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 August 23rd, 2005 25

2
  1                        Appearances
  2  Derry Millar      )             Commission Counsel
  3  Susan Vella        )    (np)
  4  Donald Worme, Q. C )    (Np)
  5  Katherine Hensel  )      (np)
  6  Megan Ferrier     )
  7  Murray Klippenstein )    (np)   The Estate of Dudley 
  8  Vilko Zbogar       )     (np)   George and George
  9  Andrew Orkin       )  (np)      Family Group
 10  Basil Alexander    )
 11  
 12  Peter Rosenthal  )              Aazhoodena and George
 13  Jackie Esmonde   )   (np)       Family Group
 14  
 15  Anthony Ross     )              Residents of
 16  Cameron Neil     )   (np)       Aazhoodena (Army Camp)
 17  Kevin Scullion   )   (np)
 18  William Henderson )              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  
  5  Peter Downard    )              The Honourable Michael
  6  Bill Hourigan    )   (np)       Harris
  7  Jennifer McAleer )
  8  
  9  Ian Smith        )              Robert Runciman
 10  Alice Mrozek     )
 11  Harvey Stosberg  )   (np)       Charles Harnick
 12  Jacqueline Horvat )
 13  Douglas Sulman, Q.C. )           Marcel Beaubien
 14  Dave Jacklin          )  (np)
 15  Trevor Hinnegan     )      (np)
 16  
 17  Mark Sandler       )            Ontario Provincial 
 18  Andrea Tuck-Jackson )            Ontario Provincial Police
 19  Leslie Kaufman     )  (np)
 20  Ian Roland       )    (np)      Ontario Provincial 
 21  Karen Jones      )              Police Association &
 22  Debra Newell     )   (np)       K. Deane
 23  Ian McGilp       )   (np)
 24  Annie Leeks      )   (np)
 25  Jennifer Gleitman )   (np)

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

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 6 4 5 THOMAS BERNARD O'GRADY, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Derry Millar 10 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Al O'Marra 93 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Karen Jones 106 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 118 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 121 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 126 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 135 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Certificate of Transcript 270 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-613 Document Number 2001025 MSGCS Issue Note 4 (Version 28) - First Nations Occupation 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park, Jan 07/'97 6 and memo to Dennis Hogan from P.A. 7 Duffield re. Cost of OPP response to 8 Sept/'95 occupation of Ipperwash 9 Provincial Park Jan 07/'97. 17 10 P-614 Emergency Preparedness in the OPP, 11 Working Group Report, submitted to the 12 Emergency Preparedness Steering Committee 13 April 15/'96. 29 14 P-615 Document Number 2000535 Memorandum to 15 inspector G.C. Connolley from Thomas 16 O'Grady re. OPP involvement at Ipperwash 17 Provincial Park, Feb 25/'97. 40 18 P-616 Document Number 2000588, pages 10985 and 19 10986. Memorandum from Inspector Connolley 20 to the Commissioner re. Assignment: OPP 21 involvement at Ipperwash Provincial Park, 22 April 28/'97. 43 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS (Con't) 2 No. Description Page 3 P-617 Document Number 2000588, page 10987. 4 Memorandum from inspector G.C. Connolley 5 to the Commissioner re. OPP involvement at 6 Ipperwash Provincial Park, May 05/'97. 44 7 P-618 Document 2000588, Page 10988. Handwritten 8 note from inspector Connolley to the 9 Commissioner, May 05/'97. 45 10 P-619 Document Number 2000588, pages 11008 to 11 11019. Memorandum from Inspector 12 Connolley to the Commissioner 13 (preliminary report) June 30/'97. 45 14 P-620 Document Number 1001252. OPP news 15 release, "Police Form Council on 16 Aboriginal Affairs" sept 25/'96. 53 17 P-621 Document Number 2000553. Confidential 18 Briefing note, Solicitor General and 19 Minister of Correctional services 20 issue: Ipperwash Provincial Park 21 response options, March/'96. 56 22 P-622 First Nations land claims, 1996. 58 23 P-623 Document Number 1002964. OPP fax from 24 Commissioner O'Grady to Graham Reynolds, 25 SIU, April 25/'96. 66

1 EXHIBITS (Con't) 2 No. Description Page 3 P-624 Document Number 1005034. Letter from 4 Commissioner O'Grady to Andre Marin, 5 SIU director, May 29/'97. 68 6 P-625 Document Number 1005035. Letter from 7 Andre Marin, SIU Director to 8 Commissioner O'Grady, June 11/'97. 69 9 P-626 Document Number Ipperwash 95-PFD-130, 10 Master File. Director's report on 11 custody injury of Cecil Bernard George, 12 Sept.06/'96. 71 13 P-627 Document Number 6000155. Toronto Star 14 article, "Irwin Critical of Ontario", 15 July 11/'96. 72 16 P-628 Document Number 1001164. OPP news 17 release re. Response To Comments By 18 Federal Indian Affairs Minister, 19 July 11/'96. 73 20 P-629 Document Number 101166. Letter from 21 Commissioner O'Grady to the Hon. 22 Ronald A. Irwin, July 15/'96. 74 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:02 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, everyone. Good morning. 8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 10 Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. O'Grady. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What I've -- what I've 12 done this morning is handed out and we'll get -- more 13 copies are being made a document that is entitled, 14 Emergency Preparedness Report. And we got it yesterday 15 afternoon at the end of the day and we are making copies. 16 We don't have a high speed copier so as the copies are 17 done we've handed out some, we'll hand out some others. 18 Now, I note that Mr. Falconer's not here. 19 I wanted to deal with an issue that -- the next issue I 20 was going to just speak about was discipline and what I 21 propose to do with the discipline and the issue of 22 discipline. And I know that Mr. Falconer is very 23 interested in this subject and I know that he probably 24 will be here shortly. And... 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is there

1 something else we can do in the meantime? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps we could, 3 Commissioner... 4 5 THOMAS BERNARD O'GRADY, Resumed; 6 7 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DERRY MILLAR. 8 Q: Mr. O'Grady, if I could take you to 9 Tab 85 in the black book. And this is a issue note dated 10 November 7th, 1996 that refers to certain comments made 11 by Mr. Beaubien, the MPP for Lambton. And it's Inquiry 12 Document 2001028. 13 And I would like to give you another issue 14 note; it's Inquiry Document 2001030. And in 20013 -- 15 1030, on the third page, there's a report from the 16 Windsor Star. And I've pulled this one up because I was 17 trying to find out -- find the comments that were being 18 responded to in the issue note and this one, 2001030, is 19 dated November 4, 1996. 20 And, the -- I know this is a long time 21 ago, do you recall this incident and the incident of 22 responding to comments made by Mr. Beaubien? 23 A: No, I don't. 24 Q: And, perhaps just to assist I don't 25 know if you could just take a moment and just read the

1 issue note. It's the same -- virtually the same as the 2 one of November 7th, although the one on November 7th has 3 a little more information. 4 But if I could take you to the third page, 5 which is the copy of the story in the Windsor Star, 6 there's been some highlighted words in that story that 7 refers to -- you'll see a comment, a quote: 8 "I was in constant contact with the 9 police by phone, I would say, during 10 that period on a daily basis, he told 11 reporters." 12 And then, farther down there's an asterisk 13 someone's put beside: 14 "If you're invited to be briefed at the 15 Command Centre, wouldn't you be there?" 16 Does that assist in determining the 17 comments that the OPP responded -- were responding to in 18 these issues notes as being inappropriate? 19 A: I did not -- I was not aware -- as I 20 recall now, I was not aware that Mr. Beaubien was at the 21 Command Centre until quite some time after -- after the - 22 - after September the 6th, in fact, probably some months 23 afterwards. 24 I have already indicated my views earlier 25 that I see absolutely nothing wrong with conferring with

1 local representatives in -- in and around the community 2 that's being policed; in fact, that's part of the 3 principles of community policing. 4 In retrospect, I don't think it's a good 5 thing to have -- it would not be a good thing to have him 6 at the Command Centre. I think that's -- that would not 7 be appropriate. 8 Q: And, we know from the evidence of 9 Inspector Carson, then-Inspector Carson, that other local 10 politicians visited the Command Centre; I think Ken 11 Williams, the Reeve of the Township of -- or the 12 Administrator of the Township of Bosanquet, Mayor Thomas, 13 and then from time to time Mr. Kobayashi and other 14 representatives of MNR. 15 Now, the -- so, is it fair and do I 16 understand that you're saying that in retrospect you 17 think that politicians such as Mr. Beaubien, and would 18 you include in that the mayor of the township, in this 19 case -- in that case it was -- in this case it was 20 Bosanquet Township as it then was, as people who should 21 not attend at the Command Post? 22 A: I think that's true. My opinion is 23 that -- again that to keep them informed and also to hear 24 what information they might have is appropriate, but it 25 would have been much better if there had been another

1 site removed from the Command Post where someone could 2 talk to these individuals. 3 Q: And, someone -- and, when you say, 4 "someone", I take it that you're referring to someone 5 other than the incident commander? 6 A: Yes, I think the incident commander 7 would be quite busy with activities -- operational 8 activities, and someone else could have done that. 9 Q: And, with respect to -- we've heard 10 evidence that representatives of the MNR, Les Kobayashi 11 at least, and I -- there may -- and I know there's one 12 (1) other gentleman whose name escapes me right now, who 13 attend -- who attended at the Command Post and 14 participated in briefings. 15 And do you have a view on representatives 16 of MNR attending at the command post? 17 A: I -- I would put them in a different 18 category from municipal or provincial or Federal 19 politicians in the area or representatives of the 20 community, in that the -- it would depend on their 21 expertise and how badly that might be needed urgently. 22 And so it really would be dependant on the 23 view of the incident commander if he or she felt that 24 they had certain information, expertise, that he needed 25 on an urgent basis then it might be viable.

1 If there was no urgency to their 2 information and so on, then it would be preferable they 3 not be on at the incident command post. 4 Q: And with respect to the situation 5 that we're facing with -- you heard the comments and I 6 presume that you've read the transcript at Tab 37, 7 Exhibit 444(a), the exchange between Ron Fox, John Carson 8 and then Ron Fox and Chris Coles? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And the concern that information was 11 going up the MNR side to the Interministerial meeting 12 that had originated in the command post? 13 A: Yes. Clearly other ministries have a 14 different structure than that of the Solicitor General 15 and the exchange of information is -- flows much more 16 freely. And I certainly sympathize with the remarks that 17 were made that that information could result in 18 difficulties for the police. 19 Q: And what is your view on sharing that 20 type of information, that, for example, in this case, 21 went up the line on the MNR side? 22 A: I don't think that was helpful for 23 the police and I think we -- the police make a conscious 24 effort to ensure that that information does not flow to 25 those that have no need to know it.

1 Q: So, that -- would you -- when you say 2 we make a conscious effort, that's something that's 3 developed since the incident here? 4 A: I don't think that the intention that 5 -- that night was to -- from the point of view of the 6 OPP, was to have operational information flowing up the 7 chain. Clearly in future incidents the incident 8 commander would have to take note of those that were in 9 the command post and guard against that sort of thing 10 happening. 11 So, like I was mentioning earlier, he will 12 have to weigh the urgency of the information that he's 13 getting from an individual versus the -- the flow of 14 information to those that have no reason to know it. 15 Q: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see that 17 Mr. Falconer's here now. So, whenever you're ready to go 18 back to that, Mr. Millar. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I will. I'll go back 20 to it in a moment, Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 24 Q: If I could take you to Tab 91. This 25 is an issue note; it's Inquiry Document 2001025. And

1 this is issued by Nancy Mansell and attached to it is a 2 letter dated January 7, 1997 from Mr. Duffield to Mr. 3 Hogan at the Freedom of Information and Protection of 4 Privacy Office. 5 And did you see this issue note dated 6 January 7, 1997? 7 A: I don't recall that I did. But I do 8 recall, with respect to the attached memo which is a 9 request from the Freedom of Information and Protection of 10 Privacy Office, and I recall we spoke earlier of a 11 request from the Deputy Solicitor General for 12 information. 13 And seeing this and remembering that, it 14 now jogs my memory that that's why that information was 15 gathered up and forwarded. 16 Q: The -- the -- the letter that -- the 17 memo that you sent to Ms. Todres was back in November of 18 1995 and we marked it as Exhibit P-606. And this one -- 19 this memorandum is dated January 1997, some two (2) years 20 later and I note that the cost in the memorandum to Mr. 21 Hogan is between 2 million and 3 million, and that's the 22 -- the amount included in the issue note. 23 And, was that -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- to the best of your recollection--

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: -- the range of the costs as of 3 January 1997? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Perhaps we could mark that the next 6 exhibit? 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-613, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-613: Document Number 2001025 MSGCS 10 Issue Note (Version 28) - 11 First Nations Occupation 12 Ipperwash Provincial Park, 13 Jan 07/'97 and memo to Dennis 14 Hogan from P.A. Duffield re. 15 Cost of OPP response to 16 Sept/'95 occupation of 17 Ipperwash Provincial Park Jan 18 07/'97. 19 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Now, we might -- 21 Commissioner, when we started this morning I was going to 22 address the issue of discipline and the discipline files 23 and I've had a variety of -- I've had some discussions 24 with all of My Friends and that's why I particularly 25 wanted to wait until Mr. Falconer was here to deal with

1 this. 2 It's my understanding that, collectively, 3 the -- given the stated case that the OPPA has requested 4 that, relates to the discipline files, that the most 5 appropriate way to deal with this is to not, at this 6 point in time, ask Mr. O'Grady about the memorabilia and 7 the -- what was done with respect to the memorabilia 8 resulting in any -- with respect to the memorabilia. 9 And that he would be recalled after the 10 issue of the stated -- the stated case is dealt with to 11 deal with the issue and, depending on the results of the 12 stated case, either in a more general fashion if the 13 OPPA's position is upheld or in a more detailed fashion 14 if the ruling is upheld, your ruling, or somewhere in 15 between. 16 And so, I don't intend to get into any of 17 the issues with respect to memorabilia at this time, 18 however, I do -- there -- there are some organizational 19 things that were done as a result of this -- of the 20 memorabilia incidents. 21 And there was also a letter that was 22 written that's already been marked as Exhibit 3 -- 336 23 that was written by the Commissioner to Mr. O'Grady as 24 Commissioner in July of 1996. 25 And so I was going to ask some questions

1 about organizational things that my -- that the OPP did 2 as a result of -- of the memorabilia incident, but I'm 3 not going to ask any questions about the memorabilia 4 incidents in -- in and of themselves. And the 5 cross-examination with respect to the memorabilia 6 incidents would be reserved until after the discipline 7 issue is dealt with. 8 But I will ask some of these questions 9 about organizational and I think -- an organizational 10 response -- and I think that that would accord with what 11 the parties that are most interested in this issue would 12 like to see happen and, perhaps, we could hear from Mr. 13 Sandler and Ms. Jones and -- and Mr. Falconer and others 14 with respect to that issue before I go on? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does that 16 accord with your understanding, Mr. Falconer? 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In a very non- 18 critical way, no. And I -- I say non-critical because I 19 understand the basis for the misunderstanding. I don't 20 think Mr. Millar is purposely trying to get it wrong, 21 it's just that a number of counsel had different takes on 22 what we should do. 23 And when I left the building, one of the 24 last people to leave the building I thought the 25 understanding was slightly different which was we were

1 not going to go into the area at all. Having said that, 2 I'm not -- I'm not the one who has the most acute 3 interest on that point. 4 And so I -- I simply -- there are two (2) 5 things that I want to put on the record. First I 6 apologize, Mr. Commissioner. I listened to Mr. Millar. 7 I was monitoring it on a live web cast. I listened to 8 Mr. Millar say, 'I'm wondering if Mr. Falconer's here 9 yet' and obviously I apologize for that, for not being in 10 the room. 11 But from the point of view of the issue, 12 the part that I wish to put on the record, is that my 13 understanding of it is we are deferring all questions 14 relating to discipline. 15 In other words, from my client's point of 16 view to bifurcate the matter of discipline, to mugs and 17 t-shirts tomorrow and other discipline matters today is 18 the very evil we're trying to avoid which is to be going 19 over the same ground or to be required to ask questions 20 without the facts. 21 And so matters of discipline is what we're 22 deferring our cross-examination on. And I emphasize that 23 because it traces right back to the discipline policy as 24 reflected in the mugs and t-shirts. 25 One of the things Mr. Millar didn't

1 mention, for example, is the issue of discipline or non- 2 discipline of Officer Cossett (phonetic). And we -- I 3 think we'll all agree that your ruling, Mr. Commissioner, 4 covered Officer Cosset and I think that was put on the 5 record the last day when Mr. Roy was here. 6 But having said that, there could well be 7 other officers for whom there is a discipline issue. And 8 the policy of the OPP on how they apply discipline or not 9 is what's being deferred. And the records that apply to 10 one specific example would be the launching point for any 11 proper cross-examination which is why I'm seeking not to 12 bifurcate it. 13 But I can tell you, Mr. Commissioner, it 14 doesn't mean that I have one thousand (1000) questions on 15 potential discipline that didn't happen. It's just that 16 I want to be clear in terms of what I'm deferring. I'm 17 deferring the entire area of discipline as it pertains to 18 Commissioner O'Grady until after this matter is 19 clarified. And that's my understanding. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Rosenthal...? 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. 23 Commissioner. I also, like Mr. Falconer, had a slightly 24 different standing at the end of the day as to where this 25 was likely to go.

1 And in particular I had thought that the 2 suggestion was made and I anticipated it having been 3 accepted, I thought it was accepted by Mr. Sandler and 4 all the Aboriginal parties, that everything related to -- 5 to the incidents, to the racist allegations including the 6 general matters that were dealt with in respect to that 7 would be deferred so that it could all be done as a 8 piece. 9 Otherwise -- obviously the two (2) relate 10 to each other. If we -- we talk about the general things 11 that we've done that relates to whether discipline was 12 appropriate and conversely. 13 And if we're going to be dealing with the 14 general things now and the specific things later, we -- 15 how do -- how do we draw lines and so on. Are we 16 supposed to cross-examine on general things now and not 17 specifics and where do we draw the lines on specifics and 18 so on? It seems to be a very murky area. 19 So I had thought it was generally agreed 20 that the easiest way and most efficient way to deal with 21 it is to defer everything that happened as a result of 22 that incident until we know what we can do with it as a 23 result of the stated case being determined. 24 So it would be my submission that that 25 would be obviously the most efficient way to do it.

1 Otherwise, we're going to have re-visit it to some extent 2 and in the course of our cross-examination now, you're 3 going to be in a very difficult position always of 4 drawing lines and say does that question go to the 5 discipline file or is that general and so on. 6 So I would urge upon Mr. Millar that he 7 reconsider that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not a 9 simple issue, I understand, because there's some matters 10 that are clearly legitimate for us to explore 11 notwithstanding to discipline files. 12 But if we do get into it, we might end up 13 having to resolve issues on a question by question basis 14 and I think we all want to avoid that. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps -- what 16 I was simply going to ask about and -- and I did not 17 expect anyone to cross-examine on this issue with respect 18 to -- but I was going to ask about the organi -- some 19 organizational changes. 20 But perhaps what we should do is we should 21 just simply set it aside, we'll deal with this stated 22 case and we'll come back and we'll deal with it then. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With the 24 discipline issues then. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: All the discipline

1 issues together. I don't think that what I was going to 2 ask -- it really flowed, but will -- from that issue. 3 But rather than get into a big issue about it, what I 4 think we'll do is I'll simply defer those questions that 5 I have and we'll come back to it when -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When the 7 Divisional Court -- 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- when we're dealt 9 with that issue. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 11 any comment before we hear from Mr. Falconer again, Mr. 12 Sandler? Does that accord with your understanding as 13 well? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: As I said to My 15 Friends, as long as there's some opportunity down the 16 road for us to discuss the institutional ways in which 17 these issues were dealt with, and I'm just as happy that 18 they're dealt with down the road when the stated case is 19 clarified -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- as being dealt with 22 today, so... 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 So, we'll leave it at that. Mr. Falconer, you're not 25 going to comment?

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, Mr. 2 Commissioner, simply this, and I'm saying what we all 3 know to be true, but I'm saying it because too many times 4 I've lived with, I should have put it on the record 5 expressly. 6 It's understood, and I know that's the 7 implication underlying our discussions, that the parties 8 are entitled, as of right, to have former Commissioner 9 O'Grady return to the stand to be cross-examined in this 10 area, regardless of the nature of the ruling in the 11 Divisional Court. 12 In other words, Commissioner O'Grady will 13 be coming back as of right. It won't be a subject of 14 seeking leave of you, Mr. Commissioner, otherwise. And I 15 simply put it on the record, out of respect, but to be 16 clear, that's all. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 18 Mr. Falconer. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 21 that's understood, if we're putting off the questions of 22 discipline, you're going to need Commissioner O'Grady 23 regardless. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, I have questions 25 for Mr. --

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- for Mr. O'Grady. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So he'll be 4 back. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 7 Q: So I can assure you, Mr. O'Grady, 8 you'll have to come back to deal with this issue, because 9 not only Mr. Falconer, but I have questions. 10 Now, I want to -- we -- as I mentioned 11 this morning, there is a report; the Emergency 12 Preparedness in the OPP Working Group report, dated April 13 15, 1996, that we received last night and we're handing 14 out right now. 15 They -- we handed out some copies this 16 morning and we're handing out some additional copies 17 right now. And can you tell me, do you have a copy, Mr. 18 O'Grady, in front of you? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: Can you tell me what the genesis of 21 this report was? Did you order this report to be 22 prepared? 23 A: Yes, I did. 24 Q: And when did you order this report to 25 be prepared?

1 A: Well, perhaps I can just give some 2 background. 3 Initially, after September the 6th, it was 4 clear that a review was required; there were ongoing 5 investigations at that time. And so later the next year, 6 an initial review was conducted by Chief Superintendent 7 Coles and I believe that's already been spoken to. 8 And flowing out of that, I felt there was 9 a need for a little more comprehensive review of our 10 operations and our preparation for emergencies. And as a 11 result the working group was established in the spring of 12 1996 to research and discuss and prepare a report that 13 would give the OPP a road map as to directions that they 14 should take in the future. 15 Q: And they had a, as you -- as one can 16 see in the report, a short time line because -- 17 A: Yes, they did. 18 Q: -- their report is dated April 15th, 19 1996 which they submitted to the Emergency Preparedness 20 Steering Committee. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And what was, in 1996, the Emergency 23 Preparedness Steering Committee? 24 A: It was a group of officers with 25 background knowledge, and also considerable authority

1 within the organization, senior officers, who could then 2 focus on the work that was done by those that were 3 assigned to -- to research both the literature and also 4 talk to various experts and our own officers in the field 5 to get a sense for changes that might be made. 6 Q: And the group was made up of, or the 7 report was prepared, if you turn to page 67, it's the 8 page after page 66, it's un -- unnumbered, but it's -- it 9 would be page 67, and this, the members of the working 10 group as I understand it? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: And then, the most senior officer was 13 Inspector George Marshall? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And, there was a number of staff 16 sergeants involved as well; four (4) staff sergeants, 17 another inspector and a sergeant, plus someone from 18 Professional Standards and someone from the Operational 19 Research Section. 20 A: That's correct. And -- and you'll 21 remember that we talked about Inspector Marshall before 22 and I had asked him to prepare a chronology for me with 23 respect to activities at Ipperwash. So, he was 24 relatively familiar with activities at Ipperwash and this 25 was an expansion into other areas.

1 Q: And, I know it's been -- it's a long 2 time ago and -- and if I could take you to page 1, the 3 introduction and it appears that this working group you 4 instructed to be inform -- this to be done in November of 5 1995. 6 You'll see the RCMP Emergency Preparedness 7 Working Group was formed in late November 1995 at the 8 request of the Steering Committee? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And, I note that its mandate -- and, 11 perhaps we could mark this the next exhibit, then we 12 would have an exhibit number? 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-614, Your Honour. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 614? 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-614: Emergency Preparedness in the 17 OPP, Working Group Report, 18 submitted to the Emergency 19 Preparedness Steering 20 Committee April 15/'96. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 23 Q: The mandate is set out in page 1 to 24 gather, correlate and analyse information with respect to 25 the OPP's capability, to effectively respond to major

1 occurrences and emergencies, and to submit findings and 2 recommendations to the Steering Committee. 3 And that's what they've done in this 4 report and I note that there are eighty (80) 5 recommendations? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And -- 8 A: I think it's important to note and it 9 -- it does mention that that it's being done at a time 10 when the OPP is in the midst of intense organizational 11 change. 12 So that essentially, to some degree, 13 either -- it complicates their activities, but it also is 14 an opportunity to -- to change directions simply because 15 the -- the Force is -- is doing that whole scale at that 16 time. 17 Q: And, that was part of the 18 reorganization -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- that had started in the early 21 '90's and culminated with the separation into six (6) 22 different regions? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And, 1995, as we've heard before, was 25 still ongoing?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And, if I could -- let me ask you a 3 general question, there are some specific references in 4 this report, for example at page 20, recommendations 14 5 and 15 and 16 through to 20, actually, they're 6 recommendations that relate to incident commanders. 7 There's -- at page 22, there's a 8 recommendation with respect to organizational learning 9 and as part of that on page 24, there's a recommendation 10 25 with respect to cultural awareness and knowledge and 11 it reads: 12 "Cultural awareness and knowledge be 13 corporately recognized as 'equipment' 14 that necessarily enhances the personal 15 safety of our officers. While the 16 working group understands that the 17 First Nations and Contract Policing 18 Bureau is an administrative body we 19 suggest that members of that bureau be 20 involved in the further of 21 awareness/learning initiatives, perhaps 22 through joint effort with the newly- 23 formed Community Policing Development 24 Centre." 25 And then, at page 32 there's a section

1 with respect to intelligence gathering and at page 51 a 2 section dealing with First Nations issues and a number of 3 -- two (2) recommendations dealing with that issue. 4 And can you tell us what happened with 5 these recommendations? 6 This report went to the Emergency 7 Preparedness Steering Committee. And back in 1996, do 8 you recall what the Emergency Preparedness Steering 9 Committee did with this report? 10 A: I believe that there was a 11 recommendation that the report was very valuable and 12 should be acted upon. And I think the only restriction 13 that was placed on at that time was a financial one. 14 Those things that we felt we had the 15 financial resources to proceed with, we did. And I know, 16 in particular, the -- the cultural awareness training was 17 activated. And I believe to this day, there's an 18 Inspector Trivett that is -- is coordinating the 19 activities of cultural awareness with respect to First 20 Nations. 21 So, many of the recommendations were acted 22 upon before I retired; some were still outstanding. My 23 memory doesn't help me to be more specific than that. 24 And I really do recommend that somebody currently with 25 the -- with the OPP today that has up-to-date exact

1 knowledge of what has transpired since would be a value 2 to this Inquiry. 3 Q: And the -- and we're -- at page III, 4 Roman number III, the Steering Committee members are 5 listed. It's after the Executive Summary, sir, at Roman 6 numeral III under Acknowledgements. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And the -- that's your recollection, 9 that accurately sets out the -- sets out the members of 10 the Steering Committee back in 1996? 11 A: Yes, it does. 12 Q: And it was chaired by Deputy 13 Commissioner Gerry Boose? 14 A: Yes. And he was the Deputy 15 Commissioner for Operations at that time. 16 Q: And there was a number of senior 17 officers as well as representatives from the OPPA on the 18 Steering Committee? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. Now, if I could turn to what 21 is called the Connolley Report. And if I could -- we 22 briefly spoke about this yesterday, but I would ask you 23 to turn to Tab 92; it's Inquiry Document 1005034. 24 A: Yes. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Excuse me, Mr.

1 Commissioner. I wanted to wait until Mr. -- I didn't 2 want to interrupt Mr. Millar's questioning on this 3 report. But, with greatest of respect I felt it was 4 important to put a matter on the record in relation to 5 the report. 6 I'm extremely concerned that the Deputy 7 Commissioner of Operations currently, and then the 8 Incident Commander whose conduct in some way or the 9 incident itself in some way prompted this report, would 10 have the stand without this report being in the hands of 11 the parties. 12 And I'm positive that it couldn't be 13 because Mr. Millar kept it in his file. And with the 14 greatest of respect, I cannot conceive of how somebody or 15 someone could have thought this wasn't relevant. 16 And in -- in my respectful submission 17 first of all, I'm wondering if it's possible for 18 something to be put on the record by way of explanation 19 as to why the parties wouldn't have had this until today, 20 because clearly, as I recall, based on the evidence I've 21 just heard from this Commissioner, this would have been 22 matters we were to be asking Deputy Commissioner Carson 23 about in his role as Deputy Commissioner, much less the 24 question of his role as incident commander. 25 I'm simply wondering if something could be

1 put on the record by way of explanation because we 2 certainly have been deprived of an important opportunity 3 to ask important questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Reference 5 has been made to this report before, has it not been 6 available? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'm not certain that 8 it had. We got it -- the genesis of this was Mr. O'Marra 9 who picked -- saw a reference to it and asked me about 10 the report. I asked Mr. Sandler and Ms. Tuck-Jackson and 11 yesterday afternoon they had the report and they gave us 12 the report and we distributed it this morning -- gave it 13 to Mr. O'Marra last night and distributed it this 14 morning. 15 MR. AL O'MARRA: Good morning, Mr. 16 Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 morning, Mr. O'Marra. 19 MR. AL O'MARRA: Just to assist, I did 20 make reference to it in my brief cross-examination of -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I seem to 22 remember -- 23 MR. AL O'MARRA: -- Deputy Commissioner 24 Carson, that's right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- some

1 reference to it. 2 MR. AL O'MARRA: There are several 3 references to it, both in Mr. O'Grady's statement, Deputy 4 Commissioner Boose's statement as well as Inspector 5 Connolley's (phonetic) report and it was based on that 6 that I asked questions of Deputy Commissioner Carson. He 7 did not appear to be knowledgeable about it and I 8 indicated at that time that I didn't have to ask 9 Commissioner O'Grady. 10 I've made requests of My Friends and Mr. 11 Millar about its existence and, as Mr. Millar has just 12 advised, received it last night at about five o'clock and 13 it has been distributed this morning. 14 But certainly from our perspective, it's a 15 -- it's a central document to the issues of prevention 16 and response to the -- the matter in which we're 17 inquiring after. 18 And it -- it is an important document and 19 needs to be in the hands of all the parties so that they 20 can ask questions, because it not only relates to 21 incident command, but it talks of pre-planning for major 22 incidents, event planning and post event planning. And 23 by definition, a major incident is one that has the 24 potential for violence and injury, based on this report. 25 So, it's clearly a very important and

1 central document to this Inquiry. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't disagree with 3 that and I -- it wasn't there before, but when we asked 4 for it we got it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Everybody 6 has a copy of it now? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe everybody in 8 the room has a copy of it now. Now -- and we as, Mr. 9 O'Grady said, we may have to deal with this through 10 another witness given the length of time since he's been 11 at the OPP. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Ross...? 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 14 perhaps, it might be appropriate that somebody explain 15 why this document was not released before. That's all I 16 would like. Thank you. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, I'm happy to say 18 the -- Commissioner, that Mr. O'Marra drew it to our 19 attention that this wasn't before you. I mean, I, to be 20 frank, we don't pretend that every document that 21 conceivably be relevant to this Inquiry comes to our 22 fore. 23 And this -- this isn't in an Ipperwash 24 file, per se, and I agree with My Friends that -- that 25 work that was done on Emergency Preparedness that would

1 include not only responding to Ipperwash, but as you can 2 see from the front page of it to many emergency events, 3 there are many of them that are listed at the outset that 4 -- that drove some of the discussion that took place in 5 connection with Emergency Preparedness. 6 And I expect -- and I've had discussions 7 with the Commission that at some point in Part 2 we'll be 8 dealing with what has been done in the area of Emergency 9 Preparedness and there will be a full opportunity for 10 people to ask questions of those who can respond to the 11 very point that Mr. O'Grady cannot respond to, and that 12 is to what extent have these recommendations been 13 implemented or spoken to. 14 So, nothings been lost in the exercise, 15 with great respect. And when Mr. O'Marra raised the 16 issue it had been raised before, frankly it fell between 17 the cracks and we're happy to seek it out and provide it 18 as soon as it was raised by Mr. O'Marra. 19 So, I suspect that it will work itself out 20 just fine, but -- and we will be able to deal with these 21 issues and that -- and the Commission will be satisfied 22 with the way all parties can deal with the issues. 23 But I do want to say that it has been a 24 gargantuan task to assemble the documents that -- that 25 are relevant to this Inquiry and -- and the team that has

1 been assembled by the OPP to engage in that task has done 2 really an exceptional job in being able to do that. 3 But nobody is perfect here and I would 4 just ask My Friends not to assume every time we get into 5 an issue about a document that, you know, why wasn't this 6 document produced? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: I mean, we're doing 9 our very best under extraordinary circumstances and if an 10 issue comes up that -- that a witness needs to address 11 the issue more fully because of when the document was 12 produced, we'll deal with it with good will and with 13 collegiality and with discussions; we will deal with it. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well it 15 helps to have an explanation when something like this 16 occurs, Mr. Sandler so -- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 Do you want to carry on, Mr. Millar? 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure, and I must say 21 that the -- Mr. Sandler and Ms. Tuck-Jackson and their 22 team have been very helpful with respect to document 23 production and -- and have provided the Commission and 24 the parties with many, many, many documents and -- as 25 they are required to do.

1 But when we've wanted something, they've 2 gone and searched for it if it's not been in the database 3 and when this issue was raised, they got the document and 4 as Mr. Sandler said, we will deal with it and hopefully 5 we'll deal with it, so that all parties will be 6 satisfied. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 8 Mr. Millar. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 11 Q: At Tab 92, sir, there's Inquiry 12 document 2000535 which is a letter from you to Inspector 13 J.C. Connolley dated February 25, 1997 and this is your 14 direction to Inspector Connolley to conduct his review? 15 A: Yes, I remember. 16 Q: And perhaps we could mark that the 17 next exhibit? 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-615, your Honour. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 615. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-615: Document Number 2000535 23 Memorandum to inspector G.C. 24 Connolley from Thomas O'Grady 25 re. OPP involvement at

1 Ipperwash Provincial Park, 2 Feb 25/'97. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 5 Q: Inspector Connolley, by this 6 document, is, as noted: 7 "This memorandum is your direction and 8 authority to review all circumstances 9 pertaining to occurrences involving 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park and the 11 Ontario Provincial Police. 12 This review will include, but not be 13 restricted to, the collection of all 14 relevant material. Interviews of 15 involved personnel where necessary, and 16 the preparation of a comprehensive 17 summary of the applicable incidents. 18 The intent of this assignment is to 19 conduct an objective review of all 20 actions taken and produce a complete 21 and accurate reference package for use 22 by the Ontario Provincial Police. 23 Please ensure that all personnel 24 contacted are made aware of the purpose 25 and scope of your review."

1 And those were your instructions to 2 Inspector Connolley? 3 A: They were. 4 Q: And Inspector Connolley then, at Tab 5 102, which is again the compilation document, Exhibit 6 482, but if you go to -- there's a section in this 7 document that relates to Mr. Connolley and it's the -- in 8 your copy, sir, the -- just before -- just after the 9 second green divider, sir. 10 And for the purposes of My Friends, this 11 is Inquiry document 2000588 and the reference at the 12 bottom of the page is page 10985. 13 And this is a memorandum dated April 28th, 14 1997 from Mr. Connolley to you and did you receive this, 15 sir? 16 A: Yes, I did. 17 Q: And attached to it is a -- a 18 timeline? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And that was -- I note there's a 21 stamp April 28th, 1997, Commissioner Ontario Provincial 22 Police, that's your offices's stamp? 23 A: Yes, and those are my initials. 24 Q: And perhaps we could mark this and 25 I'll provide for these documents that we -- we're marking

1 separately and P-482 copies for the Registrar, but we 2 could mark these two (2) pages the next exhibit, it would 3 be P-6... 4 THE REGISTRAR: 16. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-616: Document Number 2000588, 7 pages 10985 and 10986. 8 Memorandum from Inspector 9 Connolley to the Commissioner 10 re. Assignment: OPP 11 involvement at Ipperwash 12 Provincial Park, April 13 28/'97. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 16 Q: Thank you. And then there's another 17 note from Mr. Connolley to you after the green divider; 18 it's dated May the 5th, 1997? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And it's page 10987 at the bottom for 21 the benefit of My Friends, and you received this, sir? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: And this was his specific request to 24 you for a statement? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And if we could mark that the next 2 exhibit? 3 THE REGISTRAR: Page 10987? 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-617. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-617: Document Number 2000588, page 8 10987. Memorandum from 9 inspector G.C. Connolley to 10 the Commissioner re. OPP 11 involvement at Ipperwash 12 Provincial Park, May 05/'97. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 15 Q: And there's a note after the next 16 green divider, it's a note from Inspector Connolley dated 17 May 5th, 1997 to you and it refers to similar letters 18 having been sent to all commissioned officers who were 19 involved? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And did you receive that note? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: And that's page 10988. Perhaps that 24 could be the next exhibit, P-6... 25 THE REGISTRAR: 18.

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 18? 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-618: Document 2000588, Page 10988. 4 Handwritten note from 5 inspector Connolley to the 6 Commissioner, May 05/'97. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 9 Q: And then at pages -- after the -- if 10 you go to the -- the next green divider is the -- the 11 Goodall report, but if you go to the last green divider 12 in the book, the letter dated June 30, 1997 from 13 Inspector Connolley to you and for want of a better word, 14 it's an interim report? 15 A: Yes. I've noted it, dated it the 16 30th of June/97, and those are my initials. 17 Q: And I'd ask that that be marked the 18 next exhibit; it's -- it's Inquiry Document 2000588 and 19 it's pages 11008 to pages 11019? 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-619. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-619: Document Number 2000588, 23 pages 11008 to 11019. 24 Memorandum from Inspector 25 Connolley to the Commissioner

1 (preliminary report) June 2 30/'97. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 5 Q: And at Tab 101 there's Inquiry 6 Document 2005 -- excuse me, 2000577, it's Exhibit P-483 7 and this, I understand, is the final report by Inspector 8 Connolley? 9 A: Yes, I believe that's correct. 10 Q: And Inspector Connolley, as well, 11 gathered together a vast number of documents; is that 12 correct? 13 A: Yes, he did. 14 Q: And that -- those documents were -- 15 can you tell us what those documents represented? 16 A: Well, his -- his assignment was to 17 gather all of the documents connection -- connected with 18 Ipperwash and I think to the best of his ability he did 19 that. Obviously, he may have missed some. 20 Q: And the -- as I -- do you recall the 21 number of documents? 22 A: No, but it was staggering. 23 Q: There were thousands of documents -- 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: -- as I understand it. I can't

1 remember the number. I knew it at one time. But could I 2 take you to page 10? At page 10 there are a number of 3 recommendations that Inspector Connolley made and do you 4 -- can you tell -- tell us today when -- there's no date 5 on Exhibit P-483. 6 We know he did the interim report towards 7 the end of July, do you have any recollection as when -- 8 as to when he finished his final report, Exhibit P-483? 9 A: No, I'm not sure. 10 Q: But it would have been after -- some 11 time after June of 1987 -- '97 and you retired in -- 12 A: The spring of '98. 13 Q: And the recommendations that he 14 makes, the first recommendation -- the Ontario Provincial 15 Police established a First Nations crisis intervention 16 team that monitors potential internal and external 17 disputes in First Nation territories. 18 What, if anything, was done with that 19 recommendation during your tenure as Commissioner, 20 Mr. O'Grady? 21 A: We had on staff at that point I 22 believe, two (2) individuals that could head up such a -- 23 a team, perhaps more. And my understanding is that they 24 were gearing up to address those kinds of issues should 25 they arise.

1 And also to make inroads with First 2 Nations to improve relationships between First Nations 3 and the OPP. 4 Q: And then -- and do you know, was it 5 established as a crisis intervention team before you 6 left? 7 A: I'm not sure what -- how it would be 8 described or entitled. I'm sure that there are current 9 people that could give that information. 10 Q: And then the recommendation number 2 11 was: "The Ontario Provincial Police 12 continued to implement a comprehensive 13 First Nations awareness training 14 program." 15 And it goes on to say: 16 "The First Nations awareness training 17 program has included three (3) and four 18 (4) day sessions that have provided in- 19 depth experiential learning. Other 20 training has included the day or half 21 day workshop. The OPP should strive to 22 establish the most effective learning 23 strategy that will take into account 24 the logistical pressures that this type 25 of program entails."

1 And I understand in 1996 that a cultural 2 awareness program was established by you at the OPP? 3 A: Yes, it was. And my understanding is 4 that it has been enhanced. The strategy was to deal with 5 those officers closest to First Nations territories first 6 but the eventual intent was to spread out then across the 7 province. 8 Q: And when you were Commissioner, what 9 -- did you take any additional steps with respect to Mr. 10 -- Inspector Connolley's recommendation number 2? 11 A: I don't recall at this point. 12 Q: Okay. And then the third 13 recommendation: "The Ontario Provincial 14 Police continued to lead in the 15 operation of the Commissioner's select 16 liaison council on Aboriginal affairs 17 and use this form as an opportunity to 18 enhance meaningful communication." 19 As I understand it the Commissioner's 20 select liaison council on Aboriginal affairs was set up 21 again in 1996? 22 A: It was. I was a member. The officer 23 in charge of the RCMP in Ontario was a member and there 24 were, I think it was not to be smaller than six (6) and 25 not to be larger than eight (8) and there were a number

1 of respected members from the First Nations community 2 that were also there as advisors to us. 3 At one point in time Inspector George was 4 a member. But the others were representatives from the 5 various First Nations community and as I recall they were 6 -- they were not young people and therefore over the 7 years had gained respect in their various communities. 8 Q: And what was the purpose of the 9 Commissioner's select -- select liaison council on 10 aboriginal? 11 A: There were a number of purposes. 12 The, I suppose, overriding one was to deal with 13 representatives from First Nations that would have 14 influence in their particular areas, but to deal with 15 them at a time when we were not in crisis so that we 16 could build some trust and relationships, so that when we 17 were in crisis we could turn quickly to somebody and 18 basically say we needed some -- some help, some advice. 19 It was to share with them ongoing issues. 20 There were many, many things that I didn't understand 21 about First Nations culture and I'm sure that that 22 pertained also to my colleagues and so they were helpful 23 in giving me that insight. 24 The same token, there were approaches and 25 activities by the police, by the OPP in particular that

1 they were not as familiar with as they eventually became, 2 because of that inter-relationship. 3 That's an ongoing council and I think it 4 does two (2) things. It's extremely -- very -- it's 5 extremely helpful to keep the police aware of First 6 Nations activities and culture, but it also is -- is 7 there to be seen that there is some interaction between 8 the police and First Nations. 9 Q: And at Tab 79, there's Inquiry 10 document 1001252. It's a press release dated September 11 25, 1996 that refers to the establishment of the 12 Commissioner's select liaison council on aboriginal 13 affairs? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And attached to it is a -- are two 16 (2) pages of additional information? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And it lists the -- a number of 19 individuals and were they the initial members of the 20 Committee? 21 A: They were and I neglected to say that 22 Inspector Jim Potts who's -- I think is everybody here is 23 relatively familiar with, was the co-ordinator and then 24 it lists the members and their -- their background and 25 First Nations affiliations.

1 Q: And they included Mr. Wallace Makay 2 and Mr. Ron George, now Inspector Ronald George, Chief 3 Earl Commanda (phonetic), Charles J. Cornelius, yourself 4 and Zack Zacardelli who was then the assistant 5 Commissioner and commanding officer of the RCMP in 6 Ontario. 7 A: Yes. And added to that was a -- an 8 Elder. Her name was Marlene Skeed (phonetic) and she is 9 currently also a member. 10 Q: Okay. And she was added as a member 11 back then? 12 A: Yeah, well she was added -- she was 13 added while I was still active. 14 Q: And at page 2, it indicates: 15 "The role of the council is to enhance 16 dialogue between the police and First 17 Nations people. It is not a crisis 18 response council. Instead it is 19 expected that constructive dialogue 20 along with the expert advice of the 21 council's First Nations member -- 22 members will lead to fuller 23 understanding of First Nations issues 24 in Ontario. 25 The First Nations members of the

1 council were selected on the basis of 2 their personal qualifications and 3 knowledge." 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And I would ask that that be the next 6 exhibit. 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-620, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-620: Document Number 1001252. 10 OPP news release, "Police 11 Form Council on Aboriginal 12 Affairs" sept 25/'96. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 15 Q: And during your tenure from September 16 25th, 1996 to when you retired in May of 19 -- 17 A: 98. 18 Q: --98, did the -- did the Committee 19 meet, sir? 20 A: Yes, I believe we met quarterly in 21 various locations in Ontario. 22 Q: And so there was a standing meeting? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Then the next recommendation, and I 25 take it from what you said, that the Ontario Provincial

1 Police has continued to lead, at least during the period 2 of time you were Commissioner, the select liaison council 3 on Aboriginal affairs? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the fourth recommendation: 6 "The Ontario Provincial Police, through 7 proper reporting relationships 8 continually present to governments the 9 urgency of prompt and meaningful 10 negotiations in land claim disputes as 11 a method to avoid confrontational 12 situations"? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: What, if anything, during your 15 tenure, was done with that recommendation? 16 A: There were -- there are two (2) 17 things to come to mind. At that particular time I 18 believe I was Vice-President of the Canadian Association 19 of Chiefs of Police, and I put forward a motion to this 20 effect, that government should show some initiative and 21 leadership in dealing with First Nations in settling land 22 claims and like issues. 23 That motion was passed unanimously and all 24 of the -- the resolutions that are passed with respect to 25 the CAC -- with the Chiefs of Police Association is

1 forwarded to the relevant ministers of the Provincial and 2 Federal Governments. 3 In addition to that, I prepared an issue 4 note which I forwarded to the -- to the Solicitor General 5 from me outlining the activities and the circumstances of 6 Ipperwash. It ended with, I think, three (3) options 7 that could be taken. 8 I selected the -- what I thought was the 9 appropriate option, which was to appoint a negotiator 10 that could speak with respect to land and like issues. 11 And I -- I requested that a negotiator be appointed for 12 the Province to deal with First Nations issues, in 13 particular, Ipperwash. 14 And, that was very clear in my memory 15 because when Chief Coles was trying to negotiate a 16 peaceful settlement in Ipperwash, he found that this was 17 a -- a concern to him that when he spoke to 18 representatives of the First Nations, they wanted to 19 settle -- wanted to talk about negotiating and settling 20 issues that were not within the police mandate. And he 21 didn't have a mandate to -- to settle and that was quite 22 frustrating for him. 23 So, this sprang out of his concern in that 24 area. 25 Q: And, I realize that I don't have that

1 issue note, but I do know it exists and, perhaps, at the 2 break I will -- I will get that note. Do you have the 3 note? 4 A: I have both of them. They're here, 5 but I -- I'll have to ruffle through my -- my -- 6 Q: Well, perhaps, you just -- if you 7 could, just for a moment, and then I will give My Friends 8 the Inquiry Document number? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: The Inquiry Document Number is 14 2000553 and it's dated March 1996. And, perhaps, we 15 could mark that the next exhibit, it would be... 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-621, Your Honour. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-621: Document Number 2000553. 19 Confidential Briefing note, 20 Solicitor General and 21 Minister of Correctional 22 services issue: Ipperwash 23 Provincial Park response 24 options, March/'96. 25

1 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 2 Q: And, I note that the recommendations 3 on -- do you have a copy there, sir? 4 A: No, those are mine. 5 Q: Okay. On page 2, at the bottom... 6 "The Government should appoint a 7 negotiator with the mandate and 8 authority to negotiate on behalf of the 9 Province. This option will preserve 10 the public peace and lead to uniform 11 peaceful resolution of similar 12 disputes." 13 So, I take it from that you were thinking 14 beyond the dispute at Ipperwash? 15 A: Yes, I was. 16 Q: And, to your knowledge this is dated 17 March 1996, did the -- did the Minister of the Solicitor 18 General take any action with respect to or the Government 19 take any action with respect to your recommendation? 20 A: I'm -- I'm vaguely aware of something 21 that was done but I'm -- my recollection is that somebody 22 not described as a negotiator was appointed. But a 23 negotiator was not appointed, to my knowledge, certainly 24 not at the point in time when I retired. 25 Q: And the person not described as a

1 negotiator, was that person appointed after you sent this 2 memorandum? 3 A: I can't recall. 4 Q: Okay. And the resolution that you 5 spoke of was entitled, First Nations Land Claims, and 6 it's a one (1) page resolution by the Chiefs of Police, 7 Commissioner? 8 You've handed -- actually, Mr. O'Grady, 9 you provided us with your copy. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: Thank you. 14 Q: That is the resolution? 15 A: That is the resolution, yes. 16 Q: And perhaps we could mark the next 17 exhibit? 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-622. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-622: First Nations land claims, 21 1996. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 24 Q: Was it dealing with recommendation 25 number 4, was it one of the concerns that you had as

1 Commissioner, the -- the land claims issue as being one 2 that impacted both on First Nations and their 3 relationship with the police? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the fact that land claims were 6 dealt with by the Federal Government, principally? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And what you wanted to see was a -- a 9 faster resolution of the claims? 10 A: Yes, it -- given the -- over the 11 years, the issues that have arisen, it's astounding that 12 there isn't a mechanism which can fast track these types 13 of issues. 14 Q: And one of the -- the -- one of the 15 purport of Exhibit P-622, the resolution as it says, it 16 resolved that: 17 "The Canadian Association of Chiefs of 18 Police urge the Government of Canada, 19 the provinces and territories to work 20 in partnership with First Nations 21 peoples to expedite the resolution of 22 unresolved land claims. And be it 23 further resolved that the Canadian 24 Association of Chiefs of Police 25 encourage its members to work in

1 partnership with the Aboriginal peoples 2 to develop and maintain open lines of 3 communication to help avoid conflict 4 caused by unresolved land claims." 5 And during the course of your tenure, was 6 there any progress made with respect to the speed with 7 which land claims were resolved? 8 A: Not that I'm aware of. 9 Q: Then the recommendation number 5 was: 10 "The Ontario Provincial Police, of the 11 Connolley report, complete the review 12 and recommendations of the emergency 13 preparedness project", 14 And that refers to Exhibit P-614 that 15 we've just dealt with this morning? 16 A: Yes, it does. 17 Q: And as noted by Inspector Connolley, 18 "The recommendations of the emergency 19 preparedness project presently being 20 reviewed and implemented by the 21 emergency management project be 22 completed as soon as possible. This 23 implementation will allow the OPP to 24 respond to major occurrences in the 25 most effective manner. This includes

1 the areas of incident command, 2 management and deployment of tactical 3 teams and necessary equipment. 4 This project will also focus on 5 intensive and comprehensive debriefings 6 and retention of best practices 7 documentation to enhance future 8 response." 9 And, as you've said, this was ongoing when 10 you left as Commissioner? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And Item number 6: 13 "The Ontario Provincial Police review 14 how intelligence information is 15 gathered, authenticated and analysed." 16 As Inspector Connolley said: 17 "One area that will surely be examined 18 in any statutory form dealing with the 19 Ipperwash Provincial Park incident will 20 be the intelligence that the OPP 21 possessed during the incident. How was 22 the information obtained? How was it 23 authenticated. 24 There will be questions that will have 25 to be answered; see issues. One

1 concern that was identified was the 2 erroneous information was provided by 3 one faction involved in attempts to 4 discredit another faction." 5 And with respect to this recommendation 6 during your tenure as Commissioner, what was done with 7 it? 8 A: I know there was work commenced in 9 that area. I'm not sure what the final result was. But 10 again, I would recommend to this Commission that a 11 witness be called from the OPP who has expertise and up 12 to date knowledge in that field. 13 Q: Okay. And the last recommendation: 14 "The Ontario Provincial Police in 15 similar large scale incidents assign a 16 dedicated individual officer as a 17 communications officer and his 18 rationale as set out at page 11 of this 19 report. 20 This assigned member will be 21 responsible for ensuring the factual 22 and timely information is transmitted 23 to involve officers. This area of 24 communication was a critical factor at 25 Ipperwash where rumours were rampant

1 prior to and after the incident with 2 anxiety levels extremely high. His 3 position would ensure proper 4 information flow and rumour quelling 5 both internal and external to the 6 organization." 7 And was anything done with respect to this 8 recommendation during the period of time that you were 9 Commissioner? 10 A: My -- by recollection, I believe, 11 that sort of, if I will, informally or as a result of 12 knowing the dangers that individuals were assigned for 13 this, but I don't know that it has been embedded in 14 policy. But it may very well have been. 15 Q: And you're aware that what Inspector 16 Connolley appears to be the -- dealing with an officer, a 17 communications officer, to deal with other police members 18 of the OPP to try to separate fact from fiction or fact 19 from rumours which he felt was a problem at the Ipperwash 20 Provincial Park incident? 21 A: Yes. It would seem to perhaps reduce 22 tensions within the -- within the police group if -- if 23 rumours which causes apprehension and so on, were 24 dispelled. 25 Q: All right. And with respect to the

1 Ipperwash Provincial Park incident, you were involved 2 with the SIU investigations? 3 A: Yes, I was. 4 Q: And we marked yesterday the, as an 5 exhibit, it was Exhibit P-610, the SIU news release 6 communique dated July 23rd, 1996 and the decision that -- 7 of the SIU with respect to their investigation and the 8 charging Kenneth Deane. 9 And as a result of receiving that report 10 as I understand it, you took some further steps with 11 respect to -- or in addition to the receipt of this 12 report, you took some steps personally with respect to 13 the Cecil Bernard George issue; is that correct? 14 A: That's correct. First of all I want 15 to clarify when I said I was involved with the SIU 16 investigation, I wasn't involved in the investigation. 17 But I was made aware from time to time, according to SIU 18 policy as to what was transpiring, or if SIU needed any 19 cooperation -- further cooperation or assistance from the 20 OPP. 21 When I received the information that -- 22 that you have spoken of with regard to Cecil George, it 23 was clear that there were two (2) outstanding issues, or 24 there were two (2) issues. 25 One was the ability to identify officers

1 that were alleged to be involved with Cecil George on 2 September the 6th and the second was the extent of his 3 injuries. 4 At one point in time I was requested to 5 supply pictures of certain officers, the pictures that 6 were taken for their employment to SIU so that they might 7 establish a method of identifying the officers that they 8 felt were involved. The Association, the OPPA 9 Association, took exception to my supplying those photos 10 and, as a result, we entered into litigation. 11 Q: And if I could take you to Tab 66 of 12 the black book, there's a Notice of Application for 13 Judicial Review between the Ontario Provincial Police 14 Association Incorporated and the Commissioner of the 15 Ontario Provincial Police Force? 16 A: That is correct. 17 Q: And that is the litigation you're 18 referring to? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And I note that the -- this is 21 Inquiry Document 1002964, that -- excuse me -- it's 22 stamped, "received" by your office or noted by your 23 office on April 25th, 1996 and sent on that day as well 24 to Mr. Graham Reynolds at the SIU? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And I would ask that this be marked 2 the next exhibit? 3 THE REGISTRAR: P-623, Your Honour. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-623: Document Number 1002964. OPP 6 fax from Commissioner O'Grady 7 to Graham Reynolds, SIU, 8 April 25/'96. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 11 Q: And you sent this off to Mr. Reynolds 12 at the SIU and what happened as a result of this 13 litigation? 14 A: Well, as legal matters were 15 proceeding, I received information from SIU to the effect 16 that they were withdrawing their interest in the 17 photographs and the explanation was that none of their 18 witnesses would be capable of identifying anybody from 19 the photos anyway so, therefore, they were withdrawing 20 their request and, as a result, the legal proceedings 21 ended. 22 I can tell you in fairness, these -- the 23 photographs that were the subject of legal activities had 24 been taken for employment purposes and that was 25 generally, as I understood it, the position of the OPPA

1 as to why those should not be accessible to SIU and that 2 was essentially the nub of the argument. I was most 3 interested at that particular time to establish what my 4 authority was there and, as I say, in fairness, the OPPA 5 were rather disappointed too that it ended there because 6 they wanted to really know what --- how their position 7 was supported by -- by law. 8 So we didn't discover that and, as a 9 result, eventually, I basically received information from 10 SIU saying we cannot identify the officers and, as a 11 result of that, we cannot proceed with regard to assault 12 charges in relation to Cecil George and certainly they 13 left the impression that had they had that, they would be 14 able to do it; they would be able to proceed. 15 My view was, that one could proceed -- 16 there was further investigation that could be done and so 17 I wrote a letter to Mr. Marin, who was the SIU director 18 at that time. Again, just by way of explanation, we had 19 begun with one (1) SIU director and then we went to a 20 second and before this matter was concluded, we went to a 21 third. And so that may explain some of the delay. 22 In any event, I wrote to Mr. Marin and 23 said that I would -- didn't want to interfere with his 24 investigation, but if he was telling me that his 25 investigation had concluded, that I felt that there was

1 other investigative activities that could be done and my 2 intention would be to request the assistance of another 3 police force to continue it. 4 In due course, I received a reply back 5 saying that, no, the case was either being continued or 6 re-opened and I would be advised, in due course, as to 7 the result. I retired, as mentioned earlier, in spring 8 of '98 and it was still being investigated at that point. 9 However, I made myself aware of the result of that case 10 and the result of the SIU investigation. 11 Q: Okay. And if I could take you to Tab 12 93, it's a letter dated May 29, 1997 and does your 13 signature appear on page 3? 14 A: Yes, it does. 15 Q: And that's a letter to Mr. Andre 16 Marin, director of special investigations unit. It's 17 Inquiry document 1005034, and is that the letter you're 18 referring to? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And I would ask that that be the next 21 exhibit, P-624. 22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, sir. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-624: Document Number 1005034. 25 Letter from Commissioner

1 O'Grady to Andre Marin, SIU 2 director, May 29/'97. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 5 Q: And the reply, you received a reply 6 from Mr. Marin and it's at, I believe, at Tab 94. It's 7 dated June 11, 1997. The "6" is crossed and the "7" is-- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- in handwriting. And is that the 10 reply that you received? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And if we could make that P-620 -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 5. 625. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 5? 15 THE REGISTRAR: What tab would that be, 16 Mr. Millar? 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And that's Tab 94, 18 it's Inquiry document 1005035. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-625: Document Number 1005035. 21 Letter from Andre Marin, SIU 22 Director to Commissioner 23 O'Grady, June 11/'97. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR:

1 Q: And the first report was done by Mr. 2 -- the director was James Stewart QC, then Mr. Marin 3 became the director and then, ultimately, the final 4 report was dated February 8th, 1999 and was signed by 5 Peter Tinsley (phonetic)? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And back in 1999, did you receive a 8 copy of the report? 9 A: I did not, but the current 10 Commissioner would have. 11 Q: And -- but you were aware of the 12 results? 13 A: I was aware of the content, yes. 14 Q: And the recommendation that no 15 further action be taken? 16 A: Yes. But I think it's important to 17 be clear on what Mr. Tinsley said. It's quite a lengthy 18 report, but the issue for me that -- that concluded it, 19 and I quote from his report -- 20 Q: What page are you on, sir? 21 A: 46. The first paragraph at the 22 bottom. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: "I am of the view that the evidence 25 discloses no reasonable grounds upon

1 which to find that the force used by 2 the CMU officers against Cecil Bernard 3 George was so disproportional in 4 relation to the threat, as to render it 5 excessive and therefore criminal in the 6 circumstances." 7 And, as a result, he did not proceed with 8 a charge. And depending on your point of view, at least 9 it resolved it for me with respect to reaching a 10 conclusion in the investigation. 11 Q: And that's -- you're -- the report is 12 Inquiry document 1005368 and I suggest that be marked 13 Exhibit P-626. 14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-626: Document Number Ipperwash 17 95-PFD-130, Master File. 18 Director's report on custody 19 injury of Cecil Bernard 20 George, Sept.06/'96. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 23 Q: And I understand that you had some 24 exchange with the -- back in 1996 with the then Federal 25 Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Irwin?

1 A: I did. 2 Q: And at Tab 69 is a Toronto Star news 3 report, July 11th, 1996 where Mr. Irwin criticizes the 4 Ontario Provincial Police with respect to the handling of 5 the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation and with respect 6 to the photographs, and this is Inquiry Document 6000155, 7 and did you see that report? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: And I'd ask that to be marked as 10 Exhibit 62 -- 11 THE REGISTRAR: Seven (7). 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- 7. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-627: Document Number 6000155. 15 Toronto Star article, "Irwin 16 Critical of Ontario", July 17 11/'96. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 20 Q: And what did you do as a result of 21 seeing that report? 22 A: Well I didn't agree with his 23 assessment of -- of the situation as far as the quotes 24 that were attributed to him in the paper. And further, I 25 felt that -- that in his position he might be doing more

1 to alleviate concerns as opposed to being critical right 2 at that particular time. 3 And so I issued a press release in which I 4 responded to his comments. Further to that, I wrote a 5 letter to him. 6 Q: And the press release is at Tab 70, 7 it's Inquiry Document 1001164; is that correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And I would ask that be the next 10 exhibit. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-628, Your Honour. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-628: Document Number 1001164. OPP 14 news release re. Response To 15 Comments By Federal Indian 16 Affairs Minister, July 17 11/'96. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 20 Q: And you wrote him a letter at -- 21 which appears at Tab 71. 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: It's Document 1001166 and it's dated 24 July 15, 1996. 25 A: That's true.

1 Q: And that's the letter? 2 A: That is the letter. 3 Q: Mark that P- 4 THE REGISTRAR: P-629, Your Honour. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-629: Document Number 101166. 7 Letter from Commissioner 8 O'Grady to the Hon. Ronald A. 9 Irwin, July 15/'96. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 12 Q: And I note that you indicate on page 13 2 in the last paragraph: 14 "In many cases a potential conflict in 15 the community cannot be predicted. 16 When it occurs one can say, and I 17 agree, it is a job of the police to 18 intervene and maintain order without 19 resorting to force, if at all possible. 20 However, given the history of First 21 Nation issues in Canada conflict 22 followed by police intervention is 23 quite predictable. Each time police 24 intervention is necessary, in spite of 25 the best intentions of the police, the

1 likelihood of tragedy through violence 2 increases. 3 Surely the answer in breaking this 4 cycle lies in looking for a process or 5 methodology to avoid the necessity of 6 police intervention. 7 I know that this is a very complex and 8 difficult issue, but given the 9 potential to avoid future tragedies, a 10 co-operative effort by all relevant 11 stakeholders would seem to be a very 12 worthwhile undertaking. 13 As a responsible minister in this area, 14 I'm sure you're trying to foster such 15 approach, I think, however, 'less 16 finger pointing,' in quotes, and more 17 genuine co-operation would assist us 18 all to move in the right direction." 19 And that was the view you held at the 20 time? 21 A: That's correct. And I still do. 22 Q: And did you get a response from the 23 minister? 24 A: I did not. 25 Q: And over the next two (2) years, and

1 I take it what you're referring in part to in this letter 2 is the fact that land claims issues take such a long time 3 to resolve? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And as you've told us earlier in the 6 balance of the two (2) years you were Commissioner, you 7 saw no improvement in the speed with which they were 8 resolved? 9 A: No. 10 Q: And the -- during your career the -- 11 you spent a lot of time in the Criminal Investigation 12 Branch and criminal investigations part of the Ontario 13 Provincial Police? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And as I understand it, and this 16 would be true back in 1995, that in a criminal 17 investigation that clues or tips associated with the 18 investigation have to be run to ground to complete an 19 investigation? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And this process -- this information 22 or in some case tips, have to be sorted, assigned and 23 investigated as to the -- their value; is that correct? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Ones that have some value either

1 become evidence by way of a witness who can testify or an 2 exhibit to be seized and tendered as evidence? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And this process of processing 5 information, no matter how seemingly small or large each 6 tip might be, that's a process that the police follow in 7 a criminal investigation? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And, in fact, the public is 10 encouraged to phone in with tips? 11 A: Indeed, they are. 12 Q: And in a criminal investigation and 13 I'm really referring to the period back in 1995 and 14 before, I understand that a file coordinator would 15 control the process of -- with respect to the information 16 coming in? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And the purpose of the file 19 coordinator was -- is -- or was to ensure that nothing is 20 left behind and that the case is solved in an orderly 21 fashion? 22 A: Indeed and continuity is maintained. 23 Q: And during the course of an 24 investigation, investigators would follow up on the tips 25 or other information until they'd exhausted the lead and

1 would be reporting back to the file coordinator 2 frequently? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And the file coordinator's -- among 5 his or her job, was to know the status and have access to 6 the status of every tip? 7 A: That's true. 8 Q: And it's the file coordinator who 9 would then assign the tips or leads to the investigators 10 to follow up on? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And as I understand it, that 13 everything go -- and back in 1995 and before, everything 14 went into the tip file or something like it and the best 15 one would -- ones would rise to the top, based on the 16 evidence that can be sourced? 17 A: That's the way it should proceed. 18 Q: And the ones that can be sourced and 19 verified are then used as part of the investigation? 20 A: True. 21 Q: And the other -- in such an 22 investigation, nothing is too small or disregarded? 23 A: It should not be. 24 Q: And at Ipperwash it -- if I could 25 step back -- and it takes resources to do this function?

1 A: It does. 2 Q: And at Ipperwash, and you may not be 3 able to answer this, but at Ipperwash, with respect to 4 the criminal investigations, this process was followed in 5 following up on what eventually became the criminal 6 investigations? 7 A: I'm not aware of it, but that would 8 be the normal process. 9 Q: And with respect to the OPP at 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park, would such a method of dealing 11 with information not related to a prosecution that was 12 coming in not have been beneficial to John Carson or Dale 13 Linton and the people running the incident at -- from 14 September 4th to September 6th? 15 A: It certainly would have been helpful. 16 I -- I should, I think, say at this time that my 17 expertise, whatever I did have and haven't lost since 18 retirement, was focussed on normal investigations and my 19 experience is that when you're assigned to an 20 investigation, I suppose there's always urgency to solve 21 a crime. 22 But generally the investigator works at 23 his or her own speed and doesn't have deadlines or -- or 24 issues bringing things to a -- to a focus other than the 25 information that he or she gathers up with colleagues

1 and, therefore, has time to ensure that it's catalogued 2 and properly processed and analysed as -- as one 3 proceeds. 4 In fairness to those at Ipperwash, they 5 didn't always have the luxury of operating at their own 6 speed and so sometimes it becomes -- it can become 7 confusing. 8 In the perfect world, I think that's the 9 way we would like it to be done. 10 Q: And the planning and the 11 intelligence, or the intelligence process as I understand 12 it, that even back in 1995, had a number of steps. One 13 was planning and direction; would you agree with that? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: The second, would be collection of 16 information? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: The third, the collation of that 19 information? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: The fourth, the evaluation of that 22 information? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: The fifth, the analysis of the 25 information?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: The sixth step would be reporting and 3 dissemination? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And the seventh step would be re- 6 evaluation? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And it works in a circle? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: It goes around. And do you have -- 11 were you aware of what intelligence resources were 12 provided to Inspector Carson as the incident commander at 13 Ipperwash? 14 A: I was not. 15 Q: And were you aware of the changes 16 that were made with respect to intelligence after the 17 unfortunate tragedy of the death of Dudley George? 18 A: I'm not today. 19 Q: And did -- were you aware that in the 20 period September 4th to the 6th, there was no analyst 21 assigned to the intelligence component of the Ipperwash 22 project? 23 A: No, I didn't know that. 24 Q: And would you agree with me that an 25 analyst is a key member of an intelligence team?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And after the incident, after what 3 happened and the tragedy at Ipperwash, did you take any 4 immediate action as a result of what happened at 5 Ipperwash? 6 A: Other than the -- the things that I - 7 - that you have mentioned and I have described 8 previously, at this point in time that's what comes to 9 mind. 10 Q: Did you cause any changes initially 11 and separate and apart from the Connolley report or other 12 things, to the intelligence function resulting from 13 Ipperwash? 14 A: Not that I recall. 15 Q: And was the incident commander 16 training changed to include information processing or 17 intelligence after Ipperwash? 18 A: All of those things were discussed in 19 the emergency preparedness plan and all of those things 20 were seen as being very relevant and recommendations were 21 made. 22 Just at what point the recommendations had 23 been actioned when I left and what point they're at now, 24 I don't know. 25 Q: And we've talked about this, but

1 we've talked about perhaps having a liaison officer to 2 liaise with politicians, local politicians, federal 3 politicians, provincial politicians and I can't remember 4 if I asked this question. 5 Did you give instructions to have that 6 done as part of the incident -- incident command process 7 after Ipperwash? 8 A: No, the -- I'm not sure. Are we 9 speaking of the position of -- 10 Q: Not the communication, the internal 11 communication. But dealing with the -- dealing with 12 people like Mr. Beaubien or local politicians or, in Mr. 13 Beaubien's case, provincial politicians or federal 14 politicians during an incident? 15 A: Well, our approach then was, as I've 16 mentioned before, to share information and to receive 17 information. I'm not sure, I cannot recall, if I had 18 focussed on assigning a special person other than the 19 incident commander, to do that. 20 Q: One of the things we talked about 21 earlier this morning was that, perhaps, it would have 22 been a better idea to have people like Mr. Beaubien 23 interact with the incident -- interact with someone other 24 than the incident commander and not in the Command Post? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Do you recall? 2 A: I -- I think that is wise, but my 3 recollection now is, I don't know what, if anything, I 4 did in that regard. I think I was dependent on the 5 Emergency Preparedness Study to address that amongst a 6 myriad of other issues. 7 Q: And do you have any suggestions, with 8 the reflection of time, as to what would constitute a 9 good briefing of the political level of the Ministry of 10 the Solicitor General or otherwise on an operation -- 11 operational issue? 12 A: Well, I guess it -- it depends on 13 what point the operation has proceeded to. In its 14 initial stages, I believe that what we did, prior to 15 Ipperwash, to advise our general direction in connection 16 with a protest or an occupation, simply advising that our 17 approach was to keep the peace, to negotiate and, if that 18 failed, to seek some type of court direct. I think that 19 was sufficient for -- for a minister to know at that time 20 and that was the information that was given to him. 21 As the matter proceeds, if there are 22 official actions taken, charges laid, injuries or deaths 23 and so on, I believe he's entitled or she's entitled to 24 be aware of that, to be informed, simply because as the 25 minister responsible they will be asked, in various

1 forums, as to the activities, the correctness of 2 activities, of the areas of the ministry that they're 3 responsible for. 4 Q: And that's the process that you 5 followed during the -- the balance of your career as 6 Commissioner? 7 A: Yes, I did. 8 Q: And I know that -- and we've talked 9 about some of it -- a lot of work was commissioned by you 10 after the events at Ipperwash, the Emergency Preparedness 11 Report, the Conn Report and other things, but did you, at 12 the time or subsequently, come up with what -- from your 13 perspective as the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial 14 Police at the time, as to what was the cause from the 15 police perspective of the tragedy at Ipperwash? 16 A: No, I did not. 17 Q: And with respect to the -- your 18 evidence today, is there anything else you would like to 19 add or any recommendations you would like to make to the 20 Commissioner? 21 A: Well there are a couple of comments 22 that I might address; one (1) will be a little 23 repetitious because it has been covered before. 24 Q: That's fine. 25 A: Over the years, and -- and we've

1 talked about this, throughout Canada there have been many 2 instances in which groups of First Nations individuals 3 and frustrated, I think, by the lack of the timely 4 resolution to land claims or to other issues, have taken 5 part in blockades or so-called occupations and, 6 inevitably, the police become involved. 7 In most cases, I'm happy to say, that a 8 peaceful, temporary resolution is reached. But given 9 it's repetitive nature, given the involvement of 10 frustrated and understandably occasionally emotional 11 people on the one (1) hand and apprehensive police on the 12 other hand, I think that a tragedy, sooner or later, is 13 predictable and, of course, that's why we're all here 14 today. 15 Police operational procedures can always 16 improve and hopefully will. Police and First Nations 17 relationships can improve and hopefully will, but I think 18 that the best approach is a preventative one. I think 19 that's standard thinking in policing these days. 20 So, that given the history of the 21 relationship between the First Nations people and this 22 country, I believe that it's incumbent upon the Federal, 23 the Provincial and the First Nations Governments to 24 expedite the settling of land claims and the like issues. 25 Without government's commitment to these

1 issues, we'll continue to see the police involved in 2 matters which could have been prevented by government 3 leadership and action. 4 Acting with goodwill, governments could 5 bring about resolution, so that tragedies such as this 6 one, could be prevented. 7 And I really think that should be the 8 overriding principle. All of the operational 9 improvements and approaches will not preclude another 10 tragedy, because we're dealing with human beings on both 11 sides and none of us are perfect and from time to time, 12 mistakes will be made and this will happen. 13 And surely, to prevent them from taking 14 place, should be the objective. 15 That was the one issue I wanted to deal 16 with and the second one, as we all know, Kenneth Deane 17 was a member of the OPP in 1995 and he was charged with 18 criminal negligence with respect to the death of Anthony 19 O'Brien, commonly known as Dudley George, following an 20 investigation by the Special Investigations Unit. 21 At that time, I gave Mr. Deane the 22 presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and I think 23 any person is entitled to that and I said so, publicly. 24 In due course, however, he was found 25 guilty and over the years his case was appealed at all

1 levels. His conviction was upheld. 2 The justice system operates slowly, on 3 occasion, and it can strain the patience of those who 4 await its final conclusions. 5 During the relevant period of time, I was 6 Commissioner of the OPP and, as such, I was responsible 7 for all of its members and that included Mr. Deane. 8 I've been a police officer, as most people 9 know, for many years and like a lot of my colleagues I 10 quickly learned that to deal with disturbing instances 11 which you're exposed to, should conceal your emotions, 12 whether that's wise for your health or not, I'm not sure. 13 But many police use that as a coping 14 mechanism. I want to assure you, Mr. George, that I 15 deeply regret the death of your brother. 16 This Inquiry, it appears to me, is a good 17 public forum for me to apologize to you and the George 18 family and the First Nations at large with respect to the 19 death of Dudley George. 20 Q: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Grady. 21 That concludes the examination in-chief and it might be 22 an appropriate time for the morning break? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We normally 24 would take a poll of where people are, but I think we'll 25 do it after the break. I think --

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we all 3 need a break now, so thank you very much, Commissioner. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I still call 6 you Commissioner O'Grady and thank you for coming and 7 giving us your evidence, we appreciate it. Thank you. 8 We'll take our morning break now. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 10 for fifteen (15) minutes. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 10:54 a.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 11:19 a.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed, please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So, Commissioner, we 19 need to canvass the parties. I must say that I told the 20 parties last night I expected to be done before the -- 21 now or before the morning break and it was likely we 22 could just move the morning break so that I did finish 23 before -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You did. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- the morning break.

1 And I'll make a note if -- as parties indicate how long 2 they think they're going to be, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. This 4 helps me, Commissioner. It also helps you to see what 5 we're looking at in terms of anticipated length of cross- 6 examination. 7 I think we start with Karen Jones. How 8 long do you think you might be? 9 MS. KAREN JONES: Twenty (20) minutes. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 Ms. Twohig, do you have any cross-examination? 12 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I may pass, Commissioner. 13 But if not, ten (10) minutes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard 15 -- or Ms. McAleer, I'm sorry. 16 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: No questions. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No 18 questions. Any questions on behalf of Mr. 19 Harnick? 20 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: No questions. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 22 Runciman...? 23 MR. BOB RUNCIMAN: Five (5) or ten (10) 24 minutes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Hodgson,

1 any questions? No? 2 Mr. Sulman, on behalf of Mr. Beaubien...? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think, sir, 4 probably five (5) or ten (10) minutes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Any 6 questions on behalf of Ms. Hutton. 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 9 municipality...? No questions...? 10 For the Coroner...? 11 MR. AL O'MARRA: Fifteen (15) or twenty 12 (20) minutes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 14 -- well we'll go through it in the order I have it here. 15 Mr. Klippenstein on behalf of the Estate. 16 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Mr. Commissioner, 17 the Estate of Dudley George and the members of the George 18 Family Group have been working to co-ordinate our 19 cross-examination interest with other counsel. 20 Especially counsel for ALST and we believe our clients 21 areas will be covered by other counsel. 22 And so at this time we do not anticipate 23 any questions. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 Mr. Rosenthal...?

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Hi Mr. 2 Commissioner, two (2) hours is the maximum, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Ross...? 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Maximum ninety (90) 5 minutes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 7 Henderson...? 8 MR. BILL HENDERSON: An hour to an hour 9 and a half, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 11 Horner...? 12 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Thirty (30) to 13 forty-five (45) minutes, Mr. Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 15 Falconer...? 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: A day and a half, 17 Mr. Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 19 Sandler, I presume that you will not make an estimate 20 until we see where it's all gone. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Now with respect to 22 the order the cross-examination at least for the parties, 23 the first ten (10) parties I understand the -- that the 24 parties have agreed that Mr. O'Marra will go first today 25 because he has a commitment that he must attend to later

1 today. 2 And that subsequently, as Mr. Alexander 3 has said, you'll be addressed with respect to the 4 Aboriginal parties. But -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- for now I think Mr. 7 O'Marra's -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll 9 start -- 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- going to go first. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 Yes, Mr. O'Marra. 13 MR. AL O'MARRA: Thank you. I thank My 14 Friends for allowing me to go first. And as I advised 15 Mr. Millar, it's our 30th wedding anniversary today and I 16 would like to return home. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Happy 18 anniversary. You want to make sure you have a 31st. 19 MR. AL O'MARRA: That's the intent, Mr. 20 Commissioner. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. AL O'MARRA: 23 Q: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. 24 A: Good morning. 25 Q: I appear on behalf of the Chief

1 Coroner and we have standing to assist the Commission 2 largely in dealing with the matters involving, after the 3 shooting, of Mr. Dudley George. Although we are of 4 course keenly interested in anything that relates to 5 prevention. 6 And it's -- it's in respect to that issue 7 which is, of course, core mandate of the Commission in 8 which we were interested in the emergency preparedness 9 report that's referred to and has been this morning. So 10 I -- I intend to ask questions about -- about that 11 report, sir. 12 Now you ordered the report early after the 13 -- the incident on September 6th. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And as I understand the process, the 16 working group was established by the steering committee 17 and began a consultative approach in December of 1995 and 18 canvassed a number of interests both within the OPP and 19 to some extent outside of the OPP. 20 A: That's correct and I believe there 21 was a literature review also. 22 Q: Okay. And that resulted in the 23 report that we've seen this morning. I believe it's 24 Exhibit 615 prepared April 15 of 1996. 25 Now can you tell us, Mr. Commissioner, as

1 to when -- when did you first see this report? 2 A: Probably sometime in 1996, I can't be 3 more specific than that. 4 Q: All right. And as you've already 5 indicated in your evidence this morning, it was certainly 6 the -- the view of the Steering Committee that it was a 7 valuable report and -- and one upon which the 8 recommendations would be acted? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And that the only limitation appeared 11 to be at the time, financial or fiscal restraints? 12 A: True. 13 Q: Now -- and I also understand from 14 your evidence this morning that you're not able to speak 15 to all of the detail of the recommendations because I -- 16 I take it some were dealt with after your retirement in 17 May of 1998? 18 A: That's correct. With the -- with the 19 passage of time, I'm less familiar with it than -- than I 20 probably would have been in 1996 and I know that many of 21 the recommendations to the actions ran over passed the 22 time when I retired. 23 Q: And I -- I take it from the executive 24 summary that the essential reasons for this review, was a 25 recognition that the corporation or the corporate entity

1 of the OPP could benefit from the analysis, assessment, 2 and the lessons learned? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And that, as noted at page I of the 5 executive summary, there is an acknowledgement that as an 6 organization it was, perhaps, not as proficient as it had 7 been in the past in learning from past mistakes? 8 A: I think that's a fair assessment. 9 Q: Okay. And that this is really what 10 this work is directed to, to -- to learn those lessons 11 and to incorporate them into the structure so that those 12 lessons from not only Ipperwash, but past events would 13 benefit the organization? 14 A: That's correct and also in 15 conjunction with the organizational changes that were 16 current at that time, which would impact emergency 17 preparedness. 18 Q: And just so that we have it on the 19 record, while the exhibit has been filed, I just wanted 20 to, actually through your assistance, just review the 21 mandate of the committee and its objectives and the kinds 22 of matters that it was focussing on. 23 First of all, with respect to occurrences, 24 Ipperwash, of course, precipitated your order, but it 25 also related to other emergencies, natural disasters and

1 -- and the like and -- and how the organization responded 2 to those matters. 3 A: Yes, the front page really consists 4 of all of the issues that have been dealt with over the 5 years and, as you can see, it's considerable. 6 Q: Okay. So in terms of its mandate, 7 it's to -- to gather, correlate and analyse information 8 with respect to the OPP's capability to effectively 9 respond to major occurrences and emergencies, and submit 10 findings and recommendations through the Steering 11 Committee, as we've heard? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And then there are the bullet points 14 in terms of the objectives to identify the organization's 15 strengths and vulnerabilities with respect to a major 16 occurrence and emergency response? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: To determine appropriateness of 19 continuing existing practices in preparing for and 20 responding to major occurrences? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And that's an area of which I -- I 23 have some interest, sir. To review existing policies and 24 protocols? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: To assess supporting infrastructure 2 currently in place and the potential impacts of change? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And to develop recommendations for 5 the consideration of Emergency Preparedness Steering 6 Committee? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Now, if I could just ask you to -- to 9 turn to page 5 of -- of the report. And just so we have 10 it, again, clear on the record, in terms of the kinds of 11 matters in which this working group and, accordingly, the 12 Steering Committee were looking at, it -- it identifies 13 those kinds of incidents and it is, of course, with 14 respect to the third bullet point of which I'm 15 interested, the potential threat of violence or injury 16 exists. 17 So those are the kinds of events that -- 18 that they were seeking to learn lessons from and prepare 19 to be more effective and efficient in response to? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Okay. And that, of course, 22 encompasses the scenario that occurred at Ipperwash in 23 September of '95? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: So that was perceived to be an event

1 and while the -- the plan was to contain and negotiate, 2 that there is always the potential threat of violence or 3 injuries? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And accordingly, the planning had to 6 be directed to that potentiality? 7 A: That's true. 8 Q: Now, if I could turn to just some of 9 the recommendations. I'm not going to go through all of 10 them, because they -- they don't relate to our particular 11 interest, but they seem to be two (2) categories and the 12 one that is of interest to us is recommendations directed 13 to co-ordinating and training with other emergency 14 services in response to these major incidences. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And I take it that that's an 17 essential theme that comes from this -- this work, that 18 the recognition within the OPP that, when being called in 19 to deal with these events, that there's -- there's a need 20 to call upon other services and to ensure that they're 21 alert to what's going on, so that they can respond in 22 kind. 23 A: Exactly, it's -- and I guess, best 24 described as an interaction with other disciplines. 25 Q: Okay. And had there been some

100

1 perceived difficulty with -- with that in the past? 2 A: I suspect that if it was highlighted 3 here as something that should be looked at, then there 4 may have been some problems. I can't be more specific 5 than that, though. 6 Q: Okay. In the -- in the matter, of 7 course, that we're concerned with, we heard of course 8 that in the planning to this event, amongst many issues, 9 of course, dealt with by incident command and those that 10 were assisting in the plan, the need to arrange for other 11 emergency services, like ambulances. 12 But what we also heard in evidence was 13 that when injuries occurred and medical assistance was 14 required, there had been only notification of local 15 hospitals, moments before the injured actually arrived. 16 So there hadn't been any kind of 17 incorporation of the local medical services in the -- in 18 the planning process. 19 And I take it from some of the 20 recommendations in here that -- that that's something 21 that this working group and the steering committee 22 recognize needs to be worked on? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And just looking at, for example, 25 recommendations number 6 and 7, that:

101

1 "Any OPP major incident plan be tested 2 under simulated conditions to ensure 3 consistency, feasibility, application 4 under different circumstances and 5 learning about the capabilities of 6 other agencies with amendment as may be 7 required." 8 A: Yes. In fairness, I believe that 9 that's something that we did do at that time, but clearly 10 the study group felt that we needed to be more active in 11 that area, okay? 12 Q: And the next recommendations talks 13 about actually setting up mock emergencies -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And working with those other 16 agencies? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. And if could just ask, to your 19 knowledge and prior to your retirement in May of 1998, 20 was that instituted? 21 A: There -- there had been mock 22 emergency exercises but, again, I think it's -- it's 23 twofold. If there were deficiencies, then they certainly 24 wanted to focus in that area, but if we were doing it 25 correctly, I don't think it would be something that was

102

1 left out anyway, because this was supposed to be a 2 comprehensive plan that was covering all eventualities. 3 Q: Okay. And similar recommendations 8 4 and 9 speak about regional commanders ensuring local 5 mutual aid agreement. 6 Does that speak to aid agreement with 7 other services? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. And as well, 9 that: 10 "Detachment commanders be directed to 11 ensure that the OPP is well represented 12 as active participants in local 13 community emergency planning 14 initiatives." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And prior to your retirement, was 17 that taking place? 18 A: Yes, I know that it was. 19 Q: And I should also just point out the 20 last recommendation of this -- of this working group, 21 number 80, speaks of the need for: 22 "External consultation to take place 23 with other emergency agencies in order 24 to gain insight into their roles as 25 emergency service providers and to

103

1 learn about their processes, 2 particularly as they relate to our own. 3 The working group suggests a newly 4 created regional planning officer 5 position to be tasked with this 6 responsibility within their respective 7 jurisdictional boundaries in 8 consultation with operational policy 9 and support bureau." 10 Was there, prior to your departure, a 11 creation of a -- a regional planning officer? 12 A: Yes, there was. 13 Q: And that continues, to your 14 knowledge, today? 15 A: As far as I know it does. 16 Q: Okay. The -- the other area that the 17 recommendations focus on, at least that I identified as 18 being pertinent, of course, to the subject matter of our 19 Inquiry, deals with, of course, First Nation issues. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And there are a number of 22 recommendations that -- that speak -- speak to that. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: One -- the one recommendation that I 25 didn't quite understand in the discussion and perhaps you

104

1 are able to assist. It's recommendation number 75 and 2 I'll just assist in directing to you to the page so you 3 can turn it up. 4 It's seventy-five (75) and over to, more 5 importantly I think, seventy-six (76), and it deals with 6 strategic decisions. 7 "Where strategic decisions have been 8 based on information obtained from 9 other operational personnel, and where 10 the sharing of that information could 11 potentially jeopardize the integrity of 12 separate ventures during a major 13 incident, we recommend that the 14 connection between these issues be 15 addressed as fully as possible during 16 the operational review. 17 We further recommend that, where 18 possible, the intent to consider other 19 operations be communicated to frontline 20 responders at briefings." 21 Does that apply -- does that only apply 22 within the OPP or is that making reference to other 23 first-line responders who are also involved through this 24 new or co-ordinated approach and liaison with other 25 services?

105

1 A: My recollection is that it would be 2 broader than just the OPP. 3 Q: Okay. And can you -- could -- can 4 you outline or explain just what that -- I wasn't -- 5 personally, I didn't understand what it -- what it meant 6 in terms of special ventures beyond the major incident -- 7 A: Well, there might -- there could very 8 well be certain information that the police, the OPP, 9 were in possession of which, for a variety of reasons 10 would be unwise or it might even be illegal to share with 11 some other agencies that would be assisting. 12 Q: Okay. And that doesn't apply, 13 though, in terms of coordinating with local health 14 services or first aid responders? 15 A: No, it would be -- it's just that if 16 they're working -- interacting with each other and 17 sharing information, that there is the possibility that 18 certain things could be said which the other agency 19 representative might not realize the implications of, 20 might share it with others and therefore put members of 21 the OPP in jeopardy. 22 It's just something that should not be 23 shared, so they're just pointing that up, that they want 24 to be as co-operative as they can, within the framework 25 that they work in.

106

1 Q: Okay. I -- I won't ask you any more 2 questions about the particular recommendations, although 3 I take it from your evidence earlier that, if we have 4 questions in terms of the details, operational details, 5 we -- we now have to look to, I think you just said, in a 6 number of instances, current members. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. 9 Commissioner. Those are my questions. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, I 14 think Ms. Jones would be next. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KAREN JONES: 19 Q: Good morning. 20 A: Good day. 21 Q: Good morning, sir. I'm Karen Jones, 22 one of the lawyers for the Ontario Provincial Police 23 Association and I just have a couple of areas to cover 24 with you. 25 You had spoke, very briefly, in your first

107

1 day of evidence, about some of the changes that had 2 occurred throughout your tenure as Commissioner. 3 And one of the things that you spoke a 4 little bit about was the changes to the legislation that 5 govern police and specifically the change from the Police 6 Act to the Police Services Act. 7 And I wanted to ask you a little bit about 8 some of the changes that were created as a result of the 9 Police Services Act. 10 I understand, for example, that the Police 11 Services Act really took a different approach or mandated 12 a different towards discipline in the context of police 13 forces. There was a change, for example, in the use of 14 language from a very, sort of, charge oriented language 15 to the language that's more akin to professional 16 discipline. 17 Do you agree with that? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: There was also greater emphasis and 20 probably for the first time, an acknowledgement of the 21 need and the benefit of informal resolution of 22 complaints? 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, it was my 24 understanding that it was also the position of the 25 Ontario Provincial Police Association that issues

108

1 relating to discipline would await the stated case. And 2 that was the position of the OPP, as I understand it, and 3 -- and with respect, these questions should await the 4 disposition of the stated case. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 6 how far general questions need weight -- that -- but I 7 gather that you're in agreement, that any matters 8 regarding discipline should be dealt with at one (1) 9 time? 10 MS. KAREN JONES: The -- the issues 11 regarding discipline, Mr. Commissioner, as I understood, 12 related specifically to the issues around discipline and 13 Ipperwash. And these general questions, frankly, I 14 didn't see fit in with that. If I had, I wouldn't be 15 asking them. 16 Nonetheless, if it's your preference, I 17 can hold them down and we can deal with them another 18 time. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just don't 20 want to have to rule on a question-by-question basis 21 whether it offends or not. 22 MS. KAREN JONES: I understand that, Mr. 23 Commissioner. I understand. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, it's 25 hard to know exactly where that line is unless we draw it

109

1 once and -- 2 MS. KAREN JONES: That's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- try to 4 keep it. 5 MS. KAREN JONES: Okay. What I will do, 6 then, is we can reserve those questions for a later date. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. KAREN JONES: 10 Q: Sir, you had mentioned quite briefly 11 the issue that arose in the course of the SIU 12 investigation and the request by the SIU to obtain 13 photographs of officers? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And, I just wanted to make sure that 16 -- that the issues and the chronology around that were 17 accurate. And, I wondered if I could ask you to turn to 18 Tab 66 of that black book in front of you, which is 19 Inquiry Document 1002964 and it's Exhibit P-623, I 20 believe. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 22 didn't get the tab number. What tab -- 23 MS. KAREN JONES: It is Tab 66. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25

110

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. KAREN JONES: 4 Q: Are you there, sir? 5 A: Yes, I am. 6 Q: Okay. And, you'll see that the first 7 part of the tab is actually the court materials for the 8 actual Notice of Application for Judicial Review? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: But, attached to that, is some 11 correspondence, is the affidavit of Brian Adkin and come 12 correspondence. And I just wanted to take you to that 13 correspondence. And, you'll see that it is the last four 14 (4) pages of the tab. 15 And the first document I wanted to turn 16 you to, if I could, was the letter dated March 27th, 17 1996, to you from Mr. Adkin? 18 A: Yes, I see it. 19 Q: Can you find that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And, perhaps, you'd like to have a 22 minute both to review this letter and the letter 23 responding to Mr. Adkin's letter that follows from you. 24 And I'll just -- we'll just take a -- a second while you 25 do that.

111

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I've read Mr. Adkin's letter. My own 4 unfortunately is blurred to the extent that I cannot read 5 it. I know the gist of that letter -- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: -- but I can't read the particulars 8 and it is a long time ago. 9 Q: It -- it is very blurry. I'm just 10 wondering -- we'll go through this and maybe we can -- 11 sorry, deconstruct it as we go along. 12 A: Fine. 13 Q: My understanding, sir, is that the 14 actual issue that the SIU had requested photographs in 15 relation to was not any issue regarding Cecil Bernard 16 George. But rather, allegations of a threat or threats 17 that had been made to Mr. Anthony Dudley George. 18 A: That may very well be so and 19 certainly looking at Mr. Adkin's letter that seems to be 20 the case. There are two (2) parts to his -- his issues. 21 One was that the -- the investigation that the SIU was 22 apparently ready to undertake was not something which 23 they were mandated to do. 24 Given the circumstances of what they were 25 undertaking, Mr. Adkin and I disagreed on that.

112

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: The second issue was that, just 3 generally the photographs since they were taken in the 4 course of employment, should not be admissible. 5 Q: Right. And I just -- the first point 6 that I just wanted to see if -- if we could agree on was 7 that the issue, that the SIU was looking at and was 8 requesting the photographs pursuant to, had nothing to do 9 with Cecil Bernard George but actually had to do with a 10 different matter. 11 A: That's what Mr. Adkin specified in 12 his letter. 13 Q: Yeah. And if you turn to your 14 letter, your letter dated it looks April 6th, 1995. And 15 the second paragraph of that letter it looks like you 16 confirm that the issue that the SIU is looking into is 17 related to -- and again it's hard to me because of the 18 bluredness of the photocopying but of allegations of 19 threats against Mr. Anthony Dudley George. 20 A: My view was that if -- that that 21 information certainly would lead to conclusions that the 22 SIU could draw with respect to the death of Dudley 23 George. That being the case that it was relevant. 24 Q: Oh. Sir, I -- I understand that you 25 and the OPPA had a dispute about the scope of what the

113

1 SIU could and could not investigate. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: But, the -- the thing really I'm 4 seeking to clarify is I think in your evidence a little 5 bit earlier you had talked about the photographs as being 6 in relation to an investigation into Cecil Bernard 7 George. And it just appeared that that actually -- that 8 the purpose of -- for the request for the photographs was 9 a bit different than that. 10 A: In this instance, yes. The -- 11 Q: Yeah. 12 A: I think the intention, had the 13 application gone forward and the request from SIU had 14 been successful, then it would have been used. The 15 photos would have been used for various purposes 16 including Cecil Bernard George. 17 But the nub of it here clearly -- 18 Q: Right. 19 A: -- focussed on Dudley George. 20 Q: When -- when the request was made by 21 the SIU it was for a different purpose. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And that -- I think you confirmed 24 that an application for judicial review was brought by 25 the Association?

114

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And that an interim injunction was 3 granted by the court? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And prior to the court date for 6 actually hearing the application, the request for 7 photographs was withdrawn by the SIU. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Okay. And, sir, I just wanted then 10 to take you to some of the last statements that you made 11 to Mr. Millar regarding Ipperwash. And I take it from 12 your comments that it's your view that police ought not 13 to be put in the middle of circumstances such as what 14 happened at Ipperwash where there's a dispute between 15 First Nations and Government. 16 A: Well, if we -- if we come back to the 17 focus on community policing, one of the basic principles 18 is to remove the underlying causes, to solve the 19 underlying problem. 20 If people are successful in doing that, 21 there will be no issue for the police to respond to and 22 it would seem to me that that's preferable than having 23 the police involved on every occasion where there is a 24 dispute. 25 Q: And in fact a situation like

115

1 Ipperwash would be avoidable if governments took the 2 appropriate action in a timely way? 3 A: Well I think it would be avoidable. 4 It's never a perfect world -- 5 Q: Right. 6 A: So I'm sure that there are times that 7 it just wouldn't be avoidable. 8 Q: Right. 9 A: But certainly it could be avoidable 10 in many, many cases. 11 Q: Okay. And I also take it from your 12 comments, sir, that regardless of the best intentions and 13 the best efforts of the police, that there is no 14 guarantee and especially in a major situation like 15 Ipperwash, that the police will be able to successfully 16 control events and have a peaceful outcome? 17 A: There is no guarantee. 18 Q: Right. And that's despite best 19 intentions and best efforts? 20 A: Exactly. 21 Q: Okay. And you gave -- if you look, 22 sir, at Tab 75 of the book of documents before you, which 23 are remarks -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- that were put together and they're

116

1 dated July 24th, 1996. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And that's Inquiry document 1001163. 4 And you speak in that document, sir, about the 5 circumstances at Ipperwash as being extremely difficult. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you talk about there being a long 8 history of frustration with the Federal Governments 9 regarding the outstanding claims? 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: And you speak in your -- in that 12 document about it's better to avoid such problems and 13 that can happen if the Federal Government deals 14 expeditiously with claims? 15 A: That's true. 16 Q: And you also indicated in that 17 document that, from your perspective, the police 18 demonstrated understanding and professionalism in very 19 difficult circumstances over a long period of time? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I take it that this was one of 22 the larger incidents or circumstances that the OPP had 23 been involved in? 24 A: Within my memory, or with -- while I 25 was -- while I was Commissioner, that's true.

117

1 Q: Yes. 2 A: There were others involved in the 3 past which may have been that large, but I was not 4 personally knowledgeable about them. 5 Q: And I think you've indicated in your 6 evidence that not only was -- were the circumstances at 7 Ipperwash complicated, but also the events unfolded very 8 quickly after September 4th, 1995? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And that makes it very difficult, 11 even under ideal circumstances, to maintain and organize 12 and respond? 13 A: More so than if it was over a more 14 prolonged period of time. 15 Q: And I take it, sir, that even after 16 all of the investigations that have been done and all the 17 comments that have been made about Ipperwash, that your 18 view remains the same, that it was a very difficult 19 circumstance and that the police demonstrated 20 understanding and professionalism in very difficult 21 circumstances? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 Thank you very much.

118

1 Ms. Twohig, do you have any questions? 2 You do? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 7 Q: Mr. O'Grady, I represent the province 8 of Ontario. My name is Kim Twohig. 9 I understand that on a day to day basis 10 you would have very little interaction with civil 11 servants other than, perhaps, the deputy Solicitor 12 General and his or her staff and other members of the 13 senior management committee on occasion; is that fair? 14 A: I think that's correct. 15 Q: Now -- now, I take it that neither 16 the Deputy Solicitor General nor any of her staff at the 17 Ministry of the Solicitor General gave you any direction 18 or suggestions as to how the situation at Ipperwash 19 should be handled by the OPP? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And no other Deputy Minister or civil 22 servant from another ministry gave any direction or 23 suggestions to you about the handling of the situation? 24 A: Absolutely not. 25 Q: And as far as you are aware, did any

119

1 civil servant, including Deputy Ministers give any 2 direction or suggestions directly to police officers 3 employed by the OPP? 4 A: Not that I'm aware. 5 Q: You expressed some concern about the 6 flow of operational information from the police to 7 government, I think; is that correct? 8 A: I don't know whether I expressed 9 concern, I just have a -- an understanding of how that 10 should occur. 11 Q: Okay. Are you concerned that it 12 happened in this case or that it had potential to happen? 13 A: It certainly did not happen in this 14 case. I guess in certain instances, there was a 15 potential there. 16 Q: All right. Thank you. Now in terms 17 of negotiations, were you aware of whether or not a land 18 claim had been presented to the province, in respect of 19 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 20 A: I did not know. 21 Q: Okay. Are you familiar with the 22 steps that are normally taken to address a formal land 23 claim? 24 A: I am not. 25 Q: All right. You've never been

120

1 involved, I assume, in negotiation of land claims, per 2 se? 3 A: I have not. 4 Q: You did mention that you thought it 5 was important to try to resolve the underlying problem 6 before situations such as Ipperwash arise? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And would you agree with me that one 9 must know what the underlying problem is, first of all? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And in this case, one must have been 12 able to get information from the occupiers as to what the 13 problem was? 14 A: I would -- I would assume that if 15 you're going to address a problem, you need to know as 16 much information about it as you -- as you can obtain. 17 Q: And I take it you are aware that the 18 police had made efforts to obtain some information but 19 had been unsuccessful in speaking to the occupiers? Were 20 you aware of that? 21 A: The -- the evidence that I have heard 22 at this Inquiry suggests that. 23 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 25 Ms. Twohig.

121

1 Ms. McAleer, did you say you had 2 something? No, you don't have any questions? 3 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: No, no questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 And, I'm not sure -- none on behalf of Mr. 6 Harnick or Mr. Runciman? Mr -- 7 MR. IAN SMITH: I have a few questions, 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, you do 10 have some, on behalf of Mr. Runciman? 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. IAN SMITH: 13 Q: Good morning, Commissioner O'Grady, I 14 just had to check to make sure it was still morning. 15 I'm Ian Smith, I act for Mr. Runciman who 16 was Solicitor General at the relevant times. 17 Yesterday you testified in answering 18 questions from Mr. Millar that you had three (3) meetings 19 with Mr. Runciman prior to September 4th, 1995. I -- I 20 think that's true and if -- if you want, you can refer to 21 your diary. I was just going to summarize it for you, 22 but if -- if you want, you can take a look at it. 23 The first thing you said was you had a 24 brief meeting with him on July the 4th. You'll recall, I 25 think, you had a meeting with the Deputy or some other

122

1 meeting around lunch time and then you had a meeting with 2 Mr. Runciman, then the next hour you were off to Orillia? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And do you recollect that you 5 discussed the Ipperwash issue at that time at all? 6 A: I'm not sure that -- I just don't 7 recollect whether I did. 8 Q: Okay. That's fine. And then, a 9 little bit later that month, July 19th, you had a meeting 10 with him where you discussed Regional Headquarter sites. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So it appears you had a -- a specific 13 purpose for that meeting and do you recall -- did you 14 wander off topic into the Ipperwash area for that 15 meeting? 16 A: I don't recall that I did. 17 Q: Okay. And then, you met again on 18 August the 28th, 1995 and you testified yesterday that 19 you believed you would have apprised Mr. Runciman at that 20 time of your general approach to what you thought at that 21 time might be a problem at Ipperwash; is that right? 22 A: Exactly. 23 Q: And yesterday and again this morning, 24 you testified that you told Mr. Runciman that that 25 general approach involved three (3) steps. One was

123

1 keeping the peace, 2) to negotiate and 3) to get the 2 direction of the courts and is that correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And just so we're clear, getting the 5 direction of the courts is -- is shorthand for the policy 6 of getting an injunction and having someone apply for an 7 injunction; is that right? 8 A: Yes. That's true. 9 Q: Okay. Now did you -- I take it from 10 what you've said that in describing this as your general 11 approach that you didn't go into any detail; is that 12 right? 13 A: No. 14 Q: And -- and that's because you didn't 15 want to provide him with any operational information that 16 he shouldn't have; is that right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And with respect to that general 19 policy, did Mr. Runciman express to you any opinion? 20 A: He did not. Other than when I -- 21 when I explained our process, he certainly didn't give my 22 any indication whatsoever that he thought that that was 23 not appropriate. Therefore I assumed from that that he 24 had heard it and that he was neutral on it or was in 25 agreement with it.

124

1 Q: So he was either neutral or it 2 sounded okay to him? 3 A: That's right. 4 Q: And of course that policy predated 5 him as Solicitor General? 6 A: It did. 7 Q: And he had no role in developing it; 8 is that right? 9 A: He did not. 10 Q: Now during that meeting on August 11 28th or at any other time before September 4th, 1995 did 12 you take any direction, instructions, suggestions or 13 order from Mr. Runciman with respect to Ipperwash? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Did he attempt to give any such 16 instruction, order, direction or suggestion with respect 17 to Ipperwash? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Did any of his staff attempt to do 20 so? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Now just then dealing with the day 23 September 4th, 5th and 6th, 1995, did you have any 24 communication at all during that time with Mr. Runciman 25 or his staff?

125

1 A: No. 2 Q: Did he call you or you call him? 3 A: I don't recall that either one of us 4 did. 5 Q: Okay. And was any direction, order 6 or instruction conveyed to you about how Ipperwash should 7 be handled? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Did they convey -- did Mr. Runciman 10 or his staff convey any opinion at all to you during that 11 time? 12 A: We didn't have any discussions. 13 Q: Okay. And at any time, Commissioner 14 O'Grady, did you ever feel any pressure to remove the 15 protesters from the Park as a result of anything Mr. 16 Runciman or his staff said or did? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Did you form, at any time, the 19 opinion that Mr. Runciman or his staff were interfering 20 with the OPP's operational matters with respect to 21 Ipperwash? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Or that they were attempting to do 24 so? 25 A: No.

126

1 Q: Thank you. Those are all the 2 questions I have. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 4 very much. I don't recall, counsel on behalf of Mr. 5 Hodgson, were there some questions? No. 6 Mr. Sulman then, on behalf of Mr. 7 Beaubien. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. 9 Commissioner. Good afternoon. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 afternoon. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 14 Q: My name is Doug Sulman and I 15 represent Marcel Beaubien who was the MPP at the time of 16 the incident in this area. And I take it that prior to 17 September 7th, you had never met Mr. Beaubien? 18 A: Not to my knowledge. 19 Q: Okay. And you hadn't had any 20 discussions with him? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Okay. Now there's just a few other 23 points of clarification that I'd like to discuss with 24 you. You'll recall Mr. Millar yesterday asking you 25 questions regarding meetings between the OPP and local

127

1 politicians, correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you recall saying that you expect 4 your detachment commanders and regional commanders to be 5 discussing policing and social issues with mayors, 6 reeves, MP's, MPP's as part of that OPP's focus at the 7 time on community policing, which was to keep 8 representatives of the people advised and that doing so 9 would be in the normal course of business for the OPP. 10 Do you recall that from saying that 11 yesterday? 12 A: I recall that and I agree with it 13 now. 14 Q: Okay. And this morning, earlier this 15 morning, I guess almost at the outset, Mr. Millar 16 directed you to a Windsor Star article in which Mr. 17 Beaubien was quoted as saying he was in daily -- in 18 contact with the OPP on a daily basis and he was 19 referring to the period September 4th, 5th and 6th. 20 Do you recall that? 21 A: I do. 22 Q: And if Mr. Beaubien communicated with 23 Sergeant Lacroix on each of those days, that would 24 obviously be on a daily basis? 25 A: Yes.

128
  1                 Q:   Okay.  And that would be, as you said
  2  on Monday, in the normal course of business?
  3                 A:   In all probability.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  Mr. Millar also asked you,
  5  this morning, questions about elected public officials
  6  attending at the command centre and of course you recall
  7  that?
  8                 A:   Yes, I do.
  9                 Q:   And your position, as I understood
 10  it, with respect to meeting at the command centre, was
 11  somewhat different in that you said that you would not
 12  think meeting with elected public officials in the
 13  command centre was appropriate.
 14                 Did I get that right?
 15                 A:   That's correct.
 16                 Q:   You, however, agree with me that the
 17  decision as to whether to meet at the command centre, in
 18  this particular incident, where the command centre was
 19  located at the Forest Detachment, right on the grounds
 20  and adjacent to it, rather than meeting in the -- in an
 21  office in the detachment building, was a decision of the
 22  incident commander, not the decision of any elected
 23  political representatives who happened to be invitees on
 24  that property?
 25                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Commissioner...?

129

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see Mr. 2 Falconer rising. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Commissioner, I'm 4 respectfully objecting to the question on the basis that 5 unless there's some foundation that this witness could 6 have been involved in the personal decision one way or 7 another, or vetted that personal decision subsequently 8 such that he ascertained who made the call, then asking 9 the question is -- invites pure speculation. 10 Based on the Commissioner's answers to Mr. 11 Millar this morning, my understanding was he didn't know 12 anything about that decision process 'til way later. And 13 unless there's some foundation to show that he knew 14 something about who made the decision to meet in incident 15 command, et cetera, it invites pure speculation. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps you 17 should ask a question or two (2) before you ask that 18 question, Mr. Sulman. If there's any -- any basis for 19 him having any information. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUG SULMAN: 22 Q: Well, I have to go back and think 23 about it for a moment, but you -- you were telling us you 24 -- you were spec -- this morning, earlier, you were 25 speculating as to whether the -- where the meeting should

130

1 take place. 2 A: I don't think I was speaking about 3 Mr. Beaubien in particular. I was generalizing that -- 4 Q: Well -- 5 A: -- if -- if I had my preference, for 6 a variety of reasons, I wouldn't have the incident 7 commander meeting with politicians at the operations 8 centre and that in all -- in preferability, since he 9 would be a very busy individual, it would be better that 10 he had somebody delegated, given his responsibilities, to 11 meet with the interested parties and do so off site. 12 Q: Well, exactly. And in deciding 13 whether to delegate or whether to meet, in the statement 14 that you made this morning, I take it that you're 15 referring to a decision made by the incident commander, 16 not by the invitee, not by the political officials? 17 A: Yeah. Again, I'm generalizing. I 18 don't know the circumstances of any meetings between the 19 incident commander and Mr. Beaubien, but in general 20 terms -- 21 Q: Right. 22 A: -- that was my opinion. 23 Q: Yeah, and that's all I'm interested 24 in, general terms. It was -- your criticism is not of 25 the politicians, the elected officials, whether it be

131

1 Fred Thomas, Ken Williams, Chief Bressette or -- or 2 Marcel Beaubien, you're just expressing your opinion that 3 you would prefer that the incident commander either 4 delegate -- number 1, delegate to another officer those 5 type of meetings, and number 2 that they not be meetings 6 in the command centre. 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: But it's not meant as a criticism of 9 the public officials? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. That's -- that's just the 12 clarification that I was seeking from you sir, thank you. 13 And that distinction of whether they meet, 14 generally, in a building on site or a command centre that 15 happens to be located on the same site is, I suggest to 16 you, probably more significance to the officer making the 17 decision than it is to an invitee? 18 A: It's -- it's just that it seems to me 19 that it's fraught with difficulties with respect to the 20 incident commander in making decisions, and that he needs 21 his whole attention on what he's doing at that particular 22 point and doesn't need any extraneous activity. 23 Q: Sure. And the incident commander 24 would understand that better than someone who's invited 25 to the site?

132

1 A: Oh, absolutely. 2 Q: Okay. Finally, and this may require 3 some speculation on your part looking out, would you -- 4 would the view that you just expressed about meeting at 5 the Command Centre and delegating the meeting to someone 6 other than the incident commander, would that apply 7 equally to all publicly elected officials? 8 For instance, would you suggest that an 9 elected MPP, MP, or MP be treated in the same manner, 10 say, as an elected native band chief, in the same manner 11 as an elected mayor? 12 A: Generally, all -- all representatives 13 of the public in the area, I would suggest would be 14 treated the same unless there was some particular 15 advantage that the incident commander or -- or his 16 representative felt could -- could be beneficial to the 17 police activity that was going on now, and -- and I 18 wouldn't know what that might be. 19 Q: Okay. And, in any event, that would 20 be a call that the incident commander made and that would 21 apply equally to all elected officials? 22 A: Yes, it would. 23 Q: Thank you, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 25 Mr. Sulman.

133

1 Ms. Perschy, I don't remember, did you 2 have some questions? Ms. Perschy, on behalf of Deb 3 Hutton, you don't have any questions? Thank you. 4 And Mr. O'Marra's gone and -- I think this 5 would be an appropriate time to take a lunch break, we're 6 up to the Aboriginal parties now. I think we'll take a 7 lunch break now. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 9 adjourned until 1:25. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 12:12 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 1:27 p.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed, please be seated. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 I understand that on agreement Mr. Falconer's next on 18 behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: Mr. Commissioner, just 20 before Mr. Falconer commences his cross-examination, I 21 just want to point out that we received the second and 22 third notices from the ALST. I think they were sent at 23 11:37 last night. 24 So, to state the obvious, Mr. O'Grady has 25 not had the opportunity to read those documents and he

134

1 wanted the opportunity to read the documents that he was 2 going to be cross-examined on. So, I have no objection 3 of course to My Friend cross-examining on other areas, 4 but if he's going to cross-examine on documents that were 5 not the subject of a timely notice, then I would ask that 6 he do that tomorrow. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or that we 8 just stop for a while and give the Witness a chance to 9 read and feel comfortable. If the Witness isn't 10 comfortable, then we will do that. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's fine. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I should say, Mr. 13 Commissioner, while I can't be absolute in describing 14 this, the -- much of the notice documents sent last night 15 related to evidence given yesterday by the witness as 16 well. So, there's a bit of an adjustment issue as well. 17 But I expect the Commissioner will find 18 that what I'm taking him to isn't about reading long 19 documents or anything like that. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it is, 21 Commissioner, just stop and we'll give you a chance to 22 read it. And if you don't have enough time we'll just -- 23 we'll stop to give you enough time to be comfortable. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.

135

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: Sir, do I refer to you as Mr. O'Grady 5 or Former Commissioner O'Grady. I'm in your hands. 6 A: I think we've agreed off the start 7 that I would be referred to just as Mr. 8 Q: Fair enough, sir. Mr. O'Grady, my 9 name is Julian Falconer. I'm Counsel for Aboriginal 10 Legal Services of Toronto along with my Co-Counsel Ms. 11 Murray who is seated at the table to my right. 12 A: Right. 13 Q: I wanted to commence my questions 14 with a focus somewhat on your evidence relating to the 15 question of, if you will, political pressure or political 16 interference. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I take it that the gist of your 19 evidence is quite simply that as far as you're concerned, 20 as the Commissioner of the OPP at the relevant time 21 period, you knew of and there was no political pressure; 22 is that right? 23 A: Yes, that's right. 24 Q: And it's fair to say that when you 25 say that, you don't simply say that on the basis of what

136

1 you experienced at the time, you also say that on the 2 basis of your inquiries, opportunities to reflect and the 3 passage of the ten (10) years since the shooting. 4 All of those contribute to the ongoing 5 view you have that there was no political pressure at the 6 time, correct? 7 A: I would take that into consideration. 8 Q: And it's fair to say then that 9 essentially your view didn't change from 1995 to now 10 about the existence of political pressure? 11 A: No. It -- it doesn't. There were 12 certain things that I was not aware of in '95 that I am 13 aware of now because of Inquiry documents, et cetera. 14 Q: All right. You resigned in the 15 spring of 1998, correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And prior to your resignation, by my 18 count, you would have received at least, and I'm -- I'm 19 guessing a little bit, but you would have received at 20 least three (3) to four (4) internal reports in respect 21 of the Ipperwash matter. 22 Am I right? 23 A: Yes, I would think so. 24 Q: Because if we count Coles' report, we 25 count Connolley's report, we count Marshall's report, is

137

1 there any other reports that -- I believe there is an 2 additional Emergency Preparedness Report. So, that's 3 four (4) reports you received in relation to Ipperwash 4 one way or another, correct? 5 A: That's true. 6 Q: And having the benefit of those 7 reports, prior to your resignation in 1998, can you 8 assist me as at the time you resigned, had you changed 9 your views as to whether there were political pressures? 10 A: No. 11 Q: All right. And you've indicated that 12 since the start of this Inquiry, matters have come to 13 your attention. 14 A: Yes. I was not aware of the 15 conversation between Ron Fox and John Carson and Chris 16 Coles. 17 Q: All right. And you're of course 18 referring to the two (2) taped conversations dated 19 September 5th and September 6th, 1995; is that correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And for the sake of the record, I'm 25 referring to transcripts located at Tabs 16 and 37 of

138

1 Inquiry Exhibit P-444(a), which is Volume I of the logger 2 tapes. 3 With the exception of the -- what we'll 4 call for a moment, the Fox conversations, we won't go to 5 them yet, but with the exception of the Fox 6 conversations, Mr. O'Grady, is there anything else that 7 came to your attention during the course, or as a result 8 of the Inquiry that has modified your views in any way? 9 A: Not that I recall at this time. 10 Q: All right. And the issue of whether 11 there was political interference or political pressure on 12 the OPP in relation to the Ipperwash incident, was front 13 and center for you, correct? 14 At the time you were the Commissioner that 15 would have been a very serious allegation to have made, 16 correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And it was front and center because 19 you would have been the person in charge and potentially 20 the person who may have been engaged in some form of 21 impropriety, correct? 22 A: That could be -- could have been the 23 suggestion. 24 Q: And so it wasn't -- and obviously the 25 integrity of the Ontario Provincial Police, leaving you

139

1 aside personally, was on the line, correct? 2 A: Could be, yes. 3 Q: So -- well -- I'm sorry, sir. The 4 integrity was on the line in the sense that the 5 reputational interest of the Ontario Provincial Police 6 was triggered, correct? 7 A: I suppose it would depend on all the 8 circumstances. 9 Q: I'm talking the circumstances of this 10 case. 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: In the circumstances of this case, 13 given the allegations of political interference, very 14 serious reputational interests of the Ontario Provincial 15 Police were triggered, correct? 16 A: It would be serious. 17 Q: Very serious reputational interests 18 of the Ontario Provincial Police were triggered, correct? 19 A: It would be serious. 20 Q: You're not going to agree with me 21 that those interests were triggered? 22 A: I'm not sure. Do you want to repeat 23 that for me, please? 24 Q: Yes, I -- all I'm interest -- I know 25 that the allegations are serious and I don't mean to be

140

1 overly picayune about it, and I never pronounce that word 2 correctly, but you'll just bear with me or you'll teach 3 me, but it's actually a reputational interest that's 4 triggered, isn't it? 5 I mean, even if it's not true, the 6 reputation of the OPP could be tarnished as a result of 7 that? 8 A: It -- yes, it definitely would have 9 an effect on it. 10 Q: All right. And so it was a front and 11 center concern for you, correct? 12 A: Yes, I think that's correct. 13 Q: All right. So, when you say, sitting 14 here that the only change you remember is the Fox 15 information, you say with some certainty because this was 16 a matter that you took a direct interest in, correct? 17 A: I would see it as serious. 18 Q: And it was a matter you took a direct 19 interest in; the allegation of political interference 20 with the OPP? 21 A: I believe I spoke to it publicly on 22 occasion, so I -- I definitely took it as a serious 23 issue. 24 Q: And it was a matter that you took a 25 direct interest in, correct?

141

1 A: Yes, because I spoke to it. 2 Q: Thank you. And in reference to the 3 Fox tapes, since those are the only modifications in the 4 information base you had, what has that done to your 5 views that there were no political interference? 6 A: Well, I've heard both of the officers 7 -- all of the officers involved who indicated that they 8 were not influenced politically in their decision making. 9 I know those three (3) officers and I am 10 taking their word, I guess their sworn word, at face 11 value. 12 Q: All right. And hypothetically, 13 accepting that for a minute that that would be a way to 14 measure whether there was political interference, 15 hypothetically, right? 16 Aside from the assurances from the 17 officers today that they did not accede to political 18 pressure, does it now change your evidence as to whether 19 there was political pressure? 20 A: No. 21 Q: All right. And that's what I'm 22 trying to get at. I'm probably not being as clear as I 23 could be, so I'll take a step back. 24 My question to you was: Originally, and 25 in the course of your term as Commissioner of the Ontario

142
  1  Provincial Police, you developed a view after many
  2  inquiries that there was no effort at political pressure
  3  on the OPP, correct?
  4                 A:   I don't believe I made any inquiries
  5  because I was content that I hadn't been influenced by
  6  anybody and I didn't believe that any other officer had
  7  been influenced by anybody.
  8                 And there were media reports that would
  9  suggest that there might have been political involvement
 10  and I issued a public statement at some point in time
 11  indicating that the OPP was not influenced by political
 12  decisions.
 13                 Q:   Well, let's turn, if you will, to --
 14  to Tab 75 of the Commission Counsel's binder of
 15  documents.
 16                 A:   I have it.
 17                 Q:   And I'm doing this by memory, so if
 18  I'm wrong, sir, Tab 75 should be your public statement?
 19                 A:   That's what I have.
 20                 Q:   Yes.  And the Exhibit Number is P-612
 21  -- thank you, Mr. Millar -- and this would be your public
 22  statement dated July 24th, 1996; is that correct?
 23                 A:   Yes, I -- you mentioned a number,
 24  "612," I suspect that this is --
 25                 Q:   That's the exhibit number.

143
  1                 A:   Okay.
  2                 Q:   So, if you refer to that --
  3                 A:   This is my public statement of July
  4  the 24th.
  5                 Q:   All right.  
  6                 A:   '96.
  7                 Q:   And in terms of your statements,
  8  there were other public statements and I recall you
  9  addressing them through your answers to Mr. Millar. 
 10  There were also other public statements by you denying
 11  the existence of political pressure on the OPP; is that
 12  correct?
 13                 A:   That could very well be.
 14                 Q:   All right.  And when you say, "that
 15  could very well be," I have to, as a lawyer, sort of
 16  backup and kind of cover that off.  
 17                 When you say, "that could be," is it not
 18  your memory that you publicly denied the existence of
 19  political pressure on the OPP arising out of the
 20  Ipperwash incident?
 21                 A:   I did.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  And from that --
 23                 A:   I can't recall how many times or just
 24  exactly when, so that's why I say, that's what I
 25  recollect.

144

1 Q: Fair enough. And -- and that's fair, 2 I understand. You can't be precise, but you know that 3 you did that -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- and Mr. Millar actually took you 6 to such documents, correct? 7 A: I'm sure that he did. 8 Q: Yes. And that's a very fair 9 qualification, so I thank you for that. 10 Now having said that you denied publicly 11 that there was political pressure in relation to the 12 Ipperwash incident, at the time, did your views change 13 from when you made those public denials, in and around 14 1996/1997, til when you left the Ontario Provincial 15 Police in the spring of 1998? 16 A: No. 17 Q: All right. Excepting then, that your 18 views from the time you had inquiries conducted and the 19 time you left the OPP where there was no effort at 20 political pressure, there was no political pressure in 21 relation to the Ipperwash incident, subsequent -- 22 subsequent to when you leave the OPP and right up until 23 today, have your views changed as to the existence of 24 political pressure in relation to the Ipperwash incident 25 on the OPP?

145

1 A: No. 2 Q: All right. So is it fair to say that 3 whether we're talking about your views, then or now, you 4 remain of the view that there was no political pressure 5 on the OPP in relation to the Ipperwash incident? 6 A: Not that I'm aware of. 7 Q: Fair enough. And I only want to know 8 what you're aware of, I don't what to know what somebody 9 else is, but you would agree with me that part of your 10 job is to have inquiries conducted, correct? 11 A: I would -- my job would be to have 12 inquiries corrected [sic] if I had some reason to do 13 that. 14 Q: Well, to be fair, sir, we are not 15 talking about a minor sideline, are we? We're not 16 talking about a side issue. 17 The allegation of political interference 18 in relation to the Ipperwash incident reached the floor 19 of the legislature many times, correct? 20 A: I know that it did reach the -- it 21 was discussed in the legislature on occasion, how many 22 times or just when, I don't know. 23 Q: And the fact that it was a matter 24 under which the Premier and the Solicitor General were 25 expected to become accountable to the public, in fact and

146

1 as a result, triggered your obligation to brief the 2 Solicitor General on the issue, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And so, in terms of the issue, it was 5 an issue you had to look into, correct? 6 A: No, I don't know what grounds I would 7 have had to look into it. 8 Q: Fair enough. So we can assume, based 9 on your answers, or may be can't, that you did not make 10 inquiries as to whether there was political pressure 11 placed on the OPP in relation to the Ipperwash incident? 12 A: Well, first of all, dealing with 13 myself, I knew there was no political interference with 14 any of my decisions, so I -- I was quite satisfied of 15 that. I had no information that any other member of the 16 Force was influenced, and if there had been some 17 information to that effect, I think it would have been 18 brought to my attention. 19 Q: Well, I -- I'm a little bit confused. 20 You're saying you didn't order an inquiry because no 21 evidence was provided to you that it happened, correct? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: So the way you conduct investigations 24 is first you expect the result of the investigation and 25 once you get it, then you order the investigation; is

147

1 that what happens? 2 A: Well, no, I wouldn't think so. But I 3 would have to have sufficient reason to be concerned 4 enough about it that -- that I would investigate and I 5 had no -- nothing to investigate, to be honest with you. 6 Q: Fair enough. So that's why, in the 7 case of the existence of political pressure on the OPP, 8 in relation to the Ipperwash incident is, your evidence 9 before the Commissioner today, that it -- based on what 10 you had at the time, you did not think there was 11 sufficient concern or information to warrant making 12 inquiries? 13 A: I did not make inquiries. 14 Q: And the reason you did not make 15 inquiries is you felt there was insufficient information 16 to warrant such inquiries? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: All right. And that takes us to your 19 resignation in 1998, correct? 20 A: I prefer to call it my retirement. 21 Q: I apologize, sir, I -- and I meant 22 nothing by that, sir. 23 A: I know that. 24 Q: I apologize. And many times you and 25 I will disagree, but it's not meant out of disrespect, so

148

1 I apologize. 2 In terms of your retirement in the spring 3 of 1998 to now, you didn't make any inquiries? 4 A: No. 5 Q: All right. So you work with an 6 information base, with great respect, with your hands a 7 little bit tied because at no time did you actually 8 conduct inquiries on this issue, correct? 9 A: I don't know whether my hands were 10 tied or not, but I did not conduct inquiries. 11 Q: All right. So that if information 12 did come to light that political pressure existed, you 13 would be in no position to challenge that because you 14 actually made no independent inquiries yourself, correct? 15 A: I made no independent inquiries. 16 Q: You didn't, as far as you were 17 concerned, rely on Connolley to determine if there was 18 political pressure, correct? 19 A: No. 20 Q: You didn't rely on Marshall to 21 determine if there was political pressure, correct? 22 A: I did not. 23 Q: You didn't rely on Goodall to 24 determine if there was political pressure, correct? 25 A: I did not.

149

1 Q: You didn't rely on Coles to determine 2 if there was political pressure, correct? 3 A: I did not. 4 Q: And establishing that no formal 5 inquiries were made by you right up until your retirement 6 in the spring of 1998, what about informal inquiries -- 7 A: Well -- 8 Q: I know -- you know where I am going 9 and that's fair, but the transcript will be all messed 10 up, so I'll start over. 11 Accepting you made no formal inquiries, 12 did you make informal inquiries of your subordinates, 13 first, your subordinates, as to the existence of 14 political pressure in and around the time period of the 15 September 1995 through to your retirement in the spring 16 of 1998? 17 A: I did not, but I would like to 18 qualify. You spoke of certain officers, Marshall and 19 Coles and Connolley. All of those officers have sworn an 20 oath as to their duties and how they conduct themselves 21 as police officers. 22 I know them and I know them well, and I 23 would be quite confident that if they had any information 24 in their possession or were in any way considered 25 themselves to being pressured or influenced, they would

150

1 have brought that to my attention. 2 Q: In your expectations of your 3 officers, lofty as they are, realistic ones, they're 4 gritty ones. You -- if they didn't do what you expected, 5 you would call them to task for it, correct? 6 A: I hope so. 7 Q: All right. And it's fair to say that 8 if, for example, even if they didn't accede to the 9 political pressure, if political pressure was placed on 10 them, improperly, you would expect them to bring it to 11 your attention? 12 A: I think they would have to conclude 13 that, indeed, they were getting improper pressure or 14 getting improper influence and then if they concluded 15 that, they would bring it to my attention. 16 Q: That's what you'd expect? 17 A: That's what I'd expect. 18 Q: It wouldn't be about whether they 19 gave into it, would it, because that would be kind of 20 silly, wouldn't it? 21 If they were the kind of person to give in 22 to the political pressure, they'd never tell you about 23 it, right? 24 A: Well, I -- I would be speculating 25 there, as sometimes people do things and then they feel

151

1 badly about it afterwards and -- and come forward. 2 So I cannot say what they might or might 3 not do. 4 Q: Well, to be fair, sir, we're in the 5 speculative venture with respect. I don't mean to argue 6 with you. We're in the speculative venture because you 7 said if X, if I thought that this would have happened to 8 them, knowing them as I do, I would have expected they 9 would come to me. 10 That's what you said. 11 A: That's what I said. 12 Q: Right. And you said that in answer 13 to my questions about whether you made formal inquiries 14 or informal inquiries; do you recall that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And your point I take it was, I 17 didn't make informal inquiries and, frankly, the reason I 18 didn't is these are the kinds of people that, if such 19 political pressure was tried on them, they'd come and 20 tell me about it, right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Right. So the way you work is on a 23 sort of a receptive basis. You expect to receive those 24 kinds of allegations, correct? 25 A: I expect to receive information from

152

1 senior officers if the circumstances warrant. That's on 2 the one hand. And on the second, if there are -- is any 3 information, any substantive information that would 4 suggest it was something I should look into, I would do 5 it. 6 Q: And just to -- I -- I don't want to 7 keep repeating the same point, but there is no doubt, 8 there's no argument between you and I, is there, that 9 between September 1995 and the spring of 1998, there were 10 significant and serious public allegations of political 11 pressure on the OPP, relating to the Ipperwash incident, 12 correct? 13 A: I think I would best explain it this 14 way. There were reports in the media that perhaps the 15 OPP had been directed. That's one thing. There were 16 reports coming out of the legislature by members of the 17 opposition accusing the government of the day of 18 involvement or interference with the OPP. 19 I did not see any substantiation other 20 than it being an allegation in the media, and I am 21 familiar enough to -- with respect to the activities in 22 the legislature to know that there are always allegations 23 made of various kinds. 24 My understanding is that you may, in the 25 interest of your province, you may make allegations in

153

1 the legislature for which you cannot be -- legal action 2 cannot be taken against you unless you make them outside. 3 And so I -- I put the allegations in the legislature in 4 that vein. 5 Q: In terms of where we're at. We've 6 done formal inquiries and we've done informal inquiries, 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: Well you have asked me about formal 11 inquiries and informal inquiries. 12 Q: Right. And I just want to make sure 13 I've checked them off that there's no issue you see. 14 A: I said I didn't do any. 15 Q: You didn't do any? 16 A: All right. 17 Q: And if the Commissioner made 18 inquiries as, with the greatest of respect is part of the 19 job of this process. I don't mean to be presumptuous and 20 tell the Commissioner what to do. But part of the 21 mandate of this Inquiry as publicly stated by the 22 Commissioner is to investigate this issue. 23 He'd be, with respect, in somewhat of a 24 better position because he would be conducting inquiries, 25 correct?

154

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And he -- he'd not only have the 3 advantage of a whole bunch of evidence you may not have 4 had the advantage, he would simply have the advantage of 5 actually taking the step to inquire, correct? 6 A: I'm sorry, step to inquiry. 7 Q: Yes. In other words the 8 Commissioner, I don't know how important this is and I -- 9 I will make it fast, Mr. Commissioner. 10 The Commissioner stands in contrast to 11 you. He's actually asking the question, you never did, 12 correct? 13 A: The Inquiry as I understand, the 14 mandate of the Inquiry is to address that issue. 15 Q: And you never did? 16 A: I did not address the issue of 17 political interference. 18 Q: All right. Now are we agreed that 19 from the point of view of the administration of justice 20 and in particularly the effectiveness of law enforcement 21 is that the reputation and standing and community 22 confidence in policing is an important issue, an 23 important matter to foster? Are we agreed on that? 24 A: I think so. 25 Q: Right. And that to the extent

155
  1  something may tarnish confidence in law enforcement, that
  2  can actually affect your ability to police, correct?
  3                 A:   It can have an affect on it.
  4                 Q:   And it can affect it detrimentally,
  5  correct?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   You can lose the confidence of the
  8  public and thereby lose the ability to get your job done
  9  in many cases, correct?
 10                 A:   It would make the job more difficult.
 11                 Q:   Now having said that, I take it then
 12  that it's not simply a matter of whether any of your
 13  officers gave into political pressure, it would be
 14  important as to whether there existed an effort to have
 15  them give into political pressure, correct?
 16                 From a perception point of view, that
 17  would be important, wouldn't it?
 18                 A:   If there was an effort made?
 19                 Q:   Yes.
 20                 A:   I'm not sure.
 21                 Q:   Well, let me put this to you, would
 22  you agree with me that high-ranking politicians who
 23  express their views on what ought to be done to the
 24  occupiers, to you, they say to you, Mr. Commissioner, I
 25  want those occupiers out and I want them out in a day or

156

1 two (2). I don't want to pander to these natives, I want 2 them out. 3 If a premier did that with you, sir, as 4 Commissioner of the OPP, that would be a problem. 5 A: I would certainly respond to it. 6 Q: No, I didn't ask you that, with great 7 respect, I said, that would be a problem. 8 A: Well, I would -- if -- if that should 9 have happened to me, I would have had to address it. 10 Q: And the reason you would have had to 11 address it, is that it would have been an improper effort 12 by the Premier to influence police operations, correct? 13 A: It could be perceived that way. 14 Q: And that goes back to my question to 15 you, perception is potentially as important as the 16 reality, correct? 17 A: It's not helpful if it's the wrong 18 perception. 19 Q: And certainly a Premier telling the 20 Commissioner of the OPP, I want those occupiers out and I 21 want them out in a day or two (2), I'm tired of pandering 22 to these natives, that would potentially create -- this 23 is hypothetical -- potentially create -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- a perception of

157

1 political interference, correct? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute, Mr. Falconer. 4 THE WITNESS: But, that didn't happen. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 6 minute, Witness. Mr. Downard, counsel on behalf of the 7 Premier has -- or former Premier has an -- 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My only submission is 9 that this sort of hypothetical should have some hope of 10 being justified in the evidence. There's no evidence to 11 support anything -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- in the nature that 14 -- that Mr. Falconer's putting it. In my -- in my 15 respectful submission, it's a potentially misleading and 16 inappropriate questioning. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, what 18 are you referring to specifically, Mr. Falconer? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to take - 20 - I asked a little bit of leeway, because I'm going on a 21 path grounded in the evidence and -- and -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I am not simply 24 dealing with hypotheticals and, by the way, I'm also 25 addressing what the Commissioner said, I'm actually

158

1 working with his answer, so it's a little bit unfair -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know, but 3 you're putting evidence to him or -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 6 putting some -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I said I'm -- I'm 8 testing what is passing the line. I don't mean to 9 suggest to you, Mr. Commissioner. Let me back up, 10 there's a Mr. O'Grady and there's a Mr. Commissioner. 11 I don't mean to suggest to Mr. O'Grady, 12 Mr. Commissioner, that I, in any way, was quoting 13 evidence. He was telling me what the line was and I was 14 trying to determine what would be over the line, from a 15 conduct point of view and political interference, and 16 that's the only -- and -- and I say that there's enough 17 in the evidence to warrant my question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 19 Just be careful that you don't overstate what already is 20 in the record. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair enough. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: And that's -- and so, you understand,

159

1 Mr. O'Grady, this is a hypothetical? 2 A: I understand it's a hypothetical. 3 Q: Fair enough. And so, I go back to my 4 question to you: If the Premier said to you at the time 5 that you were Commissioner, Commissioner I want those 6 natives out in a day or two (2); enough with the 7 pandering to the natives, I want them out. 8 That would be -- represent undue political 9 pressure, would you agree? 10 A: Well, since it's never happened to me 11 and I know that you're proposing a hypothetical question, 12 but since it's never happened to me, I really don't think 13 I'm competent to answer that. 14 Q: Well, with respect, sir, the 15 Commissioner's allowed the question and -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Are you telling me as the 20 Commissioner of the OPP, you cannot tell me what you 21 would call undue political interference, is that what 22 you're saying? 23 A: It's like a lot of things. I guess 24 if I -- if I felt it, if I saw it, if it affected me that 25 way, I would know it.

160

1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: I am now going to put a statement to 5 you and ask you if it represents political pressure of 6 the kind you would expect your officers to report to you 7 if they -- if it was conveyed to them, all right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: The words I put to you, Mr. O'Grady, 10 are as follows: 11 "I, the Premier, feel the longer the 12 Natives occupy the Park, the more 13 support they'll get. I want them out 14 in a day or two." 15 Does that in your mind represent and that 16 is my hypothetical, does that in your mind -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 18 minute, Mr. Falconer. There's an objection. I think 19 you're objecting to the question. So you want to put 20 your objection in before he finishes asking the question. 21 Is that -- 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This is a quote: 23 "I, the Premier", and so on. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 25 quote that says "I, the Premier".

161

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm giving him 2 -- I'm giving him the words I want him to address. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. But I 4 mean you added "I, the Premier". 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. And those - 6 - "I the Premier". I'm giving him the -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't think 8 that's the quote. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. I'm trying 10 -- what I'm trying to do is give him the words in issue 11 and I'll restate it. I apologize if I did it awkwardly. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: If My Friend wants to 13 put specific evidence to the witness, then there's no 14 reason why he can't do that. He's -- he's making up new 15 evidence for reasons that are frankly beyond me. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I just said I did 17 it awkwardly. If Mr. Downard -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand. 19 He's trying to put the evidence -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If Mr. Downard 21 wants me to fight with him about a question I'm prepared 22 to withdraw and rephrase, I can do that. But I thought 23 I'd just withdraw it and rephrase it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 If you're quoting evidence, just quote the evidence the

162

1 way it is. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's very fair. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 4 that's what you were trying to do. But you were adding a 5 bit. So just quote the evidence the way it is and I 6 don't think there'll be any objection. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand. I'm 8 withdrawing the question. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 That makes it easier. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: Now I'm putting a series of words to 15 you and I'm putting quote marks around the words. Not 16 because they're quoted from the evidence because I want 17 you to understand the words I'm putting to you. So the 18 words I'm putting to you, all right? Not because they're 19 the evidence so far but the words I'm asking you for your 20 response on. 21 "I, the Premier feel the longer the 22 Natives occupy Ipperwash Park, the more 23 support they'll get and I want them out 24 in a day or two." 25 Now if that was said to you or one of your

163

1 senior officers, would you agree with me that would 2 represent improper political pressure? 3 A: If somebody -- if a person in 4 political authority said that to me, I think it would be 5 improper. But I think that the person receiving that 6 message, if for instance it was me and I was the 7 Commissioner, would be duty bound to reply to that 8 person, that's an issue that you do not have a right to 9 discuss with me. 10 And then if the individual that I was 11 speaking to withdrew it or -- or backed away from it, I 12 would put it down to someone who did not realize that 13 there is an appropriate relationship between the police 14 and government. 15 Q: And the reason you would say that to 16 that person that that's improper and you'd hope they 17 withdraw it is because it represents an undue 18 interference in police operations, correct? 19 A: Well it clearly is not the business 20 of a senior politician to give direction to the police. 21 Q: And the words I used would, in your 22 mind, represent that kind of direction, correct? 23 A: It could be construed that way, yes. 24 Q: And perception is very important; 25 isn't it?

164

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Right. Could I ask, Mr. Registrar, 3 if I could get the answer an exhibit please. And I've 4 listed it and I -- and I gave away my list. It's -- it 5 should say it beside it. I believe it's P-530. 6 THE REGISTRAR: You're right. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you have 12 some documents, Mr. Falconer, that you're relying on that 13 aren't in this binder, I'd appreciate it if I can get a 14 copy as well. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The Inquiry Document 16 is 6000379, I believe. If it's P-530? 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-530. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's what P-530 is. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that a 20 document that's not in this binder? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's not in this 22 binder because I've -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 24 Mr. Falconer may have a copy. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm just addressing

165

1 you on that, Mr. Commissioner. It's an exhibit in the 2 proceedings and -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I apologize. I 5 didn't re-copy the exhibits. Maybe I should have. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: What I can do is 8 provide you a copy at this stage -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Mr. 11 Commissioner. I apologize. I -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps we 13 can get it on the screen. I don't want to slow it down. 14 Ms. Ferrier can we get it on the screen? Is that -- it's 15 Document 6000379? 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, there's a number 17 of parts to it. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It isn't -- it's 22 actually -- it's 6000025 is my -- it's Hansard dated May 23 29th, 1996. But, it won't be the first time I'm 24 mistaken. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Which number?

166

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6000025. No, but - 2 - you see that's just proves that yet again, that Mr. -- 3 THE REGISTRAR: 6000379. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- yes, Mr. Millar 5 is right again. 6 THE REGISTRAR: 6000379. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, which is 8 Exhibit P-530. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Here's a copy, Mr. 13 Commissioner, that I did find of P-530 for you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you have 15 a copy -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The Witness has -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 18 O'Grady? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the exhibit 20 copy. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. O'Grady, 22 do you have a copy? Are you reading it? 23 THE WITNESS: I have. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 THE WITNESS: 29th of May '96 and it's

167

1 from Hansard. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: If you could direct your attention, 5 please, Mr. O'Grady, to -- if you could direct your 6 attention; the extract that's Exhibit P-530 is not sixty- 7 five (65) pages long. The extract that is Exhibit P-530 8 is five (5) pages long and if you could direct your 9 attention to page 3148 which is the second page in, 10 please. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And, sir, if you could specifically 13 direct your attention to the statements of the Honourable 14 Mr. Harris of May 29th, 1996. In the second column, 15 second full paragraph, it starts, "Honourable Mr. 16 Harris"? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I'm going to read to you two (2) 19 paragraphs of -- one of those -- this is a classic 20 example of an exchange over the issue of whether there 21 was undue political interference in relation to 22 Ipperwash. All right? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Mr. Harris, quote: 25 "When it came to an assessment of the

168

1 situation, it would have been reported 2 what the assessment was at the Park. I 3 think you can clearly get that from the 4 records of what I said to the media. 5 When it came to whatever might have 6 been the response to that, clearly my 7 understanding would have been that it 8 is a matter for the OPP to deal with. 9 That is not the business of the 10 Premier, of the Premier's staff, or of 11 any other staff. 12 It is now in the hands of the OPP. Any 13 negotiations are in the hands of the 14 OPP. They are the experts in this 15 field and surely nobody would presume 16 to think that the Premier or his 17 political staff would have expertise in 18 these areas. 19 Therefore, we would not have offered 20 any opinion." 21 Now, were you familiar, generally, with 22 that statement and view being expressed by Premier Harris 23 in and around the time these issues were raised publicly? 24 A: At this time I cannot recall that I 25 was or wasn't.

169

1 Q: Well, is it fair to say that you knew 2 Premier was denying that there was undue political 3 influence or political pressure at the time? You knew 4 that? 5 A: I think I did, yes. 6 Q: All right. And you denied that there 7 was unfair or -- I apologize, you denied that there was 8 undue political pressure that they sought to exert on 9 you, correct? 10 A: What I denied was that I take any 11 direction for operational matters from political staff -- 12 political leaders. 13 Q: And would you agree with me that the 14 line that I gave to you as a hypothetical, the 15 hypothetical I gave to you, that I, the Premier, feel the 16 longer the natives occupy Ipperwash Park, the more 17 support they'll get. I want them out in a day or two 18 (2). 19 That line would be expressing an opinion 20 in front of the OPP, wouldn't it, if it had been said? 21 A: It would depend -- 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's a hypothetical. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 24 what the objection is. 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, in my

170

1 submission, Mr. Falconer should be putting in facts that 2 are based on the evidence. This is a complete 3 fabrication what he's claiming as evidence and it's very 4 prejudicial and it's very misleading to the public. 5 So, in my submission, in this area, this 6 is quite improper. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, it's Mr. 8 Downard's contention that in areas that prejudice his 9 Clients, Counsel are not allowed to use hypotheticals, 10 they can only use the evidence. In other areas that 11 relate to other parties, hypotheticals are permissible, 12 that is not any principle I've ever heard of. 13 It's a hypothetical. I am asking what 14 constitutes interference and what doesn't in the mind of 15 the Commissioner of the OPP of the day. And I'm -- I 16 have qualified it and recast the question to make sure it 17 complies, Mr. Commissioner, with your direction about how 18 to ask it and I have. 19 And now, I'm asking him, would he agree 20 that the hypothetical I put to him would contravene the 21 reference to not expressing opinions in front of the OPP; 22 that's all I've asked him. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: If my -- if My Friend 24 was -- had the slightest interest in -- in asking a pure 25 hypothetical, he could easily frame as a pure

171

1 hypothetical without reference to the particular facts of 2 this case or to my particular Client. 3 My Friend is -- is asking the Witness for 4 opinions as to whether if my Client did this or that, 5 whether that would be political pressure or undue 6 political pressure. In my submission, he should be 7 putting evidence fairly and accurately and not making up 8 facts that are completely unfounded and putting them to 9 the Witness for his opinion. And that opinion can be of 10 no use to you, sir. Those are my submissions. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I think time 12 will tell whether this is of assistance, but Mr. 13 Commissioner, it's fair. I put it as a hypothetical, I'm 14 asking the person that you would hope would -- and -- and 15 I say that with respect to Mr. O'Grady -- you would hope 16 has the lines in his mind very clear because he's the 17 leader and I'm entitled to test what the line is. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you're 19 making it very clear that it's a hypothetical and you 20 certainly understand that, Mr. O'Grady? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's very 23 much a hypothetical. All right. Go ahead. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:

172

1 Q: Thank you. And so, I'm asking you, 2 sir, and -- and it's been some time since the question 3 got asked, the line that I said to you before as a 4 hypothetical: 5 "I, the Premier, feel the longer the 6 natives occupy Ipperwash Park, the more 7 support they'll get and I want them out 8 in a day or two (2)"; 9 that would not be in keeping with that 10 principle stated in Hansard of not expressing an opinion 11 on police operations in front of the OPP. 12 Would you agree with that? 13 A: I guess what I would agree with is, 14 it would be preferable if a hypothetical remark that 15 you've indicated was not made. I think where I would 16 find something that I had to grapple with is if I got a 17 direct order from somebody in political authority, I want 18 you to do this or I order you to do this. I would then 19 have to reply in some manner or respond to that. 20 Q: Excepting your point that you would 21 need to respond to it and address it and make it go away, 22 in essence, make it clear that you don't accept it, I -- 23 I got that. 24 The premise of the reason you would have 25 to do that is, it would represent improper political

173

1 pressure and would actually represent exactly what was 2 contemplated in the Hansard extract about expressing 3 opinions in front of the OPP, correct? 4 A: I think it would be better, I think 5 it would be wiser if those kind of remarks were not made. 6 I think it would be very important to know the context in 7 which it was made and, I guess, I would have to be there 8 to be able to assess that. 9 Q: Now, let's move to a follow-up 10 question, then, if I may. 11 You'd agree with me that the reason, and 12 that it's somewhat logical that the Hansard extract I 13 just referred you to, didn't just refer to the Premier, 14 it referred to his political staff. 15 You'd agree that that's logical that 16 neither should be giving directions either directly from 17 the Premier or on behalf of the Premier, correct? 18 A: I believe that to be true. 19 Q: And, that's because there's a danger 20 that just because it doesn't come directly from the 21 Premier, but through an intermediary of improper 22 political pressure again, correct? 23 A: That could be assumed. 24 Q: Right. Now, if you or one (1) of 25 your senior officers were in a room with someone you

174

1 considered to be the voice of the Premier, right, that 2 that person portrayed themselves as the voice of the 3 Premier, and that person made that statement to you, that 4 would be just as improper, wouldn't it? 5 A: I think it would be better if it 6 wasn't said. I can't -- I have a difficult time 7 imagining any of my senior officers being persuaded to do 8 anything by any political staff. 9 Q: And, can -- can I, without meaning to 10 sound critical of you, respectfully suggest you're 11 missing the point; I'm not saying that your officers 12 would give in. 13 I'm focussing on what you consider 14 improper political pressure, not because I say, sir, that 15 they gave into it. I'm asking what you would define as 16 improper political pressure, all right? 17 Does that make sense, the distinction? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And what I'm asking you 20 about is the -- the -- the fact that if a political 21 staffer did it as the voice of the Premier, that would 22 make it no better, correct? 23 A: It would make it no better? 24 Q: That's right. It wouldn't alter it, 25 if that political staffer was the voice of the Premier in

175

1 terms of its impropriety. 2 A: It would be better if it wasn't said. 3 Q: All right. Now, when you use that 4 very diplomatic term you're doing it because, among other 5 things part of your job as the Commissioner of the 6 Ontario Provincial Police and a very high ranking civil 7 servant, is to not be overly inflammatory; is that true? 8 A: Well I'm trying to deal with -- with 9 reality. It's been my experience, and I'm sure yours, 10 that many people say things with respect to their -- 11 their seniors and there's no basis for it at all. 12 People sometimes feel that they have 13 associate power. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: I have found that to be true in -- in 16 quite a correct way, but I have found that it isn't 17 necessarily the views of their senior associate. 18 So I think it has to be considered in that 19 context. It would be better if it wasn't said. 20 Q: Very fair. And so in my 21 hypothetical, would you please presume that this person 22 properly portrayed themselves as the voice of the 23 Premier, they weren't lying or exaggerating. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25

176

1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: All right. Could you, in my 3 hypothetical -- in other words, they purported themselves 4 to be the voice of the Premier, they acted like the voice 5 of the Premier and, in fact, they were the voice of the 6 Premier, all right? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Could you accept that as part of it, 11 because we can't get in to whether they're faking it or 12 not right now -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They held 14 themselves out. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Speaking on 17 behalf. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or -- 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: Mr. Commissioner just put it much 23 better. Could you accept that? 24 A: I understand. 25 Q: All right.

177

1 A: And my answer is, it would be much 2 better if that sort of thing wasn't said. 3 Q: All right. And if it wasn't simply 4 an isolated comment, that kind of direction, if the 5 comment or the theme of the comment was repeated, I'm 6 hawkish on this issue, I don't want you negotiating. I 7 want them out. I'm hawkish on this; I want them out. 8 That would not be an isolated incident any 9 more, would it? 10 A: No, but I don't know that it changes 11 the context of it much. 12 Q: Fair. It just remains improper, but 13 now it's not an unfortunate single statement, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I'm going to put in front of 16 you, because of what you said, a quote. This is a quote 17 from Deb Hutton according to the notes of Julie Jai, 18 evidence as P-536 and then I'll give you a copy of it. 19 Quote, according to Deb Hutton: 20 "Premier feels the longer they occupy 21 it, the more support they'll get. He 22 wants them out in a day or two." 23 End of quote. Reading from page 3 of 24 Julie Jai's notes, Exhibit P-536. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms.

178

1 Perschy...? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Would you -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy 4 has an objection. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, can I finish 6 the question, though? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, finish 8 the question. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Would you agree with me that that 13 quote, 14 "Premier feels the longer they occupy 15 it, the more support they'll get. He 16 wants them out in a day or two;" 17 is pretty close to the hypothetical I just 18 put to you, would you agree with that? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 20 Now before you answer the question, let's hear the 21 objection. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Mr. Commissioner, my 23 problem with this question, of course, is that it's taken 24 completely out of context. This Witness was not at that 25 meeting, doesn't know who else participated or what was

179

1 being said in the context of this meeting; what the 2 purpose of the meeting was, et cetera, et cetera, et 3 cetera. 4 We've -- I agree with Mr. Downard. I had 5 some problems with the hypothetical, but especially now 6 if we're going to move out of the hypotheticals, it's not 7 fair to this witness, with all due respect. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 9 we're beginning to -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'd like to 11 actually move for now, and then I'll come back. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That would 13 be a big help. I think it is beginning -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to get a 16 little difficult. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: You commented that Ron Fox was 20 appointed as part of your administration, as among other 21 things, First Nations liaison officer; is that correct? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And in appointing Ron Fox, did you 24 have any concerns about his competence? 25 A: Perhaps I could back up a moment.

180

1 When you say he was appointed -- appointed to what? 2 Q: Well, he was seconded to the 3 solicitor general's office, correct? 4 A: He was seconded. What is entailed 5 there is the Deputy Solicitor General desires to fill a 6 position. She speaks to me as to an appropriate person 7 and I make a recommendation. 8 She in turn then interviews the individual 9 and decides that's who she wants. It's my understanding 10 that that was the process with regard to Ron Fox. 11 Q: Ron Fox testified that his role, 12 among other things, because he had a major role in 13 administering third party agreements relating to First 14 Nations policing, et cetera. His role, among other 15 things, was to act as a liaison officer between the 16 Ministry of the Solicitor General on the hand and the 17 Ontario Provincial Police on the other hand. 18 Do you disagree with him? 19 A: No I was merely addressing the issue 20 of how he was appointed. 21 Q: No, that's fair. But do you agree 22 with that description? 23 A: And I believe that that was his job 24 description. 25 Q: All right. So you'd agree with him?

181

1 A: I would agree with which? 2 Q: Would you agree with Mr. Fox's 3 description among other things of his roles was that he 4 acted as a liaison officer between the Ministry of the 5 Solicitor General on the one hand and the Ontario 6 Provincial Police on the other hand on First Nations 7 issues? 8 A: He -- he was the representative of -- 9 or liaison to the Deputy Solicitor General, that's 10 correct. 11 Q: Well I -- I understand that you've 12 recast my question in different words. And so I have to 13 now query you on it because -- not because I'm trying to 14 argue with you. I want to know which -- whether you 15 agree with me or not. 16 Ron Fox said one of his jobs is 17 specifically with respect to the Ipperwash incident was 18 to act as a liaison between on the one hand, the Ministry 19 of the Solicitor General and on the other hand, the OPP. 20 That was part of the things. He liaised between the two 21 (2) institutions. 22 Do you agree with him that that was his -- 23 A: In general terms it's true. But I 24 just wanted to make the point that the individual that 25 he's working for is a senior bureaucrat, not the

182

1 minister. 2 Q: I understand. Your point being he's 3 working for the Deputy Minister? 4 A: Exactly. 5 Q: And with that caveat you'll agree 6 with the proposition I just gave you. 7 A: He was liaison to the 8 Interministerial Committee, yes. 9 Q: I'm struggling with whether you're 10 agreeing with -- Mr. Fox put it in pretty simple terms 11 after I suggested it to him by the way. I agree that 12 through a leading question I got him to say it. And I 13 want to be fair to you. 14 But he agreed with the proposition that 15 one of his functions was to liaise between the OPP on the 16 one hand and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the 17 Deputy Minister on the other, over the Ipperwash 18 incident. Do you agree with that? 19 A: That was his position, yes. 20 Q: Thank you. And Mr. Fox was known to 21 be that liaison officer and one of his functions was to 22 sit on the Interministerial Committee, correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: The Interministerial Committee had a 25 function --

183

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 2 minute, Ms. Perschy have an objection. 3 OBJ MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My objection simply 4 relates to the question regarding what Mr. Fox was known 5 to be. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, that's fair. 7 No, that's fine. I can rephrase it. I just got it. No 8 problem. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: I think I tread on mistaken identity. 13 Let me back up a step. As far as the OPP was concerned, 14 Mr. Fox's role was intended to be as an OPP officer 15 sitting on the Interministerial Committee in his capacity 16 as a seconded officer to the Deputy Minster, correct? 17 A: He was a seconded officer to the 18 Deputy Minister, that's correct. 19 Q: And the guidelines for the 20 Interministerial Committee actually contemplate OPP 21 involvement on the IMC, correct? 22 A: OPP is represented, yes. 23 Q: And the representative of the OPP is 24 Ron Fox, correct? 25 A: Correct.

184

1 Q: Is that right? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: Well actually the -- he is the 5 representative of the Deputy Minister. He's seconded to 6 the Deputy Minister so he's no longer working for the 7 Ontario Provincial Police. 8 Q: It has been some time since you 9 looked at the guidelines for the IMC. Did you want me to 10 take you to them where they refer to Ministry of the 11 Solicitor General and then say, brackets, (Ontario 12 Provincial Police)? 13 Does that sound about right to you? 14 A: I don't think I have seen that. 15 Q: All right. What I'll do is I'll 16 track down the guidelines at the break, but I'll continue 17 for now. 18 A: Fine. 19 Q: In terms of the process, do you have 20 any reason to doubt Mr. Fox's good faith in conveying 21 information accurately from on the one hand, the Ministry 22 of the Solicitor General, to on the other hand the OPP. 23 A: I -- 24 Q: Go ahead. 25 A: I have always found him to be

185

1 generally accurate. 2 Q: And when you say you've always found 3 them to be generally accurate, is it fair to say that Mr. 4 Fox performed his duties responsibly as a senior police 5 officer during the term of your role as Commissioner? 6 A: I have no reason to doubt that. 7 Q: I would ask that the tape excerpt of 8 September 6th, 1995, which I believe is at Tab 37 of 9 audio logger tape, Volume 1, be played for the Witness, 10 please? And I don't know if this is an appropriate time 11 for a break? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you need 13 the tape played or can we not -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, I need the 15 tape played. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- on -- 17 excuse me. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: I would like to back up for a minute. 21 As a foundation for this, you have had the 22 tape played for you already, haven't you, Mr. O'Grady? 23 A: I've heard the tape, yes. 24 Q: All right. How -- how long ago? 25 A: Maybe three (3) months ago.

186

1 Q: All right. I -- I would like to play 2 the tape for him because this goes directly to an issue 3 that's -- goes to the heart of this Witness' evidence. I 4 spoke to Mr. Millar before the lunch break about this. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Okay. 6 And are we all set up to play it right now or do we need 7 a break? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Oh, no, we can play 9 it, just give me two (2) seconds. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you just 11 going to play an excerpt, Mr. Falconer or are you going 12 to -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to do my 14 best, but my guess is, based on our efforts at excerpts 15 before, that we lose more time trying to hit that excerpt 16 on the head than just playing the tape. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because looking at 19 the transcript, it's not that long. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we've 21 heard it a number of times, I don't know how -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, and I'm not 23 trying -- see, the problem is, given who this Witness is, 24 and given his evidence thus far, Mr. Commissioner, I 25 think it's -- I'm -- I'm -- I think I'm well placed to

187

1 do this with him -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- because 4 otherwise we can't bring the issues to a head. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 6 understand. Are you ready to play it? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Give me two (2) 8 seconds. 9 10 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 11 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: For your own 13 edification, Mr. O'Grady, I had Exhibit P-440(a) pulled 14 by Mr. Registrar so that you have the transcript in front 15 of you, if you turn to Tab 37. I only say that, sir, 16 because it might be of some assistance to you to follow 17 it, rather than having to simply listen. 18 And, sir, out of fairness to you, I want 19 you to know that I'm obviously putting this to you in 20 order to address your evidence that there was no effort 21 at political pressure, all right? 22 THE WITNESS: I understand. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. Tab 37. 24 25 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED)

188

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Now, sir, stopping there for a 4 minute. I want to now ask you to focus your attention 5 carefully on the words Mr. Fox uses, starting at that 6 point, "the political people are pushing," you'll see at 7 the bottom of page 260. 8 I'm simply asking you to focus your 9 attention carefully on these words, all right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Thank you. You can continue. 12 13 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Carson, Fox, they're your senior 17 officers? 18 A: They are. 19 Q: They were your senior officers at the 20 time of the Ipperwash incident? 21 A: Yes, and let me qualify that. 22 They're both inspectors. 23 Q: Fair enough. They were the senior 24 officers as it related to the Ipperwash incident? 25 A: They were.

189

1 Q: One was the incident commander and 2 the other, among other things, acted as a liaison officer 3 between the deputy minister and the OPP, correct? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: Both of them exchanged information to 6 the effect that the Premier thought he had the authority 7 to direct the OPP and the incident commander said, well I 8 hope that the Commissioner will set him straight, 9 correct? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: When did you learn of any of this 12 effort to exert political influence over the OPP? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let me rephrase -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you-- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can rephrase -- I 17 can rephrase. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: Accepting Mr. Fox's opinion for a 23 moment, hypothetically, accepting that Mr. Fox is correct 24 and was correct under oath before this Commissioner, 25 accepting his assessment was correct, when did you learn

190

1 of the efforts of Premier Harris to influence the OPP as 2 described in the Fox transcript? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, before 4 you answer the question, yes, Mr. Downard...? 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The evidence of 6 Inspector Fox was that he was not given a direction by 7 the Premier to have the OPP do anything at Ipperwash. 8 The evidence of Inspector Fox was that the 9 bottom line of this meeting, that is being referred to in 10 this call, was that any matters to be dealt with by the 11 police were to be within the purview of the police. And 12 there was to be no political direction. 13 It's in absolute neon in the evidence. 14 And to suggest otherwise is to put forth facts to this 15 witness that are false on the evidence. They are not 16 established, they have not been testified to. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My Friends and I 18 can spend a lot of time arguing. I may be able to -- I 19 may be able to be of assistance on how to get around 20 this. Because we can fight all day about what -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 22 don't want to fight all day. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you could 25 get around it, let's try.

191

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Absolutely. The 2 bottom line is there is a taped transcript of what Mr. 3 Fox, his assessment at the time as conveyed to the 4 incident commander. All I want to know is when did this 5 witness learn of this assessment as conveyed by Mr. Fox 6 to the incident commander. 7 And we can bypass all the arguments 8 because it's obviously in the assessment that's been made 9 by Mr. Fox and it's passed onto the incident commander. 10 And the incident commander comments, I hope there'll be a 11 discussion with the Commissioner about that. 12 And I want to know when he learned of that 13 assessment; nothing else. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that it? 15 I think he's already testified. But anyway I'll -- do 16 you have any objection to that Mr. Sandler, when he 17 learned of this? 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, because my 19 objection was that it's unfair to Ron Fox to be going 20 through a cross-examination that, in effect, says the 21 Premier tried to direct him -- or tried to indicate that 22 he could direct the OPP and to suggest that Ron Fox 23 should have brought it to the attention of the 24 Commissioner, which is what I thought the thrust was, 25 which certainly wasn't what Mr. Falconer was putting to

192

1 Ron Fox when he had the stand on the contrary. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: But he's corrected 4 that and I don't have a difficulty with it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't get 6 that as the thrust of the question and I think you've put 7 the question differently now. It's just -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In order to address 9 this -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I don't agree 12 with Mr. Downard but it's better to keep going. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Do you see the assessment by Mr. Fox 18 in the tape as to his views at the time of the Premier 19 and -- and that assessment is passed on to the incident 20 commander, correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: When did you learn of that 23 assessment? 24 A: When I first heard this tape which 25 would be probably three (3) months ago.

193

1 Q: In the year 2005, ten (10) years 2 after the incident, is the first time you know that the 3 person in charge of liaising with the Deputy Minister was 4 of that view, is ten (10) years later, sir? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And would you agree with me that one 7 of the reasons it took you ten (10) years to find out Mr. 8 Fox's assessment is because you never asked? 9 A: Well I never had any reason to ask. 10 Q: No. But I didn't ask if you had a 11 reason to ask. I said one of the reasons -- 12 A: I did not ask. 13 Q: That's right. 14 A: And he did not tell me. 15 Q: And you didn't ask? 16 A: I did not ask. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is a good time 18 for a break, Mr. Commissioner. We've been going for a 19 little over an hour. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 We'll take our afternoon break now. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 23 for fifteen (15) minutes. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 2:35 p.m.

194

1 --- Upon resuming at 2:54 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed. Please be seated. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Mr. O'Grady, prior to the break I had 8 raised the guidelines relating to the Interministerial 9 Committee and I had, I suppose, promised you I'd find 10 them for you to -- to point out that passage related to 11 the Ontario Provincial Police; do you recall? 12 A: Yes, I remember you saying that. 13 Q: If Document Number 1012287 could be 14 brought up on the screen? Well, actually that's all 15 right because I don't want to lose the tape. All right 16 we can do both at once. The technology is staggering. 17 All right, 1012287. 18 And if I could ask, it represents an 19 attachment, Mr. Commissioner. If you flip through to the 20 Appendix you'll find the guidelines for the 21 Interministerial Committee. This is a note dated 22 September 5th, 1995. It represents the -- a briefing 23 apparently of the Attorney General. 24 And if you see, if you go to -- there is 25 no exhibit number on my copy regrettably, Exhibit 5 -- P-

195

1 504. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps we could give 3 that to the Witness. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I actually have a 5 clean copy I can place in front of the Witness. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine; 7 that's fine. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Could you simply focus your 11 attention, sir, in terms of the guidelines as they relate 12 to the Interministerial Committee? You'll see at the top 13 of the document I've put in front of you, guidelines for 14 responding to aboriginal emergencies, blockades. 15 Do you see that? 16 A: I see that, I -- I see that on my 17 hard copy here. 18 Q: Thank you. And, you'll note 19 paragraph 6: 20 "The Secretariat will convene and chair 21 an Interministerial Officials Committee 22 of senior officials to guide provincial 23 activities. Committee will met as 24 required." 25 A: I see that.

196

1 Q: Paragraph 7: 2 "The Committee will be composed of the 3 following ministries..." 4 And, did you see under Ministry of the 5 Solicitor General, do you see the reference, quote -- or 6 sorry, the reference, bracket: 7 "(Including the Ontario Provincial 8 Police)." Close brackets. 9 A: I see that. 10 Q: And that was, at the time, Inspector 11 Fox, correct? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: All right. So that was your 14 understanding of the makeup of the Interministerial 15 Committee, correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And did you have any reason to 18 believe that anyone else understood it differently? 19 A: I had no reason to believe. 20 Q: And -- 21 A: I -- I really -- really don't know 22 what other people understood, it's just something I never 23 put my thoughts to as to how other people saw it, so 24 you're correct, I had no reason to believe that anybody 25 else saw it the same or differently at all.

197

1 Q: All right. And in terms of -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 3 Ms. Perschy? 4 OBJ MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I apologize, 5 Commissioner, I just had one (1) last objection. 6 With respect to this list, this -- in 7 fairness to this Witness, this list is -- is composed of 8 all of the ministries who can attend, not necessarily 9 those that did attend on any particular date and I think 10 in fairness to that Witness -- to this Witness, that 11 should have been put to the Witness. It is not 12 necessarily a listing of everybody who did attend. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm dealing with -- 14 I -- I hear Ms. Perschy; I don't have a problem with 15 that. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: It was your understanding that 19 Inspector Fox was attending the Interministerial 20 Committee Meetings on behalf of the Solicitor General, as 21 a member of the Ontario Provincial Police as described in 22 paragraph 7, correct? 23 A: He was attending on behalf of the 24 Deputy Solicitor General. He was seconded from his 25 police agency and so he was not acting as a police

198

1 officer, an operational police officer, at that time. 2 Q: But he was a police officer? 3 A: He was a police officer. 4 Q: And I asked you before and I now ask 5 you again, under paragraph 7, where it refers, quote: 6 "Including Ontario Provincial Police." 7 Close quotes. 8 That was Inspector Ron Fox? 9 A: It was. 10 Q: All right. And from the point of 11 view of the time you served as Commissioner, right up 12 until today, has anybody ever come up to you and said, We 13 never knew Ron Fox was a police officer, boy, does that 14 change things, or, We never knew Ron Fox was a police 15 officer; has anybody said that to you? 16 A: Nobody's said -- has said that to me. 17 Q: I asked Ron Fox as I suggested to him 18 at one (1) point, you even look like a police officer and 19 he agreed with me, would you agree with that? 20 A: I don't know what a police officer 21 looks like. 22 Q: All right. Well -- 23 A: They just look like everybody else. 24 Q: They do, that's fair. I meant it in 25 joke --

199

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: -- and I certainly didn't mean it as 3 an insult -- 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: -- he's a good looking man. Now -- 6 A: I've never noticed that. 7 Q: We may be engaged in what one might 8 call the Fox Trot at this point. 9 In terms of process, one (1) of the 10 concerns was that the OPP have some level of liaison and 11 understanding and input into the Interministerial 12 Committee; isn't that right? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: I would like to -- to clarify that. 16 Just looking at the document here and I'm looking at page 17 3, and it's number 17: 18 "The activities and actions of the OPP 19 are subject to their own operational 20 guidelines." 21 I think that's important to note. 22 Q: Very much so. And if everyone's 23 following the rules, that's what happens, correct? 24 A: Hopefully. 25 Q: Right. And if someone seeks to

200

1 direct the OPP, for example, if someone, through the 2 voice of the Premier, says, I want them out in a day or 3 two (2), that would be inconsistent with that paragraph, 4 wouldn't it? 5 A: It's something that I think would be 6 better not said as I was -- when I did hear the tape of 7 the transcript of which I have in front of me and as I 8 looked at page 263, I certainly -- although I was retired 9 at that time -- I certainly came to the conclusion that 10 Ron Fox was not influenced or persuaded in any way by 11 anything that he might have heard there by his rather 12 forceful comments. 13 Q: And does that surprise you about Ron 14 Fox? 15 A: Doesn't surprise me at all. I would 16 have expected him to feel that way. 17 Q: You would have expected him to be 18 offended. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: You would have expected him to be 21 offended at any effort at improper political influence? 22 A: I would have expected him not to 23 accept it. 24 Q: And you'd expect him to be offended? 25 A: Well this -- the language that he

201

1 uses in -- on that tape certainly express his views very 2 clearly. 3 Q: And understanding how articulate and 4 good you are with words, you haven't actually addressed 5 my question which is, you would have expected him, 6 knowing him, to be offended? 7 A: I would have expected him not to 8 subscribe to any kind of -- of pressure. 9 Q: And let's take a step back from -- 10 you're the Commissioner of the OPP, if anyone would be 11 keeping an eye out for this kind of thing it would be 12 you, correct? 13 A: I would hope so. 14 Q: All right. And -- 15 A: I must -- I must tell you that in -- 16 in my years as Commissioner, I really never -- never felt 17 that I was ever under any kind of political pressure 18 throughout all three (3) governments led by various 19 parties and so it was not a top of the mind issue with me 20 because I just never had felt that kind of -- of 21 pressure. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Could you turn to Tab 91 of

202

1 Commissioner Counsel's binder and then we're going to 2 return to the tape. Could you turn to Tab 91 and the 3 Exhibit number is P-613, and for Counsel it's document 4 number 2001025. 5 Do you see that issue note? 6 A: I do, sir. 7 Q: And is it fair to say this issue note 8 would have come directly from your office? 9 A: It's prepared or countersigned by 10 Nancy Mansell who was in the critical issues unit and 11 Phil Duffield's name is on it, and he was my executive 12 officer at that time. 13 Q: And Nancy Mansell's official title 14 was? 15 A: She was a critical issues -- she was 16 an employee and worked in the critical issues unit. I'm 17 not sure that she had a title. 18 Q: All right. Would you mind, over the 19 course of the evening or tomorrow, determining what her 20 title was, if you can? 21 A: I can try. 22 Q: Thank you. Because her name appears 23 in many different places in these proceedings. 24 A: She was -- I know that she was not a 25 police officer. She was a civilian employee of the

203

1 Ontario Provincial Police. 2 Q: But she was a civilian employee who 3 played a very active role in communications for your 4 office, correct? 5 A: She -- she dealt with critical issues 6 unit under the direction of Inspector Duffield. 7 Q: Well, she actually represented 50 8 percent of the critical issues unit, didn't she? You had 9 Phil Duffield and you had Nancy Mansell? 10 A: I think so, along with another person 11 from time to time, I believe, whenever we need them. 12 Q: All right. Now in terms of -- 13 A: All I'm saying is, I don't think she 14 had -- the police all have titles. I don't think she had 15 one. She might have been classified as a certain level 16 of public servant. 17 Q: All right. If you could do your best 18 to find out. 19 A: I will. 20 Q: I'm grateful. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 22 Sandler...? 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: We're happy to make 24 that effort. I don't -- don't think it should be put 25 on --

204

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: On -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 4 witness -- 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- Mr. O'Grady, 6 because he's -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you can-- 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- no longer with the 9 OPP, so -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could 11 find out what her position was -- 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: We'll do that -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- for Mr. Falconer. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm very grateful, 16 thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 18 Mr. Sandler. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Now, I want to address Tab 91 and if 22 that tab is in front could the top of the page, please, 23 be put on the screen? 24 Now, in big letters, that -- I'm taking 25 that font as the number 14. That could be a 14 or a 16

205

1 font to me. 2 In big letters, you've put: 3 "The OPP does not take tactical or 4 operational direction from the 5 Government." 6 You -- you wrote that in January 1997 7 through Ms. Mansell; isn't that right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Right. Now, why would you do that? 10 A: If there were questions being asked 11 in the house of the Solicitor General, then that would be 12 information that would be passed to the Deputy Solicitor 13 General for her use to give him guidance if he needed it. 14 Q: Well with respect, aren't you 15 engaging in hypotheticals now, when you say, "if there 16 were questions." 17 You were the Commissioner at the time, 18 yes? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Your two (2) person committee that 21 works directly through you issued a -- an issue note to 22 the -- to the Deputy Solicitor General or the Solicitor 23 General? 24 A: It goes to the Deputy Solicitor 25 General. She can do with it as she sees fit.

206

1 Q: You issued an issues note, you 2 created an issue note and it went directly to the Deputy 3 Solicitor General and at the top of it was the -- in 4 large font statement, quote: 5 "The OPP does not take tactical or 6 operational direction from the 7 Government." Close quotes. 8 Now why would you do that? 9 A: Well it's not a hypothetical 10 statement that I made. For the period of time that I was 11 the Commissioner we prepared these kinds of notes, we 12 sent them down to keep our political or at least our 13 civilian superiors, if you will, informed in the correct 14 manner as to the activities of the Ontario Provincial 15 Police. 16 Essentially I had two (2), the Deputy 17 Solicitor General and the Solicitor General. If you -- 18 if you check the Police Act you'll see that it 19 specifically names him as the Minister responsible. 20 And, therefore, I prepare information for 21 his use and I had known for a number of years that the 22 purpose of these issue notes, on occasion, was to keep 23 him advised. 24 Q: And it was in order to apprise him 25 for the purposes of answering questioning in the house;

207

1 isn't that right? 2 A: That's one of the uses. 3 Q: And that was the point of this issue 4 note, wasn't it? 5 A: It probably was. 6 Q: All right. And from the point of -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 8 Sandler...? You have an objection, Mr. Sandler? 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: I just want to point 10 out to My Friend that if he actually traces back, this is 11 the last in a series of versions. It goes back to the 12 version where the comment first appears. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, this is 14 giving evidence. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, just hear from 16 me a moment. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, I don't 18 want him to give evidence to the witness. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 20 not giving evidence. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm not going to give 22 evidence to the witness. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not 24 giving evidence. I want to hear what -- 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: I was going to suggest

208

1 that My Friend may want to look at the earlier version 2 because it may assist My Friend in what precipitated the 3 inclusion in the issue note. That's all I was going to 4 say. 5 I think it's a perfectly appropriate 6 comment instead of asking the witness to remember what 7 prompted its inclusion in the issue note. Because 8 there's earlier versions that have the same comment. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I have an answer to 10 my question and I would like to move on. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And the answer to 13 my question is it -- the answer to my question was it 14 probably was. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Now in May of 1996 I read you a 18 Hansard -- you saw the May 1996 Hansard extract? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: So it's apparent, that on a number of 21 occasions, the issue of improper political influence over 22 the OPP, in relation to Ipperwash, was a live issue in 23 the house, correct? 24 A: From reading the answer there now, it 25 appears that it was.

209

1 Q: And from reading your issue note, 2 correct? 3 A: Well, all I know is the -- this is 4 Version 28 as you could see, so that means that there 5 must have been quite a number before. And what initially 6 caused it, I'm not sure. But it was for the information 7 of the Deputy Minister and the Minister. 8 Q: Now, if the tape could be continued 9 please? 10 We are for your ratification, sir, we are 11 at page 264 of Tab 37. 12 13 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Now, you see Inspector Fox describing 17 first an exchange with the Sol Gen and then an exchange 18 with the Minister of Natural Resources. 19 Do you see that at pages 264 to 265? 20 A: Yes, I do. 21 Q: Again, knowing Ron Fox as you know 22 him, any reason to doubt the accuracy of what he's 23 depicting? 24 A: Well, I wasn't there, so I really 25 don't know that.

210

1 Q: Was it not your evidence before that 2 you -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 4 Q: -- viewed Ron Fox as -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on, 6 finish your question. Mr. Downard -- 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: -- that you viewed Ron Fox as a 10 credible officer who performed his jobs professionally 11 and you had no reason to believe that he would misstate 12 what he experienced in terms of his work as liaison 13 officer? 14 Is that not your evidence? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 16 an objection to his question? 17 THE WITNESS: I have no reason to believe 18 that would misstate anything. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 20 minute. Just a minute, Mr. -- there's an objection. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: One (1) -- one (1) of 22 the first points of evidence I learned, maybe I don't 23 know too many, but one (1) of the first I learned was 24 that a witness is not to be asked to assess the 25 credibility of another witness and My Friend has done

211

1 this several times now. 2 These questions are objectionable. The 3 credibility of the testimony before you, sir, is for you, 4 it is not for you to hear opinion on. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 6 I'm going to pull out the extracts of Mr. Sandler's re- 7 examinations of each of the last three (3) witnesses. 8 When he examined Mr. Coles on August 18th, 2005, Mr. 9 Sandler went through a very long process of extracting 10 from former Chief Coles, the credibility of Carson. 11 When he examined Fox, he went through a 12 long process of extracting the credibility of Carson, and 13 on and on. Now, if it's okay for Counsel for the OPP to 14 do it, it must be okay for other Counsel; it can't be 15 simply one (1) party's entitled. 16 And I'll give you each transcript 17 reference because I collected them. The first one I 18 referred was August 18th, 2005. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd rather 20 you didn't do this. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The question 23 was okay as far as I'm concerned. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, he --

212

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Your answer was, you had no reason 4 and you have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what Mr. 5 Fox said, correct? 6 A: I have no reason to. 7 Q: All right. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 9 legitimate question and answer in my view. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: In terms of Mr. Fox's statements 13 among other things after referring to the Premier, this 14 is at page 264, he states, quote: 15 "The -- the Sol Gen asks me to brief 16 them as to, you know, what changes in 17 the status of the situations are." 18 And, he goes on. So, the Solicitor 19 General, based on what Mr. Fox is saying, has asked him 20 to brief that room on what's going on at Ipperwash Park, 21 correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. Now, switching, he then 24 gets in an exchange with the Minister of Natural 25 Resources about what's going on at Ipperwash Park, right?

213

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And, the source of his information is 3 the Incident Commander Carson, right? 4 A: Certainly that would be one (1) of 5 his sources, yes. 6 Q: Fair enough. Could the tape 7 continue, please? 8 9 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Now, stopping there. At this stage, 13 the inspector, Ron Fox, is discussing the level and 14 amount of intelligence that the OPP had about Ipperwash 15 Park with the Minister of Natural Resources, correct? 16 A: He's discussing the information that 17 he knew. 18 Q: And he's discussing the intelligence 19 that the OPP had in relation to the occupiers going into 20 the Park as it relates to the September 1995 occupation; 21 isn't that what he's doing? 22 He's expressing what the OPP knew. Do you 23 want me to take you through the passages? 24 A: He's discussing some of the things 25 that the OPP knew, yes.

214
  1                 Q:   And he's expressing what the
  2  intelligence level was at that time, in terms of
  3  information; is that not true?
  4                 A:   Well, clearly, he's -- he's stating
  5  some of the things that the OPP was aware of at that
  6  particular time.
  7                 Q:   Was the public privy to this kind of
  8  intelligence information; that is, were there public
  9  releases isn the press or on the floor of the legislature
 10  at that time about the nature of the knowledge of the OPP
 11  in its ongoing investigation related to the occupiers?
 12                 Was that public information?
 13                 A:   I don't know.
 14                 Q:   Would you agree with me it's highly
 15  unlikely that it was, as of September 6th, 1995?
 16                 A:   I'm not sure.  Some of it could have
 17  been.  For instance, when he's referring to gunfire, a
 18  good number of the public might have been aware of that.
 19                 Anybody that was in that area would
 20  certainly be aware of that.  So, some of it may have been
 21  public knowledge, some of it may not.
 22                 Q:   And would you agree with me that to
 23  the extent it wasn't public knowledge, it would be
 24  operational information?
 25                 A:   It's operational information.

215

1 Whether that information would be such that it would 2 impede any activities of the OPP in that area, I can't 3 say. 4 Q: Now, in term -- could the tape please 5 continue. 6 7 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Now, you've agreed that none of the 11 statements, or revelations, that Inspector Fox made to 12 incident commander Carson were known to you during your 13 currency as Commissioner and, indeed you only learned of 14 them some three (3) months ago, is that -- 15 A: Yes, I was just not aware of this 16 telephone conversation. 17 Q: Well, it's really important that we 18 draw a distinction whether you knew about the telephone 19 conversation or, more importantly, whether you knew that 20 Inspector Fox was summonsed by leading members of the 21 Harris Cabinet and brought into a room in which the 22 Premier discussed the role of the OPP as it related to 23 the Ipperwash incident. 24 I want to know if you knew that? 25 A: I was not aware of Inspector Fox's

216

1 activities on that particular day. 2 Q: Is there any reason why I can't 3 simply get you to tell me whether you knew about the 4 meeting or not? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 6 yes, Mr. Downard...? 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, I'm 8 getting straight answers, with respect -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 10 fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I asked if he knew 12 about -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard 14 -- just a minute. We've got an objection, I want to hear 15 it before you carry on. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My Friend's not 17 putting the facts correctly to the Witness. There's no 18 evidence that Mr. Fox was summoned by leading members of 19 the Harris cabinet to attend this meeting. 20 That is not supported by the evidence; he 21 should not be putting it to the Witness as a fact. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'd be happy to 23 rephrase it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 25 don't want to --

217

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He was -- the 2 evidence is that he was summonsed by a representative of 3 the Premier's office. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 5 evidence? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's in an un -- it 7 is -- it is in an undertaking production document, and 8 I'll provide it by tomorrow. 9 But having said -- I understood that the 10 database represented information we get to rely on in the 11 Inquiry and that is one of the pieces of information that 12 the summons and the meeting was organized by a 13 representative of the Premier's office and I'll provide 14 that tomorrow morning in my -- 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, but there's a 16 difference between -- in fairness, there's a difference 17 between who organized the meeting and who called Ron Fox 18 to attend the meeting, because his evidence was he 19 received a phone call and was asked to attend the 20 meeting. I don't think Mr. Falconer or perhaps anyone 21 else asked him who was on the other end of the phone. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 23 remember that. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't

218

1 remember who -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Clearly it must be 3 Mr. Millar's fault as Commissioner Counsel and -- 4 No, Mr. Millar may well be right -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'm instructed -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and we should 7 have all asked. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'm instructed that it 9 may have been Elaine Todres who was the Deputy Solicitor 10 General. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: Did you know that the deputy 15 Solicitor General summonsed Inspector Fox to this meeting 16 on September 6th, 1995? 17 A: I did not. 18 Q: All right. Now, that concludes the 19 part of the conversation with incident commander Carson 20 and we know what you don't -- that you didn't know 21 anything from Carson about it. 22 We're now going to move to Coles. Could 23 the tape please continue? 24 25 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED)

219

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Now, I asked Inspector Fox what he 4 meant by political masters and he testified that he 5 essentially met -- meant those that the OPP reports to. 6 Would that be fair that in -- in a 7 fashion, the Solicitor General, the Deputy Solicitor 8 General are your political masters? 9 A: The Solicitor General is. The deputy 10 Solicitor General is not a politician. 11 Q: All right, so the Solicitor General 12 is your political master? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: All right, please continue the tape. 15 16 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 17 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Would you pause 19 that, please? 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: Chief Superintendent Chris Coles, do 23 you trust his judgment? 24 A: I do. 25 Q: He viewed the information being

220

1 passed on to those Cabinet members as operational 2 information. You'd agree based on that transcript? 3 A: Well, I would with a little caveat. 4 I'm not sure what he's talking about, a conversation 5 going there that's operational; is he referring to -- to 6 Fox or is he referring to MNR or is he referring to both? 7 I don't know. 8 Q: Fair enough. Now, you never asked 9 him about it? 10 A: We've not discussed it, no. 11 Q: And, during the period you were 12 Commissioner, Coles reported directly to you in terms of 13 operational matters. He reported directly to you on the 14 issue of managing the incident at Ipperwash, yes? 15 A: In the organizational chart, he does 16 not report directly to me, he reports to a Deputy 17 Commissioner, but he did discuss these issues at 18 Ipperwash directly with me from time to time -- 19 Q: So, the answer to the question is, 20 yes? 21 A: -- provided me with information. 22 Q: He reported directly to you as it 23 related to the Ipperwash incident? 24 A: From time to time. I'm not in the 25 position to say I was receiving all of the information

221

1 that he was sharing with his immediate boss, but I 2 certainly received some and I received some directly from 3 him. 4 Q: Now, you testified previously that 5 from the perspective of your assessment of your senior 6 officers and -- and I believe you included -- and I know 7 you included Chief Coles in that, that you would expect 8 them to pass on to you improper efforts at political 9 influence; is that right? 10 A: I would. 11 Q: All right. And you mentioned, 12 though, that you took comfort in the fact that, you know, 13 you know they wouldn't be susceptible to it, they 14 wouldn't give into it, right? 15 A: And, I've read nothing here or heard 16 nothing here that would suggest to me that I'm wrong. 17 Q: But, we're agreed that doesn't change 18 the impropriety of improper efforts at political 19 influence, are we agreed on that? 20 A: Certainly there were conversations 21 there that I think probably shouldn't have been voiced 22 when Fox was there. 23 Q: And, can I ask you this, just to use 24 an example from a policing point of view, a very simple 25 example: One (1) of my colleagues gets a speeding ticket

222

1 last week, any colleague, think of anybody and if you 2 look at the biggest smile on the right side of the room 3 you'll know who it is. 4 One (1) of my colleagues gets a speeding 5 ticket and now we move right into the hypothetical; that 6 colleague, in a moment of pure stupidity which has 7 nothing to do with reality, goes to give her license and 8 includes a twenty dollar ($20) bill, both stupidity and 9 cheapness, I might add. And -- and the officer, whether 10 the officer is offended for a number of reasons, is 11 completely offended and actually has a number of options. 12 You'd agree with me, one (1) of the 13 options is to charge that person with efforts at -- 14 attempt to obstruct justice; isn't that right? 15 A: If the officer felt that the evidence 16 is there, that's an option. 17 Q: And, the reason is, the -- and 18 obviously, the officer's charging the person, the 19 officer's not accepting the twenty (20) bucks, right? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Right. But the crime has been 22 committed, right, right? 23 A: It could be, yes. 24 Q: And, the reason the crime's been 25 committed, you don't measure whether the crime's been

223

1 committed on whether the officer took the twenty (20) 2 bucks, do you? 3 A: Not necessarily. 4 Q: No. Well, I'm going to actually ask 5 you to retract that and think it over, it's not a, "not 6 necessarily." 7 You do not determine if the crime's been 8 committed on whether the officer accepted the money. The 9 act of trying to offer the money is the crime, isn't it? 10 A: It is, but you're -- you're putting a 11 situation to me that -- the crime has not been 12 substantiated yet. 13 Q: Fine. 14 A: So, when -- when the officer is 15 dealing with the individual, that may be a crime and it 16 may not be, but, at that moment it's just an allegation. 17 It'll be up to somebody else to decide whether that's a 18 crime or not. 19 Q: There would be reasonable probable 20 grounds to believe there was a crime. 21 A: Yes, there would be. 22 Q: Right. And the reasonable probably 23 grounds wouldn't depend on the officer accepting the 24 money, correct? 25 A: No, it wouldn't.

224

1 Q: Right. Now let's go back to our 2 situation. If in fact there was an effort at political 3 pressure on the OPP, it doesn't make it any more 4 acceptable that the OPP didn't cave into the pressure, 5 does it? 6 A: No, I don't think so. 7 Q: All right. Chris Coles and Ron Fox 8 are having a conversation about matters being improperly 9 discussed of an operational level amongst cabinet 10 ministers, correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. Again, this is not 13 something you were told about. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Chris Coles should have told you 16 about this, shouldn't he have? 17 A: Well Chris Coles was not, as I 18 understand his evidence -- 19 Q: His evidence, you mean read his 20 transcript? 21 A: I heard some of his evidence. 22 Q: I see. So did you hear all of his 23 evidence? 24 A: Not all of it, no. 25 Q: Do you read the transcript?

225

1 A: No. Well, I've read some of it, yes. 2 In fact I've read most of it. 3 Q: I see. All right. 4 A: But what I'm getting at and I can 5 qualify that by just -- with the transcript that I've got 6 in front of me. He's apparently standing there, he hears 7 Fox speaking, he does not know what -- or at least he 8 hears Carson speaking, he does not know what's being said 9 on the other end of the line, as far as I know. 10 Q: Is that your only qualification? 11 A: Well, that along with the 12 interpretation of -- there's conversation that's 13 operational. And I can't tell from the transcript 14 whether he's talking about Fox's information or whether 15 he's talking about information that has come from the 16 Ministry of Natural Resources. I'm not sure. 17 Q: All right. Let's continue the tape, 18 please. 19 20 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Did you read former Chief Coles' 24 evidence on what he meant at page 272? 25 A: I think I did. I think he had some

226

1 sort of explanation, but I -- I'm not confident in saying 2 exactly what his explanation was. 3 Q: That makes two of us. I -- I -- and 4 what I'm asking you sir -- what I'm asking you is did you 5 read 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Sandler. We don't -- 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: We can do without the 9 editorial. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 11 I'll withdraw it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 13 need that editorial. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. I'll 15 withdraw it. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's not good enough 17 when he says "That's fine. I'll withdraw it." We've now 18 had that three (3) or four (4) times. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we 20 don't need the editorial comments. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: We just don't need the 22 editorial comments. Now withdrawing it after he makes 23 his soundbites for the media. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, My Friend, 25 has misstated it. My Friend has misstated withdrawals of

227

1 questions previously. This is the first editorial 2 comment I withdrew. Perhaps when he criticizes me, he 3 may choose to be accurate. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, calm 5 down. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. The second 7 one -- the second one is when he starts talking about how 8 the Witness isn't being straight. Well with great 9 respect, he's not to be editorializing. Ask the 10 questions and let's move one. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, please, 12 please. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: When I said that 14 the witness wasn't being straight, it was in response to 15 My Friend's objection. And I repeat what I said then; 16 the witness wasn't being straight when I answered the 17 objection. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Well, 19 would you please stop it. I don't think we need any 20 editorial comment. It's questions and answers. That's 21 fine. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I agree, Mr. 23 Commissioner. But, Mr. Sandler getting up and saying I'm 24 being editorial doesn't mean I was. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.

228

1 Carry on. Carry on. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It means that Mr. 3 Sandler is seeking to make an argument and I say I 4 wasn't. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 6 suggesting that we don't need the editorial comment. 7 That's it. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's move 10 on. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: In terms of what Chief Coles is faced 15 with here, managing a situation you knew nothing about 16 his concerns about operational matters operating amongst 17 cabinet ministers. You didn't know about that? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Now, did you know that he viewed you 20 according to this transcript, leaving aside his 21 subsequent explanation, that's why I wanted to know if 22 you'd read it, because it -- to be fair to you, I wanted 23 you to have it, leaving aside his subsequent explanation, 24 did you know at the time that he viewed you, according to 25 this transcript, as being under pressure?

229

1 A: No. 2 Q: All right. And you, I take it, infer 3 from this transcript what anyone should infer, that he's 4 talking about political pressure, right? 5 A: No, I don't infer that -- 6 Q: All right. 7 A: I don't know what type of pressure 8 he's talking about there. 9 Q: Okay. Let's back up and I'm on page 10 274. I'm just going to read to you. 11 Oh, I apologize, it's two seventy-two 12 (272) if you can go back two (2) pages, please. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: If you look at that page and then you 15 look at the previous page, 271, you see where Coles says: 16 "Yeah, but you see there's conversation 17 go -- as far as I'm concerned, there's 18 conversation going there that's 19 operational." 20 You see that? 21 A: I see that. 22 Q: "Fox: Oh yeah. 23 Coles: That it's really going to get 24 dangerous because now that's dangerous 25 to have that happen.

230

1 Fox: Ah ha. 2 Coles: Um. 3 Fox: You're right, but you see then 4 what I do with it, Chris? Sit there 5 and say, well, I don't know now? 6 Coles: Um." 7 Would you agree that that exchange 8 reflects both Coles' and Fox's views that operational 9 matters were being discussed amongst cabinet ministers; 10 would you agree with that? 11 A: I'm not sure. 12 Q: Fair enough, sir. Would you also 13 agree that Coles -- Coles -- 14 A: I'm sorry, I didn't agree with the 15 first part. 16 Q: I accept that. Would you -- 17 A: I thought I heard you say "would you 18 also agree?" I hadn't agreed, initially. 19 Q: I understand, I'll rephrase. Would 20 you agree that Coles viewed any such discussions as 21 dangerous, dangerous to have that happen? 22 Do you see that? 23 A: That's what he said. 24 Q: Yeah. And again, it's a matter 25 that's dangerous to have happen amongst cabinet

231

1 ministers; that's what they're talking about, isn't it? 2 A: I believe so. 3 Q: And so Coles, from this transcript, 4 is expressing a concern about improper discussions about 5 the operational matters as being dangerous and you don't 6 know about it, correct? 7 A: I certainly don't know about it, no. 8 Q: Coles had a responsibility to report 9 this to you, didn't he? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 11 Sandler...? 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, I just point up 13 that the ALST, in a very extensive cross-examination of 14 Chris Coles, never put this to Chris Coles. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is a -- I've 16 dealt with this before and I propose to deal with it now, 17 substantially. This is not, I'm told a thousand (1,000) 18 times a trial, this is an investigation. 19 Now, Coles' test -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But the 21 rules of fairness are still the same. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: They still exist, 23 but they don't only exist one way. So that my concern is 24 this: This witness has said the reason I know there's no 25 political pressure is my people would have told me.

232

1 Now that's the position he's taken. It's 2 actually not in a will state but that's the position he's 3 taken in evidence today. 4 Now I am entitled to test that, as a 5 matter of fairness, and the way I test it is on -- on 6 your measure, based on what you see here, Coles should 7 have told you that, and that, of course, then leads to 8 putting into doubt his view there was no political 9 pressure. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I say his 12 answers have asked for it. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- yes, 14 Mr. Sandler...? 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: He's perfectly 16 entitled to say that you have an inadequate evidentiary 17 basis upon which to form the conclusion that there was no 18 political pressure. 19 That's very different than suggesting to 20 him without, in fairness, having even put it to Chris 21 Coles that Chris Coles should have told the commissioner. 22 The question just never came -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Never did and that's a 25 basic fairness issue.

233

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, Mr. 2 Commissioner, that's wrong. The question did get raised 3 and I will track down the transcripts on it. It didn't 4 get challenged in a direct cross-examination style. 5 Chris Coles had ample opportunity to share 6 with the Commission what he did and did not tell the 7 Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and how he 10 viewed the discharge of his duties, and he had ample 11 opportunity to canvass those things. 12 This isn't a fine, precise Brown and Dunn 13 point. This is whether the area was canvassed. It was 14 canvassed by several counsel and I'll be happy to 15 gather -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the page 18 numbers. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 20 don't remember exactly what Mr. Coles was asked about 21 this or not, but let's move on. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Based on this, and based on what

234

1 Chris Coles viewed as dangerous, this form of discussion 2 amongst cabinet ministers, he should have told you about 3 it, correct? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm -- 5 I'm seeing an objection now from Mr. Downard. 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I believe, sir, that 7 -- I don't think I'm incorrect about this, but -- that on 8 the transcripts, at this point in the conversation, 9 there's been no indication by Inspector Fox to Coles that 10 Fox has been talking about a discussion among cabinet 11 ministers. 12 Coles -- the evidence of -- of Coles was 13 pretty clear on this that he just hears Carson's side of 14 the conversation and, in my respectful submission, 15 there's no basis in the transcript and I don't have it in 16 front of me to doublecheck it, but my recollection is, 17 the transcript does not indicate that Carson has said 18 anything that Coles could have heard to indicate that 19 there's a discussion going on involving cabinet 20 ministers. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I -- see -- I 22 don't mind dancing on the head of a pin because it's part 23 of our job, but the exchange -- the exchange -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That is a pure 25 editorial comment.

235

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm allowed 2 to respond. It is dancing on the head of a pin. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I don't mind 5 responding to it, but it is. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The -- the gist of 8 the -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just respond 10 to it, then without -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am responding to 12 it. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The gist of the 15 exchange between first Fox and Carson and then, more 16 importantly, Fox and Coles is, Fox describes the 17 conundrum he has. 18 He doesn't want to provide information, 19 but they seem to be operating on misinformation and Coles 20 expresses to Fox that he thinks what's going on up there 21 is operational and shouldn't be there and it's dangerous. 22 Now, that -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, it's 24 not necessarily between cabinet ministers, that's the -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But it's in their

236

1 presence, it's in their presence. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 3 what's not clear and he said he wasn't sure what the 4 "operational" referred to. So we're not exactly where 5 you want to be. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's why I 7 refer to dancing on the head of a pin, with respect. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It is apparent 10 they're discussing the meeting of September 6th and -- 11 and you will have to make findings, Mr. Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It could be 13 a significant point, so -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But -- but I'll be 15 happy to flush it out some more, but it's apparent from 16 the evidence of Fox that a) he was at that meeting; b) he 17 was asked those questions; and c) from this transcript 18 that the Solicitor General asked him in the meeting to 19 brief them; that's stated in the transcript. 20 So there's enough foundation for me to ask 21 the question. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Whether you make 24 the finding at the end, that's for argument at the end, 25 but my submission is, there is -- there is a foundation

237

1 to ask the question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 3 not -- yes, Mr. Downard...? 4 I'm not sure where you're getting all that 5 from. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, there's -- 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: There's no foundation 8 for asking a question of this Witness about what Mr. 9 Coles is talking about with reference to matters being 10 discussed with cabinet ministers. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: There is no evidence 13 that Mr. Coles has any information at this point -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- that there's 16 discussion involving cabinet ministers. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 18 conversation is difficult, we don't know... 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Coles 21 obviously didn't hear what Mr. Fox was saying to Mr. 22 Carson. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I have a proposal 24 that might work? 25 First I just -- I want -- I do want to

238

1 draw your -- your attention to the bottom of 264 -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but 3 that's -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- where Mr. Fox 5 says -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But that's 7 Fox talking to Carson -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- not 10 Coles. 264. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: This is not a -- it's 13 not a -- this is not -- the evidence is that this was not 14 a speaker phone. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Coles said he did not 17 hear. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I don't have a 19 problem with that. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well 21 that's right, so, that's what I'm saying. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I just wanted you 23 to know that that's where that came from. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And then the second

239

1 point is -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you're 3 attributing it to Mr. Coles and we don't know that Mr. 4 Coles knew what Mr. Fox said to Mr. Carson; that's my 5 point. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move on, Mr. 7 Commissioner, but I -- I want to say something. I intend 8 to cross-examine on the area that Coles had this concern 9 and -- and I'm -- I'm happy to move onto the next 10 question in this area, but that's the area I'm in. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 Let's see where we go. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could you continue 14 the tape, please? 15 16 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER. 19 Q: All right. That concludes a 20 substantive of exchanges. There's just an exchange of 21 phone -- phone numbers. Cole says: 22 "Yep, don't get involved in anything 23 else. I'm going to give you a call 24 back." 25 See that, page 275?

240

1 A: Yes, I do. 2 Q: Would you agree -- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think in fairness, 4 this exchange here, at least insofar as Coles and Fox, 5 clearly indicates that the earlier exchange related to 6 the Interministerial meeting. Because he didn't even get 7 with Coles to the politicians until right at the end. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I don't agree with 9 Mr. -- I don't agree with Mr. Millar. But it doesn't 10 matter. I don't agree with him. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: What the conversation at this point 14 indicates is that Chris Coles knew who Fox met with on 15 September 6th, 1995, correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Chris Coles also knew that the 18 Premier, 19 Quote: 20 "Was quite adamant that this is not an 21 issue of Native rights. 22 And I mean we've tried to pacify and 23 pander to these people for too long. 24 It's now time for swift affirmative 25 action."

241

1 Right? Chris Coles knew that? 2 A: That's what Fox said directly to 3 Coles. I can only conclude that Coles heard him. 4 Q: The Premier expressed his views of 5 the conduct of the OPP to Fox, correct? 6 A: Well I -- I'm looking at exactly what 7 is quoted here, as you said: 8 "I walked in in the tail end Chris with 9 him saying things like, I think the OPP 10 made mistakes." 11 In this one. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: And now that's quite clear. 14 Q: Yes. Chris Coles knew that the 15 Premier had expressed opinions to Ron Fox about the 16 conduct of the OPP as it related to the Ipperwash 17 incident, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And you didn't know that, did you? 20 A: I did not know that. 21 Q: You should have known that, correct? 22 A: I would like to have known that, yes. 23 Q: Yeah. And the reason you'd like to 24 have known that was so that you could address it and deal 25 with it?

242

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And the reason you'd need to address 3 and deal with that is because those kinds of expressions 4 of opinions, to a member of the OPP, represent the 5 potential for a perception of the Premier seeking to 6 direct the OPP, correct? 7 A: We're dealing, I think, with 8 perception. I do not believe that any of the officers 9 here, that are engaged in this phone call, from my point 10 of view, are influenced by it. 11 Q: And so we're back to the twenty 12 dollar ($20) bill, right? If the officer doesn't accept 13 the twenty dollar ($20) bill that changes the impropriety 14 of the action? 15 A: I didn't say that. 16 Q: All right. So isn't the question 17 that I'm asking you, is that the reason you would have 18 preferred to have known about it, is it represented at 19 least a perception of the Premier engaging in improper 20 direction to the OPP. Isn't that right? 21 A: It could have. 22 Q: Yes. And when you testified as you 23 testified before, just earlier today, that as far as you 24 were concerned leading right up until today, you knew of 25 no evidence of political pressure?

243

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Would you not agree with me that what 3 you were really saying is no one told you anything? 4 A: Nobody told me anything. 5 Q: And if they had told you something, 6 your answer to that question earlier today might change. 7 Isn't that true? 8 A: It might yes. 9 Q: Yes. For example, if they had told 10 you that the Premier said to Ron Fox, I think the OPP 11 blew it and I want these people out, that might, in your 12 view, change whether there was political pressure or not, 13 correct? 14 A: It could. 15 Q: And when you say, "it could" or "it 16 might be," is it fair to say you're very reluctant to 17 back off the position you -- you've taken for ten (10) 18 years as the Commissioner in charge of the OPP that there 19 existed no political pressure? 20 You find it very difficult to back off 21 that now, don't you? 22 A: What I find difficult is to form an 23 opinion when I don't feel I am in possession of 24 sufficient information to reach an absolute conclusion. 25 And so I am very reluctant to state the position to that

244

1 effect and especially at this point, ten (10) years 2 later. 3 Q: But you were called as a witness to 4 give your evidence on what your perceptions were and what 5 your opinions are about the incidents that happened ten 6 (10) years ago; isn't that right? 7 A: And I've just given them. 8 Q: Now, there was an -- an article or, 9 I'm sorry, a -- an image that appeared in the London Free 10 Press. Could this be handed to the Witness, please? 11 I'm going to quote the document number in 12 one (1) second, it's document number -- I can never -- 13 it's a cartoon that appeared in the London Free Press 14 July 26th, 1996, can you see that? 15 A: I see that. 16 Q: And it says, Okay, men, we're now 17 entering the area around Ipperwash, assume tactical 18 positions. Do you see that? 19 A: I see that. 20 Q: And could this be handed to the 21 Commissioner, please? 22 And to be fair to you, the July 1996 23 cartoon seems to relate to the notion that the OPP 24 officers failed to carry out aggressive leader duties in 25 relation to protecting citizens around the Park, but it

245

1 is a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil cartoon, 2 isn't it, about your OPP; isn't that right? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 4 Downard...? 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I would like to be 6 able to see a copy of the document and I'm sure everybody 7 else would too. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Inquiry Document 9 1009419. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: 9419? Thank you. 11 Thank you. My apologies. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: This -- this is a classic criticism 15 of the OPP from the London Free Press, three (3) police 16 officers, Okay, men, we are now entering the area around 17 Camp Ipperwash, assume tactical positions, and the -- the 18 -- the -- obviously the jab being poked at the OPP is 19 one (1) officer has his eyes covered, the other officer 20 has his ears plugged, and the final officer has his mouth 21 covered. 22 And would you agree with me that it's a 23 basic reference to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no 24 evil; isn't that right? 25 A: Yes.

246

1 Q: And to be fair to you and I -- and I 2 really want to be candid, my understanding of the context 3 of that cartoon is actually a criticism of the OPP for 4 not doing enough to protect non-aboriginals in -- in and 5 around July '96. 6 I do want to be fair to you, but now I 7 want to take you to the next stage of that. When you 8 told -- when you told the Commissioner there was no 9 political pressure, it was based on an utter failure to 10 inquire, wasn't it? 11 A: I believe that I told the 12 Commissioner that there was no political pressure on me, 13 nor did I know of any political pressure. 14 Q: I tried to do a little research and 15 the term, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," is 16 a phrase described as someone who doesn't want to be 17 involved in a situation. It's a Japanese phrase arising 18 from a carving of three (3) wise monkeys, very wise, 19 because that was how they avoided accountability. 20 Now you, sir, have been very careful to 21 tell us, you didn't ask anybody and so you can sit here 22 today and say there was no political pressure because you 23 never asked. Aren't you engaging in the very fun that's 24 being poked at the OPP in this cartoon? 25 Aren't you engaging in see no evil, hear

247

1 no evil, speak no evil; isn't that what you're doing? 2 A: Well, regardless of the criticism, I 3 came here to the Inquiry to tell what I knew as I know 4 it, and I can't change that. 5 Q: But your job, as a Commissioner of 6 the OPP, when faced with public allegations of the 7 exertion of political pressure, was to check those 8 allegations out, wasn't it? 9 A: If there was any kind of foundation, 10 for instance, it was alleged in many of the newspapers 11 and media reports, more than once, that I met with the 12 Premier. 13 That was not true, and so I had no 14 foundation to go forward on it. 15 Q: So, you didn't ask any of your people 16 whether they did. You just assumed they didn't. 17 A: I'm sorry, they didn't what? 18 Q: Meet with the Premier. 19 A: I have every reason to believe that 20 they did not, other than Mr. Fox. 21 Q: Ron Fox is on the phone with incident 22 command on September 5th and September 6th, 1995, as 23 reflected in Tabs 16 and 37 of those logger tapes and 24 he's flat out telling incident command what the Premier's 25 views are; isn't that right?

248

1 2 A: He is referring to the Premier, yes 3 and -- 4 Q: He's telling incident command what 5 the Premier's views are; isn't that right? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: A flow of information seems to be 8 bypassing you. It's coming from the Ministry of the 9 Solicitor General and higher, the Premier, and it's 10 getting to incident command, and somehow it bypassed you; 11 isn't that right? 12 A: I did not know about it. 13 Q: It gets to Coles, the guy that 14 reports directly to you on Ipperwash, and you don't know 15 about it? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: It was done in the company of the 18 Solicitor General, a man you met with, and you don't know 19 about it? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: It was done in the company of the 22 Deputy Solicitor General, a woman you met with, and you 23 don't know about it. 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Do you see why I'm referring to hear

249

1 no evil, see no evil, speak no evil? 2 A: I can see what you're suggestion is, 3 yes. 4 Q: This may be an appropriate time for a 5 break, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we're 7 going to adjourn at 4:30. Do you want to take a short 8 break? 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, I think I've 10 been going over an hour and to be fair to the Witness -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 12 short break. And we're going to adjourn at -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I didn't know we 14 were adjourning at 4:30. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, when we 16 start at nine o'clock in the morning -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- going to 19 4:30 is a long day. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, I'll be back 21 standing here at 4:10 if that's useful to you? Is that-- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You'll be 23 back standing here at 4:10? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I just want-- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.

250

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- hold us up. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 3 Let's take a ten (10) minute break; is that what you're 4 saying? 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 8 for ten (10) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 3:58 p.m. 11 --- Upon resuming at 4:12 p.m. 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 14 resumed, please be seated. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 16 I'm in your hands. We referred to a document that was on 17 the screen which was the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, 18 speak-no-evil cartoon. 19 If you don't need me to file it, I won't. 20 I'm just -- I'm in your hands. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 22 think you need to file it. You've made the point by 23 making reference to the three (3) -- the three (3) 24 monkeys that -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, actually what

251

1 I could do, though, is to file the document entitled, 2 Origin of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; if 3 that's useful to you? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 5 put -- you've already explained that on the record, too. 6 I don't know if you need that either. But the cartoon 7 was developed for a different reason -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you said 10 that -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to be 13 fair, so it's not necessary to put it in. That's fine, 14 let's move on. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 A: May I ask you, Mr. O'Grady, you 19 testified earlier that one of your functions most 20 certainly was to meet routinely with the deputy Solicitor 21 General, Ms. Todres, correct? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And there is a very direct 24 relationship, a reporting relationship with her, whereby 25 you were expected to impart relevant information to her

252

1 in the discharge of your functions and she was expected 2 to impart information to you in respect of the OPP? 3 A: Yes, anything that she knew that was 4 relevant that I should know, yes. 5 Q: Elaine Todres was in the room when 6 Ron Fox attended and made the statements that he did and 7 when Ron Fox attended and describes how the situation 8 developed in terms of the Premier's comments. 9 Could you assist me; Elaine Todres never 10 told you about this? 11 A: She did not. 12 Q: Again, she should have, would you 13 agree? 14 A: It's hard for me to know. You say 15 she was in the room and she may very well have been, or 16 she might have been out to do something. I -- I really 17 don't know what she was doing. And in fairness I'm not 18 going to suggest that she knew or she didn't know. I 19 don't know. 20 Q: All right. And that's fair. So, 21 let's try to be a little more precise. Hypothetically, 22 if Ms. Todres was present when the Premier made these 23 comments in the presence of Ron Fox, you would have 24 wished she told you about it? 25 A: Yes. That's true. You must remember

253

1 Elaine Todres is neither a police officer or a lawyer. 2 And she's used to dealing with other line ministries. 3 And if you recall information with respect to the 4 Ministry of Natural Resources, there were no such 5 restrictions for them. 6 And I think there was information that 7 most other Provincial Ministries operate in a different 8 manner than the Ministry of Solicitor General when it 9 came to the OPP. 10 So, whether she knew or whether she knew 11 that she should advise me if she knew, I don't know. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's going 13 to be a Witness and we'll be able to ask her. But, I 14 think -- Do you have something to say? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. No. But I 16 need to -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 18 Downard's on his feet behind you. 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My -- my only concern 20 is that the -- the best way to mislead the public and try 21 to create a ghost of substance to a false allegation is 22 to take facts out of context. 23 And My -- My Friend is asking this Witness 24 to pass judgement on Ms. Todres based on one fragment of 25 the facts without putting all the facts. For example,

254
  1  the clear evidence that what is discussed in this meeting
  2  is that the police are not to take political direction
  3  and the acknowledgement of Mr. Hodgson that he's not to
  4  direct the police.
  5                 So, I'm very concerned and this is a
  6  concern that has come up time and time again in this
  7  matter, that attempts are made for whatever reasons to
  8  make prejudicial allegations against my client and other
  9  politicians through this very method of taking facts out
 10  of context.
 11                 And in my submission, it's inappropriate
 12  and it is a bit of a game and a bit of a mere formality
 13  to say, oh, I'm just talking as a hypothetical.  Because
 14  we all know that -- well -- let me -- let me step back
 15  from that.
 16                 It is a bit of a game in my submission and
 17  if My Friend -- particularly if My Friend is going to ask
 18  one witness to pass judgement on another witness'
 19  conduct, he should be scrupulous to put all the material
 20  facts to the witness.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY FALCONER:   Well I
 22  don't think we want to go there.  We don't know that Ms.
 23  Todres was in the room at the precise moment the comments
 24  were made.  And that's what he says.  He doesn't know
 25  that.

255

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. But 4 to address what Mr. Downard said he just -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 6 to go there because that's not the question you were 7 asking now. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 9 That's right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So why don't 11 we just deal with what you're doing now. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's what I'm 13 asking and he's answered the question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes well -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I do want to 16 put on the record in very clear terms, the record speaks 17 for itself, Inspector Ron Fox testified as to the 18 presence of Deputy Solicitor General, Elaine Todres. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At the 20 meeting. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In the room at the 22 meeting. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but we 24 don't if she was there all the time; that's his point. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's fine.

256

1 That's fine. But when I do the hypothetical, it's not 2 premised on some idle speculation. The odds are she was 3 there and you will hear from her. And so it's not fair 4 to suggest I'm flying in the wind on this. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 6 think -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In fact, most of us 8 will be surprised if Ms. Todres wasn't there for that 9 encounter. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we'll 11 find out when she comes and testifies. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 13 That's why I did a hypothetical. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. And -- 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just have one more 17 thing which I believe is pertinent that I should add. 18 We've had discussions at the Inquiry about the 19 relationship between the Commissioner and the Deputy 20 Minister and the Minister. 21 And it's clear the reason that the Deputy 22 Commission -- the Deputy Minister is juxtapositioned 23 between the Minister and the Commissioner, is that there 24 may be information flowing up to her that the Minister 25 shouldn't be involved with or hear, and vice versa she is

257

1 directing the Ministry there may be information that she 2 has; she's there, I think it's referred to as a buffer. 3 And so there could be information that she 4 has that in her view is something that I don't need to or 5 shouldn't know about. And in that case I think she'd 6 make a judgement call. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: And this could qualify, if 10 hypothetically she heard the Premier make these comments 11 in front of Ron Fox, this could qualify as one of those 12 instances in your mind? 13 A: It may very well. That's her -- 14 that's the reason the explanation in the -- in the 15 guidelines, that's one of the reasons that she's there 16 between the Minister and me. 17 Q: Sir, it's your testimony that if 18 Elaine Todres saw the Premier make these statements about 19 the OPP and his views on the occupation in front of Ron 20 Fox, there was some obligation she would have been 21 fulfilling in not apprising you that that happened? 22 Is that your evidence? 23 A: I don't know what her -- her position 24 would be. I merely say she is to be there as a buffer. 25 Q: Well, I assumed that the reason you

258

1 gave the answer you just did was in answer to my 2 question. 3 Is it an answer to my question or about 4 something else? 5 A: Well, at this point I'm not sure. 6 Q: All right. Well, let's back up. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 8 getting -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Elaine Todres, if she was there when 12 the Premier made these comments in front of Ron Fox, you 13 would have wished she'd told you about it? 14 A: I think that would have to be her 15 decision. 16 Q: Is there a reason you don't want to 17 answer my question? 18 A: I don't want to speculate. 19 Q: And, is the reason you don't want to 20 speculate is because in doing so, it could, in fact, 21 operate detrimentally to the Deputy Minister whom you 22 were accountable to at the time; is that the reason you 23 don't want to speculate? 24 A: I don't think that would be of a 25 great deal of importance to me at this time, although I

259

1 certainly don't want to misquote or say anything that 2 will cause harm to anybody unless I'm absolutely sure of 3 the truth of things. 4 Q: I'd like to now address and -- and 5 Mr. Commissioner I have fifteen (15) minutes left, I'm 6 going to try to deal with this next tape inside the 7 fifteen (15) minutes; it's a short one. 8 It's Tab 22 and this is a conversation -- 9 it's Tab 22 of Exhibit P-444(a). And it's Tab 22 of 10 Volume 1 of the logger tapes and it is the conversation 11 between a constable -- I'm sorry -- Sergeant Lacroix -- 12 Wade Lacroix, and John Carson of September 5th, 1995, if 13 that tape could be played, please? 14 Do you have Tab 22 there, sir? 15 A: Yes, I do. 16 Q: Thank you 17 A: It states at the top, "John Carson 18 and unknown male"; is that the correct one? 19 Q: Yes, and it's been identified for the 20 record in front of the Commissioner as the unknown male, 21 ultimately is -- ends up being Wade Lacroix and Carson. 22 23 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 24 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We're at the bottom

260

1 of the first page which is fine, you can continue it 2 there if it's helpful, Mr. Millar. 3 4 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: All right. I just want you to know 8 the evidence from then-Incident Commander Carson is that 9 this is the voice of Wade Lacroix; all right? 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: I'm just -- I'm just helping you, 12 sir, in terms of -- so there's no doubt in your mind. 13 Do you know where we are? 14 We're at the bottom of -- or halfway down 15 page 181. 16 A: Well, I think there's a male says, 17 "Did you get a call or anything from the Ministry side, 18 er"; is that where we are? 19 Q: That's right and the male is Staff 20 Sergeant Wade Lacroix who ultimately led the CMU team. 21 A: I see. 22 Q: All right. That's the evidence 23 before the Commissioner by Incident Commander Carson. 24 A: I see. 25 Q: All right? Please continue.

261

1 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: Stop it there. Now, the transcript 5 says the signal is that we're going to end up the victim, 6 but that's been corrected to be, "evicting," e-v-I-c-t-I- 7 n-g, for your information, Mr. O'Grady. 8 A: Yes, I understand. 9 Q: And, what you have is an exchange 10 between Staff Sergeant Lacroix concerning information 11 he's received from MLA Beaubien who, in turn, has passed 12 on to him, how Harris is involved himself, quite uptight 13 about it, and you'll see the subsequent statement: 14 "So I would say the signal is, that 15 we're going to end up evicting." 16 Now, you'd agree with me that the notion 17 that the incident commander and the man in charge of ERT 18 who ends up leading the CMU team down the road, that 19 ultimately leads to the death of Dudley George, 20 discussing the Premier's personal views including him, 21 quote, "being uptight," close quotes, represents the 22 exact kind of dangers, regarding exercises of political 23 influence, that we were discussing earlier. 24 A: That's what we were discussing, yes. 25 Q: I will restate my question. You

262

1 would agree with me that the incident commander and Staff 2 Sergeant Lacroix, who ultimately ended up leading CMU 3 team down that road, discussing the views, the personal 4 views, of the Premier is the exact kind of dangers 5 arising from exercises of political influence that we 6 were talking about before? 7 A: That's what we were talking about. 8 Q: Does this represent it? That's my 9 question, sir. 10 A: That I'm not sure of. 11 Q: So -- 12 A: I know -- I know that the indication 13 there is that the male who you say is Lacroix, met -- 14 Q: No, sir, it's the male that deputy 15 commissioner Carson says is Lacroix. 16 A: Thank you for that. At any rate, he 17 is talking about conversations that he had with Marcel 18 Beaubien. I knew that they were meeting with Marcel 19 Beaubien. I approve of our people meeting with 20 representatives of the community of the area. 21 He is an MLA. I would expect him to have 22 some knowledge as to what his Premier does so, all in 23 all, that may or may not be correct, but that's the 24 information that Lacroix is giving to Carson, I agree 25 with that.

263

1 Q: And from your answer, may I infer 2 that you have no difficulty with the incident commander 3 and the head of the CMU team, discussing the Premier's 4 personal views on the issue and concluding that the 5 signal would be that we're going to be evicting. 6 You have no problem with that? 7 A: Well, I certainly would have 8 preferred -- in a perfect world, I would prefer that they 9 not be discussing those things, but I know in the real 10 world that, from time to time, there are all kinds of -- 11 there are all kinds of information discussed between 12 people that probably would be better if it was not, but 13 clearly from this information here, it was. 14 Q: And why, in a perfect world, would it 15 have been better if it was not discussed? 16 A: Well if there is any suggestion that 17 somehow the actions that followed were influenced by 18 that, it's not helpful. But my understanding is that 19 Carson has already explained why he took the action that 20 he did that night, and I have no reason to disbelieve 21 him. 22 Q: Could you leave that transcript open 23 and can we hold the tape there for one moment? Could you 24 turn back to Tab 91, the issue note that you issued in 25 January of '97.

264

1 A: I have it. 2 Q: If, hypothetically, if Wade Lacroix 3 received the view that the Premier was uptight and formed 4 the opinion is -- that the signal is we are going to be 5 evicting, if Wade Lacroix was of the view that those two 6 (2) things are linked, the eviction by the OPP and the 7 fact that Harris is uptight about it, you'd agree with me 8 that, in effect, the statement that the OPP does not take 9 tactical or operational direction from the Government, 10 may actually be in doubt. 11 Would you agree with that? 12 A: It's not in doubt in my mind. 13 Q: No but it's not in doubt in your 14 mind, sir, because you conveniently left your mind 15 thoroughly vacuous on the issue; isn't that true? 16 A: The conversation, of course, does not 17 necessarily have to have, I think, the meaning that 18 you're suggesting. 19 When he's saying, evicted, there is a 20 process by which that can be done and done properly, if 21 it's necessary, and he may very well have been speaking 22 of that. 23 Q: If the -- and you take comfort in 24 that? 25 A: I would hope so.

265

1 Q: But you don't know? 2 A: I don't know what was in his mind 3 when he said this, at all. 4 Q: And you never asked the head of CMU 5 whether his communications with Marcel Beaubien led to 6 any influences on him? You never asked him that? 7 A: I did not. 8 Q: You never inquired of him what level 9 of political pressure was being exerted on him, correct? 10 A: I did not. 11 Q: But you knew that he, in fact, had 12 been designated to have communications with the 13 politicians? 14 A: I knew that as a Detachment Commander 15 he might very well have. 16 Q: No, sir. That was not your evidence. 17 Your evidence was that you knew and you had no problem 18 with Lacroix being the communication point with Beaubien. 19 That was your evidence. Not you might or you could. You 20 said you knew. Didn't you know? 21 A: Eventually I knew. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: When I knew I'm not entirely sure. I 24 just know that in a general sense I was quite content, in 25 fact, in the interest of community policing, wanted

266

1 Detachment Commanders, Regional Commanders to confer with 2 various representatives of the community. 3 I'm happy with that and I would have 4 expected that to be occurring. 5 Q: Did you avert your mind to the notion 6 that that scenario of Detachment Commanders having 7 communications with politicians, could lead to a 8 situation where that very same Detachment Commander was 9 involved in an integral way in the running of the 10 operations including the CMU team? Did you direct your 11 mind to that? 12 A: I did not. 13 Q: And so when you say you're 14 comfortable with it today, it's with the caveat you never 15 thought about the ramifications of having Wade Lacroix 16 run CMU; isn't that right? 17 A: I would not have been involved in the 18 decision to put Wade Lacroix in charge of the CMU. I 19 wouldn't have known it at that time. 20 Q: Would you agree with me, on 21 reflection, and looking at this transcript, that it's 22 unfortunate that the person who was in charge of 23 communicating with the politicians, as Wade Lacroix was, 24 it's unfortunate that he was leading CMU on September 25 6th, 1995?

267

1 A: Given the circumstances, as we 2 examine it now, certainly I would be much more 3 comfortable if that was not the case. But indeed it was. 4 Q: And would you agree with me that your 5 statements that there was no political pressure. Not 6 that my officers didn't give into it, but that there was 7 no political pressure. 8 Those statements were made not knowing 9 that Wade Lacroix was personally privy to what Harris 10 personally believed and that Wade Lacroix inferred from 11 that that the signal would be that we'd be evicting. 12 You never knew any of that? 13 A: I did not. 14 Q: Would you agree with me that that's 15 information you would have wanted to know when giving the 16 opinion there was no political pressure? 17 A: It would have required me to use that 18 information in making my decision. 19 Q: And you'd agree with me it's 20 information you would have wanted to know? 21 A: Yes I would have. 22 Q: And it's information that your 23 Incident Commander never told you about? 24 A: No, he didn't. 25 Q: He should have told you that Wade

268

1 Lacroix, Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix, who led CMU, had 2 received the impression that Harris was personally 3 uptight about it and was sending the signal to evict. He 4 should have told you about that, shouldn't he of? 5 A: If he thought it was an issue. But I 6 firmly believe that he was not influenced by it and 7 therefore did not see it as an issue that should 8 eventually be brought to my attention. 9 And I might add that if I look at the 10 bullet point, the OPP does not take tactical or 11 operational direction from the government, I would have 12 said that's still accurate. 13 Q: It's better to have all the facts 14 before you express a conclusion, would you agree? 15 A: In a perfect world, it's always 16 better. And you usually discover all of them after an 17 event. You don't necessarily have it before. 18 Q: And that's why you commission so many 19 reports, so many inquiries. You commissioned Connolly, 20 Marshall, Coles, right? You commissioned all those? 21 A: I tried as best I could to gather up 22 all the information, relevant information that I could 23 find. 24 Q: And you, as you sit here today, 25 leaving aside all the paper in the world, as you sit here

269

1 today, as far as you were concerned, there was no reason 2 to make inquiries as to whether political pressure was 3 exerted on your senior police officers? 4 A: I didn't feel there was at that time. 5 Q: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would this 7 be a good time to break for the day? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. I just want 9 to put on the record, Mr. Commissioner, that Mr. 10 Rosenthal has difficulty in scheduling for Thursday. So, 11 he'd asked and I checked with your counsel, obviously 12 it's in your hands, Mr. Commissioner, the idea would be 13 that Mr. Rosenthal is going to play through. He has 14 about a two (2) hour examination. 15 I thought the clean way to do it was 16 simply he starts tomorrow morning and -- and he deals 17 with it because he's not available on Thursday and the 18 estimate of a day and a half seems to still stand. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 So you'll start in the morning and complete your 21 cross-examination and then you'll conclude yours after 22 that? 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. We'll 25 adjourn now until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

270

1 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 2 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, August 24th at 9:00 3 a.m. 4 5 --- Upon adjourning at 4:35 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