you know how that was raised or 15 who would have spoken to that? 16 A: So, I believe if you look at the two 17 (2) points below that, I've got: 18 "Info came because some dissidents were 19 visiting the sacred site in -- at 20 Stoney Point." 21 I believe that that's how the information 22 that there was a possible plan to -- to move into the 23 Park was disseminated. And again, that may well refer to 24 someone saying, You'll be paying us one day for the use 25 of the Park.

40

1 Q: All right. I just want to give you a 2 moment as well, Dr. Christie, to speak to that word that 3 you used there 'dissident'. 4 A: Yes. So, it's not my term. It's a 5 term that had been referred to. It's in at least one 6 briefing note so -- so that's why I would have been using 7 it because other people were using it. 8 And it simply -- it's simply a term that's 9 used to -- to distinguish between the First Nation which 10 as I mentioned earlier, was not agreeing with -- with the 11 takeover of the Camp and so on and this smaller sub group 12 that -- that was not being supported by the First Nation. 13 That's my -- I mean, I'm assuming that's 14 why whoever wrote it down first used it but that's -- was 15 my understanding. It was useful to have some term to 16 distinguish between the First Nation, particularly, 17 because I was a lawyer and legally speaking there are -- 18 there were issues around the -- how the Government would 19 respond to a First Nation versus a small group of -- of 20 individuals -- individual members of a Band. 21 Q: All right. And just on that note, 22 Dr. Christie, do you know what the Government response 23 was in that circumstance at that point and time? 24 A: To the occupation of the camp? 25 Q: No, no -- to dealing with a sub

41

1 group, if I will, of a Band -- a First Nation proper. 2 A: In -- in general terms my -- my 3 recollection is that -- that we would endeavor to -- to 4 deal primarily with the First Nation, with the Band and 5 Council, Chief and Council, and endeavour to have them, 6 sort of, sort out issues within their -- within their 7 population. 8 The Government was reluctant to deal in a 9 -- in a -- and this I'm speaking from a, sort of, from a 10 strictly legal point of view. 11 Now, whether people at the Ontario Native 12 Affairs Secretariat, negotiators would -- would deal with 13 smaller groups, would talk to them, I'm not sure, but 14 from a strictly legal point of view, we would -- we would 15 endeavour to deal primarily with -- with First Nations. 16 Q: Thank you for that clarification. On 17 the next page, front number, ending 377. 18 A: Yes. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: So, again -- again we're getting 23 information about the -- the state of affairs. The OPP 24 are doing perimeter patrol. There was a fatal motor 25 vehicle accident of two (2) members.

42

1 I don't have specific -- I have some, sort 2 of, a vague recollection of -- of there being an awful 3 car accident in -- in around the Camp that ended up in 4 the death of two (2) people. 5 There was a -- then again, there was a 6 community meeting and -- and none of the what we refer to 7 as dissidents, none of the occupiers actually attended 8 that meeting. 9 I'm quite sure that BCR refers to band 10 council resolution, but I could be wrong, and that 11 actually sort of stated that the dissidents should not be 12 occupying the for -- the base. 13 Q: Just on that note -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: It says, "BCR supposedly 16 constructed". I take it that -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- was no evidence that that, in 19 fact, had -- that there was a Band Council resolution -- 20 A: So I -- 21 Q: -- to that effect, in existence? 22 A: I assume that. Based on my note, I 23 would assume that that was information that we had, but 24 nobody had actually seen a Band Council resolution, so we 25 couldn't be sure.

43

1 Q: Thank you, carry on. 2 A: So, then the notes go on, again 3 reiterating that the Chief of the First Nations does not 4 support the occupation. There was an environmental 5 assessment plan. The dissidents don't want it to happen. 6 And again, my recollection is not the -- 7 it wasn't because they didn't want an environmental 8 assessment, it was because they were sceptical of who was 9 planning to do the environmental assessment. 10 And then we talk about the water supply 11 problem again. There was an interim measure in place. 12 The -- the -- my recollection is that the engineers with 13 the -- with the Military were actually somehow manually 14 pumping the water for the Park. 15 And they were working on fixing it up so 16 that the water supply would be restored. And then there 17 was a -- and again, sort of the point re. possible 18 occupation. 19 "The OPP have contingency plans". 20 Q: Let me just stop you there again, if 21 I may, Dr. -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- Christie. The contingency plans 24 that the OPP had in place, that you were informed of, 25 were there any specifics given of what those plans would

44

1 be? 2 A: Not to my recollection, no. 3 Q: And throughout your dealings with the 4 Interministerial Committee, would you have ever been 5 provided with that kind of information? 6 A: Specific operational information 7 about what the OPP was going to do? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: No, not details, no. 10 Q: And why is that? 11 A: Well, it was inappropriate for the 12 OPP to be -- there would be no reason for the OPP to tell 13 the Committee what they're doing, because the OPP were 14 arm's length from the Government and -- and not operating 15 -- their operational decisions were independent. 16 I suspect they had -- they didn't feel 17 there was any reason for them to tell the Committee. 18 Q: And I take it that sentiment was well 19 known among the Committee that there would have been 20 instructions given to new Committee members? 21 Would that be fair? 22 A: Yes, it was a well known, certainly 23 from my perspective, it was a well known legal principle 24 that -- that -- that the -- the Government was separate 25 from the OPP.

45

1 Q: All right. Carry on then. 2 A: The other thing, I guess, to say 3 about that -- about the contingency plans is that my 4 recollection is that back in 1993, when this kiosk was 5 brought in and so on, that there -- there was discussion 6 about whether there was going to be occupation of the 7 park at that point and -- and the sense was there wasn't 8 any intention to do that, but what the Ministry of 9 Natural Resources had -- had contingency plans, so, sort 10 of, a combined thing. 11 My notes go on, the question of how many 12 were in the camp. It seemed that there were fifty (50) 13 to seventy-five (75) people. 14 There was no indication of any weapons and 15 they certainly hadn't been overtly shown, so there was no 16 -- no witnessing of any weapons. And then the question 17 of whether there would be adequate water supply in the 18 Park. 19 Over the next page, just a note: "Water 20 treated." I assume I'm just confirming that, in fact, 21 we're still dealing with treated water, and we're not at 22 risk that way. 23 And -- oh, and the -- and then -- and then 24 the next one refers to the treatment of the water, I 25 think, when the cables were cut and the Military had to

46

1 check. And I'm pretty sure that's referring to -- they 2 had to check the water quality to make sure that it was 3 still safe. 4 More talk about the water being pumped by 5 Department of National Defence. They'll continue to 6 supply it. And then the comment: 7 "Right now there's no problem with 8 water supply. Right now -- soon will 9 be interim solution that will bypass 10 the Base altogether. The water 11 pressure has gone down a bit." 12 And then: 13 "There's no threat to -- there's -- 14 that the water supply will actually be 15 interfered with." 16 Q: And just on that note, Dr. Christie, 17 there's no threat, you spoke earlier that there had been 18 some threat and you couldn't tell us whether or not that 19 precipitated this particular meeting, but is that -- is 20 that a threat of the same nature? 21 Is that what was referred to at that point 22 in time, if you can recall? 23 A: It's certainly probably a -- a 24 combination comment that there's no, sort of, no threat 25 in a general sense. There wasn't any -- or we had no

47

1 information that the group was planning, specifically, to 2 cut off the water supply to the Park. And there was no 3 risk given that we had this pumping system going on and 4 DND was working on fixing it, there was no threat that 5 way that the water supply was going to be cut off. 6 Q: And then the threat that you spoke of 7 earlier, that is your next comment; is it not? 8 A: There had been comments, You'll be 9 paying us pretty soon to use this Park. And I've got a 10 little arrow, "Threat to take over". So, it's sort of 11 a -- 12 Q: All right. 13 A: -- we took that as a threat to take 14 over -- a threat that the group might move into the Park. 15 Q: All right. And then your -- your 16 comment or a notation there, it says, "Safety," and two 17 (2) lines underlying it, what -- 18 A: So, that's most likely just the way I 19 make notes, that was my comment to myself to sort of make 20 sure that we had addressed potential safety concerns if 21 there was -- if there was a -- a risk that the Park was 22 going to be occupied, had we dealt adequately with all 23 the safety issues. 24 Q: Okay. The next bullet, "Particular 25 Q, Sacred site."

48

1 A: So, as I -- as I mentioned before, 2 the -- at that point, we understood there was a 3 particular question of -- of a sacred site in the Park. 4 Q: And you had understood that access 5 had been granted to those individuals that saw that as a 6 sacred site; is that -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- what I understood? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: "They have gated a municipal road 11 that separates Park from the Camp." 12 A: That's my next point, yes. 13 Q: And at the top of the next page, 14 bearing front number ending in 379: 15 "They are interested in taking over the 16 Park and road [with a little arrow] 17 Inspector Carson." 18 A: Yes. So my best recollection would 19 be that that was Inspector Carson making that comment, 20 that was his information. 21 Q: Okay. Would also the next 22 information that you have there, the next notations, also 23 come from Inspector Carson; can you recall? 24 A: I can't specifically recall. 25 Q: It talks about a confrontation that -

49

1 - and perhaps you can just read that into the record and 2 tell us what it is that you do recall of that? 3 A: Sure. So the -- the notes says: 4 "Two (2) weeks ago a Park visitor was 5 in confrontation with the dissidents." 6 And the next point: 7 "He was dragged with his vehicle and 8 run over." 9 And the next point: 10 "MNR has notified campers." 11 Q: Okay. Again, does that assist you at 12 all in terms of where this information might have come 13 from, particularly that -- that an individual in 14 confrontation with the, quote, "dissidents" was dragged 15 from his vehicle and run over? 16 A: My best recollection is that it was 17 provided to us by the OPP, whether it was specifically 18 Mr. -- Inspector Carson or not, I -- I assume it was, 19 because the note prior suggests that Inspector Carson was 20 providing information at this meeting. 21 It certainly -- and this is certainly the 22 type of information that we would receive from the 23 police, information about events, because it would either 24 be the police or the staff of the relevant ministry that 25 would be on the ground, able to tell us about specific

50

1 events like this. 2 Q: All right. And, as a lawyer, you'll 3 of course appreciate that when a witness says, "I assume 4 that it is," I take it that you're not entirely certain. 5 A: I'm not 100 percent certain because I 6 didn't write the name in front of the notes. 7 Q: Okay. 8 "Need assurance especially from Sol 9 Gen." 10 Do you have any -- any comment on that 11 note? 12 A: I'm not actually sure what that 13 note's referring to. I'm really not. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: Yeah. Sorry, about that. I just 16 don't know what that -- I don't know what assurance we 17 would have been talking about. 18 Q: Okay. You carry on in -- in noting 19 that the campers were alerted to stay off the Indi 20 (phonetic) land and there's a question there as to what 21 the risk is to the people at the Park. 22 A: Yes. So that's in the context of -- 23 that we've got this information about this confrontation 24 above and -- and the Ministry of Natural Resources has -- 25 has notified the campers. So that campers within the

51

1 Park had been notified that -- that they, I don' know 2 exactly what, but they needed to be careful or mean not 3 get in confrontations I guess. 4 And that -- and that they had also been 5 alerted -- the campers had also been told to be careful 6 that they stayed within the -- that they stayed within 7 the bounds of the Park and -- and didn't go into the -- 8 onto Camp Ipperwash because as you know they're -- 9 they're directly connected. 10 Q: And indeed the beach of the Park as 11 well as the beach of the Camp Ipperwash are adjacent to 12 one another. 13 A: Yes. Contiguous beach. 14 Q: Your next point: 15 "Need to assess the level of the 16 threat." 17 Has a large arrow in front of it. Is 18 there any significance to that? 19 A: Not that I can recall specifically. 20 I mean it certainly was a -- an important point. 21 Obviously the Ministry of Natural Resources needed to be 22 able to make decisions about whether or not it should be 23 closing down the Park. 24 The question was, was this confrontation 25 with the visitor an isolated event or was there -- was

52

1 there some growing risk to people within the Par -- 2 within the Park. It was something that we needed more 3 infor -- my recollection is that the outcome of this 4 meeting was that we needed more information to really 5 make that assessment. 6 Q: I would suggest to you, Dr. Christie, 7 that the next page bearing front number ending 380, 8 notation at the top, Sol Gen. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: It goes down as really more 11 discussion about the points you've already commented on; 12 is that correct? 13 A: Yes, exactly. And the first point 14 is: 15 "Confrontational risk has always 16 existed." 17 And taking over the camp is a little bit 18 different. That's not a specific quote, but that's my 19 interpretation of what I've written here. 20 And again, sort of, further down that 21 page, once we assess the risk want to -- and then I've 22 lost it. But I don't write anything more. But, again, 23 that's referring to the need to better assess what -- 24 what the real -- what the risk if there was any real 25 risk, what the risk was.

53

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: And then again, you see that 3 reference below that: 4 "Two (2) years ago we deal with this. 5 We do have evacuation plans. We have 6 communications to..." 7 And then I've missed something. 8 "Barricades in place to discourage 9 parkers from going onto DND beach. 10 First Nation don't challenger ownership 11 of the Park and don't support the 12 splinter group." 13 Splinter group is my -- my term for the 14 same group that is referred to as dissidents. 15 Q: Okay. On the next page ending in 16 front number 381, a number of Q and A's. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I take it that that would be a 19 discussion of possible questions and responses that were 20 discussed among the Committee members? 21 A: Yes. So -- so the first is a 22 question that is essentially what is the relationship 23 between the dissident group and the Band. The answer 24 given by Sol Gen is that the Chief and Council don't 25 support the dissidents.

54

1 And that's consistent with -- with what 2 we've talked about already. Then the question the road - 3 - the road that's gated. Talk about Matheson Drive as a 4 'L' shaped roadway between the Park and the Base to Lake 5 Huron. It provides maintenance access and it's 6 questionable who -- who the keys have been left with at 7 the Park. 8 "Native people put a chain and lock on 9 it and they gave a key to the Ministry 10 of Natural Resources. There's been a 11 gate there for some time." 12 The dissidents first decided to keep it 13 open all the time and then there was this -- the fatal 14 motor vehicle accident we were talking about earlier, so 15 they closed it again. 16 Q: Okay. In terms of this -- that the 17 native people put a chain and lock on the gate, I take it 18 this is the gate that you referred to just previous on 19 Matheson Drive? 20 A: Yes, that's my understanding. 21 Q: And gave a key to MNR? 22 A: Yes. That had been done some time 23 before, I believe. 24 Q: And once this motor vehicle fatality 25 had occurred then the gate was closed again, I take it,

55

1 from your notations? 2 A: Yes. So that's from those -- that's 3 what the notes certainly say. 4 Q: The last question at the bottom of 5 that page, "is there [something] agreement?" 6 A: Corporate agreement. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: That would be C-O-R-P, period. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: "Is there corporate agreement that 11 OPP will take whatever steps are 12 necessary?" 13 Q: And it follows on the -- on the last 14 page of your notes? 15 A: It says there would be support for 16 appropriate steps. The next point, occupation is part of 17 -- two (2) years ago it was dealt with and John Carson 18 has the lead. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Those notes, Mr. Commissioner, I 23 would ask that that be made the next exhibit and My 24 Friend, Ms. Twohig, has informed me that that is not an 25 exhibit at this point.

56

1 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P-735, Your 2 Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-735. 4 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-735: Document Number 1011749. 7 Elizabeth Christie's 8 Handwritten notes August 9 02/'95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 12 Q: And I take it, Dr. Christie, that 13 those notes that you have just kindly reviewed for us, 14 accord with your recollection of -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- of the events on that -- on that 17 date? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. We have had an opportunity to 20 look at attendance records of people in that meeting and 21 we know that Peter Sturdy and Ron Baldwin participated in 22 that meeting of August the 2nd by conference call. 23 Is that -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- something you can recall?

57

1 Was this typical, that you would have 2 participation? 3 I think you may have indicated earlier 4 that oftentimes the Interministerial Committee would be 5 joined by lead ministry personnel who were, for lack of a 6 better word, on the ground? 7 A: Yes, so my understanding was that the 8 goal of it was to get the best information we could. And 9 the best way to do that, everybody understood, was to 10 have the people -- ministerial people who were actually 11 dealing with the issue who were in the location. And 12 usually these events didn't occur in Toronto, so we 13 needed to have information from somebody who was local. 14 So, there very often would be somebody on 15 a speaker phone. 16 Q: Thank you. At that point in time, 17 Dr. Christie, were you familiar with an individual by the 18 name of Ron Fox? 19 A: I believe Ron Fox was in his role at 20 that point. 21 Q: And what did you understand his role 22 to be at that point? 23 A: My understanding was that he was with 24 the Ministry of the Solicitor General, that he was so -- 25 so -- seconded from the Ontario Provincial Police to the

58

1 Ministry of Solicitor General to be -- to -- to be the 2 special advisor, I don't know what his specific title 3 was, but -- but it related to Aboriginal issues. 4 And -- and that he would -- he 5 participated in these meetings as -- as sort of liaison 6 person between the Solicitor General and the OPP. So 7 that information would come from the OPP to him and then 8 he would relay it, if necessary or appropriate, to -- to 9 the superiors at the Solicitor General, or participate in 10 these meetings as you've seen. 11 And that -- that he -- I mean that's -- 12 that's essentially what my understanding of his role was. 13 Q: Okay. And do you recall that he had 14 input at these meetings we've just talked about? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Do you recall the nature of his 17 input? 18 A: Most of the time my recollection is 19 that he would be providing us with information. He would 20 be relaying the information that he had been advised of. 21 Q: Okay. Aside from on the ground 22 ministry staff, who might attend either in person or by 23 teleconference, I take it -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- as well as people from the

59

1 ministry of the Attorney General, such as yourself, there 2 would also be political personnel in attendance at these 3 meetings? 4 Do you recall that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And was that typical, in your -- in 7 your experience, appreciating that you had been there for 8 only a number of meetings up to that point? 9 A: Yes. There were, at various times 10 there were members of political staff. So, for example, 11 there was -- there was often the executive assistant of 12 the Deputy Minister, which is not really political staff, 13 but the executive assistants of Deputy Minister or 14 Minister of Natural Resources would be present. 15 And then, in addition to that, my 16 recollection is it was not uncommon for the -- for -- 17 certainly for executive assistants of -- of ministers to 18 attend and -- yeah. 19 Q: And at this meeting or -- or either 20 of the meetings, on August the 2nd or August 8th of 1995, 21 do you recall what position the Ministry of Natural 22 Resources might have taken? 23 A: My recollection is that -- that it 24 was consistent with what we've already talked about, that 25 -- that there was, at that point, not sufficient threat

60

1 to justify closing down the Park. They wanted to get 2 more information, stay attuned to things and -- and they 3 had contingency plans in place and there was sort of 4 nothing specific to do at that point. 5 Q: Let me just refer back to some of the 6 -- some of the staffers that would have attended. You 7 indicated that it would be not unusual for assistants to 8 -- to ministers to be attendants at these meetings? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I take it that, aside from the 11 Interministerial Committee, that there might be briefings 12 either with respect to those assistants or to their 13 ministers? 14 A: Yes. So that was the point of the 15 meetings, we would -- we would get together at these 16 meetings and disseminate information to each other and 17 come up with recommended plans. And then the -- the 18 individual players would go back to their -- their own 19 ministers or deputy ministers, as the case may be, and 20 brief them. 21 And -- and then, if we were having a 22 subsequent meeting, they would come back with -- with 23 their instructions as to what to do vis-a-vis those plans 24 or proposals that had been made. 25 Q: And outside of the IMC meetings, were

61

1 there any steps taken, in your recollection, to educate, 2 if I could, political staffers in particular? 3 A: There were certainly briefings of -- 4 of -- I don't remember there being specifically 5 briefings of -- of -- well, with one (1) exception which 6 I think was just staff, but most of the time it would be 7 briefings of ministers. For example, we would -- we 8 would brief the Attorney General and, of course, at those 9 briefings the Attorney General's executive assistant was 10 always present, or 99 percent of the time was present, to 11 -- to sort of receive that information. 12 In 1995, as that was the only change of 13 government that I was -- working with the Government 14 before, so I -- I assume it was not unusual in -- when 15 there's a new administration, then there needs to be sort 16 of updating and -- and information provided about the 17 whole range of things that -- that are going on. 18 So I was present at a number of briefings 19 in an effort to advise minister and staff. I was also 20 present at a -- at an information meeting that I -- that 21 I believe was entirely political staff, including members 22 of the Premier's office. 23 For example, Guy Giorno I remember 24 specifically being at -- at this particular meeting in 25 the summer of 1995, at which I was -- I was asked to

62

1 attend with -- with the Director of Legal Services for 2 Crown Law Civil, Don Chaisson at the time, in order to 3 provide an overall briefing with respect to what 4 Aboriginal matters were on the table and what we were 5 working on. 6 So, we provided -- that was a very lengthy 7 meeting, trying to discuss -- discussing all the issues 8 and -- and some of the basic background principles of -- 9 of Aboriginal law. And we were actually asked at that 10 point by Guy Giorno to put together a -- all of the 11 relevant Aboriginal cases that might -- might be 12 important for him to know about. 13 And so that was one (1) of the tasks I had 14 for the summer, to put together all the relevant cases 15 for him. 16 Q: And by relevant cases, you are 17 referring to active litigation? 18 A: No. By relevant cases I'm referring 19 to the body of case law in Aboriginal law. So they -- 20 they -- he wanted to essentially be provided with, you 21 know, all of the decisions in the Canadian jurisprudence 22 that were relevant to matters affecting Ontario at the 23 time. 24 Q: You mentioned that this was the only 25 experience you had in working for a government where

63

1 there had been a change in the Government that is admin 2 -- among the Government. 3 Did it seem to you that things proceeded 4 the same as your previous experience, was there any 5 change I guess? 6 A: Between -- before the summer of 1995 7 is that what you -- what you're asking? 8 Q: Yes. I'm sorry I didn't ask that 9 properly. 10 A: That's okay. My recollection is that 11 there were -- with respect to the -- the Interministerial 12 Committee meetings there were more -- there tended to be 13 more political staff at the meetings and the political 14 staff were more engaged. 15 Prior to that there was occasionally one 16 (1) political staffer but not -- not as often. Now 17 whether that was because it was near the end of a mandate 18 and they knew -- the political knew the staff that was 19 going to attend and they all understood the issues. 20 I don't -- I can't -- can't answer that. 21 I don't know why -- 22 Q: That's fair. 23 A: --- they weren't there but -- but my 24 -- my recollection is that there was more active 25 involvement of the political staff in the summer of 1995

64

1 than there had been prior to that -- at the meetings 2 that I was at -- Interministerial meetings that I was at. 3 Q: And when you say, "more engaged" is 4 there -- is there something that you can elaborate on? 5 A: Well, they would ask more specific 6 questions and -- and so prior to 1995 political staff 7 that were there were more likely to sit and listen 8 throughout the meeting and perhaps not say anything at 9 all and let the -- let the bureaucrats or the staff 10 lawyers or whomever it was do the talking and discussing. 11 And in the summer of 1995 they were -- the 12 political staff were more actively engaged in the 13 meetings asking questions, making comments, making 14 recommendations, that sort of thing. 15 Q: Okay. As I understand your -- your 16 answers, I take it that that implicit in that is the 17 suggestion that there was a higher learning curve or 18 steeper learning curve at that moment for the new 19 political staffers that would come in. 20 A: I suspect there certainly was. 21 Q: In terms of that -- those meetings on 22 August -- in August of 1995, did you have any indication 23 at that point and time as to the position of the new 24 premier, Premier Harris? 25 A: At the time of the August meetings?

65

1 Q: Yes. 2 A: Well, I had had involvement by then 3 in other matters. I -- and so sort of specifically with 4 respect to the Ipperwash matter, there wasn't -- wasn't 5 anything striking that came out of those -- out of those 6 meetings. 7 But I had involvement in other litigation 8 issues as well as other Interministerial Committee 9 meetings that -- that had certainly created the 10 impression in my mind that there was a change in 11 approach. 12 So, perhaps the best example I can provide 13 is that -- is that my recollection is that at the time of 14 the change of government, one of the lawyers for the 15 Government, a gentleman by the name of Kerry Wilkins was 16 preparing a factum or had finished preparing a factum 17 relating to a self government case. 18 And -- and it was prepared in favor of -- 19 so -- so the arguments were in favor of and in support of 20 the concepts of self-government. 21 And in June of 1995 when the 22 administration changed, he was provided with instructions 23 to reverse the position of the Government so that he had 24 to re-write the factum opposing self government. 25 That's probably the most sort of crystal

66

1 clear example that I have of change in -- in approach. 2 Q: All right. We have had some -- some 3 evidence here and I -- I will of course examine the 4 record but we've had people testify the existence of the 5 document known as 'Statement of Political Relationships'. 6 A: I have a vague recollection of that 7 document. 8 Q: And if I suggested to you that that 9 Statement had set a government trajectory to negotiating 10 the recognition of self-government with First Nations, 11 would you agree with that? 12 A: Prior to 1995? 13 Q: Prior to 1995. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I take it, then, that that was no 18 longer the case subsequent to the election of -- of the 19 Harris regime in 1995? 20 A: Certainly given that my personal 21 knowledge that they -- that counsel was instructed to 22 change their position, that would be my -- 23 Q: Thank you. 24 A: -- assumption too. 25 Q: At the end of the August meeting,

67

1 what was the outcome of that, Dr. Christie? 2 A: It was a watch and see outcome. So 3 there was nothing to do at that point; the water supply 4 had -- was comfortably secure and -- and there wasn't any 5 -- at the time of the meeting there wasn't any sense that 6 there was enough of any kind of threat to justify any 7 specific action; that we would watch and see what 8 happened. 9 Q: Dr. Christie, at tab number 5 is 10 Inquiry document number 1011682. It's been marked as 11 exhibit 506 in these -- in this Inquiry, and it is the 12 meeting notes, the typed meeting notes, dated August 2nd 13 of 1995 of that Interministerial Committee. 14 You've had an opportunity to review these? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And that is consistent with your 17 notes and what you have told us here today? 18 A: Yes, it is. And in fact you can see 19 on -- on page 4 of those notes at the bottom of that 20 page, there's reference in the -- this is all part of the 21 background -- this is part of the update. 22 In the discussions, there's actual -- 23 there's use of the term "dissident" -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- to describe the Stoney Point

68

1 group. It's not recognized as a First Nation by Indian 2 Affairs; they don't have broad support within the First 3 Nation; they're a dissident faction whose actions are not 4 supported by the recognized Kettle and Stony Point First 5 Nation. 6 I just said that, 'cause that's sort of 7 where I would have gotten the -- 8 Q: Thank you. 9 A: -- the word. 10 Q: And just -- just to reiterate your 11 last -- your last comment, the outcome of that meeting 12 was wait and see? 13 A: That's my recollection, yes. 14 Q: All right. 15 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, might 16 we take the morning break at this point? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now is a 18 good time. We'll take the morning break now. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 11:46 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 12:06 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now

69

1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. DONALD WORME: Perhaps I can simply 6 indicate, before we recommence, Commissioner, that there 7 are those who have noted that the counsel for Chiefs of 8 Ontario are not present today. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: However, they have 11 advised Counsel -- Commission Counsel that Mr. George 12 would be representing their interests. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 14 understand that. 15 MR. DONALD WORME: Okay, thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 18 Q: Dr. Christie, we had left off at the 19 end of the Interministerial Committee meetings in August 20 of 1995 and I understand your next involvement with this 21 Committee would have been on September the 5th, 1995. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. Can you tell us about 24 what happened on that date? 25 A: So it was the Tuesday after Labour

70

1 Day and I had heard on my way home on the Monday evening 2 that -- that the -- that a group of the people who were 3 occupying Camp Ipperwash had moved in and taken over the 4 Provincial Park. 5 So, I went to work knowing that -- that 6 that was going to be on my plate. And sure enough, when 7 I arrived there was, I don't know, some communication to 8 me, whether it was voice mail or whatnot, saying there 9 would be an Interministerial Committee meeting that day 10 and I can see from the notes that it was actually called 11 at 11:00 a.m., to talk about the -- that situation. 12 Q: Right. And the notes that you're 13 referring to, are those the notes at Tab 9? 14 A: Well the first one that has the time 15 on it is actually the agenda which is at Tab 7, but -- 16 but -- 17 Q: We'll come -- we'll come to that in a 18 bit, perhaps -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- we can refer to your notes? 21 A: Sure. My handwritten notes are at 22 Tab 9. 23 Q: Your handwritten notes are at Tab 9. 24 They are Inquiry Document Number 1011749. And I have no 25 indication, Commissioner, that these have been made an

71

1 exhibit at this -- at this point in time. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know 3 they've been referred to, so I'm not sure if they've been 4 made an exhibit or not. 5 MR. DONALD WORME: And perhaps we can 6 check that and I will attend to that at some later point 7 in time. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 10 Q: You have those handwritten notes or a 11 copy of those handwritten notes before you? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: Just before we move into them, do you 14 know where the originals of these notes are or what might 15 have happened with them? 16 A: I left them in the office when I left 17 the Government, so I don't know. 18 Q: And I take it you've not seen them 19 since then and the copy that you have before you is all 20 you've been privy to? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: All right. Well, let's maybe take a 23 look at those, first of all. There's a notation at the 24 upper right hand corner of that, which seem to say, 25 "File, Ipperwash correspondence", just above the date of

72

1 September 5, 1995? 2 A: Yes. So, I had a filing system for 3 all of my -- all of my files in which I had separated out 4 correspondence and pleadings and so on, and I would make 5 a notation on the top of the page of a bundle of 6 documents nd leave it in my tray for my secretary who 7 would then kindly file things in the appropriate order 8 for me. 9 So, that's what -- that was an indication 10 to her that this was to go -- I wanted it to be filed, 11 and it be filed in my Ipperwash file in the 12 correspondence Brad (phonetic). 13 Q: All right. And just to set the 14 context of this -- of this meeting and the notes that 15 you've taken, do you recall where this meeting was, who 16 would have been in attendance? 17 A: To my recollection is that at point, 18 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat was still located down 19 at 595 Bay in the -- in the -- I can't remember the name 20 of that building now, atrium on Bay. 21 It would have been in one of the big 22 boardrooms that they had. The -- so, specific people 23 that were in attendance, I mean, I can remember lots of 24 them and I can see at Tab 7, the actual agenda indicates 25 who -- who was supposed to be in attendance and certainly

73

1 I can look at that list and say yes, most of those people 2 were actually there. 3 Q: Okay. Let's turn then to -- to your 4 actual handwritten notes. You had mentioned earlier the 5 Interministerial Committee would typically begin with 6 some background information being provided. 7 I take it that that happened in this 8 instance as well? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And do your notes provide you with 11 some sense of what that backgrounder might have been? 12 A: Yes, so my recollection is that the 13 background began with Ontario -- somebody from the 14 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, sort of, bringing us 15 up to date or reminding people that might not have been 16 in those earlier meetings, about the state of affairs. 17 So, there was a background included the 18 fact that there was an action against the Federal 19 Government and -- for the -- for the Camp lands as well 20 as some proceeding against some landowners for some beach 21 lands and cottage lands. 22 There had recently been a Federal motion 23 for summary judgment that -- that certainly seemed to 24 suggest that lands in the Provincial Park -- because it 25 indicated that the original surrender had been valid,

74

1 that would certainly suggest that the -- suggested to us 2 and the Ontario Government that the Provincial Park title 3 was -- was good and held -- held legitimately by the 4 Ontario Government. 5 Then a note that, "there are a couple of 6 land claims in the area around, but not the", and then 7 there's a blank space and I expect I meant to say Park. 8 Then my next notation is, re: burial 9 ground. Someone indicated, and I -- I -- my recollection 10 is this information came from the Ministry of Natural 11 Resources, that there was some new, archeological 12 evidence that may have been obtained. But it was 13 certainly unclear at that point as to what that evidence 14 was and whether or not there was any validity to it. 15 The background to that was that there -- 16 my -- my best recollection is that there had been some 17 assertion or some -- some question in the distant past 18 about -- about the presence of a burial ground that -- 19 that had been investigated and demonstrated to -- to not 20 be -- not be founded. 21 But, then there was a question -- so 22 somebody within the Ministry brought up the question of 23 burial and -- and indicated that there may have been some 24 new evidence but it hadn't been assessed. 25 And then the next notation in -- in my

75

1 notes were there -- my note is withing square brackets 2 with a little asterisk beside it, that's a note to 3 myself. That's the way I would make notes that 4 differentiate between somebody speaking and just a 5 thought that I had. 6 And it says the burial ground doesn't give 7 them title and that was based on my understanding of the 8 law that there was a -- a process under the Cemeteries 9 Act that you would go through if there was a -- if there 10 was a burial ground found that would create a -- either 11 move the remains or create a cemetery in that place. But 12 it certainly doesn't give the descendants of the -- of 13 the people that might be laid to rest in the burial 14 ground any kind of title -- claim to title. 15 So, that's -- my -- my lawyer note to 16 myself. And then we get another, more of an update and I 17 -- I suspect that the next part is the update from the 18 people on the ground. So, the Ministry of Natural 19 Resources people who were again on the telephone 20 indicating that at 7:30 the day before, part of the 21 dissident group meaning part of the group that was in the 22 camp had moved into the Park. They estimated thirty-five 23 (35) to forty-five (45) people and that they had -- had 24 moved in and set up camp in the Park. 25 Then later on that night then some

76

1 representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources and 2 the OPP had gone to the -- to some point in the Park and 3 my recollection is that it was at the main gate. 4 And advised some of the -- some of the 5 people that were -- that were occupying the Park who 6 happened to be there, advised them that they were 7 trespassing and attempted to given them written notice of 8 the -- they had a notice of trespass pursuant to the 9 Trespass to Property Act but the people who were in the 10 Park who they were speaking to, wouldn't didn't -- 11 wouldn't accept the piece of paper. 12 So, they didn't -- they didn't actually 13 have -- hadn't actually handed it over. And again in my 14 notes we've got a little squared bracket note, [Need 15 precise details of steps taken and the reasons]. 16 And so again, I'm thinking at this point 17 we're likely going -- likely or possibly at some point 18 going to be taking legal action. This is a note to 19 myself that if I'm preparing some sort of legal 20 materials, I need to know the precise details of -- of 21 what happened. 22 Q: And that was on order to formulate a 23 legal response? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Right. Your next notation MNR: I

77

1 take it that that's the way that you would indicate 2 comments that are attributed directly to a particular 3 individual or a group or entity? 4 A: That's right. And some of the 5 people, particularly the ones who were on the phone I 6 wouldn't necessarily remember what their names were. 7 Some people -- when I -- so when I know who the name of 8 the person is, I would write their name and if I -- I 9 didn't know their name but I knew what ministry they're 10 associated with I would -- I would put that down. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: So, do you want me to just, sort of, 13 continue going through them? 14 Q: In -- in general if you would please. 15 A: So, the -- the next, sort of, set of 16 bullet points is all -- is all attributed to the Ministry 17 of Natural Resources' representative indicating that -- 18 that some of the -- the occupiers had gone into a 19 maintenance building and they had written down Stoney 20 Number 3 -- number -- sorry, 43. 21 And that's of some significance if I'm 22 recalling correctly. Kettle and Stony Point Band is -- 23 Reserve is number 44. And previously there had been both 24 Kettle and Stony Point and I think the Stoney Point had 25 actually been 43 historically and so there was some

78

1 suggestion that they were sort of resuming the -- the 2 creation of that -- of that Reserve. 3 There was some indication that they had -- 4 that the people had large equipment in there and the 5 Ministry -- the next point, "had some forewarning from 6 the OPP." I believe that's referenced to the -- that the 7 OPP had given some forewarning to the Ministry of Natural 8 Resources that -- that it looked like this was going to 9 happen. 10 The main entrance to the Park had been 11 blocked by a car. At 9:30 the Ministry of Natural 12 Resources and OPP were -- were told by the occupiers to 13 leave the Park. There was a broken window in -- in an 14 OPP cruiser. A window in a OPP cruiser was broken by 15 somebody. 16 And -- and, again, reference to the 17 Ministry of Natural Resources Superintendent trying to 18 serve notice of trespass but was unsuccessful in doing 19 so. And the OPP had issued a press release at 2:00 a.m. 20 indicating that they were investigating the -- the 21 occupation of -- on the Provincial Park. 22 So, the Ministry of Natural Resources was 23 going to close the Park or had closed the Park and would 24 attempt to serve notice and was looking for, sort of, 25 looking to this Committee for -- for recommendations

79

1 regarding the next steps. And then the advice was that 2 the -- the OPP Command Centre had been set up in Forest. 3 Q: All right. The next notation is 4 that: 5 "They -- they have been allowed to 6 carry out traditional ceremonies." 7 Is this in reference to what you commented 8 on earlier? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And there seems to be a note right -- 11 following that; I'm sorry, I can't read that. It -- 12 A: So -- so, my recollection is that 13 this again is sort of as much for the edification of the 14 -- of the political staff as anybody else, that -- that - 15 - reference to the Seawee case, which -- which concluded 16 that -- that there was a -- a treaty right to carry out 17 traditional ceremonies in a Park where that -- where that 18 use was not incompatible with -- with the use of the 19 Park. 20 So it's, sort of, on that basis that the 21 Government had previously permitted the use of the Park 22 for ceremonial purposes. 23 Q: All right. And -- 24 A: I don't know if there had been a 25 specific question as to why -- why were we doing that. I

80

1 don't know if there had been or if just somebody offered 2 up that that's why. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: And the next point is simply, again, 5 that MNR was being barred access to the Park. And -- and 6 I indicated that it was hard to know who the leader of 7 this group was. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: Then there another point to myself, 10 do we have a list of names or most of the names or -- or 11 all of the people. Again, that's sort of the litigator 12 in me thinking that if we're going to bring legal action, 13 it has to be against somebody, so we need to get a list 14 of -- of at least some of the names. 15 And another question to myself, Are there 16 -- well, a question to myself or a question that I was 17 going to have to look into, were there any other violent 18 acts. Sort -- sort of thinking police -- window of the 19 police cruiser had been broken, we should have a list of 20 -- of events that had -- had unfolded. 21 And then there was a question, and I 22 believe Andrew MacDonald, the lawyer for the Ministry of 23 Natural Resources, asked the question, Was the Park -- 24 Had the Park officially been closed under the Parks Act? 25 And, eventually -- now, whether it was at

81

1 this point or another, we -- we clarified that, yes, 2 indeed, it had. 3 And part of the purpose of that was that 4 it -- it then made it simpler from a legal perspective to 5 say, You're trespassing because the Park is actually 6 officially closed. 7 Q: I see. 8 A: And the other -- the next pages goes 9 on to make the point that -- that Ministry of Natural 10 Resources' people would have been advising us that the 11 Park was normally shut down on Labour Day. 12 So, the camping season, my -- my 13 understanding at the time was that the overnight camping 14 season ended on -- on Labour Day weekend for Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park. And day use of it was still permitted - 16 - day use of the Park and day use of the beach, normally. 17 And -- and so the step that had been taken 18 that was extraordinary here was that the Park had been 19 completely shut down because of this incident. 20 And, again, the next point is a question 21 in my -- my little square brackets, to myself, "[Why is 22 that?]". 23 And the answer -- whether I asked the 24 question out loud or somebody else did, I'm not sure, but 25 the answer is that -- that it's so that the Stoney

82

1 Pointers, which is the -- the name that the group had by 2 then given themselves, so -- so that's, sort of, not made 3 up or anything, the Stoney Pointers was the -- the name 4 that the group was using to differentiate themselves from 5 the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation. 6 So, the answer was that -- that we closed 7 the Park so that the Stoney Pointers would be trespassing 8 by being there. 9 The next point is another question to 10 myself: "Need some justification for the completion." 11 And I'm honestly not sure what -- what that's -- note is 12 referring to. 13 Q: Okay. I was just going to ask you 14 about that. So you don't have any -- any present 15 recollection of that? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And just -- 18 A: I mean my guess is that -- that it's 19 for the completion of the shut down. You know, why are 20 we -- we need to actually have justification for closing 21 the park completely, i.e., safety issues and so on, but 22 I'm not sure. 23 Q: And in looking just at your -- at 24 your previous comment, you say that was the answer that 25 was given, so Stoney Pointers would be trespassing by

83

1 being in there. 2 Do you recall who would have provided that 3 answer? 4 A: I suspect it was a Ministry of 5 Natural Resources person. 6 Q: And I take it again -- 7 A: I mean -- 8 Q: -- from that, that you're not -- 9 A: Not a 100 percent sure, but that's my 10 best recollection. 11 Q: And following those notes to 12 yourself, there's a notation, "no indication that they 13 are armed"? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Okay. Do you know where that would 16 have come from, where that information was provided? 17 A: From the -- again from the Ministry 18 of Natural Resources staff people. My recollection of 19 this first meeting is that most of the background 20 information and, sort of, updates were coming to us from 21 the Ministry of Natural Resources people. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Some it from Solicitor General, but 24 most of it from the MNR. So, there are no indication 25 that they were armed. The assumption is that they are

84

1 the same people who -- who -- who have the Camp Ipperwash 2 so same -- the same people that were in the Camp. 3 And then the next note: 4 "No indication that there are any 5 communications with the Indians." 6 Again, I'm not a 100 percent sure what 7 that note's referring to; whose communication, whether 8 it's the group with the other first -- with the First 9 Nation or is it with -- between government officials and 10 -- and the group. 11 And then, in fact, based on the next note 12 that says: 13 "have seen one reference in London Free 14 Press that Indians said it was -- said 15 there was a riot". 16 My guess is actually that the previous 17 note regarding communications is actually talking about 18 that. Is there -- is there somebody might -- somebody 19 might have asked and it would certainly have been common 20 for someone to say, what kind of media coverage is this 21 event getting? 22 And that -- that's my best guess as to 23 what that's referring to. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And then again, "no knowledge of

85

1 media", I think probably media presence. Then the 2 question was raised and I'm not sure by whom, "why are 3 they there?". 4 And the -- and the answer is, "it's 5 unclear, but language seems to suggest they claim 6 ownership." 7 And that -- by that language, I think the 8 next note says, "number 43 equals the Stoney Point 9 reserve before the amalgamation". And so because of the 10 -- the sign that had been painted saying " Stoney Point 11 Number 43", my recollection is that, sort of, that -- 12 that the -- that the Ministry of people were presuming 13 that that meant there was a claim to ownership; that this 14 is part of our reserve. 15 Q: Okay. The next notation's under 16 "ceremonial use". I would suggest, Dr. Christie, you've 17 already spoken to that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Is there anything within those notes 20 that is something that you haven't told us about? 21 A: No, I don't think so. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: I think. 24 Q: And at the bottom of the page, then, 25 under "options" and that's double underlined, I take it

86

1 that this is now the part of the discussion where the 2 Committee begins to formulate possible directions? 3 A: Yeah, my -- in my recollection is -- 4 yes, that this -- these meetings were again Chaired by 5 the -- by the legal director of -- of ONAS, who I think 6 at that point was Julie Jai. 7 So, she would at some point have said, 8 okay, we need to sort of figure out what are our options 9 and -- and as in all similar cases, one of the options 10 that was familiar to all of the players there was an 11 injunction. 12 What was somewhat interesting in this case 13 was that -- that the next note says -- where it says 14 "local MPP Marcel Beaubien", my recollection is that the 15 MPP was actually asked -- had actually made a request. 16 Whether he'd made that directly to the 17 Ministry of Natural Resources staff or -- or to whom, but 18 that he was -- he had asked somebody within the 19 Government of Ontario, you know, will -- will the 20 Government please take a -- seek an injunction to get -- 21 to get the group out of the Park. 22 And the next reference 'Supt' which 23 probably stands for superintendent -- I'm not sure what 24 that stands for. But, the next point is that the Town of 25 Bosanquet was -- was -- had -- had indicated that they

87

1 were going to go after an injunction for -- for the -- 2 for the Township road that had been blocked. So, 3 independently -- 4 Q: Did you recall who -- 5 A: -- they were planning to seek an 6 injunction. 7 Q: Thank you. Do you recall who 8 provided that information with respect to the Township of 9 Bosanquet? 10 A: Again my recollection is that -- that 11 was coming from the Ministry of Natural Resources staff 12 people, but I'm not certain. 13 Q: You indicated that it was of some 14 interest to you that MPP Marcel Beaubien had made a 15 specific request; is that -- was that your evidence? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you found that of some interest; 18 why? 19 A: Well just -- I mean -- I was -- you 20 know, I was --I hadn't ever seen that before. Now, I'd 21 only worked for the Government for two (2) years but I -- 22 but I had never seen the local MPP becoming actively 23 involved in that sort of thing. 24 Q: Okay. The following page which bears 25 front -- back number, ending 369, again I would suggest,

88

1 Dr. Christie, your reiteration of some of what you've 2 already told us that there was service attempted but it 3 was refused. 4 A: Yes. And -- and where that point is 5 made and then it says, "equals probably nothing" is sort 6 of a reference to -- from a legal perspective the fact 7 that we -- the fact that we were unsuccessful in serving 8 the notice probably doesn't -- is neither here nor there 9 with respect to whether or not there's actually a 10 trespass going on and is also probably not of any 11 assistance in terms of injunction proceedings. 12 They're probably not going to get a lot of 13 mileage out of the fact that they refused service; that's 14 what that's referring to. 15 Q: Following that, the MNR talked this 16 morning about view of injunction and there's a number of 17 bullets under that. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Do we take that as those bullets are 20 attributable to MNR? 21 A: Yes. So, yes -- so they go on to 22 say, "At this time we don't know if any efforts have been 23 made" and then there's unfortunately a blank space. I'm 24 not sure which efforts we're referring to. 25 The next point is, "right now we're --

89

1 they're occupying an empty Provincial Park." So, that 2 sort of miti -- that weighting against the idea of 3 getting an injunction because it wasn't, sort of, 4 particularly critical. 5 And then the point, if the municipality's 6 going for an injunction, and my recollection is that 7 somebody was making the point, well if the Municipality 8 is going for an injunction, maybe we should just wait and 9 see what comes of that. 10 And then the point the First Nation -- and 11 that's referring to the -- to the Kettle and Stony Point 12 First Nation is probably intent on having the Government 13 take action. So, because of this fact that the First 14 Nation was not supporting the action of this group, there 15 was some suggestion by the MNR people that -- that the 16 Band would have liked to -- would like to see the 17 Government take action against them because they don't 18 want to be seen as associating or supporting them. 19 The Deputy Minister of Natural Resources 20 didn't want to go for an injunction. And then the next 21 point whether or not we could make argument. Again it 22 trails off and I don't know what -- what that's referring 23 to, specifically. 24 The next page is a continuation of the 25 Ministry of Natural Resources points. Is -- that you can

90

1 see in the corner it says "MNR:", comment is made if we 2 get an injunction then we would probably have to act on 3 it. So, again, that's sort of suggesting that they're 4 reluctant to proceed for an injunction at this point. 5 And suggesting we should wait until we 6 know what their -- you see my pathetic spelling -- the 7 obvious continuation of that point would be what their 8 demands are and why -- why they're actually in the Park. 9 So, in other words we should wait before 10 we're seeking an injunction to find out what it is that 11 the -- what it is that they're seeking. 12 Q: In fact that was a preoccupation of 13 the meeting to try to find out why people had moved into 14 the Park? 15 A: It was certainly an issue for sure. 16 Yeah. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: And then the point is made that 19 there's always potential for Mohawk Warriors to move in. 20 And -- and it was the backdrop to this is that the 21 Gustafson Lake standoff is going on at the same time in 22 British Columbia and -- and the Mohawk Warriors had been 23 sort of active in -- in various areas so there -- 24 somebody raised this as a -- as an issue we should be 25 aware of in making our decisions.

91

1 And then the next point just continues on 2 the same thing that -- that we need more intelligence 3 about whether or not there are any firearms. 4 Q: Just on that last point, Dr. 5 Christie, do you know where that came from? 6 A: I -- I don't know specifically except 7 that my -- my notations are still a series of bullet 8 points under MNR. And so I suspect that that's an MNR 9 employee, whether it's a -- whether it's a Toronto-based 10 bureaucrat or -- or a lawyer or whether it's the local 11 person, I'm not sure. 12 Q: And the fact that your next notation: 13 "Public safety is not an issue," comes in a bullet, 14 although it's a little bit further out in the page, if I 15 can put it that way, a little further to the left of the 16 page? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Can you tell us whether that is also 19 attributable to MNR or is that -- did that come from 20 somebody else; if you can recall? 21 A: So the way my notations are made, it 22 would suggest, at least to me, that it was probably at 23 least a different speaker. And, unfortunately, I didn't 24 write down who it was, so I don't know. 25 And -- and, sometimes, when I don't write

92

1 down who said things, it's because several people have 2 said the same thing. So, I mean, it could well have been 3 that somebody at ONAS had said, Well so -- so it looks 4 like right now public -- public safety is not an issue. 5 Or somebody at MNR might have said, Yeah, yeah, that's 6 right or, you know, several people might have agreed. 7 But it indicates to me that it was said by somebody -- 8 Q: And we can take that as a 9 confirmation that the Committee -- that public safety 10 wasn't an urgent concern at that moment? 11 A: I certainly -- I certainly took that 12 as being the case. 13 Q: All right. The next notation 14 inquires: 15 "What is the tolerance level of the 16 Government is -- if there is an 17 escalation?" 18 Do you recall the discussion around that? 19 A: I have a vague recollection of -- of 20 that, sort of the beginning of -- of -- so we've now 21 established what's gone on and we've established that -- 22 that on the ground it doesn't seen to be a public safety 23 issue. 24 So, then we sort of shift -- and this is 25 common in these meetings -- we then sort of shift to, so

93

1 we now know the state of the world on the ground but what 2 -- what is the political -- how -- what's the political 3 situation here. 4 And I'm not -- I don't know exactly who -- 5 who made that comment but it -- it's not -- wasn't -- 6 doesn't surprise me that that -- that that question was 7 made. 8 Q: All right. We see that there is then 9 some discussion about another incident, specifically 10 Serpent Mound, and then I would suggest your -- your 11 notes would indicate that there was some distinction made 12 with respect to Serpent Mound and the Ipperwash matter? 13 A: Yes. So I have, quite honestly, a 14 very vague recollection of the Serpent Mound decision but 15 -- but the -- the need of it was that in Serpent Mound 16 there was a -- an issue of title, whether or not the 17 Province had -- had clear title to the land and -- and 18 but the difference here was that we were very confident 19 that because of the unique status of the parklands as 20 separate from the -- from the Military Base lands, then 21 Ontario had good, solid title to -- to those lands. 22 Q: The last comment at the bottom of the 23 page, Dr. Christie? 24 A: Is: 25 "Premier's question equals: Why did

94

1 the group not get together to.." 2 And sadly it tails off to nothing. That - 3 - that would have undoubtedly been a comment made by Deb 4 Hutton because she was the one speaking on behalf of the 5 Premier. So she would have said the Premier's question 6 is, Why didn't this group get together previously to talk 7 about -- and I suspect is to sort of plan what you were 8 going to do. 9 And I -- and I -- I don't have any further 10 notes but I recall there being some question about why 11 hadn't we done something about this earlier. And then 12 the answer was, Well we did actually meet back at the 13 beginning of August and -- and there was nothing to do 14 because there wasn't -- there wasn't any infringement on 15 -- on provincial lands. And so that's my recollection of 16 that. 17 Q: And if we go to the next -- to the 18 next page, bearing back number ending in 370? 19 A: So, the first point I -- I write down 20 there is: 21 "We don't have any clear understanding 22 of what.." 23 And it trails off. I -- I, again, I can't 24 promise you but I'm pretty sure that the -- that the end 25 of that sentence would be of what the demands are or of

95

1 what the claim -- what the assertion is. And then Deb, 2 and that's Deb, that's Deb Hutton, says, and this would 3 have been pretty much a direct quote: 4 "If ever -- if ever we need to act, it 5 is now." 6 There were -- there was a discussion -- a 7 bit of a discussion around -- around that and -- and you 8 can see it continues on, MNR -- I think Deb had said 9 something else and you see the word "Deb" and it's 10 scribbled out, and I think Deb had said something else, 11 but I wasn't quick enough to write it down and then Ron 12 Baldwin started speaking, so I've written Ron Baldwin. 13 And I think he's sort of responding to Deb 14 Hutton's comment that we need to act now. He says: 15 "The park is closed. Adjacent to the 16 Park there are permanent homes. We 17 need to consider our relationship with 18 the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation 19 who will be frustrated if we sort of -- 20 if we let this thing go on for too 21 long. 22 But the contingency plan on the ground 23 is to negotiate. Here we have clear 24 ownership of the Park." 25 And -- and then he asks -- I'm pretty sure

96

1 this was a question from him, because he's a non -- non- 2 lawyer with the Ministry of Natural Resources: 3 "If we get an injunction, do we have to 4 act on it immediately?" 5 The -- so -- so again, the next point 6 simply reiterates that the Band, in their communications 7 with the OPP, has indicated that they support the 8 Government and not the occupiers of the Park, and -- and 9 this probably a question would the Chief be willing to 10 say that in the comment -- the next -- on the next page 11 the first bullet is that: 12 "Chief Bressette might say that in 13 writing." 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: Next note is that" we know some of 16 the names", so that's in response to -- remember the 17 earlier comment that I -- we needed to have some names, 18 so we did know some of the names. 19 And then my recollection is that at that 20 point, the -- the meeting sort of turned to -- to me and 21 asked me for a question of the, what are the various 22 legal options that are available to us? 23 And so that that list in sort of bold 24 print is my -- are my -- some notes of the points I 25 wanted to make of the key options that were available to

97

1 us and -- and you will all be familiar with everybody 2 else's handwritten notes that probably have a better 3 record of what I was saying when I was talking about the 4 various options, because there was other people who were 5 writing down what I was saying, but -- but those are the 6 -- the options in a nutshell. 7 The Criminal Code under Public mischief, 8 Trespass to Property Act, Public Lands Act, Provincial 9 Park Act or an injunction. 10 And a little -- the little chevron out to 11 the right hand side of the top four (4) of those options, 12 I believe, is a -- is a sort of note collecting those 13 options into a bundle of things where -- and the point -- 14 and the point that I've made at that point was that, even 15 if you proceeded under any of these, you certainly 16 wouldn't be -- wouldn't guarantee removal of the people 17 from the Park in any expeditious manner. 18 And then the next comment is the 19 injunction and -- and my comment would have been it 20 doesn't have to be emergency and -- and my recollection 21 is in sort of feeding off the comments that have been 22 made earlier by the Ministry of Natural Resources people 23 in particular, that -- that they're a bit reluctant to 24 seek an injunction; they're wondering if they have to act 25 on it immediately if they do get an injunction.

98

1 So I'm saying, well, we could bring an 2 injunction and it doesn't have to be an emergency 3 injunction. You can -- you can just bring it in the 4 ordinary course of a proceeding. 5 You could seek an interim injunction in 6 the context of an action or application. The question of 7 the public interest is important in terms of succeeding 8 in a -- in an injunction. 9 And the other sort of option that's a -- a 10 bit of a -- an alternative or a -- or a sort of variation 11 on the theme is that you can commence an action and 12 perhaps seek summary judgment. 13 And then the -- on the left hand side, it 14 says: "serve with process once you have an order", it's a 15 -- there would have been a discussion about what happens, 16 how do things actually unfold when you get an injunction. 17 So you get an injunction and then you -- 18 it doesn't actually necessarily mean that instantly, 19 somehow, the people are going to be out of the Park, 20 because you get an injunction. 21 So, you have to get the injunction Order 22 and then the -- you -- you can tell the people that 23 you've got the injunction Order. And if they still don't 24 want to leave, then you have to go back to Court and 25 actually get a warrant that -- the -- so the police can

99

1 use -- the police would, typically, not that they did 2 this very often, but occasionally if they needed an 3 injunction they would sometimes use the injunction to -- 4 my understanding of it was that they would -- they would 5 be able to use an injunction to -- to sort of buoy up 6 their negotiations to try and -- try and diffuse a 7 situation and -- and get -- lead to its rapid end so they 8 might say, you know, we have this injunction order. 9 You know, if you leave now it'll all be 10 easy but if you don't then we're going to -- then we're 11 going to go and get an actual warrant or I can't remember 12 the correct legal terms but the actual order that would - 13 - that would direct them to be out of the -- out of the - 14 - off the land. 15 Q: Given the way that your notes are -- 16 are then structured following that, I take it that that 17 would have been the end of -- of your own comments, or 18 your own responses insofar as discussing with the group, 19 the various options. 20 A: In large part, yes. 21 Q: You wouldn't have talked -- spoken to 22 the next bullet and that is 'No evidence of weapons, 23 naive to presume there won't be'. 24 A: No. 25 Q: Do you know where that came from?

100

1 A: I remember the comment but I don't 2 recall exactly who -- again I -- I suspect and just 3 because of the -- my -- my memory of the tone of -- of 4 who was speaking but I would be fairly confident that it 5 was a Ministry of Natural Resources official. 6 Q: Right. Just carry on if you would 7 please. 8 A: And then it just -- again -- again it 9 sort of carries on that there is a relationship between 10 the Park and the camp and that -- that relationship is 11 physical -- physical location. 12 And then there -- we're talking about the 13 numbers of people. So there are up to eighty (80) people 14 at the camp and forty (40) here being the Park. Probably 15 a larger number of -- probably a larger number and I 16 said, 'that Stoney Pointers', I suspect that I meant to 17 say 'than' so there's probably a larger number than there 18 are Stoney Pointers. 19 So ,this is feeding into the -- the 20 comment earlier that it would be naive to presume there 21 won't be weapons or other -- so the suggestion was that 22 there might be other people. Not -- not only the people 23 who were asserting themselves to be Stoney Pointers but 24 there might actually be other people in -- in supporting 25 them and who those people were I don't know.

101

1 So -- and the next comment is the same. 2 "There are others from throughout the Province." The 3 next comment is: 4 "Public safety is an issue because it's 5 difficult to secure the area because of 6 the beach access and the -- and the 7 forest." 8 The next comment: 9 "Full implications of the burial site." 10 And then the next bullet point says: 11 "Need to find out." 12 So, my recollection of why I would have 13 been writing those points down and certainly my 14 recollection of the discussion of the burial site is that 15 -- is that even though at this point it was raised at the 16 beginning of the meeting by someone within the Government 17 as an issue that -- that at least we -- for our own 18 information is sort of try and figure out what -- what was 19 going on and why it was going on and we should -- we 20 should look into what assertion there was about a burial 21 site. 22 Q: All right. And by the implications, I 23 take it that you might be referring to the appropriate 24 legal obligations that would be triggered if that were in 25 fact to be the case?

102

1 A: My recollection is that the -- whether 2 these specific notes or -- or other place in the 3 conversation but that -- that there were two (2) aspects 4 to this. One(1) was that we need to find out factually, 5 was there any kind of assertion being made? And -- and 6 then the other component of that was we need to find out 7 what kind of legal obligations there would be. 8 And -- and I had certainly -- I don't think 9 I wrote it down here but -- but I've actually seen it in - 10 - in other people's notes of what I said and I -- and I 11 sort of recall saying it. I -- I had made the comment 12 that if there is a burial site, then the Government needs 13 to fulfill its obligations, needs to do -- do the right 14 thing. 15 And -- and the comment that had come back 16 was that in the Cemeteries Act -- because we do have some 17 obligations under the Cemeteries Act and I think part of 18 these comments are a need to find out so we needed to know 19 more about what are our obligations under the Cemeteries 20 Act should there turn out to be a claim being asserted to 21 a burial ground. 22 And as we find out, subsequently, that task 23 was -- was given to one of the Ontario Native Affairs 24 Secretariate lawyers. And he came back at the next 25 meeting with a memo.

103

1 2 Then the next set of notes is about -- 3 again, it's going back to the options, what charges could 4 be laid, if they could be laid in the Trespass of Property 5 Act, you know, the risk is that it's heard in a Justice of 6 the Peace Court. Criminal Code is, similarly -- would be 7 similarly heard because this would be a mischief charge 8 that you'd be talking about, but that would probably be a 9 better option. 10 And then there's a comment: 11 "Need to decide where we want to place 12 our government in the national picture." 13 And I'm not sure exactly who said that but 14 I'm quite certain that it was a political staffer of -- 15 but I'm not sure who. And that, again, is referring also 16 -- at least in part, to the fact that the Gustafson Lake 17 standoff was going on. 18 Q: Much of your notes here are -- are 19 fragmented, if I can make that observation. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Do you have any recollection as to why 22 that might be? Perhaps, were there several people that 23 were speaking at the same time? Was the conversation 24 flowing rapidly? 25 A: Yeah. So it's a combination of those

104

1 things. A lot of people were talking and a lot of things 2 were being said quickly, and I'm trying to write things 3 down and -- and then -- and then I hear something that I 4 think is actually more important, so then I try to get 5 that down and -- and then I also tend to leave a space 6 between when one person is speaking or another person. 7 Q: Okay. Is there anything on that page, 8 Dr. Christie, of significance that you would want to speak 9 to? 10 A: The first two thirds (2/3) of it are 11 certainly very -- very disjointed and -- and I probably 12 can't make much of them. There is a -- the point at the 13 bottom, towards the bottom of the page, the third-last 14 bullet point: 15 "The Chief wants government to take no 16 steps that recognize them." 17 Is a -- speaks to the -- the information we 18 had that Chief Bressette didn't want the Government to be 19 recognizing the -- the Stoney Pointers, as -- as they were 20 then being referred to, as any kind of legitimate band. 21 And then the comment that we needed to ask 22 them why they're there and what they want, that was 23 staff's view that we needed to find out why -- why they 24 were there. And -- and then, Ministry of Natural 25 Resources had a good relationship with the First Nation

105

1 but not such a good relationship with the dissidents or 2 the group that was occupying the Park. 3 Q: Okay. If we turn to the next page, 4 which ends with front number -- pardon me, front number 5 ending in 372, there's a bit of a -- a doodle at the top 6 of the page? 7 A: Yes, there is. 8 Q: I'd suggest that not much can be taken 9 from the first point? 10 A: No. 11 Q: "OPP need to be careful to consider" 12 and it trails off? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: "OPP, there's no historical start 15 point." Does that have any significance to you today? 16 A: It's -- it's not clear to me exactly 17 what -- what they were saying. 18 Q: And the -- and the next point: 19 "Julie, begin applying for injunction." I take it that -- 20 that would be Julie Jai, first of all? 21 A: Yes, it would be. 22 Q: And this was part of the instructions 23 that were being formulated? 24 A: Not so much instructions as -- as of a 25 plan. I mean, as I've said before, this -- these meetings

106

1 -- we would come out of these meetings with a -- with a -- 2 a set of recommendations or plans and -- and certainly 3 wouldn't -- was not unreasonable... 4 My recollection is that what Julie Jai was 5 saying at that point is, well we seem to be discussing, 6 there's still certainly discussion about or not we would 7 want to go for an injunction but, of course, it takes a 8 little while to actually get one going, so -- so we 9 probably better -- better begin the process of -- of 10 putting the materials together so that we've got them if 11 we decide we need to go ahead. 12 That's my recollection of what was going on 13 at that point. 14 Q: You've told us at the outset of this 15 particular meeting that there was a suggestion that -- the 16 burial ground within the Park, and that there was perhaps 17 new archeological evidence in relation to that? 18 A: So, my understanding was there was 19 some archeological evidence that -- that had been 20 mentioned that might have some relevance to a burial site; 21 hadn't been investigated. It hadn't been looked into and 22 nobody really knew whether or not it was valid, yeah. 23 Q: And I simply point that out in 24 relation to your next comment -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.

107

1 Q: -- "we don't mention burial ground." 2 A: Hmm hmm. So my best recollection is 3 that when you see there's a break between the -- the point 4 that says Julie begin --- begin applying for injunction 5 and then there a couple of empty lines before I say: 6 "We don't mention burial ground, is MNR 7 issue. OPP, nobody goes in." 8 So my best recollection is that this is a 9 series of points. We're coming to the end of the meeting 10 and these are sort of what -- what decision points can we 11 make right now about how we go forward out of this meeting 12 and at this point, we're talking about who's going to 13 carry the ball on this issue. 14 So we're still -- still saying this is a 15 Ministry of Natural Resources is the front contact on this 16 issue. 17 They're not going to mention -- 'cause 18 that's my sort of understanding of the context of that is 19 that nobody's going to come out and mention the burial 20 ground. 21 I mean, this point, though -- the mention 22 of the burial ground had come from inside, so it had come 23 from within the Ministry of Natural Resources. 24 Somebody had said, I think, there's this 25 information out there and -- and as we talked about

108

1 earlier, we'd decided that somebody was going to go ahead 2 and look into what are the legal obligations of the 3 Government if -- if there is an assertion of a burial 4 ground. 5 Somebody else is going to look into what 6 might that assertion actually be. But we're not going to 7 raise it for them, because none of the people that are in 8 the Park at this point had said anything about a burial 9 ground. 10 Because, remember at the beginning, you -- 11 it was clear that there was actually no spokesperson had 12 been identified for the group at this point, and the OPP 13 is saying nobody's going to go into the Park. 14 So -- so there -- that's sort of their 15 statement and then -- and then reconsidered JP issue. I 16 think that's -- look at sort of just for the lawyers in 17 the room, sort of muse about whether or not we might to be 18 going before a Justice of the Peace with respect to this 19 issue in any form. 20 And then the next set of points that are 21 numbered points are titled what MNR should say and so, as 22 was typical at the end of these meetings, we'd try to come 23 up with sort of a -- a communications plan and -- and this 24 again would be really kind of a recommendation that the 25 people would then go back to their senior bureaucrats or -

109

1 - or politicians and get confirmation that this was -- 2 this was appropriate, but this would be a recommendations 3 of this Committee. 4 And my best recollection is that the first 5 set there, which is seven (7) numbered points and then 6 there's a couple of spaces and then three (3) numbered 7 points is that the first set was a -- kind of a first run 8 at what the Ministry of Natural Resources would say and 9 then the second is sort of a tightening up of what might 10 be a more appropriate messaging plan. 11 So, the -- you know, the first is the 12 ministry wanted to make sure that everybody -- that the 13 public was assured that the Park is closed and there that 14 there were no users in there. 15 We didn't want anybody to think that this 16 was a -- you know, a hostage taking or anything like. 17 There -- there were no people in the Park and the Ministry 18 of Natural Resources has been denied access by the people 19 that are occupying it. 20 The -- that the -- that the -- the group 21 that's in the Park has been advised that they're 22 trespassing on government land and they've been told to 23 leave. 24 And the final statement there that's full, 25 is that the Crown has clear title to the Park, so that

110

1 would be a legitimate thing for the Ministry of Natural 2 Resources to say publicly. 3 The next one it says, "Crown" and I don't 4 know where that -- what that was going. 5 Then we tighten them up to the Crown owns 6 the Park, they've been told to leave. We'll take 7 appropriate steps to have them removed. 8 And then there's a -- a little asterisk in 9 the -- in the left and the comment: 10 "Strategic imperative equals this 11 Government treats non-Aboriginal people 12 and Aboriginal people the same." 13 And that's a comment that Deb Hutton made. 14 I just have a very clear recollection of that. 15 Q: Why would something like that stand 16 out in your mind, Dr. Christie? 17 A: Because of it's -- because it 18 demonstrated to me -- well, it demonstrated to me an 19 unnerving ignorance of constitutional law and -- and the 20 laws of Canada because, as a lawyer, my understanding and 21 sort of knowledge was that -- that based on the 22 Constitution and the Charter and -- and jurisprudence, 23 that we don't necessarily treat Aboriginal and non- 24 Aboriginal people the same. 25 There are good reasons and -- and laws that

111

1 require that we do treat them differently in certain 2 circumstances. 3 Q: Was there any attempt to inform of 4 that issue by anybody in the group? 5 A: Yes. To some extent. My -- my 6 recollection is that -- that at least one (1) or two (2) 7 people made the point that -- that there are actually 8 circumstances in which we need to treat them differently. 9 I have a -- I have a recollection of Ron Fox saying 10 something I think there was an additional comment sort of 11 a question following this that Deb Hutton said there's a 12 strategic imperative that we treat non-Aboriginal people 13 and Aboriginal people the same. 14 And -- and I sort of questioned follow-up 15 to that that suggested why would we do anything else. And 16 my recollection is that Ron Fox at that point said, Well 17 because we have to, because they're different, because 18 there are different rules that apply. 19 And also because -- I recall the -- the 20 comment being made and I think it was Ron Fox again saying 21 that -- that practically speaking, it's important simply 22 to -- to not deal with this exactly the same. 23 And -- and then to just sort of expand on 24 that further, there was also the comment made that 25 regardless of whether you're treating Aboriginal and non

112

1 Aboriginal people the same or different in this context, 2 the OPP actually does deal with these sort of 3 circumstances and in some ways they do deal with them all 4 the same. 5 So if this had been a standoff in a house 6 by some non Aboriginal person, the OPP's approach would 7 normally be to try to -- try to sort of calm the situation 8 and negotiate a peaceful solution to it. And that's -- 9 that would be their approach in any event. 10 Q: Okay. You told us earlier on your -- 11 on your notation at page 8 of your notes where it said 12 "Premier's Q" and I don't need you to look at that unless 13 you wish to. Premier's question: 14 "Why didn't the group get together?" 15 And you had attributed that to Deb Hutton. 16 And then this comment about a strategic 17 imperative and how the Government would treat Aboriginal 18 people the same. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Was there anything about -- else about 21 the way that those comments were advanced that struck you 22 and that you might comment on at this point? 23 A: My interpretation of -- of Deb 24 Hutton's comments was that they were -- I -- I sort of 25 interpreted them as being fairly, I don't know, aggressive

113

1 or they were certainly assertive. Very assertive 2 statements and -- and the tone -- the tone to me 3 demonstrated some level of frustration. 4 So, my sense was that she was frustrated 5 with the way we in the group were -- were sort of talking 6 about these issues and we're proposing to -- to deal with 7 them. That was my interpretation of the -- of the tone. 8 Q: Okay. In terms of previous IMC 9 meetings that you had been in attendance to and again I 10 appreciate that those had been few, was the manner and 11 nature in which these assertions were advanced by Ms. 12 Hutton, did that have any affect on the overall tone of 13 the meeting? 14 A: It -- I mean it's always hard to 15 comment on the overall tone of something. My -- certainly 16 -- my sense of the meeting is that as -- as Deb Hutton 17 started to make these comments and noticing -- certainly 18 in my notes they aren't being made until sort of two- 19 thirds (2/3's) of the way through. 20 I was a bit startled by them. I was 21 certainly startled by the -- by the comment that we treat 22 Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people the same. And my 23 sense was that others in the room were -- were also a bit 24 taken aback at the suggestion that the sort of subtext if 25 you will that -- that we should be dealing with this

114

1 matter in the way -- in a different way than -- than what 2 we were -- the direction we were moving. 3 We hadn't actually made any plans at this 4 point yet as to exactly what we'd do but -- but -- 5 certainly my sense was that there was some pressure from 6 Deb Hutton to -- to get along with it and -- and sort of 7 deal firmly with this -- with this issue. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: I take it the balance of your notes, 12 and I'm looking at the second last page which ends in back 13 number 372, these are things that I -- that it would 14 appear that you were asking of yourself or things that you 15 needed to look into as you begin the task of formulating a 16 legal response? 17 A: I think these are more -- sort of 18 comments again, they wouldn't necessarily have been 19 attributed to any person, but they're sort of a sum -- sum 20 up where we're at, at this point. 21 So, we'll try to get as many names as -- as 22 possible, and I think that's actually -- these may have 23 been comments that I -- I made that -- to -- to people, 24 you know, sort of things we need, or they may have been 25 comments that other people made.

115

1 But we need to get names, as many names as 2 possible. We need to get details of what -- of what they 3 have, and that wouldn't -- wouldn't likely have been 4 something I would say but... 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: And the Solicitor General takes the 9 lead and my -- my recollection is that was referring the 10 Solicitor General would take the lead with respect to 11 those issues, with respect to getting the names of people 12 and with respect to finding out what -- what equipment or 13 whatever else they have with them. 14 And then the end goal is to remove the 15 people as peacefully as possible. Again, sort of 16 reiterating they've cut some trees. They've been told to 17 leave. 18 Emergency injunction is referred to there 19 and it -- and I -- I suspect that's just a comment that 20 was made or sort of a question by somebody, you know, 21 should we be going for an emergency injunction or somebody 22 saying we should go for an emergency injunction and I've 23 jotted it down. 24 I don't think there's anything specifically 25 turns on it.

116

1 OPP shouldn't -- should continue to try and 2 remove them peacefully. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: And then I've got Deb, written and 5 underlined, and again Deb Hutton said something, but I 6 didn't get it down fast enough before Julie Jai started 7 summing up with the three (3) messages, and those three 8 (3) messages would be the ones that are numbered one (1), 9 two (2), three (3) a couple of pages earlier or the page 10 before. 11 And -- and that -- that we will work 12 quickly to brief the Attorney General and come up with 13 legal options. So again, we're sort of at the preliminary 14 stage here. 15 Going to come up with a more formal set of 16 legal options that would be available to us with the pros 17 and cons of them. 18 And then the others will go off and brief 19 their ministers. And this is, again, is sort of typical 20 in the course of these meetings that everyone would go off 21 and brief their ministers and we'll meet and I've 22 scribbled out, but in the next day or so. 23 But indeed, we were going to meet the next 24 day. And -- and at this point, we will recommend an 25 injunction and we'll endeavour to meet -- to remove the

117

1 people. 2 Q: And it would seem that the meeting, at 3 least at the end of the day, turned to the thought of 4 obtaining an injunction when I would suggest, that at 5 least at the outset of the meeting, it didn't seem so 6 urgent. 7 Is that -- is that fair? 8 A: That's -- yes, it is. 9 Q: Okay. And did you get any sense in 10 terms of how that might have turned from their being no 11 urgency or, at least, no urgency that would trigger the 12 need to get an injunction, to the position that, it would 13 seem, that had been taken and agreed to at the end of the 14 meeting that an injunction would be -- would be sought? 15 A: Yeah, or at least in a -- 16 Q: Or recommended, pardon me. 17 Q: -- should be recommended. My best 18 recollection is that that was -- that the -- that the 19 change really was brought about by the influence of -- of 20 Ms. Hutton in -- in her simply saying, you know, the 21 strategic imperative is that we treat them the same and we 22 need to get them -- get the Indians out of the Park. 23 And to my recollection is that that was 24 sort of the influencing factor that changed the, what I 25 suspect would have been the -- the recommendation that at

118

1 this point we not proceed with an injunction into, at this 2 point, we will recommend that we do proceed with an 3 injunction. 4 Q: All right. At Tab 12 of the -- of the 5 book of documents in front of you, it is marked as an 6 exhibit, P-536 in this Inquiry, it's a memorandum to Yan 7 Lazor from Julie Jai; do you -- do you have that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And the cover page -- the cover page 10 bears no relevance, I would suggest, it's dated January 11 23rd of '97 on Government of Yukon Department of Justice 12 letterhead. 13 I take it that that is out of -- out of 14 context here? 15 A: Julie Jai went to work for the 16 Government of Yukon and it looks like this is -- she's 17 sending -- she's found some handwritten notes that she had 18 from those September 5 and 6 meetings and she's sending 19 them back to Yan Lazor. 20 Q: All right. Thank you for that. 21 At Tab 12 -- pardon me. If -- if you just 22 continue in that, on the second page in, these would be 23 the notes then that Ms. Jai would have sent? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: They start with the 6th and if you

119

1 continue on through them, we come to her notes of 2 September the 5th of 1995. Again, this is part of Exhibit 3 536. The page I'm referring to you, Dr. Christie, ends in 4 front number 035. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: You had an opportunity to review 7 those? 8 A: Yes, briefly. 9 Q: And is there anything in there that is 10 inconsistent with what you've testified here today or what 11 you recall? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: No. I -- I don't -- there's nothing 16 inconsistent. And maybe it might assist, just sort of for 17 clarification of the last point that I made, about -- 18 about how did things change a bit. 19 If you look at page 8 of those notes, the 20 handwritten page 8, which is front 039 -- 21 Q: Right. 22 A: -- at the very bottom there's a -- 23 there's a comment: 24 "Deb wants an emergency injunction, 25 doesn't want to wait two (2) weeks."

120

1 So that's the sort of -- I mean, sort of 2 provides a bit more specificity to -- to the comment I 3 just made. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: But I don't think there's anything 6 inconsistent in there. 7 Q: Thank you. As you left that meeting, 8 did you have an understanding as to what your task then? 9 A: Well, my recollection of -- of my job 10 at that point was to go back to Crown Law Civil and -- and 11 update Tim McCabe, who wasn't at that meeting with me, 12 advise him about the recommendations that had come out of 13 that. 14 And I was going to be working with Julie 15 Jai also on the creation of a -- of a briefing note for 16 the Attorney General. And I had some role in preparing a 17 more sort of -- a more clear or a more specific document 18 that could be circulated to the group the next day 19 regarding the legal options that were available. 20 And -- and then to work with Tim to create 21 the -- sort of the bare bones of an -- of an injunction. 22 And then the legal options issue would address -- 23 Q: And if I can -- 24 A: -- what form -- 25 Q: -- if I can refer you finally to Tab

121

1 10, which is a memo from Julie Jai or an e-mail from Julie 2 Jai to, I suggest, Yan Lazor, that was been marked as an 3 exhibit here, it is P-649. And if I draw your attention 4 to the fourth full paragraph: 5 "The Committee is meeting again tomorrow 6 at 9:30 and the interim group of lawyers 7 from MNR, ONAS and MAG is to meet to 8 evaluate legal options." 9 I take it that's you? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: All right. And her next comment: 12 "I'm working on a blue note on this with 13 an attachment to come from Elizabeth 14 Christie and Andrew MacDonald." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: All right. And if we go down to the 17 second-last paragraph, it indicates that Deb Hutton had 18 already spoken to the Premier and the MNR had spoken to 19 their ministers. 20 Would you have any knowledge of that, first 21 of all? 22 A: Not that day, no. 23 Q: "The Premier's views are quite hawkish 24 on this [in brackets] Deb's words, and 25 he would like action to be taken ASAP to

122

1 remove the occupiers." 2 First of all, is that a comment that you 3 recall hearing or a word, specifically, that you recall 4 hearing? 5 A: Whether it was at that meeting or the 6 next meeting, I certainly recall words like, we need to 7 get -- get the occupiers out of the Park as fast as 8 possible. 9 Q: Okay. And notwithstanding that, if 10 you just continue on that same paragraph of Ms. Jai's e- 11 mail and it reads: 12 "It was agreed that no legal action 13 would proceed until the lawyers subgroup 14 had done a risk assessment of the 15 options, so that we could take the best 16 course possible to reach the agreed-upon 17 goal, which is the removal of the people 18 from the Park and until we had direction 19 from Minister Harnick." 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And that's consistent with what you've 22 told us. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

123

1 A: Yes, sorry, yes. 2 Q: Thank you, I'm sorry. 3 A: I thought I had said already. Said it 4 in my head. 5 Q: And just lastly, before I will ask Mr. 6 Commissioner if we can take the lunch break, at Tab 13, 7 it's Inquiry Document 1011733 and I understand that this 8 is already an Exhibit, P-536. 9 It's a telefax dated September 5th of '95, 10 it's addressed to yourself from Julie Jai? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And if you look at the handwritten 13 note, it's notes for briefing of Minister Harnick and 14 that's dated September the 6th of '95. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: In terms of just a discrepancy on that 17 date, she faxed something to you on the 5th, dated the 18 6th? 19 A: Yes, she's faxing this to me on the 20 5th of September at 6:20 p.m., so we were working into the 21 evening in preparation of a briefing note that would be 22 sort of typed up and submitted to the minister the next 23 morning. That's why the briefing note is dated September 24 6th, because it's anticipated that that's the actual date 25 of the document that will be given to doctor -- to Mr.

124

1 Harnick. 2 Q: Okay. So that explains what would 3 appear to be otherwise a discrepancy. 4 A: It explains it to me, anyway. 5 Q: Thank you. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, that's 7 perhaps a good time to take a lunch break. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we'll 9 take a break now. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 11 adjourned until 2:30. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 1:15 p.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 2:35 p.m. 15 16 MR. DONALD WORME: Good afternoon, 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 19 afternoon. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 22 Q: We left off, before the break, Dr. 23 Christie, at the end of September the 5th of 1995 and you 24 had advised us that you had then some tasks to undertake? 25 A: Yes.

125

1 Q: And proceeded with those tasks, I 2 take it, over the -- the evening and the night of the 3 5th? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: On the morning of September the 6th 6 you would have attended a further meeting of the 7 Interministerial Committee? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And if you refer to -- if I can refer 10 you to Tab 14, it's Inquiry Document 1011797, which 11 purports to be handwritten notes of yourself from that 12 meeting, it's presently marked as Exhibit P-637. 13 A: So, again, there are two (2) 14 different sets of notes at this tab, the first two (2) -- 15 the first two (2) pages are entitled, Notes re. 16 Affidavit for Injunction Motion, September 6th. 17 And then two (2) pages later there's a -- 18 there are notes titled, Ipperwash Aboriginal Emergency 19 Committee, September 6th. So, the second set are my 20 notes from the -- from the meeting. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: The first set are, just as they say, 23 Notes re. Affidavit for Injunction. So, they are notes 24 that I've made in preparation for -- in anticipation of 25 making -- of having to create an affidavit, sort of

126

1 outlining for myself the key -- key features that need to 2 be included in an affidavit. 3 Q: All right. This would be the kind of 4 notes that you would make in advance of your attendance 5 at the meeting, I take it? 6 A: I'm honestly not sure whether these 7 notes were in advance or after. Because of the order in 8 which they appear, it would seem that they were in 9 advance of it, but I'm not sure -- they're typical -- 10 sort of my own preparatory notes, I didn't work on the 11 computer when I was jotting down notes about what -- what 12 to include. 13 Q: All right. And the second part of 14 those notes, that is from the Interministerial Committee 15 meeting; is it; it's titled, Ipperwash, at the top? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I think there's an indication of 18 Aboriginal emergency; is that -- 19 A: That's right, Aboriginal Emergency 20 Committee. 21 Q: And the notation just at the left top 22 hand -- pardon me, right top hand corner of that 23 document, you've advised us earlier with respect to your 24 other notes, that is something you would -- you would use 25 in order to identify this for your assistant to file it

127

1 within your system? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. Now, you indicated, with 4 respect to the meeting of September the 5th, that there 5 was some push to -- toward obtaining an injunction? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: At the end of the meeting that was 8 certainly the agreement? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And could you just maybe continue 11 then with your notes of the 6th and tell us what -- what 12 had happened and what these notes indicate? 13 A: So on the 6th we got back together, 14 there were a number of -- again, a number of individuals 15 gave us background information updating us on the 16 situation. So my -- my recollection is that -- I put 17 "OPP" at the top of that page, my recollection is that -- 18 I don't recall having an actual OPP officer on the other 19 end of the speaker phone. 20 My recollection is that that's -- these 21 notes are probably from Ron Fox reporting as the liaison 22 officer between the OPP and the Solicitor General, that 23 he's -- so these are sort of Ron Fox telling us what the 24 OPP has said to him. 25 So, they've -- so they just -- they go on,

128

1 that Bert Manning, who is the brother of Rose Manning -- 2 Rose 'cause -- of significance because Rose Manning was 3 the -- sort of leader, as -- as it were, of -- of the 4 group that was occupying Camp Ipperwash. The OPP was 5 planning to have a meeting with -- with Bert Manning at - 6 - at noon on that day. So far they had no demands. 7 This is -- these are comments made by my - 8 - by Mr. Manning, has said that the land -- that the park 9 land is theirs and that the land is a burial site, that 10 there -- then further they update us that there are 11 thirty-five (35) to forty (40) people estimated to be in 12 the Park. 13 There had been some rumour that the number 14 had reduced to seven (7) people, but that was actually 15 wrong, that there still were -- were an estimated thirty- 16 five (35) to forty (40) people in the Park as far as they 17 knew. 18 They were arranging for aerial 19 surveillance, I think, with helicopters to -- to begin on 20 the 6th. And again, repeating that the Chief of the 21 First Nation had indicated that the Band does not support 22 the activity of the -- of the people in the Park. 23 There was some suggestion that there were 24 three (3) key people -- or there were three (3) people 25 that were central to the takeover or the occupation of

129

1 the Park and -- and there were warrants for the arrest of 2 those people. The warrants had been obtained by the 3 police. 4 And then there's a note that weapon equals 5 flare. My recollection is that there was some question 6 of whether or not there had been a weapon and the 7 indication was that whether it was weapon or not, there 8 seemed to be -- there had been a flare let off at one 9 point. 10 And then it's further update. There's a 11 fire on the Army Camp Road which was the municipal road. 12 The police had responded and they were pelted with stones 13 and beer bottles but reiterating there's no evidence of 14 firearms. 15 Q: Okay. Let me just stop you there as 16 it seems to be a break in between that portion of your 17 notes and the balance of that. 18 Is there any indication that the evidence 19 -- pardon me, that the notations you had made had in fact 20 come from Mr. Fox I think as you indicated you believed? 21 A: That's my recollection. I mean, 22 there -- it's information that's coming to us from the 23 OPP. My recollection is that it was coming to us through 24 Ron Fox. But I can't promise you that there wasn't an 25 OPP officer on the phone. I don't think there was

130

1 though. 2 Q: Thank you. And continue if you 3 would. 4 A: So again this is just sort of a 5 further update from the police perspective that this 6 group is not as organized as those taking over and I'm 7 pretty sure the continuation of that would be taking over 8 the camp. 9 So -- so this doesn't look to be quite as 10 organized an event. Inspector Carson is the Incident 11 Commander down here in -- in Forest. And then -- and 12 then the next page is the comment: 13 "The Premier is firm, that at no time 14 should others be involved in 15 conversations then OPP and MNR 16 including the Chief of the Band." 17 Q: And I take it given that the Premier 18 was not in attendance at that meeting, that this would 19 have come through the source you advised earlier? 20 A: Yes. This would have been a comment 21 by Deb Hutton and simply -- so I took that as an 22 instruction to the group that no one was to talk to any 23 of the Aboriginal people and including the Chief of the 24 Band. 25 Q: And that's your notation next with

131

1 the -- the asterisks around -- surrounded by square 2 brackets? 3 A: Yes. So that's another one of those 4 notes to myself. Again sort vis-a-vis the issue of we're 5 preparing for an injunction. Does this mean we can't put 6 in our affidavit that the Band does not condone the 7 activity? So it would be difficult to get an affidavit 8 from the Chief of the Band if we're not allowed to talk 9 to him. 10 Continuing, the OPP hopes to find out what 11 the occupants want so we're still -- don't have a clear - 12 - we have a comment from Bert Manning that they own the 13 land and that the -- that they -- that they claim it as a 14 burial site but we don't have any information. At that 15 point we didn't have any specific information as to what 16 the -- what the group wanted, what their demands were. 17 There will be discussions re what will 18 happen when the people -- when the people come. I don't 19 know what that -- I don't know what -- how that would 20 have ended that -- that sentence. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: Probably had something to do with the 23 fact that they were supposed to be having a meeting at 24 noon. Something about discussions. And then the next we 25 have Tim and that would be Tim McCabe he was -- and he

132

1 was my senior counsel and he was at this meeting with me. 2 And so he asks the question, "What -- do 3 we have names of the individuals who are there" and the 4 answer is the OPP has a list of -- of several of the 5 names and then Tim again has sort of another question 6 regarding the Chief of the First Nation, is he willing to 7 assist? 8 And Deb Hutton says the Premier's office 9 doesn't want to be seen to be working with Indians at 10 all. 11 Q: All right. Now how was that comment 12 taken by you? 13 A: I was -- I was shocked and -- and 14 dismayed because I went into sort of shock because it 15 seemed sort of -- it seemed like a startling sort of 16 thing to say. 17 And I was dismayed because from the 18 litigation point of view, having an affidavit of the 19 Chief of the First Nation that -- that said I don't agree 20 with what this group is doing would have been a very 21 powerful tool in the context of -- of the litigation. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Beyond that comment, at that moment,

133

1 you have no other indication of what she may have -- may 2 have indicated or stated? 3 A: Of what Ms. Hutton might have -- 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: -- said? 6 Q: I mean was this directly to the 7 question that it would appear, as you've testified, Mr. 8 McCabe put, can we ask the Chief of Kettle and Stony 9 Point First Nation -- 10 A: Yes -- 11 Q: -- to assist in the injunction. 12 A: My recollection is certainly of -- 13 and it was borne out in -- in what actually occurred and 14 also in -- in my subsequent discussions with -- with Tim, 15 that this was the -- this was a way of saying no to his 16 question. 17 Can we -- can we put together an affid -- 18 is the Chief willing to assist and then my interpretation 19 of -- of Deb Hutton's comment was, it doesn't matter if 20 he's willing to assist or not. You're not -- you're not 21 going to be putting an affidavit in, because the Premier 22 doesn't want to be seen to be talking to be working with 23 the Indians. 24 So, we knew at that point that we're 25 weren't going to, even though -- even though we might

134

1 have been able to get an Affidavit from the Chief, we 2 weren't going to be doing that. 3 Q: And do we take from that, that 4 neither you nor Mr. McCabe had approached the Chief to 5 obtain his assistance? 6 A: No, we hadn't approached him. I mean 7 we were -- that's why we were still clarifying, as in the 8 previous meeting you'll recall there are some notes that 9 suggest that the Chief might be prepared to speak 10 publicly and -- and then we came to this and we're, sort 11 of, thinking that we might be getting an injunction, so - 12 - so then the obvious question is, from Mr. McCabe, can - 13 - can we actually get the Chiefs to -- to assist us? 14 Q: All right. 15 A: So, no, I hadn't, certainly, 16 approached him. 17 Q: And can we assume, then, by that 18 answer, in the -- and what had occurred, that you took 19 this as instructions from your client? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: The next indication is that there was 22 a report of automatic gunfire, lots of heavy equipment, 23 movement. 24 Do you recall who provided that 25 information?

135

1 A: My recollection is that that was 2 coming from -- that came from the Ministry of Natural 3 Resources staff people who were on the ground. 4 So they were on the telephone speaking to 5 us from Ipperwash. My -- and that's my recollection that 6 that was their and then that's -- that's a very clear 7 recollection, actually, that that was Ministry of Natural 8 Resources people. 9 Q: In terms of providing that 10 information, was there any indication given to the group 11 as to why that information was deemed to be important 12 enough to pass on to the Committee at that point in time? 13 A: Well, it was -- I think -- I think by 14 -- certainly my view was that it by anybody's standard, 15 whether -- standards whether or not there was gunfire 16 would be relevant to -- to us. 17 I mean, if you recall in the first 18 meeting, there was a lot of discussion about public 19 safety and was there a public -- is there -- and that 20 seemed to be having a lot to do with the decisions we 21 were making and the rates at which we were making those 22 decisions and so public safety is -- was the paramount 23 issue. 24 The Ministry of Natural Resources staff 25 reported that there was automatic gunfire heard. It

136

1 revived the issue of public safety. 2 Q: And can you recall, Dr. Christie, 3 whether anybody in the Interministerial Committee had 4 spoken to that issue of automatic gunfire? 5 A: Nobody had and -- and, in fact, I 6 recall Ron Fox indicating that he didn't have that 7 information. So he hears this over the telephone from 8 the Ministry of Natural Resources person and then whether 9 it was immediately after or at some point during that 10 meeting, Ron Fox indicated that he didn't have any 11 information about automatic gunfire; had not been 12 confirmed by the OPP officers who were there. 13 Q: And then can -- and advising that to 14 the Committee that he hadn't confirmed that, did he say 15 anything further that you can recall? 16 A: Not specifically. 17 Q: All right. Carrying on, there was 18 further information, I gather, delivered to the 19 Committee -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I look at your point. 22 A: So the next point is that the 23 surveillance from the day before suggests that there had 24 been buildings broken into. 25 That's buildings on -- in the Park,

137

1 Ministry of Natural Resources buildings, and -- and that 2 the local feeling -- the local feeling being the -- the - 3 - the cottagers and home owners near the Park were 4 expressing concern, fear and anger. 5 And -- and then the next point is: 6 "confirm that there was gunfire heard." 7 So, in -- in response to Ron Fox raising 8 the point that -- that this hadn't been corroborated or 9 confirmed by OPP, then -- then somebody, and I'm not sure 10 who and it might have been Ron, might have said, Well 11 we'll need to confirm this suggestion there's gunfire. 12 Q: All right. If you could just carry 13 on, it looks like at that point in time the Ministry of 14 Natural Resources -- 15 A: Yeah. So at this point the Ministry 16 of Natural Resources -- and I -- my recollection is that 17 this is now sort of -- this is either the -- the 18 Superintendent, Les Kobayashi or -- or a sort of slightly 19 more senior bureaucrat in Toronto speaking. 20 It might even have been the -- it might 21 have been the executive assistant to the Deputy or the 22 executive assistant to the Minister, I'm not sure, or 23 some other senior bureaucrat. There were more senior 24 people at this meeting, if you see the list. 25 But, anyway, indicating that the Minister

138

1 doesn't want to carry -- the Minister of Natural 2 Resources doesn't want to be carrying this much longer, 3 especially if there's a threat of escalation. 4 The municipality is concerned because the 5 -- the feds told that they would contain the issue in the 6 Camp and they didn't do that. And now -- and then the 7 question is, Now that charges have been laid how much can 8 the Minister of Natural Sources say. And if we're going 9 to -- and I think the continuation is if we're going to 10 seek civil remedies. 11 So, in a nutshell, that's -- the people in 12 the Ministry of Natural Resources felt this issue had 13 become a matter of concern for a broader part of the 14 Government and was looking for some assistance and some 15 backup and -- and some guidance as to what their role 16 should be. 17 Q: Sol Gen is your next point, but 18 there's nothing beside it, I take it that doesn't help 19 you in terms of what comments may or -- may have been 20 made rather? 21 A: No. I'm sorry, it doesn't. 22 Q: And next would be David Moran? 23 A: Yes. David Moran was the executive 24 assistant to the Attorney General, saying the OPP cannot 25 speak on behalf of the Government, so somebody has to.

139

1 So there had been some discussion that -- that the OPP 2 should be the ones doing all the talking. 3 And it sort of comes out of that third -- 4 third -- or the second point the MNR person had made -- 5 or the third point I guess, Now that there have been 6 charges made should MNR be saying anything really at all 7 or should it all be OPP. 8 And -- and Dave Moran is, you know, 9 alluding to the fact that we've talked about earlier, 10 that -- that the OPP is arm's length from the Government 11 and -- and so, just like the Government can't tell the 12 OPP what to do, the OPP can't speak on behalf of the 13 Government. So he was just making that point. 14 Q: Why would it be necessary to make 15 that point, if it was necessary? 16 A: I don't know. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: And then his next point is if we're 19 being asked to seek an injunction, then we'll do so ASAP. 20 So I think that it speaks for itself. 21 Q: All right. Had -- had you at this 22 point in time delivered the information that you had set 23 off the day before in order to prepare? 24 A: Probably, because we're getting to 25 the end of that meeting. So I don't -- I don't remember

140

1 specifically the moment during that meeting. It would 2 probably be clearer from somebody else's handwritten 3 notes when it was that -- that Tim and/or I spoke to the 4 specifics of the options. 5 Q: Okay. Thank you. And just carry on 6 then. 7 A: So the next page is -- at the top 8 there's a name that I -- that I think is irrelevant to 9 this -- to this matter. 10 Q: You're referring to the -- 11 A: To the "Mary Tobin" at the top. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: I believe that's in reference to 14 something completely different. I just put the name down 15 for some reason. And then, again, Solicitor General 16 speaking, this would be Ron Fox saying there's a 17 reservation that he has. 18 Actually, you know what, this wasn't -- 19 this wasn't Ron Fox. This is the Solicitor General 20 executive assistant or -- or bureaucrat. 21 Q: Perhaps a Ms. Hunt; does it help at 22 all? 23 A: Yeah, might have been. Yes, because 24 -- because if it had been Ron Fox, I would have written 25 Ron Fox. And -- so this is from the Solicitor General

141

1 staff, saying that the protocol of the Solicitor General 2 is not to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the 3 OPP. 4 And that's -- my recollection and I -- and 5 I don't have very -- my notes are not great on this 6 point, but my -- my recollection of what came up at this 7 meeting was that there was a question raised by Deb 8 Hutton as to why we couldn't just tell the OPP to go and 9 get them out of the Park; just go get them out. 10 And -- and so then there was a discussion 11 around why that doesn't happen; why it can't happen. And 12 that discussion would have involved people from the 13 Ministry of Natural Resources and Ron Fox as well as 14 lawyers. 15 One of the lawyers for the Crown Law 16 Office Criminal was there as well as, potentially, Tim or 17 I, sort of, explaining that -- that the OPP is arm's 18 length and -- and that they -- that we can't -- and then 19 this is a comment, sort of, in that context that the OPP 20 -- the Solicitor General doesn't tell the OPP what to do 21 on a day-to-day basis. 22 And then there was other discussion in 23 this meeting about what, you know, how do we -- how -- 24 how is the OPP asked to do things and then the point was 25 made that the Ministry of Natural Resources as landowner

142

1 is certainly entitled to ask the police just like any 2 landowner could call the police and say there are people 3 on my land, could you please come and remove them. 4 The Ministry of Natural Resources was 5 entitled to request that the OPP remove the -- the people 6 from the Park, but then the precise way in which they 7 went about doing that was entirely up to the OPP. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: So, then it carries on David, that 10 would be David Moran, is simply voicing the concern 11 there's, sort of, an increased concern in public safety, 12 if in case there -- if -- if there are arms there. And 13 -- and then another update which we saw in the first 14 meeting as -- as well a question about whether or not -- 15 whether or not there's media reporting. 16 And so now it suggests that there are more 17 media reports coming out about this -- about this matter 18 at this point. And J.J. would be Julie Jai sort of 19 summing things up saying we should apply for an 20 injunction ASAP, public safety is paramount and criminal 21 charges are at the discretion of the OPP. 22 So, my -- my notes get a bit thin that -- 23 towards the end of this meeting in part because it had 24 become clear to me that we were going to be getting an 25 injunction and so I was concentrating more on -- on

143

1 listening to what was going on so that I could think of 2 the materials that needed to be put together. 3 And -- and then -- and then the meeting 4 ended. And the meeting ended at -- at least my notes of 5 the meeting ended at that point. So, that line that's 6 under the comment by J.J. is the end of the meeting. The 7 other notes at the bottom are -- come out, subsequently, 8 as I'm trying to actually sort of co-ordinate how and 9 where this thing is going to be heard. 10 So, in a nutshell, we came out of that 11 meeting with instructions to proceed with an injunction 12 quickly. 13 Q: All right. And can you tell us what 14 it was from the day before where there was simply 15 discussion about the obtaining of -- of injunctive remedy 16 to the end of this meeting where the decision it would 17 seem was made that an injunction would be obtained ASAP. 18 Was there -- is there anything in your 19 mind that sticks out is a trigger point for that 20 decision? 21 A: There were a combination of factors I 22 would say. One of the factors was that there was -- 23 there was an indication that from the Ministry of Natural 24 Resources staff that there was gunfire, so there was sort 25 of an increase and concern about the issue of public

144

1 safety. 2 And the other was that Deb Hutton was more 3 clear in the second meeting that the Premier wanted us to 4 do what we needed to do to take -- take the necessary 5 legal steps to get the -- to get the group out of the 6 Park as quickly as possible. 7 Q: And just on that last point, Dr. 8 Christie, did you hear during the course of that meeting 9 words to the effect -- well precise words: 10 "Get the fucking Indians out of the 11 Park and use guns if you have to."? 12 A: No. 13 Q: All right. And that's something, I 14 suggest to you, that you would recall if you heard it, 15 would it not? 16 A: I would most certainly recall that if 17 I heard it, yeah. 18 Q: If we refer to Tab 11 of the -- they 19 are meeting notes of the Emerge -- of the IMC Committee 20 dated September -- the 5th. 21 It was simply that there were -- on page 22 3, the last page of that exhibit which is Exhibit P-509, 23 number 5 talks about next steps. 24 "It was agreed that an injunction would 25 be sought as soon as possible."

145

1 A: Sorry, I'm -- I think I'm looking at 2 the wrong... 3 Q: Okay. If we go to Tab 11. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: And if you go to the last page of 6 that exhibit. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: I'm with you. 11 Q: Okay. Under number 5, next steps? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that is consistent with what 14 you've just told us and -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- consistent with your notes about 17 Ms. Jai's comments? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And there's a note just following 20 that in the brackets, do you see that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And it reads: 23 "Note following the meeting, Cabinet 24 directed Mag lawyers to apply 25 immediately for an ex parte injunction.

146

1 Tim McCabe, Elizabeth Christie and 2 Leith Hunter are preparing the 3 application and compiling the 4 supporting documentation." 5 Do you recall the -- first of all, did you 6 attend a Cabinet meeting or did you receive instructions 7 from Cabinet to apply immediately for an ex parte 8 injunction? 9 A: So, no, I didn't attend a Cabinet 10 meeting. 11 What happened after this meeting in 12 addition to preparing -- starting to prepare the 13 materials, in my recollection is that I, at one point, 14 was -- met with Mr. Taman who was the deputy Attorney 15 General. And the -- the upshot of that discussion, and I 16 actually recall it as being a discussion in a hallway, 17 with him, in which he indicated that we were -- he was -- 18 my interpretation was that he was providing me with our 19 instructions, which were to -- to proceed with an 20 injunction just as quickly as we possibly can. 21 And, in fact, he had suggested to me that 22 -- that there was some -- either a rule or a -- or a -- 23 or a procedural route through which we -- it might even 24 be an option to us to apply for an injunction that 25 afternoon in Toronto, at a Courtroom in Toronto, given

147

1 that we wouldn't be able to get to -- to Sarnia that 2 quickly. 3 But -- so, that's my recollection of the - 4 - of the instructions. 5 Then that's -- my recollection of how they 6 came to me. So, I don't know where Mr. Taman got that 7 information or the advice or instructions, but that's my 8 recollection of how Tim and I got our instructions was 9 from Mr. Taman. 10 Get the injunction just as quickly as you 11 possibly can. Maybe you could even get it this 12 afternoon. Why don't you call the Trial Co-ordinator 13 here in Toronto and start -- and see what you can do. 14 Q: Thank you for that. If you refer to 15 Tab 15, it is an e-mail from Julie Jai to Yan Lazor, and 16 it's dated Wednesday September the 6th, at 1995, at 12:54 17 p.m. 18 It is Exhibit P-653. You see the first 19 line there, Mag staff and I met with Larry Taman this 20 morning? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I take it that that would have been 23 before the Interministerial Committee meeting? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now, I -- obviously you can't speak

148

1 for Ms. Jai? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Were you part of that staff meeting 4 that met with Mr. Taman? 5 A: I think I was. I'm -- I'm -- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: -- there were a lot of meetings and - 8 - and -- and I know I met with Mr. Taman on more than one 9 (1) occasion that day, so -- 10 Q: I take it you can't tell us if it was 11 at that meeting, prior to the Interministerial Committee 12 meeting, that you would have received, I think, what 13 you've just told us were instructions from Mr. Taman to 14 proceed with obtaining injunctive relief ASAP? 15 A: My recollection, actually, is that 16 those instructions came after the Interministerial 17 meeting. 18 Q: Okay. And if we just go to the 19 bottom of that -- of that page of that e-mail, under 20 number 2, the injunction -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- and the first line in there is: 23 "Tim McCabe advise that we do not have 24 grounds for an ex parte injunction. 25 However, we will take steps to have an

149

1 injunction heard ASAP." 2 And then it goes on. 3 A: Yes, so our -- our -- Tim's and my 4 thinking, at that point, was -- was that in all 5 likelihood the fastest we would be able to get before a 6 Court would be the Friday. So this -- this -- September 7 the 6th is a Wednesday. And -- and there be -- really 8 there were-- in terms of doing it that quickly, and it 9 was clear that -- that if that was what we were to do was 10 as quickly as we could. 11 There were really two (2) options 12 available to us. One was to bring it as a -- as an 13 interim injunction and ask for an abridgement of the time 14 of service. So in the ordinary course of things an 15 injunction requires three (3) days notice and -- and that 16 means you -- right, you serve the documents and then you 17 have three (3) -- you have to wait three (3) days before 18 you can have a hearing. 19 So, one option was an interim injunction 20 with -- on -- on notice, with a -- seeking an abridgement 21 of the time for -- for notice. And -- and the other 22 option was an ex parte proceeding, which is -- which is 23 the sort of, in the rules, the form of an injunction that 24 -- sort of the last resort form, where you can seek -- 25 actually seek injunctive relief without providing notice

150

1 to the other side, and it's always for a very limited 2 period of time, with a return date following service and 3 so on. 4 So, there's never any intention that you 5 would never serve the other side with the proceedings. 6 It's -- it's a matter of when. So under the ex parte 7 rules you don't have to officially have given notice and 8 you've got a -- you can have injunctive relief if you get 9 it. You can have injunctive relief for a short period of 10 time, during which time you have to serve. In the 11 interim case you have to serve. 12 So our view and -- and it was my view as 13 well, and it was Tim's view, and he's infinitely more 14 well -- more qualified than I to give this advice but, 15 was though that -- that an ex parte motion was a long 16 shot because the -- the -- because you have to create a - 17 - an argument of -- of urgency. And given the comments 18 that we've seen earlier about the -- about the fact that 19 the Park was closed, the fact that there was no evidence 20 of risk, was going to make it difficult. 21 By the end of the second meeting that had 22 changed a little bit in that we had these reports of 23 gunfire and so that -- so that changed -- that changed 24 that sense somewhat. But it was still our view that -- 25 that it would be -- it would be hard, it would be an

151

1 uphill battle. 2 However, if you only have those two (2) 3 options and your instructions are to get the injunction 4 as fast as you possibly can, it was the better of the two 5 (2) options. 6 Q: And just -- just so we're all clear, 7 the instructions that you received to proceed with 8 attempting to obtain injunctive relief as soon as 9 possible, it wasn't specified, do we take it that you 10 ought to proceed to obtain an ex parte injunction or 11 interim injunction? 12 A: So my recollection is -- is no, is 13 that that's correct, that we -- my recollection is that 14 we were instructed to get an injunction or to apply for 15 an injunction just as fast as we possibly could. 16 So, I would say, strictly speaking, that 17 the notes at that bullet point 5 in -- in -- of that e- 18 mail that you're referring to at Tab 11, strictly 19 speaking, my recollection is that that's incorrect, that 20 -- my recollection is that our strict instructions were, 21 As fast as you possibly can. 22 And -- and that certainly by the time we 23 actually had figured out which way to go, certainly Mr. 24 Taman and, therefore, I assume, Cabinet would have known 25 that that's -- that we were actually going to proceed by

152

1 way of ex parte motion, but I don't -- I don't recall 2 being specifically instructed to get an ex parte 3 injunction. 4 Q: And just to cover this off, Dr. 5 Christie, the -- the note that you've just referred to 6 under Tab 11 at -- on P-509, I take it that you would 7 have received a copy of the minutes at some point in 8 time, you would have seen this notation; and did you say 9 anything as to the accuracy of that particular note? 10 A: It -- when I would have received and 11 actually read this note, I'm not sure. So the meeting 12 went until noon, these notes were then prepared and they 13 were disseminated to various people. 14 I spent that afternoon and evening and 15 night frantically -- 16 Q: And we'll come -- 17 A: -- looking away and I don't think -- 18 Q: -- we'll come to that in a moment. 19 A: -- I probably read these notes then. 20 Q: Right. Thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: You had mentioned that, following the 25 meeting then, you were in the process of contacting trial

153

1 coordinators, seeing what the prospects were about 2 getting the matter in front of a judge at some early -- 3 early point? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. What happened with your 6 contact to the trial coordinator in Toronto? 7 A: I contacted the trial coordinator in 8 Toronto and, obviously, at that point we would have been 9 proposing to bring an ex parte motion because there 10 wouldn't have been any way of serving within hours, and 11 was advised by the trial coordinator that there -- that 12 there would be -- that it was not possible for us to be 13 heard that day in Toronto. 14 And so I was advised to contact the trial 15 coordinator in Sarnia or Windsor. I -- I know that -- 16 that Mr. Justice Daudlin was actually in Windsor and I'm 17 not sure if I was actually speaking to the trial 18 coordinator in Sarnia or Windsor, to be honest with you. 19 But -- so, then I made contact with them 20 and -- and they advised me that, in fact, we could be 21 heard the next day. Mr. Justice Daudlin would hear us 22 the next day and I was instructed by the trial 23 coordinator to provide the Registrar with faxed materials 24 that evening, as soon as they were prepared. 25 And that the Registrar would -- telephone

154

1 numbers were exchanged and so on, so that I had the 2 capacity to contact the Registrar and the Registrar would 3 go in to the Court office and -- and pick up the 4 documents and actually deliver them to Mr. Justice 5 Daudlin at home that evening. 6 Q: The evening of the 6th? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: So, that we could then be heard in 10 Sarnia on the 7th, in the morning. 11 Q: Okay. And aside from the trial 12 coordinator in Sarnia, I take it, or the Registrar, 13 pardon me -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- did you forward the documents to 16 anybody else? 17 A: Yes. So, once we finished the motion 18 record, we faxed -- faxed all of those documents down to 19 the officer, I believe it was act -- specifically to -- 20 to officer Wright at the Command Centre, here in Forest. 21 Q: And the purpose for faxing those 22 materials? 23 A: So, the purpose of that was to 24 endeavour to serve the group in any event. So, our -- 25 our thinking was, an interim injunction on notice with

155

1 abridged time requires that you have notice. You have to 2 have served notice. 3 So, if you -- if -- if it was -- and we 4 knew that service was going to be somewhat difficult 5 because we'd already had the issue of -- of the Park 6 superintendent trying to serve the Notice of Trespass and 7 no one would receive it. 8 So, we knew that it was going to be an 9 issue. So, if we had actually walked into Court having 10 not, in fact, served on a Motion that required notice, we 11 would be -- we would have probably no chance at all. 12 If, however, we proceeded under the rules 13 for ex parte Motion which -- which permit no service, 14 then we could -- then we -- then we would be at least 15 make our legal arguments. 16 But, in any event, we wanted to give 17 notice to the occupiers that we were proceeding, so that 18 if -- so that if they -- so that they could, in fact, 19 appear and we -- and we would -- and we would have 20 invited that and certainly, you know, done what we could 21 to -- to facilitate that. 22 So, we wanted the occupiers to be aware 23 that there was the Court proceeding going ahead the next 24 morning. And -- and that was our plan right from the get- 25 go; that -- that was what we had intended.

156

1 And so we had been in touch with the 2 police officers in Forest and so we were -- later that 3 evening, I faxed the materials down for that purpose and 4 asked them to -- 5 Q: You mentioned Detective Sergeant Mark 6 Wright? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: I expect that Mr. McCabe may testify 9 that he had some telephone conversations with that 10 officer in and around that same time. 11 Were you aware of that at all? 12 A: Yes, I was, because Tim and I were 13 working together in his office and just outside his 14 office at -- at sort of -- at our -- we shared a 15 secretary and so we were working -- using her -- her 16 workstation in his office to prepare the materials. 17 So, he was having those conversations on 18 the telephone in his office and -- 19 Q: And can you recall anything of those 20 conversations? 21 A: I was only privy to Tim's half of the 22 conversation and then his comments to me afterwards. So, 23 what I recall is that he -- he was typically in -- in 24 those conversations, he advised the officer that he -- he 25 wanted them to affect service as best they could. And

157

1 that even though he understood it was very difficult that 2 he -- that they should, you know, they could try -- he 3 would appreciate it if they would try as best they could 4 to serve the documents. 5 The -- I recall two (2) conversations and 6 there may have been more. After the first one Tim said 7 to me that it sounded as though things were heating up 8 fairly dramatically down there and -- and he was a bit 9 exasperated that it didn't sound like there was going to 10 be a whole lot of hope of service but he was trying very 11 hard to -- to convince the officer that it was worth -- 12 it was worth a try. 13 And that he said he would; that there was 14 certainly was agreement on the side of the officer that 15 they would -- that they would do their best, although -- 16 although things were -- were not as calm as they had been 17 during the day. 18 And then the second conversation which was 19 later, and I -- I believe, actually that conversation was 20 after they had actually received the fax, so it was, sort 21 of, confirmed that they had the materials and he said, 22 Yes, they had the materials. 23 And my recollection is that Tim -- Tim 24 quoted to me that -- that the officer said to him, All 25 hell's broken loose down there, and -- and so he doubted

158

1 very, very much that they would -- that they would be 2 able to -- they'd be in a position to serve the 3 documents. 4 And he was going -- he -- but he was going 5 down to the -- to the Park shortly after he got off the 6 telephone and he would take them with him and he would 7 try but -- but that he doubted very very much that it was 8 going to happen. 9 Q: All right. What happened after that, 10 Dr. Christie? 11 A: So -- I mean, that was good info -- 12 important information for us because we knew that -- that 13 although we certainly would have done what we thought we 14 could do, the best we could do to -- to effect service 15 which was our goal that -- that we were likely going to 16 be walking into court the next day with service not 17 having been effected. 18 So -- and then we -- we went our separate 19 ways once we filed everything and -- and talked a little 20 bit about how the -- how the argument was going to go. 21 Tim was going to make the argument and we, sort of, 22 discussed it somewhat and then we went our separate ways 23 and -- and to our homes. 24 I had -- I had a rented car that day and - 25 - and so then I picked Tim up at about 4:30 in the

159

1 morning I think. My recollection is that we left the 2 office at -- between midnight and 1:00 and -- and then I 3 picked him up at 4:30 or 5:00. 4 I lived in Toronto, he lived in 5 Mississauga, so I on -- on the way out I picked him up. 6 And when he got in the car he told me to turn on the 7 radio to 680 News because he had heard -- I hadn't -- 8 didn't have it on and don't know if I had the radio on at 9 all, because he had heard there is -- there had been a 10 shooting or something. 11 Sort of said something has happened at the 12 Park, turn the radio on. So, we turned the radio on and 13 got 680 News reports that -- that one (1) person had been 14 shot to death and -- and there were various reports over 15 the next hour or two (2) as we were driving of -- 16 Q: This is on the morning of the 7th of 17 September 1995. 18 A: It's the morning of Sep -- it was 19 about 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning. 20 Q: Right. 21 A: Various reports. At one point there 22 was a report that there were up to two (2) or three (3) 23 people had been shot and killed. And we didn't -- so 24 that -- so we sort of drove to Sarnia knowing that 25 something horrible, horrible had happened and not knowing

160

1 precisely how accurate that was. 2 Or -- but it seemed by the time we 3 actually reached Sarnia which is three (3) hours away 4 that the reports had been pretty well confirmed that -- 5 that one (1) Aboriginal man had been killed in -- by -- 6 by gunfire. And -- and I believe we knew at that point 7 that pretty surely nobody else had actually been killed. 8 But there had been other people wounded 9 and one (1) man killed. 10 Q: And just returning to the evening of 11 the 6th, briefly, you had mentioned after filing your 12 materials with the Court house in Sarnia, do you have 13 indicate -- any recollection as to what time that might 14 have been? 15 A: The time we faxed it down? 16 Q: Yeah. 17 A: I think it was around 9:00. 18 Q: And would that be around the same 19 time as -- 20 A: 8:00, 9:00 p.m., something like that. 21 Q: And would that be around the same 22 time as -- as you would have sent the materials to 23 Detective Sergeant Wright? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right. If I can refer you to Tab

161

1 number 16, Dr. Christie. It's Inquiry document 1010238. 2 It is a handwritten note dated September the 6th, 1995. 3 We do not know the author of this and 4 perhaps I should ask you, do you know the author of this 5 document? 6 A: I -- 7 Q: Do you recognize that handwriting? 8 A: I don't recognize the handwriting and 9 all I can say about the -- I don't know who the author 10 was, but we -- we were -- when -- when I was looking at 11 this with Kim Twohig, we were looking at this last 12 evening. 13 We were deducing that it might very well 14 be authored by Les Kobayashi, just because of the -- the 15 people that were being contacted. 16 "Contacted Ron Baldwin, who's an MNR 17 person. Spoke to -- spoke to Inspector 18 Linton. Contacted Peter." 19 And there's a -- there's a Peter in the -- 20 in the MNR. He was the executive assistant to the deputy 21 minister. And then, Ed -- Ed VanBorg (phonetic), who's 22 also an MNR person. 23 Q: And my interest, of course, in asking 24 you this is on the second page. 25 A: Yeah.

162

1 Q: There's an indication that at 2:00 2 a.m. you were contacted at Sarnia -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- Drawbridge Inn. 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: Which, it strikes me, does not accord 7 with your testimony that you were on the road at 4:00 8 a.m. 9 A: Yeah, so I -- no. We didn't stay in 10 Sarnia and -- and I have -- I have a vague recollection 11 that there was some chance that we might get to Sarnia 12 the night before. 13 We knew we were being heard first thing in 14 the morning, so of course our goal would have been not to 15 be driving at 4:30 in the morning and -- and -- but the 16 hour got so late by the time we actually got the 17 materials prepared that it then made more sense to just 18 go home and sleep for a few hours and then -- and then 19 drive down in the morning. 20 So I -- I mean my -- my guess is that -- 21 that whoever was organizing where we might stay had 22 organized the Sarnia Drawbridge Inn. I don't recall ever 23 even hearing about the Sarnia Drawbridge Inn, so somebody 24 -- my secretary or somebody else would have been trying 25 to find a place for us to stay, and they may have

163

1 communicated that out to whoever wrote this note. 2 Q: Thank you. Nonetheless, you -- you 3 did get to Sarnia at some point? 4 A: Yes, we got to Sarnia -- 5 Q: And do you have any recollection of 6 the time and what you would have done? 7 A: It -- so it was around -- around 7:30 8 in the morning and we -- we had the use of the Crown 9 Attorney's office space to -- to sort of prepare -- 10 finally prepare things. 11 When we -- we had decided -- when we 12 arrived, we were met by Les Kobayashi as well as Sergeant 13 Wright, is it Sergeant, did I get that right? 14 And he gave us -- so Sergeant Wright gave 15 us sort of a lowdown on -- on the events and some 16 information about what -- what had happened and his 17 information that -- that -- that Dudley George had been 18 killed and nobody else had been killed; others had been 19 wounded. 20 And he -- he advised us that there was 21 some -- he was concerned about our safety and about the 22 security at the -- at the Courtroom. 23 And then my job was to meet with Les 24 Kobayashi because I had his affidavit and so I had to sit 25 down with Les Kobayashi and go through his Affidavit

164

1 which was our supporting -- our documentary supporting 2 material. 3 And the reason -- sorry, I should tell 4 you, the reason Sergeant wright was -- was at -- was 5 there, was that we had the afternoon or evening 6 beforehand, we had actually communicated with the police 7 and arranged for him to testify. 8 Because it was -- because it was an ex 9 parte matter, and because events were changing all 10 through the day, it was impossible for us to create an 11 affidavit to submit to the court that would have 12 accurately reflected the events because they -- we knew - 13 - I mean, the occupation was still going on and he was 14 the one that was going to provide the evidence about the 15 -- the events. 16 So, we determined that the best course was 17 to ask the court to provide viva voce evidence, that's in 18 person evidence, about the ongoing events. And Mr. 19 Kobayashi's affidavit was intended to provide some of the 20 background evidence about ownership of the Park and -- 21 and so forth. 22 So, I reviewed his affidavit with him in - 23 - in detail and -- and he swore the affidavit before me. 24 Q: Okay. If I can draw your attention 25 to Tab number 18, it's Inquiry Document Number 1006442,

165

1 it commences with a fax transmission sheet from Crown Law 2 Office Civil, dated September the 7th, 9:01 a.m., 3 directed to Leith Hunter, Solicitor at Legal Services 4 MNR -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- from Toronto. And it looks like 7 it was sent by you, Ms. Christie? 8 A: So it wasn't sent by me. This is -- 9 Q: Pardon me. It's -- 10 A: You see the name -- 11 Q: It's from you; right? 12 A: Yeah. It's from me but the name 13 below is Jackie Edwards (phonetic). Jackie Edwards is 14 the name of the -- of Tim's and my secretary. 15 When we left the office at whatever time 16 on the night of the 6th, we would have left Jackie 17 instructions regarding a number of things, which 18 certainly -- which would have included providing copies 19 of the final version of the Notice of Motion to all of 20 the relevant players. 21 And -- and Leith Hunter was one of the 22 lawyers at Ministry of Natural Resources, considered to 23 be one of our clients. She was our client contact 24 person. And so this is a fax of the motion record to 25 her.

166

1 Q: And at -- pardon me, perhaps I'll as 2 that that be made the next exhibit, please. 3 THE REGISTRAR: P-736, Your Honour. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-736: Document Number 1006442. Fax 6 from E. Christie to L. Hunter 7 attaching Notice of Motion 8 Without Notice, September 9 07/'95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 12 Q: And if I can refer you next, please, 13 to Tab number 19, that is already an exhibit in these 14 proceedings, it's marked as P-551, it is a copy of the 15 motion record; do you recognize that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. And you'll note on the -- 18 on the cover page, the name Anthony O'Brien George has 19 been struck? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And that was as a consequence of your 22 recognition of his demise earlier that day? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And you've had an opportunity to 25 review this motion record, Dr. Christie?

167

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And that accords with your 3 recollection of the document that was filed? 4 A: Yes, it does. 5 Q: And the transcription in there of the 6 proceedings themselves at -- I'm sorry, that's -- this is 7 the material that you filed; I should simply leave it at 8 that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. I take it then that there 11 was a hearing, and if you refer to Tab number 20, that is 12 a transcript of the court proceedings, it's Inquiry 13 Document 3000504? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: It purports to be a transcription of 16 the hearing before Mr. Justice Daudlin of the 7th of 17 September 1995? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And you had an 20 opportunity to review that document, Dr. Christie? 21 A: I haven't actually read through this 22 but -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- but I've glanced over it, I'm 25 fairly familiar with it.

168

1 Q: There's a certification at the very 2 end of that document under the hand of Sandra Moore 3 (phonetic), the Certified Court Reporter; do you accept 4 that this is an accurate transcription of the proceedings 5 before Mr. Justice Daudlin? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All right. Perhaps that can be 8 marked as the next exhibit, please. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-737. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-737: Document Number 3000504. 12 Transcript of court 13 proceedings before the 14 Honourable Mr. Justice 15 Daudlin at Sarnia, Ontario, 16 September 07/'95. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 19 Q: And at Tab 21, Dr. Christie, there is 20 an urgent fax transmission sheet, bearing Inquiry 21 Document Number 1003482? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: It's a fax from yourself and Tim 24 McCabe to Eileen Hipfner attaching the endorsement of Mr. 25 Justice Daudlin.

169

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. And that would have been sent 3 I gather by your assistant again, Jackie Edwards? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. And I take it at that point in 6 time you would still be at 3:30 in the p.m. still in 7 Sarnia. 8 A: Yes, we were. 9 Q: If that could be made the next 10 exhibit please, 738. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-738, Your Honor. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-738: Document Number 10003482. 14 Urgent fax from T. McCabe and 15 E. Christie to E. Hipfner re. 16 Endorsement of Justice 17 Daudlin of Injunction Motion, 18 Sept. 07/'95. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 21 Q: At Tab 22 just the next one beyond 22 that, there's a telefax -- pardon me, an e-mail it would 23 appear from Leith Hunter to Ms. Hipfner and I think it's 24 self explanatory. 25 But I -- it would appear to be Ms.

170

1 Hunter's interpretation or transcription of Mr. Daudlin's 2 Mr. Justice Daudlin's endorsement? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. And that is an exhibit in 5 these proceedings and that is 662. And at Tab 23 which 6 is P-442. Pardon me, yeah, Tab 23, it's already marked 7 as Exhibit P-442. 8 That is Mr. Justice Daudlin's injunction 9 or the order? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. I understand that -- that the 12 order then was less than satisfactory at the end of the 13 day, Dr. Christie, and that steps were then taken to seek 14 a variance. 15 Could you tell us about that please? 16 A: Yes. So Justice Daudlin had granted 17 the interlocutory injunction but suspended it's effect. 18 And then he had ordered service of the documents -- 19 service of the materials and had -- and had ordered a 20 number of -- set out a number of ways in which -- which 21 the materials should be -- should be served and which 22 included dropping the -- the motion materials from the 23 air onto the Park. 24 And we and -- and the police officer with 25 us saw this as a matter of some significant risk to the

171

1 safety of the -- of the people in the Park. And we 2 didn't -- we felt very concerned about -- about allowing 3 the order to stand because it was a mandatory order. 4 We interpreted it as a mandatory order to 5 -- to actually drop materials and thought this could 6 actually be a dangerous matter. 7 And so we sought the assistance of counsel 8 -- Crown counsel, Laya (phonetic) Price in -- in the 9 Toronto office who was very experienced in appellate work 10 not specifically in Aboriginal matters, but just in 11 appellate work generally, and so she and there may have 12 been others there assisting as well but -- but Laya 13 primarily looked into how we might vary this order. 14 The most obvious options were either to 15 ask Justice Daudlin to remain seized of the matter and 16 reconsider it the next day or the other was to ask 17 another judge to -- to reassess it and -- and vary it 18 given that we had already met with -- with Justice 19 Daudlin in Chambers and requested that he vary the order 20 and he refused to do so. 21 The first option seemed fruitless so Laya 22 Price made the necessary arrangements and -- and got us 23 permission to -- to have -- to be heard or -- or got a 24 spot before a judge in London the next morning. 25 Q: That would be now September the 8th

172

1 of 1995? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: So, she also prepared the materials 5 for us for that. 6 Q: And if you look at Tab 24. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: There is a Notice of Motion there, to 9 Ontario -- Ontario Court general division. 10 Is that the document you're referring to? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: So we -- we were instructed to -- to 14 drive back as far as London and stay at a hotel in London 15 and -- and -- and then appear again on Friday morning to 16 -- to seek a variance of the Order of Justice Daudlin. 17 And -- 18 Q: Perhaps, just before you move on, Dr. 19 Christie, I'd ask that that document at Tab 24, bearing 20 Inquiry document number 1005996 be made the next exhibit 21 please, P-739. 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-739, yes. 23 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-739: Document Number 1005996.

173

1 Notice of Motion, Sept. 2 08/'95. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 5 Q: And I take it that you did, in fact, 6 appear in Court the next morning, that is on the morning 7 of the 8th? 8 A: Yes, we did and we had I believe it 9 was Inspector Carson that -- that attended with us that 10 day to -- to provide viva voce evidence in -- in that 11 proceeding. 12 Q: And under Tab 24 of those documents 13 before you is a transcript of proceedings before the 14 Honourable Mr. Justice Flynn at London, Ontario, 15 September the 8th, '95 -- 16 A: Tab -- 17 Q: Inquiry document number 1011153. 18 A: It's at Tab 25 in my binder. 19 Q: Did I say -- 20 A: 24. 21 Q: I'm sorry, I meant 25, thank you. 22 You recognize that document? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I'd ask that be marked as the 25 next exhibit, please.

174

1 THE REGISTRAR: P-740, Your Honour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-740: Document Number 1011153. 5 Transcript of court 6 proceedings before the 7 Honourable Mr. Justice Flynn 8 at London Ontario Sept. 9 08/'95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 12 Q: And if you'll note on the second page 13 of that, it simply indicates that one of the witnesses is 14 Carson, John Frederick. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: So that -- that corroborates your 17 recollection of that. 18 A: Good. 19 Q: And as -- as a result of that 20 appearance and the submissions made by Counsel, we have 21 at Tab 26 an Order of Mr. Justice Flynn, and it's marked 22 as Exhibit P-443 in these proceedings. 23 Do you recognize that as well? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right.

175

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And at Tab 27, there is a Motion 4 Record, returnable September the 11th, extending the 5 injunction. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: And I should 7 indicate, Mr. Commissioner, that this was distributed to 8 the parties electronically. 9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, which -- oh, 10 that's Tab 27? 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 13 Q: Right. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Tab 27. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you recognize that as well? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And as I understand it, the 20 earlier Order of Mr. Justice Daudlin would have been 21 spent as of the 11th of September and this was to -- to 22 continue its -- its force, I take it? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. Perhaps that can be made 25 the next exhibit, please?

176

1 THE REGISTRAR: P-741, Your Honour. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-741: Motion Record, Sept 11/'95. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 6 Q: At Tab 28, Dr. Christie, there is a 7 telefax dated September the 11th, 4:30 in the p.m. to the 8 attention of Mike Sherry (phonetic) at the Chiefs of 9 Ontario. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: First of all, do you know who Mike 12 Sherry is? 13 A: He was a lawyer with the Chiefs of 14 Ontario. 15 Q: All right, and this was from 16 yourself? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: The comments on there would indicate 19 that there was a previous telephone conversation with -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- Mr. Sherry? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Can you tell us anything about that? 24 A: I don't remember the specific 25 telephone conversation but I do recall that -- that

177

1 around this time, there were a number of -- of parties, 2 obviously, in the Aboriginal community that were very 3 interested in this matter. 4 And -- and I suspect that -- that I had 5 had a conversation with -- with Mike, advising him that - 6 - that our instructions were to withdraw the Motion for 7 the interlocutory injunction and -- and he -- because he 8 had been planning to attend and appear on behalf of the 9 Chiefs of Ontario or was contemplating that, in any 10 event. 11 That's my recollection and so I was simply 12 providing him and advised him by telephone and then I was 13 providing him with the actual statement. 14 Q: And that is the statement to the 15 effect that the injunction or the attempts to renew that 16 would be abandoned at that point? 17 A: Yes. It's the statement that -- that 18 Tim McCabe read into the court indicating that the 19 Attorney General was withdrawing from the motion. 20 Q: And it would appear that that was -- 21 that that statement was made in -- the withdrawal of that 22 by the Attorney General was -- was a matter of deference 23 to the funeral of Anthony O'Brian George. 24 A: Yes. 25 MR. DONALD WORME: If I could just have

178

1 one moment, Commissioner? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. DONALD WORME: Perhaps, Commissioner, 7 maybe what we should do at this moment, is take the 8 afternoon break and give me a moment to confer with -- 9 with Ms. Twohig? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is 11 about the right time to have the break. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we'll 14 have it now. That's fine. 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 16 for fifteen (15) minutes. 17 18 --- Upon recessing at 3:42 p.m. 19 --- Upon resuming at 4:07 p.m. 20 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 22 resumed. Please be seated. 23 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you very much, 24 Commissioner. 25

179

1 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 2 Q: Dr. Christie, one of the last things 3 that we have -- did with virtually every witness that has 4 appeared is provided them an opportunity to speak to the 5 matter that the Commissioner is mandated to -- to look 6 at. And particularly the second part. 7 And that is, is there anything that as a 8 result of your experience in this matter, that you might 9 be able to offer by way of recommendations as to how this 10 sort of event can be prevented in the future? 11 A: The only comment that I would have 12 and I don't know the current state of affairs in the 13 Government but -- is that the Interministerial Committee, 14 though it, I know has received some good and lots of bad 15 press following these events, I actually believe was in 16 fact a very efficient and effective way of bringing 17 together the key players in a -- in a course of an 18 enormous organization like the Government of Ontario in 19 order to disseminate information and come up with 20 effective plans and -- and procedures and recommendations 21 for the relevant players. 22 Whether or not political staff should or 23 shouldn't be involved in -- in those meetings I -- I 24 don't really have an opinion formed but that may be an 25 issue of interesting discussion.

180

1 But I do think that that's -- that it's a 2 useful committee. That's really the only thing that -- 3 that I can think of at this moment. 4 Q: All right. And thank you for that, 5 Dr. Christie. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: That is all the 7 questions that I have in-chief, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. DONALD WORME: Ms. Twohig points out 14 quite rightly that item number 9 -- pardon me, item 9 on 15 the List of Documents is the handwritten notes of 16 Elizabeth Christie from September the 5th of '95 is not 17 an exhibit at this point. Perhaps that ought to be made 18 an exhibit. And I thank her for pointing that out. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-742, Your Honour. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-742. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-742: Document Number 1011749. 24 Handwritten notes of E. 25 Christie from

181

1 Interministerial Committee 2 meeting Sept 05/'95. 3 4 MR. DONALD WORME: And the last item that 5 I had referred to which was at Tab 28, being the telefax 6 from Elizabeth Christie to Mike Sherry of the Chiefs of 7 Ontario, if that could be made the next exhibit, please. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-743. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-743. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-743: Document Number 1005988. Fax 12 from Elizabeth Christie to 13 Mike Sherry, Chiefs of 14 Ontario attaching statement 15 read into court, Sept 11/'95. 16 17 MR. DONALD WORME: And I guess just 18 lastly I had referred Dr. Christie at the outset of her 19 testimony to two (2) documents, specifically those found 20 at Tab 1 and at Tab 2. 21 I had earlier indicated that perhaps those 22 had already been exhibits, I have not been able to 23 confirm that, and I would ask that those be made exhibits 24 as well, please. 25 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 1, P-744.

182

1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-744: Document Number 1006498. 2 Minutes Re. Aboriginal 3 Emergencies working group 4 Dunnville Dam and Weir site 5 May 14/'93. 6 7 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 2, 745. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-745: Document Number 3000141. 10 Interministerial Officials 11 Committee on Aboriginal 12 Emergencies Meeting notes 13 June 04/'93. 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that it, 16 Mr. Worme? 17 MR. DONALD WORME: That is it, Mr. 18 Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much. We still got almost an hour, we'll go to 21 5:00, so we still have some time. 22 Who intends to examine Ms. Christie? 23 Please indicate. Let's get us an idea. 24 Mr. Downard, how long? 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Half an hour to an

183

1 hour, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 3 Horvat...? 4 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Ten (10) minutes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 6 writing this down, Mr. Worme? 7 MR. DONALD WORME: I am. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is anybody 9 here on behalf of Mr. Runciman? I don't see Mr. Smith. 10 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: They have no 11 questions. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No? On 13 behalf of Mr. Hodgson...? No. 14 On behalf of Mr. Beaubien and -- 15 MR. TREVOR HINNEGAN: About five (5) 16 minutes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: About five 18 (5) minutes. 19 Ms. Perschy on behalf of Deb Hutton...? 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Approximately an hour. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 22 Approximately an hour? 23 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 24 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Ten (10) to 25 fifteen (15) minutes, sir.

184

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 2 Municipality? 3 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Five (5) minutes or 4 less. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Five (5) 6 minutes. 7 Mr. Alexander...? 8 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Currently three (3) 9 to four (4) hours and we are working to bring that down. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 11 Esmonde...? 12 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Depending on what My 13 Friends do, it could be an hour and a half (1 1/2) to two 14 (2) hours. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Neil...? 16 MR. CAMERON NEIL: I'll reserve half an 17 hour. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. George 19 on behalf of the First Nation? 20 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: And Chiefs of 21 Ontario. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And also -- 23 you're speaking for two (2) parties? 24 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: Yes. A half hour 25 to forty-five (45) minutes.

185

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For which? 2 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: For both. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For both. 4 Mr. Roy...? 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: I would say about an 6 hour, plus or minus, half an hour. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 And, Ms. Twohig, you may or may not have, depending on 9 how it goes? 10 MS. KIM TWOHIG: That's right, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does it look 12 like we'll be able to get it done in the day tomorrow? 13 MR. DONALD WORME: At -- at this point, 14 unless -- unless My Friends indicate, depending on what 15 questions are asked -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 17 on. 18 MR. DONALD WORME: -- we're sitting at 19 about ten (10) hours, thereabouts. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 21 carry on. Let's get started and we'll see where it goes. 22 Mr. Downard, I think, given your estimate, you should be 23 able to complete your examination this afternoon. If you 24 can't, then we'll go a little longer or continue 25 tomorrow, but you might be able to finish.

186

1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: We should be all 2 right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 6 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Christie. My 7 name is Peter Downard and I appear for the former Ontario 8 Premier Mike Harris, and I just have a few questions 9 about this matter for you this afternoon. 10 If I can refer you to -- I believe it's 11 Tab 19 in your book, which is the motion record that was 12 filed on the injunction application, it's Exhibit P-551. 13 And in particular you'll see that, of course, the first 14 document in the record is the notice of motion without 15 notice. 16 Did you draft this notice of motion? 17 A: I probably typed it up and I would 18 have drafted it with Tim McCabe. The two (2) of us would 19 have worked together to actually create the wording for 20 it. 21 Q: All right. And if you can look at 22 page 7 of the record, you'll see that in the Notice of 23 Motion there was a request made in paragraph numbered 3, 24 for -- and I'll read this just for clarity, quote: 25 "An Order that such officers, agents

187

1 and servants of the Government of 2 Ontario that are directed to do so by 3 any minister or deputy minister, remove 4 forthwith all camping equipment, 5 vehicles, blockades and all other 6 things whatsoever that have been placed 7 on any road or public highway, or any 8 area by the Defendants or their 9 servants and agents, or by persons 10 acting under the counsel, instruction 11 or direction of them, or any of them or 12 on their behalf or on behalf of any of 13 them within or at any entrance to the 14 Park." Unquote. 15 Now, do you recall where you and Mr. 16 McCabe got this language or the idea to include this 17 language in this Notice of Motion? 18 A: No, I don't recall specifically where 19 we would have got that information -- where we would have 20 got the -- I mean, we would have come up with the 21 language. 22 So, where we got the idea for including 23 that paragraph my -- so my recollection of how that would 24 have unfolded is that we, he and I, would work together 25 and think of things that we needed to -- that we needed

188

1 to obtain. And -- and because, in this case, we knew 2 there were items that had been placed on roads and 3 equipment that had been moved and so on, I think that -- 4 that -- we -- sort of, practically speaking, that needed 5 to be included in the Order. 6 Q: All right. And assuming for the 7 moment that the Court was of the view that an injunction 8 should be granted, I take it that when you prepared this 9 material with Mr. McCabe, you regarded paragraph 3 as an 10 appropriate Order to be requested? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Did you regard it as being a radical 13 Order? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Now, if I could take you to your 16 notes, which have just been marked Exhibit P-742 at Tab 9 17 of your brief. These are the notes of September 5th. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And if first of all we can look at 22 the second page of the notes. You'll see there's a 23 reference there, and it's the second dashed paragraph 24 saying, I quote for reference, quote: 25 "MNR was unable to serve written notice

189

1 of trespass under the Trespass to 2 Property Act - refused to accept it." 3 And then you've got a square bracket where 4 you say: 5 "Need precise details of steps taken 6 and reasons." 7 And as I understand your evidence, a 8 square bracket denotes that that's a note to yourself, 9 because you want to -- you anticipate litigation may well 10 be commenced and you want to be aware of the details 11 relating to this attempted service of the Notice, right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And if you look over to page 6 14 of the notes, and I'm sorry, they're not -- they're not 15 numbered, but it's the page that is unlined and -- 16 A: Oh, it's underlined. 17 Q: It's the page -- where near the top 18 it says: 19 "Fact that they refused service equals 20 probably nothing." 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And then it goes on to say, 23 quote: 24 "Might want to make another attempt 25 [then there's an equal sign] very clear

190

1 and leave the paper." Unquote. 2 Now, was this note recording something 3 that someone said in the meeting as distinct from a note 4 to yourself? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And did you say that at the meeting 7 or do you recall who? 8 A: I'm not -- I don't recall precisely 9 who. 10 Q: Okay. Was it a lawyer who raised 11 that concern? 12 A: Probably. It might well have been 13 me, quite honestly. 14 Q: You just don't recall one way or the 15 other? 16 A: I don't recall one way or the other. 17 Q: Fine, thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, I wanted to touch briefly upon 22 the Gustafson Lake situation that you mentioned in your 23 evidence as being ongoing at the -- at the time that the 24 Interministerial Committee meetings were taking place. 25 And as I understand it, the events

191

1 involving an occupation by Aboriginal people at Gustafson 2 Lake was receiving a lot of media attention at the time? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And do you recall what information if 5 any, was discussed about the Gustafson Lake situation at 6 the Interministerial Committee meeting in addition to the 7 passing references in your notes? 8 Do you recall any further discussion of 9 that matter? 10 A: I recall just a general discussion 11 about the fact that the Gustafson Lake situation had 12 continued on for quite some time, that it had escalated 13 to the point where there were helicopter surveillance 14 operations. 15 And that there -- there were reports of -- 16 of guns being fired at those aircraft and -- and that the 17 -- the nature in this sort of emotional heat, if you 18 will, of -- of that matter had -- had really -- had 19 ramped up quite substantially over the time that that had 20 been going on. 21 Q: And so that particular situation 22 involving that particular group of Aboriginal people had 23 become a more difficult situation over time? 24 A: It would seem so, yes. 25 Q: And do you recall anything further

192

1 being discussed at the Interministerial Committee 2 meetings about the Gustafson Lake situation regarding 3 what -- what bearing it -- it -- it should or should not 4 have on the Ipperwash situation that the Committee was 5 dealingD o w iy to hu ? r e c a ll anything further about that? 6 A: I'm not -- not sure I quite 7 understand -- 8 Q: Sure. 9 A: -- what exactly you're asking. 10 Q: I'm -- I'm just asking you whether 11 you recall anybody referring to the Gustafson Lake 12 situation and on the basis of what was happening at 13 Gustafson Lake, making any comments as to what -- as to 14 whether the -- pardon me, as to what the Government 15 should or should not do regarding the Ipperwash 16 situation. 17 Was -- was anybody drawing any sort of 18 connection? 19 Not necessarily between the people 20 involved or anything like that but -- but just what -- 21 what that situation may have meant or what the Government 22 should do in the Ipperwash situation? 23 A: I don't recall specific comparisons 24 being drawn. There certainly was discussion about the 25 fact that Gustafson Lake was going on and then we were

193

1 presented with this, but whether anybody was actually 2 saying, in Gustafson Lake this has happened and we don't 3 want this or we do want this, I don't recall specific 4 comments like that. 5 Q: Okay. Thank you very much. Now as - 6 - as I recall your evidence, you were saying that, with 7 respect to the matter of the injunction application, it 8 was never the intention that the persons occupying the 9 Park would never be served, right? 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: And -- pardon the double negative. 12 And that was -- one reason for that was that an ex parte 13 order, if obtained, would have to be renewed and within a 14 relatively short period of time, right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And the actual period of time 17 requested was ten (10) days but the court could fix 18 another shorter time if the court wished, right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Right. And -- and you were saying 21 there would have to be a renewal and -- a renewal hearing 22 or else the order would expire and the Stoney Point 23 people could go right back in, right, is that fair? 24 A: Well there would -- the injunction 25 would expire anyway, yes.

194

1 Q: Right, right. And now we've also 2 heard that there was discussion in the Interministerial 3 Committee about what might happen if an injunction order 4 was obtained and not complied with. And there was the 5 option raised of contempt proceedings. That is a further 6 civil proceeding if the order was obtained and not 7 complied with. 8 Do you recall that discussion? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Do you recall anything further about 11 that? 12 A: Well, the -- the -- gist of that 13 discussion was that if you -- once you get a Court Order, 14 that's not necessarily the end of the matter. And in the 15 -- in the experience of the people around the table, 16 their experience had been that usually, in the rare, 17 frankly rare, circumstances when injunctions were 18 actually obtained by the Government, that simply by 19 virtue of having obtained the Court Order, the 20 injunction, matters tended to diffuse quite quickly. And 21 the OPP were often able to -- to, sort of, hold that 22 document up and -- and say, you know, we're just here 23 doing our job. 24 There's this Court Order, if you don't go 25 out now then things are going to happen. You're going to

195

1 have to leave. 2 But with any injunction you have to get 3 the -- if the people -- if the occupiers continued to -- 4 to stay in and refused to leave, then you would have to 5 get an actual Contempt Order. 6 Q: Right. And of course, what I suggest 7 you're referring to, is the fact that these -- these 8 events occur in real time. The dynamic can change from 9 time to time and so there may be developments in 10 different directions, right? 11 The -- the problem may get harder or it 12 may get easier to deal with, right, depending on what 13 happens, in all the circumstances? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. And in the event of any 16 contempt proceedings, I take it it would have been your 17 understanding, as a lawyer, certainly, on September 5th 18 or 6th, that if there were to be any contempt 19 proceedings, anyone against whom a Contempt Order was 20 sought would have to be served, right? 21 A: I can't recall putting my mind to 22 that -- 23 Q: Okay, that's fine. 24 A: -- eventuality. 25 Q: That's fine. I'll argue it later,

196

1 thank you. 2 Now, when -- when Ron Fox testified here, 3 he said that in the Interministerial Committee meeting 4 there were different views among legal counsel, and that 5 legal counsel were somewhat split as to whether an ex 6 parte injunction should be sought or not. 7 Does that accord with your recollection? 8 A: To some extent, I guess. It depends 9 on who one is referring to as legal counsel. I mean, so 10 -- so as between Tim McCabe and myself and Andrew 11 McDonald who was then the acting Aboriginal issues 12 coordinator, and at least one of the Ministry of Natural 13 Resources lawyers, Leith Hunter, there certainly wasn't 14 any disagreement about the -- about the pros and cons of 15 various injunctions. 16 So, I'm not sure -- I'm just trying to 17 think if I remember any other lawyers. 18 And you're asking specifically about ex 19 parte or...? 20 Q: Yes, it -- 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: What Mr. Fox was saying was that 23 legal Counsel expressed different views as to the 24 advisability of an ex parte injunction and were somewhat 25 split.

197

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: And I understand what -- I understand 3 that the view you say that you and Mr. McCabe were 4 presenting and I'm just wondering whether you recall any 5 other legal Counsel presenting a contrary view, so that 6 there was a split among legal Counsel on the issue? 7 A: The dis -- yeah, the discussion about 8 to whether it should be specifically ex parte or not ex 9 parte, in my recollection was not really a big discussion 10 and I can't recall specific individuals disagreeing with 11 Tim McCabe. 12 It would be unusual for anyone to disagree 13 in the Government of Ontario -- to disagree with Tim 14 McCabe on litigation matters that related to Aboriginal 15 issues. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: And so I don't really recall any -- I 18 don't -- yeah, so I don't have a specific recollection of 19 -- of somebody disagreeing when -- when Tim McCabe is 20 saying the chance of success at an ex parte motion are -- 21 are quite slim -- 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: I don't recall anybody else saying, 24 Tim, you're wrong about that. I think the chance are 25 very, very good.

198

1 Q: Okay. And I take it you regarded Mr. 2 McCabe as a highly skilled Counsel? 3 A: Very highly skilled, yes. 4 Q: And very -- very professional in his 5 professional work as far as you are aware? 6 A: He's extraordinarily professional and 7 ethical in all regards, yes. 8 Q: Okay. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Okay. Now, I want to come to the 13 September 6th Interministerial Committee meeting just for 14 a moment and I -- I take it that it was your 15 understanding that the Committee's function was, for 16 example, with respect to an injunction, to make a 17 recommendation regarding whether an injunction should be 18 sought not to make the final decision whether an 19 injunction should be sought, right? 20 A: That's right, yes. 21 Q: And with respect to the September 6th 22 meeting, do you recall there being conveyed in the 23 meeting any direction from the attorney general that 24 specifically an injunction should not be sought on an ex 25 parte basis?

199

1 A: No, I don't recall that. My only 2 specific recollection is -- is about something coming 3 directly from the attorney general is as the notes 4 indicate, David Moran's comments that if we -- if we're 5 being asked to seek an injunction, then we will seek it 6 ASAP. 7 Q: Thank you. And with respect to 8 discussion in the meetings about whether to proceed ex 9 parte or on notice, do you have recollection as to what 10 considerations were put forward by -- by anyone? 11 Favoring an injunction on notice as distinct from an 12 injunction ex parte? 13 A: Well 14 Q: And I -- I'm just recalling what -- 15 I'm just asking what you -- what you recall, if anything, 16 being said in that regard. 17 A: So, I -- I recall Tim describing the 18 importance of notice in a matter like this. And in the 19 context of the discussions that we've been having about 20 the -- the fact that the Park was an empty Park, the 21 fact that there was no -- aside from this, one mention of 22 -- of gunfire that needed to be investigated further, 23 there was no specific and direct evidence of -- of arms 24 by the occupiers, that the -- he -- he described that 25 the issue of notice is direct -- is directly related to

200

1 the emergency or the urgency on the emergent nature or 2 the urgency of the -- of the case. 3 And -- and in the context of the 4 information that we had at that point, he expressed that 5 we -- we were of the view that this was going to be a 6 very difficult case to -- to win without any notice 7 because of -- because you have to describe why you're not 8 giving notice. 9 You have to be able to -- to convince the 10 court that this is a matter of-- of such emergency that 11 it doesn't warrant giving notice. Or that there's no way 12 of giving notice. No practical way of actually giving 13 notice. 14 Q: Okay. And do -- do you recall any 15 further considerations being raised by anyone in the 16 meeting regarding why it might be preferable to proceed 17 on notice rather than ex parte? 18 Do you recall anything further? 19 A: I don't recall anything further. 20 Q: Thank you. If I can refer you to the 21 affidavit of Mr. Kobayashi and it takes us back to Tab 22 19, Exhibit P-551. 23 As I recall your evidence, you spent, as 24 any litigation lawyer in the room would be able to 25 identify with, you spent the afternoon and night of the

201

1 6th frantically working away on your material? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And then when you got to Sarnia the 4 next morning, you met with Les Kobayashi regarding his 5 affidavit? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you reviewed the affidavit in 8 detail with him and he swore the affidavit in front of 9 you, right? 10 A: Yes. An affidavit had actually been 11 drafted by Leith Hunter who was a Ministry of Natural 12 Resources lawyer in the afternoon the day before. So she 13 was able to speak -- speak with him directly on our -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- advice about what needed to be 16 contained within that. She got whatever information Mr. 17 Kobayashi was -- was able to swear to -- 18 Q: Right. 19 A: -- into the affidavit. Yeah. 20 Q: And then when -- when you reviewed 21 the affidavit in detail with Mr. Kobayashi, what -- what 22 did that involve? 23 A: We -- we read through it, paragraph 24 by paragraph, we turned to each exhibit and made sure 25 that the exhibits accorded with -- with his -- with the

202

1 contents of the affidavit and made sure that he -- that 2 he did indeed affirm and -- and all of the contents of 3 the affidavit. 4 And then we went through the -- the 5 process of swearing it -- of swearing it before me so he 6 once -- 7 Q: Right. And -- 8 A: -- again affirmed that -- that 9 everything in it was the truth as best he could tell it. 10 Q: And then you -- you commissioned it, 11 at the end of the affidavit, at page 18? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Right. And if I can refer you to 14 paragraph 16 -- I'll just -- just read it for -- for 15 reference. It's at page 16, paragraph 16, and it reads, 16 quote: 17 "At 10:01 I closed the Park under Sub- 18 section 32, sub 1 of Regulation 952 of 19 Revised Regulations of Ontario for 1990 20 made under the Provincial Parks Act. I 21 was concerned with public safety and 22 felt that this was an emergency 23 situation." 24 Unquote. And I take it that that 25 paragraph refers to the night of September 4th?

203

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And so I -- I take it when you 3 commissioned the affidavit, having reviewed the affidavit 4 paragraph by paragraph of Mr. Kobayashi, you certainly 5 understood that he had been of the view on the night of 6 September 4th that -- that he was concerned with public 7 safety and felt that the occupation of the Park was an 8 emergency situation? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Pardon? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And in paragraph 15, just above it 15 reads -- again, referring to September 4th, you'll see 16 paragraph 14 refers to the time of 8:20 p.m., then 17 paragraph 15 reads, quote: 18 "Approximately one (1) hour later, 19 Judas Manning, one (1) of the people 20 occupying the Park, told all OPP 21 officers and administrative Natural 22 Resources employees including myself in 23 the Park to leave immediately. He 24 emphasized his point by breaking an OPP 25 cruiser window."

204

1 Unquote. Do you recall discussing this 2 paragraph with Mr. Kobayashi? 3 A: Not specifically anything special 4 about it. 5 Q: I -- I understand that you reviewed 6 it with him for -- for accuracy but I'm just wondering 7 whether you had any additional discussion about that 8 paragraph with him, that you recall? 9 A: No. It wasn't news to me because, as 10 you recall, we had already talked about -- 11 Q: Right. This -- this had generally 12 come up in the Interministerial Committee meetings, 13 right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Yes. Okay. 16 A: Not the specific name of the 17 individual but we knew that they had been directed to 18 leave and we knew that the window of a police cruiser had 19 been broken. 20 Q: Yes. Okay. All right. Now, if I 21 can refer you to Tab 32 of your brief, and this is 22 Exhibit P-634, Inquiry Document 1011745, and there are 23 several documents under the tab but the last one appears 24 at about the fourth page in and it's headed, quote: 25 "Criminal and civil proceedings to

205

1 terminate the occupation of Ipperwash 2 Provincial Park by the, 'Stoney 3 Pointers.'" Unquote. 4 And I -- 5 A: Yes. That's the only document I have 6 at Tab 32; is that right. 7 Q: Oh, okay. All right. Well then, 8 that's the only one I need you to have -- 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: -- at Tab 32, so. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: Now, I -- I may have missed this in 13 your evidence, did -- did you have a copy of -- of this 14 document on September 6? 15 A: Yes. My -- my recollection is that 16 this is the document that was put together by myself and 17 Mr. Hutchison, the lawyer for Crown Law Criminal, did the 18 first section of it and I, with the input of -- of Tim 19 McCabe, did the -- this -- wrote the civil proceedings -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- section. 22 Q: Okay. And so when the section of the 23 memo on civil proceedings, which starts on the second 24 page, was prepared, I take it that you appreciated very 25 well that, as stated in the last paragraph, the -- there

206

1 was an obligation under an ex parte motion on counsel, 2 quote: 3 "To see that full and frank disclosure 4 is made of all material facts." 5 Unquote. You were well aware of that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And well aware that if full and frank 8 disclosure was not made of any material facts, that the 9 injunction might be set aside as a punitive measure? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. And in going back to Tab 19. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: I take it that when you prepared the 16 Affidavit of Mr. Kobayashi in co-operation with Mr. 17 McCabe... 18 A: It's actually Leith Hunter that -- 19 Q: Oh, sorry, indeed. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: That's right. But then you reviewed 22 the Affidavit and -- and commissioned it later on the 23 morning of September 6th -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- right? And I take it that it was

207

1 your view that -- that this Affidavit of Lesley Kobayashi 2 did not fail to disclose material facts; that there was 3 no breach of the obligation to make full disclosure on 4 the basis of this particular Affidavit? 5 A: Well, as I mentioned earlier, and I 6 know it -- and I know that the Motion material doesn't 7 indicate -- well, it does indicate the following 8 documentary evidence will be -- it indicates that the 9 Affidavit is the only documentary evidence that will be 10 included, but we had also intended and arranged for viva 11 voce evidence of Detective Sergeant Wright on that day -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- so -- so certainly there are -- 14 there is information that needed to be before the Court. 15 And that, indeed, was put before the Court, that is not 16 contained within the Affidavit of Mr. Kobayashi. 17 Because as I mentioned earlier, the 18 Affidavit could only be complete for one thing, from the 19 knowledge and -- and understanding and belief of Mr. 20 Kobayashi. 21 But, also up to the point in time at which 22 he -- at which -- well, not even at which -- partly at 23 which he swore it but -- but in practical terms really 24 until the time at which he and -- and Leith Hunter had 25 finished making it out and I mean practically speaking,

208

1 it would have been difficult for us to add substantive 2 amounts of information to it -- 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: -- and that's why we decided to call 5 the viva voce evidence to fill in any gaps and add all 6 the information that wasn't contained within the 7 Affidavit. 8 Q: And what -- what was the further 9 information that -- that -- or before Mr. Wright got in 10 the stand, did you have any specific conception of 11 further information that had to be provided to the Court 12 in order to meet the duty of full disclosure? 13 A: Sure. So in general terms, we -- we 14 wanted Detective Sergeant Wright to provide whatever 15 information he had with respect to why, if he knew, why 16 the occupiers had actually taken over the Park; what 17 their demands were and -- and in addition to that, any in 18 -- any information about events that had occurred or 19 transpired that were beyond the scope of what's contained 20 within the Affidavit. 21 Q: Okay, all right. Now, I want to 22 bring you back to your -- or bring you to your 23 handwritten notes of the September 6th Interministerial 24 Committee meeting. 25

209

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: If you'll bear with me just for a 4 moment. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Tab 14 of your book, Exhibit P-637, 9 Commission Document 1011797. 10 Now, you referred in your evidence to a 11 note at the top of the page which says, quote: 12 "Premier is firm that at no -- " 13 I'm sorry, like, I don't know if I've 14 given you the right page. 15 A: It's the second page of those notes, 16 yeah? 17 Q: Yes, indeed, the second page of the 18 notes of the meeting proper, yes. Quote: 19 "The Premier is firm that at no time 20 should others be involved in 21 conversations and OPP and MNR including 22 the Chief of the Band." 23 Unquote, and as I understood your 24 evidence, well, I -- as I -- I may not have understood it 25 precisely.

210

1 I thought what I heard you to say was that 2 you took this or in other words, you interpreted this, as 3 an instruction to the Committee that no one was to talk 4 to any of the original people -- any Aboriginal people 5 and that any of the Aboriginal people included the Chief 6 of the Band, is that right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay. And just on it's -- on it's 9 face, the note would seem to me to be equally susceptible 10 to the interpretation that -- that the Chief of the Band 11 was among the people not to be involved in conversation 12 along with the OPP and MNR. 13 A: Right. So grammatically you could 14 make that interpretation from my note. My independent 15 recollection of the comment was that no one was supposed 16 to speak with any of the occupiers or any members of the 17 Band or the Chief. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Because of course it wouldn't make 20 and sense to the Premier to be directing who the Chief 21 could speak to. 22 Q: I -- I understand that. And so okay 23 -- that was your interpretation, right? That's fair? 24 A: That's my recollection of what was 25 said.

211

1 Q: Okay, that's fine. 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: And towards the note -- towards one 4 of pages of the note that reads: 5 "Deb: Premier's office doesn't want to 6 be seen to be working with the Indians 7 at all." 8 Unquote. And -- and you gave evidence 9 about that. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Right. Now we heard evidence and 12 there have been notes of Ms. Jai and Eileen Hipfner. 13 I take it you know Eileen Hipfner? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And there are notes of both of them 16 of the Interministerial Committee meeting which attribute 17 to Ms. Hutton, a -- a statement that the Government would 18 like Chief Bressette to be supporting the Government's 19 efforts but independently. 20 That's what Ms. Hipfner's note says and 21 Ms. Jai's note says that the Government would like the 22 Chief to support us but do this independently, don't want 23 to go into land claims. That's the substance of it. 24 Now do you recall any discussion to that 25 affect or any statement to that affect by Ms. Hutton that

212

1 the Government would like Chief Bressette to be 2 supporting the Government's efforts, but independently? 3 A: Yes. As you mention it, I have a -- 4 when you say that, I think -- yes, I can remember 5 vaguely. I have a vague memory of -- of the sort of 6 agreement by Ms. Hutton that it was fine if -- it's fine 7 if the Government would be happy if -- if the Band is 8 disagreeing with this, but -- but we're not going to 9 collaborate. 10 Q: Do you recall that as being a 11 separate statement from the statement you've described 12 here in your notes that I've just read to you? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: So that -- that couldn't have been -- 15 your note couldn't have been a different interpretation 16 of that same statement to your recollection? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay, thank you. Now -- now as I 19 recall your evidence and I -- I hope I'm not placing too 20 broad a brush on this. 21 What you understood to be discussed about 22 the contention that there was a burial ground in the 23 Park, was that it did not go to the Province's legal 24 title for your purpose, correct? 25 A: Yes.

213

1 Q: And that the position was that if 2 there was a burial ground, that the Government would 3 comply with its obligations in that respect under the 4 Cemeteries Act? 5 A: Was -- that's a question that I 6 raised. I mean it was a point that I made in one of the 7 meetings was if we -- if we -- if there is a burial 8 ground in there then we should comply with our 9 obligations. 10 Q: Did you observe any resistence to 11 that? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And it was your understanding 14 although I take it from your evidence that this was also 15 based on some awareness of case law, it was your 16 understanding that in the past where there had been a 17 ceremonial site in the Park, that the Park facilitate 18 access to that site by First Nations people. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Right. Now in -- in these meetings, 21 do you recall anyone saying that the Government should 22 see to it that local residents in the Ipperwash area and 23 First Nations people in the Ipperwash area be spoken to 24 in order to investigate oral history. 25 Specifically with respect to this

214

1 contention that there might be a burial ground in the 2 Park? 3 A: No, I don't have -- I'm not sure that 4 I'm understanding the question. Can you try again? 5 Q: What -- what I'm just asking you is 6 whether you recall anyone saying that one thing the 7 Government should do, given the contention that there was 8 a burial ground in the Park, was see to it that people in 9 the local area were spoken to to determine if there was 10 oral history that would support that claim? 11 A: I -- I don't recall that at this 12 time. What I recall is -- is the discussion about the 13 burial ground leading to a decision that Dave Carson of 14 ONAS would -- would look into the legal ramifications and 15 obligations should it -- should it come to be that -- 16 that there is -- either is a burial ground or even that 17 there's a claim. 18 And that somebody within the Ministry of 19 Natural Resources would -- would try to uncover anymore 20 information about this -- this -- there was a vague 21 comment that -- that maybe there was new archeological 22 information about a burial ground. 23 It hadn't been investigated but at least 24 somebody should try and find that or -- or look into 25 that. But, no, I don't recall discussions about --

215

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- canvassing the local people. 3 Q: And -- and apart from the -- the 4 statement attributed to Mr. Manning about a -- a burial 5 ground, do you recall anyone saying in these meetings 6 that many First Nations people in the area believe 7 there's a burial ground in Ipperwash Provincial Park? 8 A: So there's sort of two (2) different 9 issues. In the first meeting there was this discussion 10 about this potentially new information and certainly in 11 that context, and as -- there was discussion that there - 12 - there was known -- there was known to be historically 13 an assertion that there was a burial site in -- in the 14 Park. 15 The best information that we had up until 16 that point was that -- that the investigations into that 17 had not led to anything. But there was this -- 18 Q: There was a historic -- 19 A: -- assertion, a story that -- that we 20 knew about. And then by the second meeting we had 21 actually heard from Mr. Manning that -- that they were 22 claiming ownership of the Park and that it was a burial 23 site. 24 Q: Okay. But I -- now, I -- I take that 25 you didn't know how widely that view was held in the

216

1 area? 2 A: Personally, no. 3 Q: And -- and you weren't getting 4 information about that at the meeting, as to just how 5 widely held the view was? 6 A: No. No. I've got what -- what 7 information they talked about. 8 Q: Okay. All right. Those are my 9 questions. Thanks very much. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much, Mr. Downard. I think we can get Ms. Horvat 12 in. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 17 Q: My name is Jacqueline Horvat and I'm 18 here on behalf of Charles Harnick, and I only have one 19 (1) question for you. 20 Did you ever receive instructions directly 21 from Mr. Harnick regarding any aspect of the injunction 22 or injunction materials? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of

217

1 Mr. Beaubien? 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TREVOR HINNEGAN: 4 Q: Good afternoon, Dr. Christie. My 5 name is Trevor Hinnegan, I'm one (1) of the lawyers 6 representing Marcel Beaubien, who was the local MPP at 7 the time, and I just have a couple questions. 8 This morning, in your direct examination 9 by Mr. Worme, there was -- when you were referring to 10 your notes of September 5th, 1995, there was some 11 reference, general reference made that Mr. Beaubien had 12 been inquiring whether or not the provincial government 13 was seeking an injunction; do you recall that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I guess I just have a couple 16 questions about that. 17 Do you have any specific recollection 18 yourself as to whether or not these -- these comments or, 19 I guess, they -- they'd be better characterized as 20 inquiries by Mr. Beaubien, did they have any direct 21 impact on the Committee's recommendation to seek an 22 injunction? 23 A: I can't really answer that myself. 24 Q: Would you agree with me that your 25 notes, as you read them today, are -- are consistent with

218

1 Mr. Beaubien simply making an inquiry as to whether or 2 not an injunction was being sought? 3 A: To my -- my recollection is that the 4 Committee was advised that Mr. Beaubien had -- had 5 requested that the Government proceed with an injunction. 6 Q: Okay. And can you recollect whether 7 or not those comments were the reason that the Committee 8 recommended seeking an injunction? 9 A: So, certainly I can tell you that at 10 the end of the meeting the Committee Chair didn't say, 11 Well Mr. Beaubien has asked for one, therefore we should 12 do it, if that's what you're asking. 13 Q: Thank you, those are my questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. Ms. Perschy would you like to start now or do 16 you want to start in the morning? 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm going to be about 18 an hour so I would prefer to start tomorrow. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 Then it's now, by my watch, five (5) to 5:00. Up on the 21 clock it's about ten (10) to 5:00. 22 I think we'll adjourn now for the day and 23 start again tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. 24 25 (WITNESS RETIRES)

219

1 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 2 adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday September 27th at 9:00 3 a.m. 4 5 --- Upon adjourning at 4:56 p.m. 6 7 8 9 10 Certified Correct 11 12 13 14 15 ________________________ 16 Dustin Warnock 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25