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 February 20th, 2006 25

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

3
  1                   APPEARANCES (cont'd)
  2  Janet Clermont   )              Municipality of 
  3  David Nash       )   (np)       Lambton Shores
  4  Nora Simpson     )   (np)       Student-at-law
  5  
  6  Peter Downard    )              The Honourable Michael
  7  Bill Hourigan    )              Harris
  8  Jennifer McAleer )
  9   
 10  Ian Smith        )   (np)       Robert Runciman
 11  Alice Mrozek     )   (np)
 12  
 13  Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.)
                               (np)   Charles Harnick
 14  Jacqueline Horvat )
 15  
 16  Douglas Sulman, Q.C. )           Marcel Beaubien
 17  Mary Jane Moynahan    )  (np)
 18  Dave Jacklin          )  (np)
 19  Trevor Hinnegan     )    (np)
 20  
 21  Mark Sandler       )            Ontario Provincial 
 22  Andrea Tuck-Jackson )            Ontario Provincial Police
 23  Leslie Kaufman     ) (np)
 24  
 25

4
  1                   APPEARANCES (cont'd) 
  2  Ian Roland       )   (np)       Ontario Provincial 
  3  Karen Jones      )   (np)       Police Association &
  4  Debra Newell     )              K. Deane
  5  Ian McGilp       )   (np)
  6  Annie Leeks      )   (np)
  7  Jennifer Gleitman )   (np)
  8  Robyn Trask      )   (np)
  9  Caroline Swerdlyk )   (np)
 10  
 11  Julian Falconer  )              Aboriginal Legal
 12  Brian Eyolfson   )   (np)       Services of Toronto
 13  Kimberly Murray   ) 
 14  Julian Roy       )
 15  Clem Nabigon     )   (np)
 16  Linda Chen       )   (np)
 17  Chris Darnay     )
 18  Adriel Weaver     )   (np) Student-at-Law
 19  
 20  Al J.C. O'Marra  )   (np)       Office of the Chief
 21  Robert Ash, Q.C. )    (np)       Coroner
 22  
 23  William Horton   )              Chiefs of Ontario
 24  Matthew Horner   )   (np)
 25  Kathleen Lickers )   (np)

5
  1  
  2                   APPEARANCES (cont'd) 
  3  Mark Fredrick    )   (np)       Christopher Hodgson
  4  Craig Mills      )   (np)
  5  Megan Mackey     )   (np)
  6  Peter Lauwers    )   (np)
  7  Erin Tully       )   (np)
  8  Michelle Fernando )   (np)
  9  Maanit Zemel     )   (np)
 10  
 11  David Roebuck    )   (np)       Debbie Hutton
 12  Anna Perschy     )
 13  Melissa Panjer   )
 14  Adam Goodman     )   (np)
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 Michael Dean Harris, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Certificate of Transcript 324 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1081 Document Number 6000137. Toronto 4 Star article "Secret Talks Held on 5 Ipperwash", May 29/'96. 106 6 P-1082 Fax from M. Klippenstein /A. Orkin 7 to Crown lawyers re. Disclosure of 8 Documents, September 15, 2000. 198 9 P-1083: Correspondence from D. W. Brown, Crown 10 counsel to M. Klippenstein, replying 11 to letter of Sept. 15, 2000, October 12 24, 2000 198 13 P-1084 Selected Hansard documents, Feb 05/'97 14 to Oct. 09/'01 in 3-ring black binder. 295 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:30 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, Mr. Falconer. Good morning, everybody. Good 8 morning, Mr. Harris. 9 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning, Mr. 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 13 estimated four (4) to five (5) hours. Is that still a 14 reasonable estimate? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, I believe so, 16 Mr. Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much, Mr. Falconer. 19 20 MICHAEL DEAN HARRIS, Resumed 21 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning, Mr. 23 Harris. 24 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May I begin, Mr.

1 Commissioner? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir, by 3 all means. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Mr. Harris, my name is Julian 8 Falconer. I act on behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services 9 of Toronto. 10 Mr. Harris, we've heard, as you'll 11 appreciate, some perspectives on your personality from 12 people who claim to know you. Mr. Runciman would be a 13 good example. He talked about your strong personality, 14 all right? 15 A: I -- if that was his testimony. 16 Q: Did you get an opportunity to review 17 his testimony? 18 A: I believe I did. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: Some time ago. 21 Q: And it's fair to say and -- and I 22 mean no disrespect, fond of you or otherwise, you are a 23 person who is fairly blunt or says what he has to say in 24 a simple way. Is that fair? 25 A: I -- well, I -- I think you're

1 talking about others characterizations. I've never 2 stopped to think about how I say things. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: If that's what others have said, 5 that's what they've said. 6 Q: If I could ask for that -- that 7 clarity or bluntness in -- in what I'm about to ask you. 8 What I'd like to know, sir, is looking back on the events 9 of September 4th through September 6th, 1995 and your 10 personal involvement in the Ipperwash matter, looking 11 back on it today would you do anything different than 12 what you did back then? 13 A: I don't believe so. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: You said in the Inquiry into the 18 Walkerton matter that basically the buck stops here; that 19 as Premier you're accountable for all decisions of your 20 government. Is -- is that true? 21 A: Well, certainly I end up being 22 politically accountable. I think that's true. 23 Q: And so when you use the word 24 'consensus' and -- and just -- we heard from Ms. Hutton 25 about messaging. When -- when you use the word

1 'consensus' that doesn't change the fact that you're 2 personally accountable for all of the decisions of your 3 government of the day? 4 A: Well, I usually end up being 5 politically accountable, yes. 6 Q: You'd agree with me that as a leader 7 you tend or did, in fact, in your case set the tone for 8 your government; set the tone for your policies? 9 A: I articulated the policies that we 10 had. So you can interpret that any way you wish I guess. 11 I... 12 Q: Would you agree with me that you 13 played a personal role in appointing members of your 14 Cabinet? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: That you would -- if you were 17 displeased with performance or, in fact, worse if a 18 Cabinet member engaged in some form or serious misconduct 19 you'd be responsible for holding them accountable? 20 A: I would be politically responsible 21 and it ultimately would be up to me to hold them 22 accountable? 23 Q: And that's what leaders do, correct? 24 A: I think so. 25 Q: During the course of your evidence,

1 that is, you started testifying on February 14th have you 2 had any communications with anyone about your evidence 3 outside of this room? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Could you assist the Commission with 6 when the last time you would have spoken to Debra Hutton? 7 A: Probably this -- last Friday. 8 Q: What date would that be? 9 A: I don't know, 17th? 10 Q: Did the issue of Ipperwash come up? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: What did you talk about in respect of 13 Ipperwash? 14 A: Media coverage, what tone of it, I 15 suppose, or the media coverage that was there; very, very 16 general with regards to that; nothing with regards to 17 evidence. 18 Q: And you'd agree with me that in order 19 to talk about the media coverage, you would have had to 20 read the media? 21 A: I've read not all but a fair bit of 22 the media coverage, yes. 23 Q: You've read the media coverage as it 24 pertains to your evidence? 25 A: I've read whatever -- maybe half the

1 media coverage, seen some of the news reports since I've 2 been testifying, if that's what you mean, yeah. 3 Q: And you would have discussed that 4 coverage as it pertained to your evidence with Ms. 5 Hutton? 6 A: Not really, no. 7 Q: Well, when you said, "I talked to Ms. 8 Hutton about the media coverage," you were referring to 9 the media coverage that pertained to you? 10 A: I think the total of the conversation 11 on that as opposed to the PC leadership convention that 12 we talked about so the total conversation may have been 13 five (5) minutes, it might have been thirty (30) seconds, 14 a minute, stuff like, Seems to be going well, Thank you 15 very much, now, How's Tim doing with the convention? 16 Q: And would that have been the only 17 time since you started testifying that you talked to Ms. 18 Hutton? 19 A: To the best of my knowledge, yes. 20 Q: Well, we're only talking the last 21 week, sir, so -- 22 A: I -- I don't recall talking to her 23 other than that so... 24 Q: You recall how definitive you were 25 with Mr. Rosenthal about whether Fox introduced himself

1 in September 1995. Can you be equally definitive about 2 what you said or did not say to Ms. Hutton and when? 3 We -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 5 necessary to put it that way, Mr. Falconer. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. Fair 7 enough. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 9 necessary. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll -- I'll 11 rephrase. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Can you assist me when you say I 18 don't recall? You either -- we're talking about what you 19 did in the last few days, sir. 20 Did you talk to Ms. Hutton any more than 21 one (1) occasion? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Thank you. 24 A: You're welcome. 25 Q: Other than Ms. Hutton since you

1 started testifying, have you discussed this matter with 2 anyone else? 3 A: I've had several e-mails. I've 4 discussed it with my wife, I've discussed it with -- 5 Q: I -- I don't want to get into 6 discussions with your -- your spouse or your lawyer, all 7 right? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Just so you know 10 that those are areas that to be fair to you, sir, I -- I 11 don't want to go into. I simply -- other than your wife 12 and other than your lawyers -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- I -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- have you talked 15 to anyone else? 16 THE WITNESS: I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I remind 18 you -- 19 THE WITNESS: -- instructions from my 20 lawyer. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I remind 22 you again, Mr. Falconer. This is a public inquiry. 23 It's not a trial. Every aspect of it is public. There's 24 a web cast, it's on live every day that everybody sees 25 every day.

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So it's a 3 little different than in a trial where witnesses are 4 excluded and I hope you're not going where you might be 5 going. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. I'm not going 7 there at all. I'm -- I'm simply asking the questions 8 that I've asked of other witnesses. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I don't plan to 11 treat this man differently and I just -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 Yes, Mr. -- 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This man is being 15 treated differently. No other witness has been -- has 16 been subjected to this sort of lengthy examination as -- 17 as to -- everything they've done outside the -- the 18 witness box -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, -- 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- while they're at 21 this Inquiry. 22 And in any event, the question was asked. 23 Has the Witness discussed his evidence outside the 24 Inquiry? And he said, No, it hasn't. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.

1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I would have thought 2 that would be the end of it. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That should 4 be the end of it that's why I'd like you to move on. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, to be fair, 6 Mr. Commissioner, this could take a lot longer if, first 7 of all, Mr. Downard re-casts the evidence. In -- in 8 fact, the Witness testified he did discuss the matter 9 with someone. 10 So let's not do that. Let's -- if he's 11 got an objection, he should make it and then we'll keep 12 going. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 14 Carry on, Mr. Falconer. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just -- 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Now, sir, I, on a number of 20 occasions, made the mistake of referring to that meeting 21 in the dining room, the informal meeting, because there 22 were Cabinet members present as a cabinet meeting. And 23 your counsel objected during the course of Proceedings. 24 Am I right that it was or it wasn't a 25 Cabinet meeting, Dining room meeting?

1 A: No. It wasn't a formal Cabinet 2 meeting. There were members of Cabinet present. 3 Q: Well, when you say it wasn't a formal 4 Cabinet meeting, was it a Cabinet meeting? 5 A: Well, there were members of Cabinet 6 present. I think you know what the meeting was. There 7 were a number of people there including Cabinet members. 8 There was no decision to be made by Cabinet, there were 9 no Cabinet minutes, there was nobody that keeps minutes 10 for Cabinet. 11 So if that's your definition, it was not a 12 Cabinet meeting. 13 Q: All right. And you'd agree with me 14 that, in fact for example, some of the things you just 15 talked about are hallmarks of a Cabinet meeting. There's 16 a formality to Cabinet meetings? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: There's a Chair? 19 A: There's a Chair of Cabinet, yes. 20 Q: There's minutes taken at Cabinet 21 meetings? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: There's a certain element of 24 accountability to Cabinet meetings, would you agree with 25 that?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: In the advice we received from 3 Commission Counsel in this matter in review of -- of -- 4 and we didn't see them, but in review of the minutes of 5 the September 6th, 1995 Cabinet meeting, there's no 6 reference to the Ipperwash matter. 7 That's consistent with your recollection? 8 A: Yes. I indicated I think, if you 9 wish to review my testimony, that it may have been 10 discussed in generalities, probably as to the timing that 11 we would have further discussion at a meeting after 12 Cabinet. 13 Q: I want to ask you a few questions 14 about some of the names that have come up in this 15 Proceeding. And the first one is -- is Bill King. 16 You have known Mr. King dating back to the 17 early 1980's; is that right? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And I -- I'm frankly taking advantage 20 of the book entitled "Promise Land" by Mr. Ibbetson. But 21 I'm just going to ask you a few questions and you can 22 assist me whether this is consistent with -- with the 23 fact or not. 24 As I understand it, Mr. King would have 25 basically commenced his political career with you; is

1 that fair? 2 A: Commenced what? 3 Q: His political career. He would have 4 started his political career with you? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And basically he stayed 7 with you right through to becoming part of your political 8 staff when you assumed Government. Is that true? 9 A: No. He became -- he was part of my 10 political staff while I was Leader of the Opposition. I 11 believe when we took over the Government, he then shifted 12 to Caucus. 13 Q: All right. And that put's him in a 14 different category? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: All right. And would you agree with 17 Mr. Ibbetson's rendition about the fact that you two (2) 18 took drives together routinely into -- into Toronto 19 during all of a portion of your political career? 20 In other words, the two (2) of you would 21 go back and forth together? 22 A: I don't ever recall going back and 23 forth together after taking over as Premier. 24 Q: Before? 25 A: But we travelled back and forth

1 before when we were in Opposition, yes. 2 Q: For years? 3 A: Well, I think Mr. King started in -- 4 yeah, I think it would have been a number of years. When 5 he started in Toronto I believe around '84, somewhere 6 around there, '83, '84. He moved -- 7 Q: And -- 8 A: -- moved to Toronto I think around 9 '85, '86, somewhere around there. 10 Q: And it's fair to say that in terms of 11 the people around you, for example, in September 1995, 12 Bill King would have one of the more longstanding 13 personal friendships with you; is that fair? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. I want to ask you -- and 16 personal friendships includes, for example, going fishing 17 together? 18 A: We have on one (1) or two (2) 19 occasions, I think, over twenty (20) years or so. 20 Q: Does Mr. King golf? 21 A: He may, but I don't think we've ever 22 played together. 23 Q: All right. In terms of Ms. Hutton, 24 Ms. Hutton is someone who you've already testified, 25 obviously, you viewed as, quote, "very smart"; is that

1 right? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And would it be fair to say that, as 4 she's described to us, in this -- in this Commission, 5 that her -- one (1) of her major responsibilities was to 6 prepare you for all matters in the House? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: She was responsible for vetting, not 9 necessarily preparing, but vetting your briefing book 10 before it got to you, correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I asked her a number of questions 13 about other Ministers and how it was handled; that is, 14 how other Ministers make representations to the 15 Legislature, and she'd indicated that in order to ensure 16 some level of consistency of messaging, she would also 17 vet briefing books that pertained to the same issues that 18 she was covering. 19 Is that consistent with your recollection? 20 A: I have no idea. 21 Q: All right. And was it also -- her 22 evidence was also that she actually chose which Minister 23 would speak to a matter that she was dealing with. 24 Is -- is that true? 25 A: I don't know.

1 Q: All right. You don't dispute that? 2 A: I have no way of knowing yes or no. 3 Q: All right. Your evidence to date 4 suggests you viewed Ms. Hutton as a, basically, 5 excellently performing subordinate; is that true? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: She had a good handle on what were 8 the key issues of the day? 9 A: Well, I believe so, yes. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: She may not have on some occasions 12 but then I would argue that, given the information she 13 had, nobody would have done it better than she did. So 14 if she didn't, then I didn't believe it was possible that 15 anybody else would have done better. 16 Q: That's very high praise, and that 17 high praise would apply to September 1995? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And part of her job was to understand 20 the optics of various issues and how they impacted on you 21 as a leader in your government, correct? 22 A: I think all my staff should be 23 conscious of that, yeah. 24 Q: But she was one of the leading 25 advisors on issues of messaging for you, correct?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: So as it pertained to optics, her 3 expertise in the area of optics was very important, 4 wasn't it? 5 A: I don't know how much expertise she 6 had. We were all pretty new, but I would say all my 7 staff should have been conscious about optics, including 8 her, yes. 9 Q: Did you find that Ms. Hutton, at the 10 time, in and around September 1995, had a good head for 11 detail? 12 A: I believe so, to the best of my 13 knowledge. 14 Q: And -- and by that I'm asking you, 15 and I'm now moving to September 1995, again: Did you 16 find she had any trouble remembering matters she was 17 supposed to brief you on; in other words, I need to hear 18 about X or Y, and did she have any trouble remembering? 19 A: I think she was as good as anybody. 20 I'm sure she may have had things she didn't remember, but 21 I think she was as good as anybody. 22 Q: And what about remembering the 23 instructions you gave her, you'd give her instructions or 24 guidance. 25 Did she have any trouble remembering those

1 instructions or guidance? 2 A: I -- to the best of my knowledge, but 3 you're asking me to go back ten (10) or eleven (11) years 4 so, to the best of my knowledge, I've indicated to you 5 the best I can that -- that I think she was pretty smart. 6 Q: And it's fair to say -- well you 7 actually said "very smart," didn't you? 8 A: Let's make her very, very smart. I 9 have no difficulty with that. 10 Q: All right. Well, we can't do 11 anything together. It's your evidence. Before you 12 testified, quote, "very smart", close quotes, so that's 13 fair? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Is that right. Thank you. Now, when 16 it came to matters of significance then, it's fair to say 17 you were always comfortable that she had relayed the 18 significant information to you, correct? 19 A: Yes, that she deemed was appropriate, 20 yes. 21 Q: Do you ever recall her failing at 22 that, relaying significant information? 23 A: I -- I -- I don't have recollection 24 over all the years, but I'm sure there were occasions 25 when I would have come back to her and said, This was

1 significant to me and she may have said, Oh, I didn't 2 think it was, but thank you. 3 I don't think anybody is perfect, if 4 that's the way you're trying to make anybody out to be. 5 Q: I'm not trying anything, sir. I'm 6 asking you questions and you're saying to me you don't 7 recall. You don't recall, as you sit here today, an 8 instance where she failed to pass on to you significant-- 9 A: I'm sure there were many instances, 10 but I can't recall them right now because -- 11 Q: All right. 12 A: -- I never deem her to have been 13 impeccably perfect at every stage of my -- my 14 relationship with her. 15 Q: Fair enough. But in any event, would 16 you also agree with me that from your perspective she was 17 also good or excellent about relaying your instructions 18 or expectations to others. 19 Would you agree with that? 20 A: I think if that's what she was 21 supposed to do, I think she would, yes. 22 Q: And there were many times she was 23 supposed to do that, correct? 24 A: It could have been. 25 Q: Well, could have been. Sir, she was

1 your subordinate, yes? 2 A: She worked for the Office of the 3 Premier, my subordinate, yes. 4 Q: And part of her job was actually to 5 relay your instructions to others; that was part of her 6 job? 7 A: Right, and I think your definition 8 was she would have done it often or many, many, many 9 times and I -- I don't recall giving that many 10 instructions but you can have your definition and all I 11 can do is give you mine. 12 Q: Fair enough. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Can you assist me with all of this? 17 Is there any area that you would identify as it came to 18 Ms. Hutton doing her job for you that would be a distinct 19 weakness in her performance? Is there anything you can 20 recall as you sit here today? 21 A: I -- I haven't put my mind to it but 22 I could reflect on it over the next few months if you 23 like and report back to you; that's not something I think 24 about, particularly these days. 25 Q: Did you mean to be facetious when you

1 said that, sir, about the few months? 2 A: No. 3 Q: All right. Going back to my question 4 now, my question was: As you sit here now, not a few 5 months from now -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- not a few years from now. As you 8 sit here today is there anything that reflects, in your 9 mind, in terms of a weakness in her performance, sir? 10 A: No, but I've not turned my mind to it 11 or reflected on it over the years, apparently not 12 something that I do. 13 Q: Now, you talked to Mr. Rosenthal that 14 it was important to understand that the House, when 15 answering questions in the House, you don't always get a 16 lot of time to answer questions; right? 17 A: That's correct or you always hear 18 questions. 19 Q: All right. But regardless of whether 20 you got time to hear it you made -- you made reference 21 to, If the record wasn't corrected then I assume that was 22 accurate. You said that to Mr. Rosenthal at one (1) 23 stage. Do you remember saying that? 24 A: If -- you didn't finish the sentence. 25 If the record was incorrect, we would try and correct it.

1 Q: All right. 2 A: I think that's usually the case, yes. 3 Q: And -- and can you assist the 4 Commission with the process that you recall that's 5 usually involved in correcting the record as far as the 6 House is concerned? 7 A: It may -- it depends on -- on what 8 the record was. It may be at the next session of the 9 House or the next day, sometimes it could be the next 10 week. If it was something that was said on the last day 11 of the session, it might be the next session or it may be 12 something then, in that case, that may have been 13 corrected. If it was an impression that people had that 14 may have been in the media. There could have been lots 15 of ways, I suppose. 16 Q: And in terms of inaccuracies in the 17 House, who generally would pick up on it? Is it sort of 18 a haphazard thing or was there somebody in charge of 19 monitoring? 20 A: I guess if anybody monitored or 21 recognized it then they would pick up on it. 22 Q: But I would -- I had asked, Is there 23 anybody actually in charge of it? You were the Premier 24 and was there anybody assigned to monitoring what you 25 said in the House?

1 A: I don't know. 2 Q: All right. And Ms. Hutton stated 3 that when you were in the House, she was in the House 4 virtually unfailingly. 5 Is it fair to say that, on occasion, she 6 assisted you with correcting the record? 7 A: She could have, yes. 8 Q: And, in fact, did on occasion? 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: I'm asking you, sir. You're 11 answering -- 12 A: I -- I don't think back to those days 13 but you know she did, so, if you say she did, I accept 14 your word, sir. 15 Q: This process is about thinking back 16 to those days, fair enough? 17 A: Okay. All right. 18 Q: Now secondly, sir, you made reference 19 in an answer to Mr. Rosenthal about you attending a 20 morning meeting about a year after the shooting and -- 21 and being concerned about quote, "correcting the record," 22 close quotes as it applied to a newspaper article. 23 Do you remember giving him some answers 24 about that? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: All right. And again, does the same 2 sort of information apply, that in the circumstances of a 3 newspaper article that may be incorrect your staff would 4 move to assist in correcting the record; is that fair? 5 A: No, but they -- if -- if it was 6 brought to somebody's attention, they would say is it 7 worth correcting; does it make it a ten (10) month story 8 instead of a one (1) day story; is there anybody who 9 actually believes the incorrectness; is it significant -- 10 is it insignificant. 11 I think all those tests would apply. I 12 think on many occasions, nobody would bother correcting 13 the record if they didn't think it was -- was that 14 significant or something that -- that was widespread or 15 something that others had -- had actually believed was -- 16 was the case. 17 I think there would be many occasions like 18 that. 19 Q: Fair enough. And I take it the 20 corollary is true; if it was significant, then steps 21 would be taken to correct it, correct? 22 A: Well, I gave four (4) or five (5) 23 examples, depending on whether it was believed, whether 24 it was significant, whether it was widely reported. I 25 think there would be a judgment made about that.

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry, Mr. 4 Commissioner. I'm looking for a passage that -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- has just escaped 7 my attention. If you give me a brief second, I'll -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- track it down. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By all 11 means. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: One of the things that you said, 17 again it was in answer to a question by Mr. Rosenthal, 18 his name is coming up a lot this morning. 19 One of the things you said in answer to 20 one of his questions related to your decision about how 21 to address this matter in the House. And I'm -- I just 22 want to read you what... 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 Q: In my mind, it would have been 2 February 15th, 2006. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Let me give you the gist of the 7 passage and you can assist me if -- if I've got it wrong. 8 You said to Mr. Rosenthal... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 13 other Counsel are trying to follow you. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair enough. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: You said to Mr. Rosenthal, in 19 essence, I don't have the passage in front of me. You 20 said to Mr. Rosenthal that basically, against the advice 21 of your lawyers, you had decided or determined that you 22 were going to answer questions as honestly and as openly 23 in the House as you could, to address the misconception 24 relating to your involvement with the police, a 25 misconception that you described as continuing on to

1 today. 2 Do you recall saying that? 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine, I can 5 pull the passage out, no problem with that. I just 6 though I'd move us along. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 8 think -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If My Friend wants 10 the passage we'll stop and we'll get him the passage. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry for the 15 delay, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I expect I'll be 18 able to fix it for you fast. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 I remember, vaguely, the area that you're referring to. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you, I've 25 found it, I appreciate it. I apologise for that.

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: It's February 16th, 2006 and it's 4 page 135. I was looking at 135 on the 15th. 5 So February 16th, 2006 and it's page 135. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: I'm just going to read you what you 12 said to Mr. Rosenthal. It's pretty brief. 13 "MR. ROSENTHAL..." 14 And this is so you know, Mr. Harris, this 15 was in relation to the questions Mr. Rosenthal had of you 16 about your answers in the House as it related to 17 knowledge about the buildup, your staff knowing about the 18 buildup. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And Mr. Rosenthal asked you a number 21 of questions about it and at line 12, question by Mr. 22 Rosenthal at page 135. 23 "Q: So it wasn't incumbent on you to 24 say I haven't checked with my staff but 25 as far as I know they were not, they

1 heard about the buildup." 2 That's what Mr. Rosenthal asked you. 3 "A: Actually it's not incumbent upon 4 me to say anything. I don't have to 5 answer the question if I want. 6 Although I think you will find, 7 probably against the advice of my 8 lawyers who said, you know, that -- 9 particularly when it was under 10 investigation, I honestly attempted to 11 answer all the questions as best I 12 could because I think there was a 13 misconception out there that carries on 14 to this day that somehow or other I or 15 my staff were involved in directing the 16 OPP. 17 So I -- I did go to great pains to the 18 best of my ability to try and answer 19 questions." 20 You testified to that just last Thursday. 21 And that's accurate? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you were referring to your 24 decision to be candid in the House, fully against the 25 advice of some of your lawyers obviously. And that was

1 in order to basically, if I may put it, clear the air. 2 Is that true? 3 A: That's -- I believe so, yes. I -- I 4 think that's what I -- I indicated that I probably 5 answered more questions than staff or -- or lawyers 6 wanted to lead me to because on many occasions it was 7 before a Court or -- or I had very little involvement or 8 knowledge but I, you know, the main questions were: Will 9 you call an inquiry or did you direct the police? 10 And then there were all kinds of -- of 11 other questions that were there, and as a buildup to it 12 or buildup to the main questions. And I probably did 13 answer -- or tried to answer more than I had knowledge or 14 briefing notes on or -- or that were there. I think 15 that's fair and that's why. 16 Q: And that, I take it, supplements your 17 answer but doesn't change the fact that your message to 18 Mr. Rosenthal last Thursday was you tried to be as honest 19 as you could about the facts of Ipperwash in the House to 20 address the misconception that you felt hangs out there 21 to today that you were somehow involved with the police, 22 correct? 23 A: I -- I did say yes to that. 24 Q: Okay. Thank you. 25 A: You're welcome.

1 Q: And that effort at candour, that 2 effort at full disclosure, it dated all the way back to 3 when you first dealt with this in the House, in or around 4 1996, correct? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Would you agree with this that to the 7 -- I'm sorry, let me back up, there is something I should 8 have asked you. 9 It wouldn't be very useful for you to be 10 fully candid and to clear the air if in front of you, 11 that is in your presence, other Ministers weren't candid; 12 that is, I take it the idea was those who -- who -- your 13 Cabinet Ministers would have been under a similar 14 understanding that that's what you wanted. 15 That -- that you wanted people to answer 16 the questions? 17 A: I don't recall discussing it with 18 anybody, no. 19 Q: Is it fair to say though that was 20 your expectation? 21 A: No. I think everybody had their own 22 expectation of question period. 23 Q: Are you saying, sir, that you, as 24 Premier took no role, and I'm not just talking about 25 Ipperwash, generally in -- in addressing how a Minister

1 may address a matter in the House that's of personal 2 interest to you, that you would take no role in 3 addressing the issue of messaging or how it should be 4 dealt with in the House, you take no role? 5 A: I -- I may have from time to time. 6 But I don't recall it as being anywhere in the top 7 hundred of the things I had to do, if that's -- 8 Q: Sure. 9 A: -- puts it into context. 10 Q: From time to time you may have an 11 interest in how other Ministers addressed matters in the 12 House. Correct? 13 A: It is reflected on me, yes. 14 Q: And you'd agree with me that one (1) 15 of the hallmarks of the Ipperwash issue was your personal 16 involvement, correct? 17 A: Not for me it wasn't. 18 Q: One (1) of the hallmarks of the 19 allegations in respect of the Ipperwash issue was your 20 personal involvement, correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And so when you used the words a 23 minute ago, quote, "If it reflected on me," close quotes, 24 Ipperwash would be one of those examples where 25 allegations, true or not, reflected on you; yes?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. Now, this is a what if: If a 3 Minister in your presence in the House when answering 4 questions, right, were to mislead the House in any 5 significant way - I'm not talking about saying, you know, 6 August 20th when it should have been August 19th - but if 7 a Minister were to mislead the House in any significant 8 way in front of you, to your knowledge and -- and by the 9 way intentionally or not, right, I take it you'd be 10 responsible, in part, to make sure that the inaccuracy 11 was fixed, as the leader? 12 A: I could be, yeah. 13 Q: And when you say you could be, I take 14 it it would really depend on the significance of the 15 inaccurate information? 16 A: I think I gave four (4) or five (5) 17 examples there, yes. 18 Q: You'd be responsible first to make 19 sure that the record was corrected if it was significant; 20 yes? 21 A: I don't know if that's my 22 responsibility to correct somebody else's record but it 23 might have been a concern of mine, depending what it was. 24 Q: And you might raise it with person A, 25 go to person B and make sure person C corrects the

1 records. Somebody does it. You don't do it but you make 2 sure that it's done, as leader, if it's significant and 3 happens in front of you? 4 A: I -- I might have or somebody else 5 may have. 6 Q: And secondly, I take it and -- and 7 this probably goes without saying but if you thought that 8 the Minister deliberately mislead the House you would 9 have to address that issue of what appeared to be a form 10 of misconduct, correct, as the leader? 11 A: It would be a concern of mine. 12 Q: And you -- and if you were of the 13 view that that person had, as a Minister, deliberately 14 misled the House on a significant matter, you would take 15 some steps to address the misconduct, talk to the person, 16 talk to others, consider your options. 17 That would have to happen, wouldn't it? 18 A: I -- I may have. 19 Q: There'd be circumstances where you 20 wouldn't do that if it was a significant non-disclosure 21 that you thought that the Minster did on purpose in front 22 of you? There's circumstances where you wouldn't take 23 any steps to address -- 24 A: I don't ever recall a Minister 25 deliberately misleading the House, to my knowledge. But

1 if you have an example of a case I could -- my -- my 2 memory as best I can and try and give you the answer as 3 best I can. 4 Q: All right. Let me -- let me try to 5 assist then. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: Could the transcript of November 8 29th, 1995, please be put on the screen? 9 I'm handing you and Mr. Commissioner a 10 copy of a transcript dated November 29th, 2005, which is 11 the testimony of former Attorney General, Charles 12 Harnick. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, there's a whole bunch of pages 17 in front of this and I apologize. It's just meant to 18 give a -- a key to people on what date we're at. If you 19 actually flip in a couple of pages on the passage, Mr. 20 Harris, to page 28 line 20. 21 A: Twenty-eight (28) line... 22 Q: Yeah, page 28. Actually -- 23 A: Twenty (20). Okay. 24 Q: -- if you back up to -- 25 A: Yeah.

1 Q: -- to line 12 on page 28. it says -- 2 A: Yes? 3 Q: -- the question the second page in? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now, this is a discussion that I'm 8 having with Mr. Harnick about his answers in the House, 9 in relation to the Ipperwash affair, all right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Have you read this evidence before? 12 A: I may have. 13 Q: Now, when you say you may have, this 14 is the former Attorney General saying that out of loyalty 15 he lied to the House, sir. I'm going to ask you, do you 16 remember reading this in the transcripts? 17 A: Okay. I'm just checking what you've 18 got here. I -- I believe I reviewed and it was made 19 available to me, and I reviewed Mr. Harnick's evidence. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: I might have also reviewed it in the 22 newspapers but I think I have a summary of this. 23 Q: You may have discussed it with Ms. 24 Hutton? 25 A: I don't believe so.

1 Q: At line 12 it's me asking questions, 2 Julian Falconer: 3 "Q: The second page in the last two 4 (2) paragraphs of exchanges, Mr. 5 Hampton puts again, 'Premier, [and I'm 6 quoting from Hansard, now at line 14]. 7 Premier do you categorically deny that 8 someone at the committee meeting said, 9 [quote] 'Get the fucking Indians out of 10 the Park -- out of the Park? And Mr. 11 Harris deals with the September 5th 12 meeting. 13 Would you agree with me, Mr. Harnick, 14 that no matter what explanation you may 15 have today for this that you were 16 asked, front and centre, in a series of 17 appearances in the House in public as 18 to whether the remark, [quote] 'Get the 19 [blank] Indians out of the Park,' 20 [close quotes] was made by politicians 21 or Cabinet ministers in discussions 22 about Ipperwash leading up to the 23 shooting of Dudley George? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And it's fair to say that, in

1 essence, you chose not to disclose at 2 that time what you disclosed to the 3 Commissioner yesterday? 4 A: That's so. 5 Q: And would you agree with me that 6 when you answered Mr. Scullion, when he 7 asked you the question and you answered 8 Mr. Scullion and said you had not been 9 asked and that's why you did not raise 10 it, what you left out at that time is 11 the fact that you had been asked, and 12 you had been asked repeatedly, perhaps 13 five (5) different days in the House in 14 1996, true? 15 A: Well, I -- I had not read these or 16 seen these until this morning and -- 17 and it is true and certainly I 18 approached this on the basis that we 19 were in a political forum. And 20 certainly I told you how difficult this 21 has been for me, and I came here very 22 specifically and under Oath and when 23 asked for the specific question and 24 circumstance, I've given you the answer 25 that I've given you.

1 Q: [page 30] You'd agree with me that 2 the failure to disclose in 1996 on 3 those five (5) or six (6) days in the 4 Legislature was not about not being 5 asked, it was about loyalty and 6 friendship to Premier Mike Harris? 7 A: I -- I think there was loyalty and 8 -- and friendship and there were 9 political issues. And this is a 10 politically charged atmosphere, very 11 different that the atmosphere of a 12 Commission or Court process. 13 Q: But you understood, as Attorney 14 General at the time, that there was a 15 very serious obligation when speaking 16 in the House to tell the truth? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And so the decision not to make 19 the disclosure that you made at that 20 time repeatedly was at least 21 significantly in part due to the 22 loyalty and friendship you held for 23 Mike Harris? 24 A: I would think that's fair." 25 Would you agree with this, sir, that

1 regardless of whether it's this example or any other 2 example of a Minister deliberately misleading the House 3 on a significant matter, you, if it came to your 4 attention at the time, would address the misconduct with 5 that Minister? 6 That would be part of your obligation as a 7 leader? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Now, I want to understand, because I 10 asked some of the people that -- that prop me up when I 11 ask questions. 12 I asked them to check out the House rules 13 on the issue of deliberately misleading the people of 14 Ontario when answering a question in the House. 15 And you've been an MPP since 1981, you'd 16 know far better than me, but there's actually no sanction 17 in the rules for deliberately misleading or giving 18 deliberately misleading answers in the House; is that 19 true? 20 A: I believe that's true, yes. 21 Q: There is a penalty, though for 22 actually accusing somebody of lying, isn't that true? 23 A: In the Legislature, yes. 24 Q: Now, Exhibit P-1006, Exhibit P-1006. 25 If that could be put on the -- I don't know if it's

1 possible to put it on the screen, I have one (1) copy 2 here. 3 Maybe Mr. Roy could help me. I have a 4 copy for the Witness and a copy for Mr. Commissioner. I 5 think if the Witness got the exhibit, that would be fine. 6 If you could hand that to Mr. Commissioner, I have a copy 7 for My Friend. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: You had mentioned in the passage that 12 I read to you from your evidence of February 16th that I 13 was feverishly looking for under February 15th, and the 14 passage that I read to you, you said, there was not 15 really an obligation to actually answer questions in the 16 House. 17 Do you remember you said that to Mr. 18 Rosenthal? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, in an article that appeared in 21 the National Post under Canadian Press on December 1st, 22 2005, following Mr. Harnick's evidence that I just read 23 to you, I'm just going to read to you the top paragraphs. 24 And it's been filed as an exhibit in these proceedings. 25 "When former Attorney [I'm sorry].

1 When former Ontario Attorney General, 2 Charles Harnick, lied in the 3 Legislature to help his friend and then 4 Premier Mike Harris, it was not only 5 the wrong thing to do, but also an odd 6 decision, considering that Legislatures 7 dodge and side-step tricky questions 8 every day, experts and politicians say. 9 [quote] 'There are ways to avoid 10 answering questions which we see on a 11 daily basis' [close quotes] said Tory 12 Opposition House Leader Bob Runciman 13 who is due to testify next year at the 14 Ipperwash Inquiry where Harnick made 15 his admission on Monday [quote] 'Rather 16 than telling an untruth, you don't 17 respond in a direct fashion. There's 18 no obligation in the Legislature 19 Standing Orders to respond to a 20 question.' [close quotes] Runciman 21 said." 22 Now first, Mr. Runciman's acknowledged 23 having said this. Could I ask you, sir, Mr. Harris, when 24 you told Mr. Rosenthal that, perhaps against the advice 25 of your lawyers, you intended to honestly deal with the

1 Ipperwash affair and your personal involvement in the 2 House dating back to September 1995 and -- and more 3 importantly as of '96 when it was addressed in the House. 4 You were specifically saying, essentially, 5 that you weren't going to pursue this tactic or -- or 6 this approach Mr. Runciman speaks of, of avoiding 7 questions or side-stepping or dodging? You -- you 8 weren't going to do that; isn't that fair? 9 That was the point; you were going to 10 clear the air? 11 A: I may have, from time to time, not 12 answered specific questions but rather gone and I think 13 on this issue, rather gone right to answer what was 14 probably going to be the final question of a series of 15 questions which would deal with my involvement and/or 16 holding an Inquiry. 17 Q: But I need to understand something. 18 There's a difference between essentially answering the 19 question that you thought was being posed to you and 20 doing what Mr. Runciman's describing. 21 Would you agree with that? 22 A: Yes, I think. But I think they're 23 probably the answers that if you review over the history 24 of the thousands and thousands of questions I've 25 answered, if I -- where I may have -- have answered

1 something different much to the frustration of those that 2 were trying to ask questions, that that could have 3 happened from time to time. 4 Q: But in each case, as you told Mr. 5 Rosenthal, in each case when you dealt with this in the 6 House, in your mind it was your intention to, in essence, 7 hold forth, clear the answer and be open about your 8 personal involvement; true? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I'm going to give you one quote as a 11 for instance in terms of your -- your view of how you 12 should answer questions in the House as it related to 13 Ipperwash. And I'm not sure we need to turn it up. It's 14 one (1) line, but if after I read you the one line you 15 feel you want it turned up, sir, please -- please feel 16 free to request it. 17 I'm at Tab 18 of P-973 and you're 18 answering questions put to you by Mr. Brown and then Mr. 19 Phillips about the Marcel Beaubien faxes. And -- and 20 it's something you said the second page. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What page? 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's -- I 23 apologize, November 6, 1996. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:

1 Q: And it's one (1) line, that's why I'm 2 -- something you say at the second page, you say: 3 "Let me say it in response to the 4 Member's question that I have given all 5 the information that I have been aware 6 of every day at every instance and 7 continue to do so going back to events 8 over a year ago." 9 Do -- do you need me to turn that up for 10 you or -- is that pretty -- pretty clear. 11 A: Yeah, I think that's pretty clear, 12 hmm hmm. 13 Q: So you'd agree with me whether you 14 told Mr. Rosenthal you sought to be as honest as you 15 could in the House against the advice of lawyers or what 16 you told Mr. Phillips on November 6th, 1996, it was your 17 effort to actually, quote "Give all the information that 18 I've been aware of everyday at every instance." 19 That was your intention, yes? 20 A: That was my intention, yeah, to the 21 best of my ability. 22 Q: And that's in stark contrast to what 23 Mr. Runciman's talking about as a tactic. To be fair to 24 Mr. Runciman it -- it's probably not against any rules as 25 a tactic, the dodging and side-stepping.

1 That's quite a contrast to side-stepping 2 or dodging, would you agree with that? 3 A: I doubt there's a politician 4 answering questions that hasn't done that from time to 5 time, including me. 6 Q: Fair enough. But it is a contrast 7 though; true? 8 A: I said I doubt that there's a 9 politician that hasn't done that from time to time 10 including me. 11 Q: All right. When I don't need an 12 answer -- I'll keep going, Mr. Commissioner, even if I 13 don't think I got the answer to my question. I'll just 14 keep going -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Move on. We 16 just don't need -- 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and I'll go 19 back. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 21 need for an editorial comment. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, then I'll go 23 back. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just go -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I mean, I either --

1 I -- I didn't get an answer to my question which is that 2 approach of holding forth -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You got an 4 answer, move on, ask your next question or -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. I got an 6 unresponsive answer then, with respect. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that-- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I said the 9 approach of holding forth, clearing the air, being -- is 10 in contrast to this approach of dodging questions. And 11 that's what I asked and I didn't get an answer as to 12 whether it was in contrast. 13 In other words it wasn't responsive. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 15 Downard...? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My Friend thinks he 17 didn't get an answer. He doesn't need to make a speech 18 to everyone about it. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 20 question again. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: He can put the 22 question again. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. That's 25 fine then I'll do that.

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I mean 2 you -- well, all right. You're going to ask -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: So going back to my question. That 7 approach that you've referred to, as you put it, 8 "Given all the information that I have 9 been aware of every day and every 10 instance and continue to do so." 11 That's in contrast to this other tactic we 12 see about referring to dodging, side-stepping tricky 13 questions, avoiding. That's in contrast, isn't it? 14 A: Yes. But you could be talking two 15 (2) different sets of circumstances. I think the fairest 16 way is if you have a specific question, I can try and -- 17 try and answer that. 18 Q: Very -- very -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- very helpful. I 21 appreciate that and you're quite right. It is -- it 22 depends on context, of course. 23 THE WITNESS: Right. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:

1 Q: Do you recall you -- you were there 2 since the early '80s. Do you recall any rules or 3 training or code of conduct on the obligation of honesty 4 by a Minister in the House? 5 A: I don't recall but I believe it would 6 be -- my understanding was that -- that you would tell 7 the truth -- 8 Q: But I'm now -- 9 A: -- as -- as best you could at all 10 times in the Legislature. That would certainly be a good 11 policy to follow and I think it was expected. 12 Q: And you expected it of the people 13 that worked for you as Cabinet ministers or otherwise; 14 yes? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And I -- I only ask you that because 17 obviously this -- this Commission is dealing with factual 18 and systemic issues. And I just want to ask you, sir, 19 going back to my actual question, I infer from your 20 answer the way you answered that you can't think of any 21 quote, "rules," quote, "training," quote, "code of 22 conduct," on the obligation of honesty in the House? 23 A: I don't recall, but I would doubt 24 that there was any other understanding or it would be 25 necessary to say to people, You should tell -- tell the

1 truth in the Legislature. 2 Q: Well, we'll -- that I -- I'm going to 3 leave for argument. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: Now, the next -- the next question I 6 want to understand is, as leader, you took -- go over in 7 September 1995 and you -- you were leader over two (2) 8 terms. 9 Was it to the end of 2001 basically or 10 early 2002 you were Premier? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. As a leader and Premier did 13 you -- do you recall taking any steps personally or -- or 14 through your staff or otherwise taking any formal steps 15 in the interest of promoting honesty in the House? 16 A: I -- I don't, no. I don't know it 17 was necessary. 18 Q: Fair enough. The good news is, Mr. 19 Harris, I'm flying through pages that I've already 20 addressed so I'm trying to move us ahead. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 22 take a break around eleven o'clock so if you -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- unless it 25 suits you to do it some other time but I kind of want

1 to -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's great. 3 That's fine. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- break the 5 day up; eleven o'clock would work. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Now, you understand obviously, I'm 10 sure you do, Mr. Harris, that credibility, including your 11 credibility, is an issue that the Commission has to 12 ultimately rule on in -- in this case? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And whatever facts that you have that 15 can help resolve inconsistencies are important. 16 You understand that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: For example, Mr. Rose -- Mr. 19 Rosenthal asked you about your knowledge of Mr. Harnick. 20 He asked would he, to your knowledge, have any reason to 21 mislead the Commission? Mr. Rosenthal asked you that as 22 -- for example you said, No. Right? 23 A: I -- I'm not aware of any. I don't 24 believe he would. 25 Q: All right. Can I ask you the same

1 question, same point with respect to Mr. Taman, the 2 former Deputy Attorney General? 3 Can you, as you sit here today, think of 4 any reason that he would have, motive that he would have, 5 to mislead on his account of events? 6 You've read his account of events, 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. Can you think of any 10 motive that Mr. Taman would have as former Deputy 11 Attorney General to mislead on his version of events? 12 A: No. 13 Q: I want to talk to you about some -- 14 what I would suggest to you are common sense 15 propositions. 16 Would you agree with me that as a matter 17 of common sense in trying to resolve inconsistencies, 18 there can be a lot of reasons that people's versions of 19 events are different, just as a person collecting 20 experience? Would you agree? 21 A: I'm sorry, there could be a lot of 22 differences -- 23 Q: Different reasons that people's 24 versions of events can be different? There's a whole 25 host of reasons, as a matter of common experience?

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I'm not -- this 2 -- this is pure argument. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 4 believe that's right in every case. These matters come 5 out. I mean -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. I'll 7 keep going. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Would you agree with me that one (1) 11 of the reasons your version of events might be different 12 than the versions of events of other witnesses, since 13 you've read those versions, would you agree with me that 14 your poor memory or their poor memory may be one of the 15 explanations why you don't remember things the same way 16 true? 17 A: I -- I don't know whether -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 19 minute. Yes? 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He can't comment on -- 21 this is -- there are many reasons why. He can ask 22 questions to the Witness about facts. He can ask him 23 about his memory but he cannot ask him about somebody 24 else's memory. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I --

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Millar's right. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I'll try to... 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 5 Mr. Falconer. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: Your poor memory might be, for 9 example, the reason, might be. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But that's -- that 11 exists pure argument in the guise of a question. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's not fair. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It is not -- first 15 of all, the statement that argument is in the guise of a 16 question, with respect, is a little bit begs the 17 question, because Counsel's job is to canvass the 18 evidence in order to make argument. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It doesn't help us 21 that something may end up in argument -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The question is, is 24 it a proper question; is it fair? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No --

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's the 2 question. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: yes, Mr. -- 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: To assert to the 5 Witness, your poor memory, as if it was a fact -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's just the 8 cheapest stunt around. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, now -- now -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 12 Falconer -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If Mr. Downard gets 14 personal, it's going to be a long day, because cheap 15 stunts include being overly protective of witnesses and 16 running interference so they get more time to answer 17 questions. 18 I don't want to be accused of cheap 19 stunts -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Unless I can do the 22 same thing going the other way. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 24 Falconer, I'm not going to sit here and listen to this go 25 on all morning.

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or all day. 3 Please move on, ask questions -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's a 6 witness on the stand, ask questions. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Now, again, I'm making a suggestion 12 to the Witness, it is not fact unless the Witness adopts 13 it and my suggestion to the Witness -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 15 question -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- is did your -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 18 question in a fair manner. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Your poor memory could be one 22 explanation, I'm suggesting to you, sir, I don't say it 23 as a fact -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 25 that the fact that he has a poor memory has been

1 established. You can ask him questions about what he 2 remembers -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Your limitations -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and what 5 he doesn't. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- on your memory-- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you're-- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could be one reason 9 that your account on a matter is different than another? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 11 -- what was the first part of the question? 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Your limitations -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- I -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- on your memory. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Everybody 16 has limitations and this -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's why there's 18 nothing wrong with the question, with respect. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But this is 20 ten (10) years ago, so -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So everybody 23 has certain limitations. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's why there's 25 nothing -- I'm not --

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask him 2 questions about -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: His memory. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, but 5 you're asking him in a way that you're drawing a 6 conclusion in the question. 7 So ask him a question in a fair way, 8 that's all. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Would you agree with me that your 12 memory -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 14 better. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: -- may be one (1) basis for your 18 inconsistencies with other versions of events? 19 A: No, I don't think my memory is the 20 problem. 21 Q: Would you agree with me that 22 subjective perception, that is, your subjective 23 perception of what other people are doing or your 24 subjective perception of their behaviour is another basis 25 for why your version of events might be different than

1 somebody else's? 2 A: I'm not sure you may -- you might 3 have to explain to me what you mean by "subjective 4 perception," because -- 5 Q: Fair enough. 6 A: My subjective perception? 7 Q: That's right, fair enough. In other 8 words, you could have two (2) witnesses and you ask them 9 what the colour of a car is, car white, and both 10 witnesses say yes or no. They may be mistaken. 11 But if you ask somebody, did this person 12 appear afraid to talk in your presence, that's now 13 getting into the subjective perception of that person's 14 behaviour and what conclusions you draw from it. 15 Do you see the difference? On one (1) 16 hand, it's a pure fact; the other is based on your 17 perception of that person? 18 Would you agree that there's a real 19 distinction there? 20 A: I don't know whether I agree or not. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 22 that this line of questioning -- 23 THE WITNESS: -- and I don't -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is 25 helping me at all, Mr. Falconer.

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: Would you also agree, in looking at 5 other versions of events and yours, that another basis 6 that you could have for being inconsistent with others, 7 basis you could have, is a form of damage control to your 8 reputation? 9 That could also be a reason your versions 10 of events are different than others? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Would you agree that when you told 13 Mr. Rosenthal that you made an effort to be as honest and 14 as open as you could in the House, it's because in your 15 experience as a member of the legislature, if someone 16 appeared to be concealing information or not to be 17 holding, in a forthright matter, out on the information, 18 not expressing themselves, not clearing the air, that 19 that would give the impression that they weren't 20 providing all the facts they knew? 21 That would give that impression; that was 22 your experience in the House? 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't understand the 24 question. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fine, I can --

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 2 right. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can keep moving. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: You provided that answer to Mr. 7 Rosenthal about being as honest as you could, and you 8 provided it in relation to the misconception you were 9 involved with the police. 10 Do you remember doing that? 11 A: You might have to be a little more 12 specific, if you like. 13 Q: That's fine. If you could turn up, 14 or just have regard to your answer you gave Mr. Rosenthal 15 on February 16th, you said: 16 "I wanted to be as honest as possible 17 because I wanted to address the 18 misconception that I was involved with 19 the police." 20 Do you remember saying that? 21 A: Yes, I think that was in the context 22 of the allegation was that I had directed the police with 23 some of their actions or any of their actions to do with 24 Ipperwash Park. 25 That seemed to be the general allegation

1 that was trying to be alleged to be. And since I knew 2 that wasn't true I tried to the best of my ability to 3 answer that. 4 Q: And you knew that by taking that 5 approach, rather than side-stepping or dodging, you hoped 6 to portray yourself as someone who wasn't concealing 7 facts but was being candid; true? 8 A: No. I just hoped that the truth 9 would come out. 10 Q: Well, I'm in great pains to go over 11 this with you because there was a specific answer you 12 gave Mr. Rosenthal on February 15th, 2006 that I want to 13 explore with you for a minute. 14 And it -- it was this notion that you 15 could remember specifically and very clearly that Mr. Fox 16 was neither introduced nor did he introduce himself. And 17 if you could turn -- if -- if I could have, first of all, 18 Mr. Millar turn up the evidence, it's at February the 19 15th, 2006 and it's page 213. And I have a copy for you, 20 Mr. Harris. And I have a copy for the Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: At page 213, line 11, do you have 3 that in front of you? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: You flipped into the second page. 6 A: Yeah. Question? 7 Q: The ever popular Mr. Rosenthal is 8 asking you questions. At page 213, line 11. 9 "Q: Now what I want to ask you is, 10 why would you remember, of all the 11 things that were going on in the dining 12 room meeting, whether they said 13 Inspector Fox or Mr. Fox or Joe Blow." 14 See how no one objects here. I don't know 15 how Mr. Rosenthal gets away with it. 16 "A: Because about a year later [I'm 17 just jealous] -- Because about a year 18 later when there was a newspaper report 19 I think, when I first learned that an 20 allegation that there was a police 21 inspector or somebody who was -- was 22 with the OPP in this meeting, I was 23 very surprised at that and I -- I 24 remember coming into the morning 25 meeting that day saying, We've got to

1 correct the record. They're wrong. 2 And it turns out they were right. 3 There was a seconded OPP officer. In 4 fact two (2), maybe three (3) I hear 5 now. I was aware of two (2) but I 6 think yesterday I heard there was -- 7 could have been a third. 8 But that -- that was not known to me 9 and nor to a number of people at the 10 meeting and I would have known that and 11 I would have remembered that. 12 Q: So you say this was brought to 13 your attention about a year after 14 September 1995? 15 A: Well, I -- 16 Q: Approximately. 17 A: Approximately, I think. 18 Q: And at that time you did an 19 investigation then, is that what you're 20 telling us? 21 A: Yeah, because I said they're 22 wrong. That newspaper article is wrong. 23 That reporter is wrong. We've got to 24 correct the record. 25 Q: And who did that investigation for

1 you, sir? 2 A: I have no idea. I would have 3 asked probably Ms. Hutton or whoever 4 was I met with that morning. 5 Q: And you asked her to find out if 6 there were any OPP officers at the 7 dining room meeting? 8 A: Right. She was as shocked as I 9 was. 10 Q: And what did she report back to 11 you then, sir? 12 A: That there were seconded officers 13 at the meeting, not in the capacity of 14 OPP but on staff now. Seconded to one 15 (1) of the Ministries." 16 And then at page 216, if you just flip to 17 the next page. I'm almost through with this, at line 2. 18 A: 26? 19 Q: 216? You see it says, "Well, the 20 deputy"? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Actually for my purposes, that's 23 sufficient at this point. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: I just want to ask you this. You --

1 you made a point. You were at pains to tell Mr. 2 Rosenthal, if that could be left out please, you were at 3 pains to tell Mr. Rosenthal, and I'm talking about line - 4 - pages 214 -- 213, 214 can be left out please. 5 You were at pains to tell Mr. Rosenthal 6 that you have a certain degree of confidence, not 7 uncertainty, confidence, that Mr. Fox was not introduced 8 as a police officer. 9 You were at pains to tell him that and you 10 pointed out that you had occasion to reflect on it within 11 a year of the event. 12 Is that -- that was the gist of what you 13 were telling him, correct? 14 A: That's your summary, okay. 15 Q: Well, if my summary is incorrect, I 16 need to hear from you. That's -- I -- I can go back line 17 by line, but I'm suggesting that that basically was the 18 point. Wasn't it? 19 A: I -- I would think I probably 20 reflected on whether I had talked to any OPP officers 21 several hundred times from September the 7th or whenever 22 the allegations started to arise that I had somehow 23 talked to the OPP or directed the OPP. 24 And my recollection on every occasion was, 25 No, I had not. And under no time were there -- were

1 there OPP officers at any meeting that I was at or at no 2 time did I talk to them. So I was shocked, as I 3 indicated to you a year later, to read in the paper that 4 somebody was alleging that there were OPP officers at a 5 meeting that I attended. 6 Q: Okay. And you pointed out to Mr. 7 Rosenthal that you recall after seeing that in the press, 8 discussing it with your staff that morning, that the 9 newspaper article had to be corrected about the account 10 of an OPP officer, correct? 11 A: Yes, because I -- it seemed very 12 fundamental that I had certainly given many answers that 13 I had not talked to the -- to the OPP. 14 Q: And so you -- 15 A: And it needed to be corrected. 16 Q: And so you said to Mr. Rosenthal that 17 you were confident that there was no introduction in the 18 dining room of that officer, because you thought about 19 it, that dining room meeting, about a year later; right? 20 A: Well, that and I thought about it, 21 any of the meetings on many occasions as I've indicated 22 to you up to and including that -- that year. 23 Q: And the point of telling that to Mr. 24 Rosenthal is Mr. Rosenthal, Just wait a minute, I'm not 25 saying to you, sir, that as of November or sorry, as of

1 February 2006 I'm reflecting back over ten (10) years I 2 go to this, I actually remember going through this 3 exercise within a year of its occurrence. 4 That was part of the point of you telling 5 that to Mr. Rosenthal? 6 A: Yes, and as I've indicated to you I 7 reflected on it many times when questions were asked. 8 They were asked long before the -- the question or the 9 article appeared in the paper and then the question 10 subsequently asked. 11 Q: And you pointed out to Mr. Rosenthal, 12 in that passage I read to you, that you actually 13 discussed with your staff and you believe Ms. Hutton who 14 was in the dining room, you actually discussed that -- 15 that issue because of your concern, your shock? 16 A: Yes, I believe that I would have 17 discussed with her, were there OPP officers in the -- in 18 the meeting? She was as shocked as I was. 19 Q: In the dining room? 20 A: I the dining room meeting, yes. 21 Q: Do you recall, other than Ms. Hutton, 22 what other staff that morning you spoke to about this 23 issue? 24 A: No. 25 Q: But you did point out to the

1 Commissioner that you recall Ms. Hutton's shock, as well? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: So there's no doubt you talked to Ms. 4 Hutton about it that morning? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you were shocked together. You 7 were both shocked? 8 A: Yes, I think that's my testimony 9 three (3) or four (4) times. 10 Q: Now, you mentioned a newspaper 11 article and -- and I'm trying to sort of see if we can 12 narrow down the timing. You mentioned a newspaper 13 article that came out that twigged us. 14 And if Mr. Commissioner could -- if this 15 could be passed to Mr. Commissioner and to my -- to the 16 Witness please. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: This is a newspaper article, the 21 front page of the Toronto Star: Secret Talks Held on 22 Ipperwash May 29th, 1996. So that would be in and around 23 -- not -- not quite a year but it's around I suppose 24 eight (8) -- nine (9) months. And it shows -- the -- the 25 picture actually while being slightly blacked out is Ms.

1 Hutton. Do you see: 2 "Twenty (20) invited, Deb Hutton, a key 3 advisor." 4 And -- and you'll see if you flip to the 5 next page you actually see, "continued from A-1"? So 6 this is a headline on the front page of the Toronto Star 7 and it actually refers to Superintendent Fox. 8 And it seems to be the first reference to 9 Superintendent Fox and an OPP officer that I can find in 10 the -- in the media. 11 Could you take a moment to look at this 12 article because it might assist us in narrowing down the 13 timing of when this morning meeting happened and in 14 response to which article? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: Okay. I'm sorry, how much do you 19 want me to read? 20 Q: Well, the passage I want to bring to 21 your attention -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: -- is the second paragraph: 24 "And all twenty (20) government 25 officials were invited to the emergency

1 meeting at Queen's Park on September 2 5th including Attorney General Charles 3 Harnick's parliamentary assistant and a 4 senior Ontario Provincial Police 5 officer." 6 A: I'm sorry -- 7 Q: Do you see that? 8 A: Where -- 9 Q: That's the second paragraph, first 10 page. 11 A: Oh, first page, second para -- okay. 12 Q: "In all, twenty (20) government 13 officials were invited to the emergency 14 meeting at Queen's Park on September 15 5th, and including Attorney General 16 Charles Harnick's parliamentary 17 assistant and a senior Ontario 18 Provincial Police officer." 19 Do you see that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And then further on, if you flip the 22 page, and I apologize about the small print, but we could 23 only find one (1) version. It was on the database but we 24 could only find one (1) version that -- that has the 25 complete article without cutting it off.

1 A: Okay, so you're by the bottom part 2 there now? 3 Q: If you look at the bottom part that 4 says, "continued from A-1", do you see that? 5 A: I see "continued" yeah. 6 Q: If you go -- 7 A: At the top of the second page? 8 Q: It says, "Harris aide at secret 9 meeting on Ipperwash". Do you see that headline? 10 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 11 Q: In that part. And I apologize, it's 12 a little bit awkward, but we'll get there. The third 13 column starts with "Along with Hutton", do you see that? 14 Third column, then the third paragraph down, "Along with 15 Hutton". 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Quote: 18 "Along with Hutton, among those listed 19 on the emergency inter-departmental 20 Committee were Dan Newman, MPP 21 Scarborough Centre and parliamentary 22 assistant for Attorney General Charles 23 Harnick, who was also Minister of 24 Indian Affairs. 25 OPP superintendent Ron Fox, a second

1 representative from the Premier's 2 office, nine (9) officials, et cetera." 3 Now, based on our review, it appears this 4 is the first time that the issue of an IMC meeting and 5 the attendance by Superintendent Fox at a meeting was 6 raised and the fact that he is referred to as an OPP 7 superintendent. 8 And you'll note the front page nature of 9 this article, "Secret talks held on Ipperwash". Deb 10 Hutton on the front page. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: Could this be the article that you're 13 referring to when you answered Mr. Rosenthal? 14 A: I don't know. 15 Q: All right. Well, the reason I ask 16 you that is because it appears that, first of all, you 17 met with staff in the morning about a year later to 18 address this, right; yes? 19 A: There was an article, I believe, and 20 there was subsequently a question in the Legislature. 21 And when the allegation was that they were at a meeting 22 that I was at, whenever that was, I was very surprised, 23 yes. 24 Q: But in terms of articles that deal 25 with Ron Fox and the Legislature, if I could have P-973

1 put in front of the Witness, please? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: This is the book of Hansards. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: For your edification, Mr. Harris, if 12 -- if you look at how the -- the debates unfold, we 13 weren't able to find any debates in 1995, but P-973, the 14 index, seems to show the first time this became a hot 15 Question Period issue. 16 If you look at that index, you'll see 17 there's a March 18th reference which is, you'll see if 18 you flip that tab, it's Mr. Beaubien presenting a 19 petition. All right? 20 Then if you look at Tab 2, there is an 21 exchange in the House, it does -- you might be present, 22 but it's an exchange that Mr. Harnick deals with and it's 23 -- it's a couple of pages, it's three (3) pages. 24 But then you're first quoted in Hansard as 25 dealing with this at Tab 3 on May 29th, 1996.

1 A: Okay. 2 Q: Now, would you agree with me that 3 whenever you attended that staff meeting in the morning 4 and that newspaper article that you're thinking back on 5 came out, you also answered questions in the House that 6 day, too? 7 A: I believe so. 8 Q: All right. And to assist you, sir, 9 if you look at Tab 3 for a moment -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which brief 11 are you looking at, I'm sorry? 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm at P-973. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but is 14 it in the large brief that we have? I'm just trying to 15 find it. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. I thought that 17 you had an independent P-973, Mr. Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If you don't, I 20 apologize. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, if you 22 go to Tab 81 of the book of documents -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 81? 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- in front of you, 25 which is -- contains the extracts from P-973 that relate

1 to Mr. Harris. It's the -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, these 3 are the Hansards -- 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 6 relate. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's the first 8 Hansard. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My apologies. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 11 then. And which one are you looking at? 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May 29th, 1996. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: May -- I've 14 got it, that's fine. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The very first one. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've got it. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: And you'll see, Mr. Harris, you're 20 actually quoted at some length in addressing these 21 issues. If you -- if you just flip through the pages for 22 a minute -- 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: We gave a document notice, obviously, 25 that referred to this but --

1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- to be fair to you you're not going 3 to have an encyclopaedic memory of all of this, so, take 4 a moment -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- to take a look at this. And you'd 7 agree with me that the -- the gist of this Question 8 Period has you being asked numerous questions by numerous 9 members all related to Ipperwash and you're answering 10 questions. correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Now, if you go to Michael Brown, the 13 first member who addresses you on the first page? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Michael Brown: 16 "I have a question for the Premier." 17 Do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: "Today we learned that a mere twenty- 20 four (24) hours before the unfortunate 21 events at Ipperwash on September 6th 22 last, events which left one (1) person 23 dead and three (3) people wounded, a 24 meeting took place between OPP 25 Superintendent, the parliamentary

1 assistant to the Attorney General, as 2 many as six (6) senior political staff 3 including your most trusted advisor, 4 your Executive Assistant for Issues 5 Management, Deb Hutton. 6 What directions did you give to Ms. 7 Hutton before she went into that 8 meeting with the OPP Superintendent?" 9 And do you see I have -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- a question for the Premier, 12 "Today we learned...?" 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And do you see the date May 29th, 15 1996, coincides with the date of that front page article 16 in the Toronto Star? You -- you know the article I've 17 put in front of you? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: It's the same day. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: I'm trying to just narrow this down. 22 There -- there's obviously a revelation of the existence 23 of Superintendent Fox through this article and -- 24 A: Right. 25 Q: -- then it's dealt with in the House;

1 right? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: And it would have been that morning 4 that you would have had the meeting where you exchanged 5 the shocked expressions with Deb Hutton over Fox's 6 status? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: All right. And would you agree with 9 me that, in essence -- and by the way, we heard from Ms. 10 Hutton that the way Question Period works and I looked at 11 her evidence closely, the way Question Period works is 12 that you -- you go in to answer questions in and around 13 1:30 is that right, in the afternoon? 14 A: I think the House starts at 1:30; 15 Question Period around 2:00. 16 Q: All right. So that kind of adds up. 17 You have a morning meeting and you -- you have this 18 experience of shock with Ms. Hutton and you ask her to go 19 check this out; right? Yes? 20 A: I -- I believe so, yes. 21 Q: And then she goes and checks it out 22 and you get properly informed so you can address the 23 House on it on May 29th, 1996; right? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: And you actually made a point of

1 telling Mr. Rosenthal that you recall speaking to Ms. 2 Hutton about this and sharing your shock and then getting 3 briefed. Do you remember telling him that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. I want to then ask you a 6 few questions about May 29th, 1996. 7 First of all you'd agree with me, and this 8 is the second page, and I apologize, there's no page 9 numbers on it but if you simply flip to the second page 10 and you take a look at the second to last paragraph it 11 says: 12 "Honourable Mr. Harris [first of all]?" 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Now, it's quite apparent you're being 15 somewhat peppered with questions about this -- this 16 meeting and Superintendent Fox right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And at the second page this is what 19 you say -- second to last paragraph, quote: 20 "First of all the meeting involved 21 twenty (20) people of whom there would 22 have been one (1) political staff 23 member from each of the ministries that 24 were affected and that were involved in 25 the situation."

1 And then you identify the people. Do you 2 see all that? If you want I can read each line to you 3 but I'm -- 4 A: No, I'm reading it. This is fourteen 5 twelve (1412), roughly, my answer? 6 Q: That's right. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: And then it says -- do you see where 9 it says, "invited"? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Quote: 12 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 13 officer who was assigned to that 14 committee, in these circumstances." 15 A: Right. 16 Q: Do you see that? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: Now, I'm sorry. I apologize, it's 19 just that with a transcript if you say, "hmm hmm," it 20 doesn't pick it up. 21 A: Yes, I see that. 22 Q: Thank you. And when you got your 23 briefing, ultimately, and you thought you had to correct 24 the record and then you didn't think you had to correct 25 the record, what you, ultimately, learned was what you

1 gave as an answer in the House, at page 2; right? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: And when you -- you don't mention his 4 name but you're talking about Ron Fox when you say, 5 quote: 6 "Invited from the OPP was liaison 7 officer who was assigned to that 8 committee in these circumstances." 9 Yes? 10 A: I -- I believe that's who it referred 11 to. 12 Q: Right. And because it was Ron Fox 13 that's identified in the article that morning; right? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: And it's Ron Fox you're being asked 16 about in the House by the members? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: And then you go on to say what his 19 role was; right? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Quote: 22 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 23 officer who was assigned to that 24 committee in these circumstances." 25 A: Okay.

1 Q: Now, it's fair to say that a number 2 of things would have been confirmed to you that morning. 3 First of all, I'm going to suggest to you 4 the reason that Deb Hutton and you were shocked, that you 5 had this mutual shock, is that she was in that dining 6 room with you that -- you called it a small boardroom; 7 right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: She was in that small boardroom with 10 you probably, she said, beside you, can't be sure, she 11 thinks she was. 12 A: Right. 13 Q: And she was in that small boardroom 14 and you both remember Fox being there, right? 15 A: I don't remember Fox being there, no. 16 Q: You didn't? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: All right, fair enough. Let's 19 backup. Deb Hutton was shocked, right? 20 A: Deb Hutton was shocked to find out 21 that Mr. Fox was an OPP officer. 22 Q: Fair enough. 23 A: I think that's fair. 24 Q: You told Mr. Rosenthal that you were 25 certain that Mr. Fox did not introduce himself in that

1 dining room; right? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you were certain because you had 4 an opportunity to reflect back on it within a year and 5 we've now figured out the date, May 29th, 1996; right? 6 A: I think I answered each time you 7 asked that, that I reflected on whether there were any 8 OPP officers in any meetings I attended many, many times 9 between the 6th, 7th, 8th, those events. 10 And when this article appeared or we 11 started to get questions about it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've been 13 going around this, Mr. Falconer. I'm not sure where 14 you're going now. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'd ask for a 16 little bit of patience. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: A little bit 18 of patience? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I appreciate 22 it. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: I need to understand something, sir.

1 Deb Hutton, this person who's a trusted advisor, performs 2 so excellent, she would have gone straight from the IMC 3 meeting on the morning of September 6th into that small 4 boardroom with you in the dining room, correct? 5 A: I -- I don't know whether she went 6 straight there or not. 7 Q: All right. It was her evidence, sir, 8 that she left the -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: She left the IMC meeting and went to 15 brief you in the dining room, correct? 16 A: I -- I don't know. If that's her 17 evidence, that's her evidence. 18 Q: Well, no, you -- you said that the 19 point of the dining room meeting was to get a briefing. 20 You repeated it. I can give you the number it's on. 21 A: You seem to be asking me did she go 22 straight there. I don't know if she went straight there. 23 Q: Oh, fair enough. 24 A: I know she attended in a 25 Interministerial Committee meeting and I do believe she

1 was in attendance or know she was in attendance at -- at 2 a dining room meeting. What she did in between, I have 3 no idea. I'm sorry. 4 Q: Fair enough. And when she testified 5 as to the timing, it was apparent that the dining room 6 meeting would have happened within an hour of the 7 conclusion of the IMC meeting. 8 Is it -- do you dispute that? 9 A: I -- no. I -- I don't know when it 10 occurred but I'm sure there is a record of it somewhere 11 and -- and so if it's important -- 12 Q: She -- she testified -- 13 A: -- to you I could check it all out 14 and find out. 15 Q: I'm just asking you if that's 16 consistent with your memory that it would have -- 17 A: Same day that afternoon within an 18 hour or two (2). Maybe it was right after, I don't know. 19 Q: Fair enough. And in her attending 20 she would have spent a number of hours with Ron Fox at 21 the IMC meeting, we know that, correct? 22 A: I believe she would have, yes. And 23 at the 5th meeting. 24 Q: All right. And then -- so, in 25 essence, Ms. Hutton would have spent some four (4) hours

1 with Ron Fox on September 5th and September 6th, 1995? 2 A: Whatever amount of time the meeting - 3 - I think there's actually minutes of those meetings. So 4 you should -- 5 Q: That's right. 6 A: -- know pretty much the starting 7 time. 8 Q: Hours with this man -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And -- and then within an hour or two 11 (2) of the conclusion of the September 6th, 1995 meeting, 12 she would have been in a small boardroom with that same 13 man again. True? Among others. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And you and her would have discussed 16 his identity and his status as a non-police officer the 17 morning of May 29th, 1996; that is, she was shocked and 18 you were shocked because both of you confirmed that 19 neither of you knew he was a police officer; right? 20 That's your evidence. 21 A: That -- that's my understanding, yes. 22 Q: So she would have discussed with you, 23 Mr. Fox; right? 24 A: I don't know whether she specifically 25 discussed his name or not. She would have -- I think as

1 I indicated to you, I -- I got, from Ms. Hutton, her 2 conclusions from a number of staff that were involved in 3 -- in meetings of the 5th and the 6th. 4 Whether she specifically mentioned his 5 name, Mr. Fox, or not, I can't recall. 6 Q: You told Mr. Rosenthal and I'm going 7 to take you back to this... 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: You told Mr. Rosenthal, in answer to 12 why would you remember, of all the things that were going 13 on the dining room meeting, whether they said Inspector 14 Fox or Mr. Fox or Joe Blow; do you remember he asked you 15 that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you answered: 18 "Because about a year later when there 19 was a newspaper report, I think, when I 20 first learned that an allegation there 21 was a police inspector or somebody who 22 was with the OPP in this meeting, I was 23 very surprised at that." 24 You gave that answer. 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Now I've put that transcript in front 2 of you. I'd ask you to look at that transcript, at line 3 19, page 213, sir. 4 Could you do that? It's right -- right 5 there in front of you. It's a transcript of February 6 15th, 2006. 7 A: Well, which one was this? 8 Q: February 15th, 2006. 9 A: Is that the first one that you gave 10 me? 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: February 15th, 2006, yes. 13 Q: Page 213. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And it says, line 19: 20 "...this meeting, I was very surprised 21 at that." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And Mr. Rosenthal says, All the 25 things that were going on in the dining room meeting,

1 whether they said Fox, or Fox or Joe Blow and you say, 2 "Because about a year later when there 3 was a newspaper report when I first 4 learned a police inspector, somebody 5 who was in this meeting, I was very 6 surprised at that." 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: "This meeting" referred to the dining 9 room, didn't it? 10 A: I believe so. 11 Q: And when you told Mr. Rosenthal, 12 further: 13 "And I remember coming into the morning 14 meeting that day, saying we've got to 15 correct the record, they're wrong, and 16 it turns out they were right. There 17 was a seconded officer, in fact two 18 (2), maybe three (3) I hear now, was 19 aware of two (2) but I think yesterday 20 I heard there could have been a third." 21 And when you were talking about that, 22 you're talking about the dining room meeting, correct? 23 A: Yesterday -- what -- or the -- in -- 24 Q: When you talked to Mr. Rosenthal. 25 A: The evidence that there was up to

1 three (3) seconded OPP officers, I was referring to that, 2 yes. 3 Q: The dining room meeting? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the answers you gave me before, 6 when I asked you these questions -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- was that you were basically 9 checking the facts of who was in the dining room meeting 10 with your staff that morning and asked them to correct 11 the record and ultimately got the information you got, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes, I believe so. 14 Q: All right. So the one (1) thing we 15 know is that as of May 29th, 1996, as of May 29th, 1996, 16 when you consulted with your staff in the morning and got 17 answers back, the one (1) thing we know is that you made 18 efforts to ascertain Fox's status in that dining room 19 meeting, correct? 20 A: I made efforts to find out whether 21 the article that we had seen was factually correct. I 22 thought it was incorrect. 23 Q: But I'm going a step further with 24 you, sir, based on your answers on February 15th, so 25 could you look at the answer you gave to Mr. Rosenthal.

1 You -- 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: -- refer to the dining room meeting, 4 in your answer to Mr. Rosenthal, that you wanted the 5 facts checked about this Fox guy. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And I asked you, this meeting -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Who was with the OPP in this meeting, 10 and it makes sense, because if you look on, it talks 11 about the second and now a third. You were talking about 12 the dining room meeting; right? 13 A: I think that's what the questions 14 were referring to and my -- if it was my attendance at a 15 meeting, it's the only one I attended, so. 16 Q: Right. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: So in the morning, when you sought 19 clarification about Fox -- 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: -- you sought clarification about 22 Fox, in respect to his status at the dining room meeting, 23 correct? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right.

100

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would this 2 be a good point to break? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I need about ten 4 (10) minutes. I'll be finished this area in ten (10) 5 minutes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: When I say this 8 area, this line of questioning, ten (10) minutes. Is 9 that -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is that all right? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: Now, having focussed you on your 16 answers to Mr. Rosenthal, I want to understand this. You 17 were doing your best when you told the Legislature on May 18 29th, 1996, about the circumstances of who Fox was, 19 correct? 20 A: I believe so, yes. 21 Q: And in doing your best to tell them 22 who Fox was, it was with all of the information you 23 gathered at that morning meeting; right? 24 A: Well, or -- or at the Question Period 25 briefing or whatever information I had been given before

101

1 the Question Period, yes. 2 Q: And this -- you talked about matters 3 being sort of you have fifty (50) things you do a day, 4 you said that. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And that, you know, things don't 7 necessarily make the radar screen like we think. But 8 certainly once -- once it hits -- once it hits the front 9 page -- once it hits the front page it's hitting the 10 radar screen; fair? 11 A: I don't know if it hit the front page 12 but this one did hit the radar screen because I remember 13 asking about it. 14 Q: Well, you said you don't know if it 15 hit the front page. I've showed you the article that you 16 agree with me triggered that morning meeting discussion. 17 Do you see how it's the front page 18 continued from A-1? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. So in addition to the 21 concerns you had, it hit the radar screen as front page 22 material on the Ipperwash matter; right? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you were asked a number of things 25 about Ms. -- Ms. Hutton and Ipperwash and your personal

102

1 involvement, in part, as Mr. Brown says, as a result of 2 what he learned today, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, if you could go please -- if you 5 could direct your attention please to page 3. So the 6 third page in -- 7 A: Page 3 of...? 8 Q: -- of the May 29th, 1996, Hansard 9 that's at Tab 3 of P-973. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Mr. Phillips -- first Mr. Brown asks 12 you questions, and you can see that before, and then Mr. 13 Phillips takes over on the second page, Mr. Gerry 14 Phillips, Scarborough/Agincourt; halfway down the second 15 page. Do you see that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: In those days Allan McLean was the 18 speaker right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you'll see that Mr. Phillips asks 21 the following follow-up question. And I'm at page 3, the 22 first time Mr. Phillips' name appears, and it says: 23 "I'll take from that..." 24 Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.

103

1 Q: "I'll take from that, Premier, that 2 your staff was told that the build-up 3 was taking place. If they weren't, you 4 can deny that but I've -- I've given 5 you two (2) opportunities to come clean 6 with the people, and so far we're 7 getting no answer from you. 8 It is clear that at the time that 9 meeting was taking place, the OPP were 10 rounding up sharpshooters or bringing 11 in extraordinary measures without 12 question at that meeting. I can only 13 assume because you refuse to answer the 14 question that your personal 15 representative, the person you sent to 16 that meeting was informed of those 17 matters. You've chosen to not tell the 18 people of this province what took place 19 at that meeting and the fact that you 20 and your staff were informed of the 21 build-up. 22 Frankly your hands are all over this." 23 And then the next paragraph, do you see it 24 says: 25 "HONOURABLE MR. HARRIS: Let me say a

104

1 few things?" 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: "MR HARRIS: Let me say a few 5 things. It's easy for you stand in your 6 place and make silly allegations, 7 impute motives; things that are 8 absolutely untrue. We knew nothing of 9 any OPP build-up. It was not our 10 business. It is the business of the 11 OPP to deal with it. Any briefing that 12 I got would have been in there." 13 The next paragraph: 14 "Quite frankly, you get through your 15 interventions now to the very heart of 16 parliamentary democracy, the separation 17 of police and politicians. I want to 18 tell you that is something that we 19 treat very seriously and something we 20 think is very, very important." 21 I want to back up to that sentence you 22 said, 23 "We knew nothing of any OPP build-up. 24 It was not our business. It is the 25 business of the OPP to deal with it.

105

1 Any briefing that I got would have been 2 in there." 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Would you agree with me and -- and in 6 fairness to you it's obvious that the only information 7 the Opposition has at this point is the September 5th 8 meeting; right? 9 A: It could be. I don't know. 10 Q: And in fairness to you -- well, if 11 you look at the questions you're being asked in the three 12 (3) pages, I want you to do this slowly. 13 A: Yeah, they're dealing with the 5th 14 meeting. 15 Q: Right. 16 A: Yes, I understand that. 17 Q: And the newspaper article that 18 triggers this... 19 A: Deals with the 5th meeting. 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That's right. And Mr. Millar's made 23 a very useful suggestion. I apologize, I -- I propose to 24 make the May 29th, 1996, Star article the next exhibit so 25 that when I say, "this newspaper article," we're very

106

1 clear on what it is. I have a copy here. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-1081, Your Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1081. 4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, sir. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1081: Document Number 6000137. 7 Toronto Star article "Secret 8 Talks Held on Ipperwash", 9 May 29/'96. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: The newspaper article, which is now 13 Exhibit P-1081, the only information disclosed in -- in 14 that media account, is of a September 5th meeting; right? 15 Right? 16 A: I -- I -- that's my recollection when 17 I read through it. I can re-read it if you like but I -- 18 I believe so. 19 Q: But you said the following, in answer 20 to Mr. Sandler. You said you recall being briefed in the 21 dining room and you recall receiving a perspective from 22 the OPP. 23 Do you remember telling Mr. Sandler that? 24 A: I -- I'm sorry, who's Mr. Sandler. 25 Q: Mr. Sandler is the lawyer for the

107

1 OPP. 2 A: Right. I recall, I think, throughout 3 and I do recall Mr. Sandler now, I recall indicating to 4 you that I got briefings on the 5th and 6th about the 5 Interministerial Committee meetings. And I got 6 information at the 6th meeting, the informal gathering 7 that we had in the dining room. 8 And I said I -- I can't tell you how much 9 information I got at which meeting or the other. I think 10 I said by the time the decision was made to seek the 11 injunction that I would have -- I think I gave 12 recollections of the information that I had at that time. 13 Q: Is the short answer -- and it's at 14 page 97, line 16 through 18, you recall being briefed, as 15 you put it, quote, "on the situation on the ground." 16 Page 97, line 16 through 18. 17 A: Yes. That -- it seems to be that -- 18 most likely that briefing would have come from either the 19 6th Interministerial Committee meeting or the 6th dining 20 room meeting or the 5th Interministerial Committee 21 meeting. 22 I -- but I wasn't at the Interministerial 23 Committee meetings. So I think there were briefings 24 there on what was happening on the ground. 25 That's all after the fact, though.

108

1 Q: Well, when you say it's after the 2 fact, we're talking about before the shooting; right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you told the lawyer asking you 5 questions, that you recall being briefed, quote, "on the 6 situation on the ground", correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you also told Mr. Sandler at 9 pages 21, 22, that the update you got was from the OPP's 10 perspective. Do you recall saying that? 11 A: I -- I may have, yeah. 12 Q: I can -- I'd be happy to take you to 13 the transcript. 14 A: No, no. That's fine. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: I think that it was being relayed to 17 me this is the OPP perspective, this is the MNR 18 perspective. So if that's the context, yes. 19 Q: Right. And in addition, on February 20 15th at page 19, you acknowledged it could well have been 21 Ron Fox who gave you that update; right? 22 A: Yes. After the fact I -- it very 23 likely could have been him. 24 Q: Right. And you keep saying "after 25 the fact." I'm talking about your evidence of February

109

1 19th. It's your evidence based on the questions asked 2 of you by Mr. Sandler -- 3 A: Right. 4 Q: -- and it's your evidence that you 5 recall receiving a briefing at the dining room meeting; 6 right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you recall receiving a briefing 9 from somebody who was giving you the OPP perspective; 10 right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you recall that that person could 13 well have been Ron Fox; right? 14 A: Yes. Yeah. 15 Q: Now I ask you to look back at page 3 16 of the Hansard. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: When you said, quote: 19 "Any briefing that I got would have 20 been in there." 21 Close quotes. It's fair to say that 22 "there" refers to the September 5th meeting because it's 23 the only thing they're asking about; right? 24 A: Possible. But that's -- I don't know 25 what "in there" refers to.

110

1 Q: Well, you said it, correct? 2 A: I -- I did say it. 3 Q: All right. And I want to take you 4 through this carefully. In terms of -- in terms of your 5 information that you're being asked -- questions you're 6 being asked, the only information you're being asked is 7 about the contents of that newspaper article that refers 8 to a September 5th IMC meeting; right? 9 A: I think the question dealt with the 10 buildup. 11 Q: That's right. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: But let's look at the question right 14 before -- 15 A: Right. 16 Q: -- of giving you two (2) 17 opportunities to come clean, do you see the second line? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: "It is clear that the time that 20 meeting was taking place, the OPP were 21 rounding up sharpshooters." 22 And you know that meeting if we flip back 23 a page to the September 5th meeting; right? 24 A: That -- that's what I think Mr. 25 Phillips is referring to, yeah.

111

1 Q: Yes. And he doesn't refer to any 2 other meeting; right? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And you respond third line down: 5 "We knew nothing of any OPP buildup. 6 It was not our business. It is the 7 business of the OPP to deal with it. 8 [Quote] 'Any briefing that I got would 9 have been in there' [close quotes]." 10 A: Right, I see that. 11 Q: The briefing that you refer to is a 12 briefing with respect to the OPP in the situation on the 13 ground, right? 14 A: Not necessarily. It could have been 15 from Ms. Hutton. It could have been anybody. 16 Q: No, but the briefing that you're 17 talking about. Any briefings? 18 A: I -- I don't know. You're asking me 19 ten (10) or so years ago, a briefing. I've indicated to 20 you, and quite clearly, that any briefings that I 21 received on the Interministerial Committee meetings would 22 have come from Ms. Hutton. 23 If I received -- and I did attend an 24 informal gathering in the dining room and I -- there were 25 some briefings there. So the totality of my knowledge

112

1 would have come from those three (3). 2 Q: You'd agree with me that when you 3 said, Any briefing that I got would have been in there, 4 it would have been more accurate to say, or to refer to 5 the briefing that you got from the dining room, if you're 6 talking about briefings you received with respect to the 7 OPP and matters on the ground, prior to the shooting? 8 A: It probably would have been more 9 accurate to say any briefings that I got, period. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: But I'm not sure what "in there" 12 refers to, sorry. 13 Q: But "in there" -- "in there" is in 14 answer to questions about the September 5th meeting. 15 A: Well, I don't see September 5th in 16 three (3) or four (4) questions right before it, so I 17 would think at that time, I'm recollecting as best I can 18 on my feet, did I get any briefings on any information to 19 deal with an OPP build up, and I did not. 20 Q: And you'd agree with me, you'd agree 21 with me that as you're thinking on your feet, as you put 22 it -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- you're thinking about what 25 briefings you received about the OPP matters on the

113

1 ground, prior to the shooting? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Do you see, in that line, any 4 reference by you to the dining room meeting? 5 A: No. 6 Q: This is a good time, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Mr. Falconer. We'll take a morning break now. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 12 for fifteen (15) minutes. 13 14 --- Upon recessing at 11:09 a.m. 15 --- Upon resuming at 11:28 p.m. 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 18 resumed, please be seated. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: On November 22nd, 2005 Ms. Hutton 24 testified at page 58 that she thought, after the IMC 25 meeting, that it was important that the -- and she's

114

1 talking about the September 6th IMC meeting, Mr. Harris. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: She said she thought -- there was a 4 quote, 5 "important that the Premier be made 6 aware of the new information from the 7 September 6th IMC meeting." 8 She called it "new information" and I take 9 it that's somewhat consistent with your recollection of 10 an effort to brief you? 11 A: If she had new information thought I 12 should have, I think she would have tried to get it to 13 me, yes. 14 Q: But it's consistent with your 15 recollection what she says, that she had this new 16 information and she wanted to brief you. 17 That's consistent with what you remember? 18 I can read what she says to you, if you want. 19 A: Okay. She said she had new 20 information and she wanted to brief me, then that would 21 be what -- what she thought, yes. 22 Q: I just want to know if it's 23 consistent with your memory, that's all. 24 A: I don't recall -- 25 Q: All right.

115

1 A: -- whether she briefed me then or 2 whether it was information that came forward at the -- at 3 the gathering that we had, but she could very well have 4 briefed me. 5 Q: At page 77 on the same day, November 6 22nd, 2005, Ms. Hutton testified that she saw the dining 7 room meeting as an opportunity to ensure that we were all 8 on the same page. 9 That's consistent with your recollection? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Ms. Hutton testified also, and this 12 is at page 85 of the same day, November 22nd, 2005, that 13 she said: 14 "Each of us [those reporting to 15 ministers and her reporting to you as 16 Premier] -- each of us were looking for 17 confirmation, me from the Premier and 18 others from the Ministers. And so it 19 was logical that we would convene in 20 the same room." 21 Again, consistent with your memory? 22 A: I -- I believe so. 23 Q: Ms. Hutton also testified at page 85 24 -- she also testified that while she didn't specifically 25 recall a chat with you, and I'm talking about between the

116

1 conclusion of the Cabinet meeting and the opening of the 2 dining room meeting, all right? 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: Between those two (2) spots, because 5 Ms. Vella at page 85 asked her about that. She testified 6 that while she didn't specifically recall a chat with you 7 between the Cabinet meeting and the dining room meeting, 8 it seems likely she would have said to you, Hey, let's 9 get together? Again, consistent with your memory? 10 A: Well, as I've indicated we did get 11 together and I don't recall if she briefed me in between 12 the meetings so... 13 Q: But the part that I'm asking you 14 about, and I don't want to make too fine a point, is that 15 she says it was likely she would have said to you, Hey, 16 let's get together. 17 A: She may have, I don't know. 18 Q: And at page 86 to 87 of Ms. Hutton's 19 evidence on November 22nd, 2005, she said that it struck 20 her that the dining room meeting was a, quote, 21 "...convenient way to -- to, what I 22 think, get done what needed to be 23 done." 24 A: If that's what she said, that's what 25 she said.

117

1 Q: And would you agree with her? 2 A: I think it seems consistent with 3 everybody being briefed at the same time. 4 Q: All right. Now, I've tried to 5 summarize where I can because I'm trying to -- to help us 6 on time but -- 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: -- I do want to read to you from page 9 87, from her evidence. Ms. Hutton says at page 87... 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Sorry. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: At page 87 line 5 in, again answer to 18 questions from Ms. Vella: 19 "Q: All right. So your understanding 20 of the purpose of this meeting then was 21 to review the options the Government 22 had with respect to ending the 23 occupation?" 24 Ms. Hutton answers: 25 "Well, I -- I think, certainly from my

118

1 perspective, the Premier was up to 2 speed as of Tuesday on what options 3 were available. I expect, as I said 4 earlier, that I would have let him know 5 that we were going to have some more 6 work done overnight on the Tuesday. So 7 Wednesday would have been an 8 opportunity more to report back on any 9 new options, but in the case of -- of 10 the fact that we had no further options 11 on the table then I think more than 12 likely to bring the Ministers and the 13 Premier up to speed on any new 14 information since we individually would 15 have spoken with the Ministers, and in 16 my case the Premier that morning and 17 also then to discuss anything that they 18 may like to about the injunction before 19 making that sort of final call on it." 20 Again is -- is that consistent with your 21 memory? 22 A: Well, that -- that's consistent that 23 the final call, I guess, was on the type of injunction. 24 If that's what "final call" is referring to, that would 25 be consistent.

119

1 Q: And in fact, you said in answer to 2 Mr. Klippenstein's examination on February 15th page 130, 3 and this is because at the break Mr. Klippenstein wanted 4 to know why Mr. Rosenthal kept getting all the credit. 5 So at page 130, February 15th, you said 6 that the dining room meeting was -- was where the 7 decision was made to go ex parte, correct? 8 A: I -- I think I said that and as I 9 indicated, I think, on many occasions that -- that there 10 may have been a consensus that was the way to go before 11 that, but when we left that dining room meeting, that was 12 everybody's understanding that that's what would take 13 place. 14 Q: I want to read you a passage of your 15 evidence, because I -- I do want to understand something 16 about the dining room meeting. 17 February 14th page 96 line 21 -- February 18 14th page 96 line 21. You're being asked questions by 19 Mr. Millar about the dining room meeting. 20 I'm sorry, first about the evening of 21 September 5th, 1995, at line 16. 22 "Q: What was your position on the 23 evening of September the 5th? 24 A: I -- 25 Q: If you had a position with respect

120

1 to an injunction?" 2 And this is your answer, all right? 3 "Well, I concurred with that. The -- 4 again, between the evening of the 5th 5 and the morning of the 6th and then the 6 -- the meeting that became known as the 7 dining room meeting, which I always 8 find interesting because I don't -- I'm 9 not sure I ever recall eating in this 10 room, but it was a small boardroom, 11 that -- that the consensus was that we 12 should move as quickly as possible to 13 end the occupation before it could 14 escalate. 15 But at the current time it was not -- 16 there was not a threat to -- to safety, 17 that it was contained within the -- the 18 Provincial Park and the sooner this 19 occupation could -- could be dealt with 20 and ended, that you could minimize the 21 possibility that it could escalate. 22 And so then to debate around ex parte 23 versus injunction with notice." 24 And that's what you told Mr. Millar. 25 A: It sounds reasonable.

121

1 Q: And so you told Mr. Millar that with 2 all the options and all the things out there and issues 3 around safety and the containment issue, that ultimately 4 the dining room -- it was left to the people at the 5 dining room meeting as you put it, quote, 6 "To debate around ex parte versus 7 injunction with notice." 8 Close quotes. Correct? 9 A: My recollection was there was debate, 10 discussion about that. 11 Q: And you weren't there as a spectator. 12 I mean, you -- you were participating in what you called 13 this consensus; right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And so I take it follows that you 16 also participated in what you called, quote, "the debate" 17 close quotes? 18 A: I believe I did. 19 Q: Now would you agree with me that part 20 of a useful participation in the debate is to have an 21 understanding of the, quote, "situation on the ground"; 22 right? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And that's why it doesn't strike you 25 at all as surprising that you received that briefing from

122

1 someone from an OPP perspective; right? 2 A: I -- I believe I received that 3 perspective on the -- the from the Interministerial 4 Committee meetings from Ms. Hutton, as well as, I believe 5 that there was discussion, an update at the dining room 6 meeting. 7 Q: Well, let me then read on. Page 97, 8 question 12, same place. This is your evidence to Mr. 9 Millar of February 14th. 10 Q: And that was -- when you're 11 talking about this portion of your -- 12 of what you've just said, is dealing 13 with the dining room meeting that 14 happened. 15 A: That was the major discussion of 16 the dining room meeting, an update on 17 the -- the events and a briefing of the 18 situation on the ground." 19 So you told that to Mr. Millar? 20 A: Yes. But I think I indicated there 21 were -- there were discussions at the dining room 22 meeting, my recollection, situation on the ground, the 23 discussion over the two (2) types of injunctions. I 24 think I gave evidence to that affect. 25 Also there was discussion on making sure

123

1 everybody understood the separation between the 2 operations of the police and politicians. I think those 3 were the three (3) general areas that I -- that I 4 mentioned. 5 Q: As you testified, though, in previous 6 answers, you didn't really think that caution was 7 necessary. Do you remember you said that? 8 A: I said that for me, yes. 9 Q: Yes. Who did you think it was 10 necessary for, if it wasn't for you? 11 A: I -- I think it was a general for the 12 whole, all the participants in the meeting. I think 13 appropriate thing to say. 14 Q: All right. So in a nutshell based on 15 what you and I have reviewed together, in a nutshell the 16 dining room meeting, informal as it was, represented the 17 meeting in which you, as a Government, made the final 18 call as Deb Hutton put it, on how to handle matters; 19 right? 20 A: I think the only final call that -- 21 that was made there for an ex parte injunction. And 22 whether it was confirmed that it would be that way, I 23 can't recall. 24 I think I've indicated that. But 25 certainly that's what I believe there was a consensus

124

1 after that meeting that the type of injunction that would 2 be sought would be ex parte. 3 Q: But you're not -- you're not changing 4 your evidence you gave me a few minutes that you agreed 5 with Ms. Hutton that it was at the dining room meeting 6 that you made the final call; right? 7 A: That's correct. The dining room 8 meeting could have overruled the consensus, I -- I 9 believe, but that isn't my recollection of what happened. 10 My recollection is that -- and I concurred 11 with, that it should be an ex parte injunction. 12 Q: And in addition, and you actually 13 pointed this out yourself before, in addition to this 14 meeting being the meeting in which you made the final 15 call, it actually represents the only meeting that you, 16 as the Premier, sat in on, personally, regarding 17 Ipperwash before the shooting, and I'm leaving out any 18 meeting you had with Ms. Hutton. 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: It represents the -- 21 A: There may -- there may have been 22 discussions. I think I indicated at the morning meeting, 23 where there were other participants, but that's the only 24 -- the only gathering that I recall, yes. 25 Q: And it looks like May 29th, 1996, you

125

1 know, the Hansard at Tab 3, represents your first answers 2 in Question Period about your role in the Ipperwash 3 affair. 4 A: Well, I think there may have been 5 questions before that, but I'm not sure. 6 Q: But you, personally, in the House, we 7 can't find any other examples where you get up in the 8 House before May 29th, 1996 on Ipperwash, but I want you 9 to know this is a more of an art than a science, so if 10 your Counsel knows of one then, you know, we've worked on 11 the premise this is the first time you address it, but as 12 I said, it's an art not a science. We do all the 13 searches, we do our best. This is the first one we can 14 find. 15 Can you -- do you know of another time 16 before this? 17 A: No. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: There may be and there may not. I 20 don't know. 21 Q: Well, you've got, as you said, you've 22 got a part time law firm, I think you said in your 23 evidence before. You talked about lawyers. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 25 that's --

126

1 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think we call - 2 - say that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You know what? 5 I'll just keep going. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're just 7 wasting time. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. No, no, 9 no, you're quite right, you're quite right, I'm sorry. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Now, you'd agree that the article 13 came out that morning, the Toronto Star article, correct? 14 A: There was an article in the Toronto 15 Star, yes. 16 Q: And you've agreed with me and we've 17 talked about that was the morning you met with your 18 staff, yes? 19 A: I -- yes, I did, I believe, meet with 20 my staff that morning and I remember, I think, as I've 21 recollected to you, discussion over whether an OPP 22 officer was present at any of these meetings. 23 Q: All right. Now if you could please 24 turn to, first, Mr. Brown's questions to you, again on 25 May 29th, 1996.

127

1 A: Okay. 2 Q: And we're going to very quickly go 3 through this and I -- Mr. Commissioner, I apologize, but 4 this, from my clients' perspective, is very important and 5 so I'm going to try to do it carefully to be fair to the 6 Witness. 7 In the first page, Mr. Brown asks -- 8 A: Where -- where is this now? 9 Q: First page, Tab 3 of P-973. 10 A: Okay, right. 11 Q: Mr. Brown asks you about the meeting 12 that's revealed in the press: 13 "You know that today we learned..." 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: "...that a mere twenty-four (24) 16 hours before the unfortunate events..." 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: So that's the newspaper article you 19 and I have now filed as an exhibit. 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Exhibit P-1081. And then you 22 immediately, because there's a reference by Mr. Brown to 23 a secret meeting, you say in this -- you see that? 24 "Let me clarify a few things. Number 25 1, this was not a secret meeting."

128

1 Do you see that? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: First page. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: You say, as the first point you want 6 to emphasize, "This was not a secret meeting," right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Yeah. And, in fact, Mr. Brown goes 9 right back, at the next question to you, Michael Brown, 10 member for Algoma, Manitoulin, goes right back to 11 alleging that the September 5th meeting was a secret 12 meeting; do you see that? 13 "The Premier just not believable. You 14 want us to believe you called together 15 the senior political staff, including 16 your own executive assistant and the 17 superintendent of the OPP to a secret 18 meeting to discuss Ipperwash and not 19 once were there any discussions on what 20 the police were planning? 21 No one believes that's true." 22 A: That's on the next page, is it? 23 Q: Yes. You -- we're following through 24 to the next page. 25 A: Hmm hmm.

129

1 Q: So you see it says "Michael Brown?" 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: On the bottom? 4 A: Oh, yeah, I think it's a response to 5 my -- right. 6 Q: "Premier, you're just not 7 believable --" 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: "-- you want us to believe that you 10 called together..." 11 You see that? 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: And -- and: 14 "...to a secret meeting, [see], to 15 discuss Ipperwash and not once were 16 there any discussions what the police 17 were planning." 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 20 Q: So you'd agree that we're still on 21 the September 5th IMC meeting, right? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: That's what you're being asked about. 24 A: Yes, although he says that I called 25 the meeting which, obviously, we know isn't true, so.

130

1 Q: Fair enough, but it's the September 2 5th meeting you're on, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And then he says: 7 "Will you tell us now exactly..." 8 Do you see that, second page, third line? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: "Will you tell us now exactly what 11 role your executive assistant played in 12 formulating a plan of action for 13 Ipperwash --" 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: "-- will you tell us what information 16 the OPP shared with your executive 17 assistant? Will you tell us what 18 information your executive assistant 19 shared with you following the meeting-" 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: "-- and can you tell me why, if this 22 was a police action with no political 23 interference, six (6) of the most 24 senior members of the Government's 25 political staff were having a secret

131

1 meeting with the OPP? Do you really 2 want us to believe that the timing of 3 this police action, just twenty-four 4 (24) hours after this meeting, was just 5 a coincidence?" 6 Do you see that question? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: He refers to a secret meeting and 9 it's apparent to you, isn't it, especially with the 10 twenty-four (24) reference and the context, that he's 11 talking about the September 5th meeting of IMC? 12 A: I don't know what was apparent to me 13 at -- at the time. It seems he's confused that meeting 14 also with the meeting that he says I called, but I -- I-- 15 Q: He's -- 16 A: -- and if -- that's what I think this 17 says to me. 18 Q: And you see his reference to meeting 19 twenty-four (24) hours -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- before the shooting? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: And the shooting was the night of 24 September 6th; yes? 25 A: Yes.

132

1 Q: And there was no other IMC meeting on 2 September 5th? 3 A: No. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: This one would have been obviously 6 more than twenty-four (24) hours if you're trying to get 7 precise about it, but... 8 Q: But P-1081 is a report on the 9 September 5th meeting, that Toronto Star article of May 10 29th? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: So, you and I can agree, that it 13 appears from this Hansard that Mr. Brown's focus is on 14 the September 5th meeting; right? 15 A: Well, as I read it it sounds like he 16 really doesn't know what all went on. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: He read an article. He's asking 19 about a meeting I called. He's asking about a meeting 20 that's referenced in the paper, but -- so lots of times 21 you do that in Question Period. You take a scattergun 22 approach and ask a whole bunch of things. 23 Q: And then you answer: 24 "Let me clarify a few things for the 25 Honourable Member. The staff involved

133

1 will be pleased to have him call six 2 (6) of the most senior decision making 3 staff because he's perhaps elevating 4 their status beyond that which they 5 believe they have and the Member now 6 says they want the pay to go with it." 7 And so there's some humour there; right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And then you say -- number 2 you 10 called it a secret meeting; there was nothing secret 11 about the meeting. 12 A: Right. 13 Q: And you're talking about the IMC 14 September 5th meeting, aren't you? 15 A: I -- I believe so. 16 Q: "In fact I would tell you that this-- 17 every member of the Legislature, every 18 member of the media I think would have 19 been astounded that there's not a 20 meeting of the key ministries." 21 Do you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: So the discussion in that paragraph, 24 please satisfy yourself, the discussion in that paragraph 25 is about the September 5th IMC meeting; right?

134

1 A: I believe so, but... 2 Q: All right. Now we go to the next 3 paragraph. Mr. Phillips for Scarborough/Agincourt says: 4 "To follow up with the Premier, and 5 just to confirm, on September 5th at 6 the time the meeting was taking 7 place..." 8 And then he asks you a question. 9 A: Right. 10 Q: Do you see that? 11 A: Yes, I do. 12 Q: And he asks: Was your staff informed 13 of the OPP plans, et cetera; right? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And then you go on to describe the 16 meeting. First of all the meeting involved twenty (20) 17 people, et cetera; right? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And that's where you describe Mr. Fox 20 as, quote: 21 "From the OPP was the liaison officer 22 who was assigned to that committee in 23 these circumstances." 24 Right? 25 A: That's correct.

135

1 Q: And then Mr. Phillips goes on, bottom 2 of the page: 3 "Premier, it's a very clear question. 4 You had a representative at that 5 meeting. The OPP have decided to 6 handle things differently [et cetera]" 7 And then the last line of that paragraph: 8 "I assume the meeting was designed to 9 do what you said it was designed to do, 10 and that is to bring you up to date." 11 He's still talking about the September 5th 12 meeting right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: He seems to be. 16 Q: Now, flip to the next page please. 17 A: Hmm hmm. Hmm hmm. 18 Q: Do you see how you answer him and 19 address the September 5th meeting? Do you see that? 20 A: Where? When it came to an assessment 21 of the situation? 22 Q: That's right. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: "It would have been reported when it 25 came to whatever might have been the

136

1 response. Clearly mine would have been 2 that, if the matter to deal with. This 3 is not the business of the Premier, it 4 is now in the hands of the OPP." 5 A: Yeah, I would think that it appears 6 that a year later I'm referring to all meetings that took 7 place or any meetings that took place or any -- my 8 recollection of any meetings or anything that was 9 reported to me. I think -- 10 Q: Fair enough. 11 A: -- it would have been in that sense. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Excuse me. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 14 Yes. Mr. Downard? 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just a -- a minor 16 point. My -- My Friend skipped over the question that -- 17 that was being put to the Premier at the time in this 18 very passage. 19 The question is: Were you aware of the 20 build-up? And I think that if My Friend wants to do a 21 detailed, you know, examination in -- in minutiae of 22 Hansard he should focus on what question the Premier was 23 speaking to at the time. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine and I'd 25 be happy --

137

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Put that 2 again but I think that was put in an earlier question. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm finding 5 this repetitive. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The Witness -- Mr. 7 Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm finding 9 this repetitive. I just need to say. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no I understand 11 but the Witness expressed a concern about whether his 12 answer he gave at page 3 -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- was with respect 15 to the September 5th meeting. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 17 that. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I'm stuck. I 19 have to go and now -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know you 21 do. I know you do because of the -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I tried to go the 23 fast way but sometimes it doesn't work. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It seems 25 that we've gone over this a couple of times.

138

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's right. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: Now, Mr. Harris, at the top of page 3 6 you give an answer and then Mr. Phillips says: 7 "I'll take from that, Premier, that 8 your staff was told that the build-up 9 was taking place. If they weren't you 10 can deny that. It is..." 11 And you see the next paragraph? 12 "It is clear that the time that that 13 meeting was taking place the OPP were 14 rounding up sharpshooters [et cetera]. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Do you see that? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: You'd agree with me Mr. Phillips is 19 still talking about the September 5th meeting? 20 A: I agree. I would have -- that seems 21 to be what he's talking about and I agree I would have 22 heard OPP build-up, sharpshooters, things that I knew 23 nothing about at the time. 24 Q: Then, Honourable Mr. Harris, this is 25 where you answer the question where he's talking about

139

1 the September 5th meeting. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: You answer, quote, the third line 4 down: 5 "We knew nothing of any OPP build-up. 6 It was not our business. It was the 7 business of the OPP to deal with it. 8 Any briefing that I got would have been 9 in there." 10 I'm going to suggest to you, sir, that you 11 referred to a meeting, Mr. Phillips referred to a 12 meeting, and the only meeting ever in the exchanges is 13 the September 5th meeting. 14 Is that true? 15 A: He's referencing the 5th but the -- 16 as I indicated to you, the -- between the two (2) of them 17 they seemed to have a scatter gun approach to -- to any 18 meeting. 19 Q: All right. Now -- 20 A: And I -- my response is -- is that at 21 any briefing that I received at any time, I was not told 22 of any OPP buildup. Those are the fundamental facts and 23 those are the answers that I gave. 24 Q: Fair enough. Now, the next -- down 25 at the bottom of that page, we're now moving on, Mr.

140

1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: Mr. Wildman for Algoma starts asking 6 you questions, leader of the third party, do you see 7 that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: "The Premier's responses are 10 confusing. I remind the Premier that 11 on April 2nd he 12 told reporters that briefings on the 13 Ipperwash situation for the staff of 14 the Premier's office were [quote] 'more 15 after the fact' [close quotes]." 16 Do you see that question how that starts? 17 A: The question to the Premier, right. 18 Q: Right: Now the last three (3) lines 19 of that question quote: 20 "Can you make it very clear. Did you 21 give any directions or express any 22 opinion about how the situation should 23 be proceeded with to your staff, to the 24 OPP or to Government officials after 25 the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial

141

1 Park?" 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Your answer, you -- you clarify that 5 he's not talking about your meeting to plan the shooting 6 to be fair to you. 7 And he says, no. You're not -- he's not 8 saying that. Okay, I just want you to know that seems to 9 be what you were saying and he dispels that, top of the 10 next page. He says: "No, that's not what I mean." 11 A: Okay. And I say "That's what you're 12 implying." Is that the correct -- 13 Q: Right. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: Right. That's correct. And you say 16 -- next page, page 4: 17 " That's what you're implying. The 18 meeting that took place on September 19 the 5th was to deal with the occupation 20 that took place on September 4th and to 21 get a full briefing." 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And to be fair to you, you even say, 24 two (2) lines passed: 25 "There would have been further meetings

142

1 of that Committee to take place to get 2 briefed." 3 You say that? 4 A: All right. 5 Q: Do you see that? It's just three (3) 6 lines -- 7 A: I do, yes, hmm hmm. 8 Q: Okay. Because I -- I want to know 9 what he said. And then the next paragraph: 10 "I can assure you that the purpose of 11 the meeting of this Committee on the 12 5th as you say, a Committee set up by 13 the Liberals formalized by you, is to 14 give a briefing to those Ministers." 15 All right. You saw all that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. Anywhere in your answer 18 up until where we've arrived now, the end of the answer 19 at page 4, do you see any reference at all to the 20 existence of the meeting in the dining room where the 21 final call was made? 22 A: No. 23 Q: All right. Now continuing, Mr. 24 Wildman. And now, Mr. Commissioner, you'll forgive me 25 but I can promise this is one (1) of the last passages I

143

1 have to read line by line. Mr. Wildman for Algoma: 2 "The information in the press this 3 morning indicates that the 4 Parliamentary Assistant to the Native 5 Affairs Minister was present at the 6 meeting which is quite unusual. 7 Your press secretary is quoted as 8 saying [quote] "The Premier was never 9 directly involved in formal meetings on 10 Ipperwash' [Close quotes]. 11 There have been all sorts of rumours 12 about statements made regarding getting 13 the [blank] Indians out of the Park. 14 Why will you not clarify your role in 15 this affair and clear the air. Were 16 you involved in any informal meetings 17 where any informal opinions or 18 directions were expressed about how 19 this matter might be dealt with in 20 order to ensure that the Ipperwash 21 Provincial Park occupation did not 22 continue?" 23 Your answer, sir. Could you read out your 24 answer you gave? 25 A: Sure.

144

1 "Was I involved in informal meetings? 2 I don't know what an informal meeting 3 is. When I go to bed at night, is that 4 an informal meeting? 5 When I sit and talk with people, is 6 this an informal meeting? I clearly 7 understand the role of the separation 8 between politicians and the police and 9 at no time did I give direction to 10 staff to give direction or did any of 11 my staff give direction to the best of 12 my knowledge to any member of the 13 police, the OPP at any level of any 14 category as to how they should carry 15 out their jobs. 16 It's not our role and I can assure you 17 it did not take place." 18 Q: Thank you. Now Mr. Wildman focussed 19 on a quote from your press secretary. Do you see that? 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Sorry, sir? 22 A: Yes. I -- I think -- 23 Q: It's not your fault -- 24 A: I think it's one (1) of the things 25 that he referenced, yes.

145

1 Q: Yes. And you don't tell Mr. Wildman 2 that the quote from your press secretary's wrong, do you? 3 A: No. 4 Q: And then he -- he says: 5 "Your press secretary is quoted as saying 6 [quote] 'The Premier was never directly 7 involved in formal meetings on Ipperwash' 8 [close quotes]." 9 Do you see that? 10 A: That's Mr. Wildman's quote. 11 Q: That's right. No. It's Mr. Wildman 12 quoting your press secretary, correct? 13 A: That's Mr. Wildman's quote of what he 14 says my secretary said, yes. 15 Q: And -- 16 A: Or -- or Ms. Hutton said. I guess 17 that's what he's referring to, I don't know. 18 Q: Let me ask you -- 19 A: Press secretary. That's not Ms. 20 Hutton. 21 Q: Right. It's your press secretary. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And it's a person -- part of their 24 job is to make statements to the media, your press 25 secretary?

146

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And your press secretary, right? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: Is quoted as saying: 5 "The Premier was never directly 6 involved in formal meetings on 7 Ipperwash." 8 Now that's quite true, isn't it? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: But Mr. Wildman asked the next 11 question, doesn't he: 12 "Why will you not clarify your role in 13 this affair and clear the air? Were 14 you involved in any informal meetings 15 where any informal opinions or 16 directions were expressed about how 17 this matter might be dealt with in 18 order to ensure that the Ipperwash 19 Provincial Park occupation did not 20 continue?" 21 Would you agree with me, sir, that that 22 would have been a unique propitious moment to have 23 informed the people of Ontario that you were involved in 24 an informal meeting in which the final call was made on 25 September 6th, 1995, the afternoon before Dudley George

147

1 was shot? 2 A: I could have, but my gist of the 3 question, really, was getting around to, was I involved, 4 did I give direction to the OPP, and -- so that's what I 5 answered. 6 Q: I take it, then, it's your evidence 7 that you -- the dining room meeting just didn't occur to 8 you? 9 A: No, I didn't -- yes, it didn't occur 10 to me. I knew there were a series of meetings. I knew I 11 concurred with a decision to seek a -- an injunction and 12 an injunction without notice, ex parte injunction, so 13 that's fair game. 14 This was a year after, I guess, and I -- I 15 don't think I've ever denied that. 16 Q: It didn't occur to you, given, or 17 notwithstanding -- let me start over again. It didn't 18 occur to you, notwithstanding the fact that that morning 19 you and Deb Hutton experienced a collective shock over 20 Mr. Fox's identity and his role at the IMC meeting and 21 the dining room meeting, correct? 22 A: I'm sorry, can you -- 23 Q: Do you remember the shock you talked 24 about? 25 A: Yes. I was surprised at that.

148

1 Q: Right. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you told Mr. Commissioner, I went 4 over it with you -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: You told Mr. Commissioner, and I can 7 read it to you again so I refresh your memory, sir -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: You told Mr. Commissioner that when 10 you said, quote: 11 "Because about a year later, when there 12 was a newspaper report, I think when I 13 first learned that an allegation that 14 there was a police inspector, somebody 15 who was -- who was with the OPP in this 16 meeting, I was very surprised at that." 17 You told the Commissioner, not a few 18 minutes ago -- sorry, about an hour ago, this meeting was 19 the dining room meeting. Didn't you tell him that? 20 A: I may have, I don't know. 21 Q: You don't -- 22 A: -- I think if it was the 5th meeting, 23 I was surprised that an OPP officer was at the 5th, the 24 6th and the dining room meeting. 25 Q: Could you please -- fair enough --

149

1 A: Okay. 2 Q: And so what you take from that is 3 that your surprise and what you were conveying to the -- 4 to the Commissioner was in respect of both the IMC and 5 the dining room meeting, correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Right. And so -- and that surprise 8 you translated, actually, to shock, yes? You said shock. 9 A: Yes, I was shocked that -- surprised, 10 shocked. 11 Q: You're a man -- 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: You're a man who doesn't shock 14 easily. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's a -- 17 THE WITNESS: I -- I thank you very much, 18 appreciate that. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 I'm not sure -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I mean, let's 22 face it, sir -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 24 where that comes from. 25

150

1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: -- you're the Premier of a Province, 3 you carry on business every day with crucial decisions to 4 make, fair? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And it's important, I take it, to -- 7 in colloquial terms, to maintain your cool? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: So you'd agree with me that, you 10 know, as things go, you don't get shocked every time 11 information comes to you or it would be impossible to 12 operate. 13 A: No, often I'm shocked without losing 14 my cool. 15 Q: Fair enough. So at the end of the 16 day, you and I can agree that you were shocked in respect 17 of IMC and shocked in respect of the dining room? 18 A: Yes. I was -- 19 Q: Right. 20 A: I was shocked and surprised that 21 there was an OPP officer in those meetings. 22 Q: Right. And those meetings, that 23 you've just said, is IMC and dining room, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now that morning you're shocked, and

151

1 that afternoon when you're asked if you had any informal 2 meetings, you forget about it, right? 3 A: No, I answered the question that I 4 thought was being posed and the gist of it, and I'm 5 sorry, if, in your opinion, I should have answered every 6 little nuance of every little question, but -- 7 Q: Well --- 8 A: -- that's -- that was my answer; it 9 was a good answer, actually. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: You're happy with that answer? 14 A: Yes, because it got to the heart of 15 the issue. Did I give -- or my staff give any direction 16 to the OPP on any operational matters? I think that was 17 the gist of what we had done wrong, and that was the 18 answer; we had not. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Falconer, I'm giving you considerable leeway, but we 21 really have -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: Fair enough. You'd agree with me 25 that this would have been an opportunity to provide

152

1 information about the dining room meeting? 2 A: If -- listen, if I'd have heard every 3 word and every nuance, which is -- which is unlikely; you 4 rarely do in Question Period, it might shock you to know 5 that there's quite a bit of yelling going on during 6 Question Period. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: So what I can tell you is that -- and 9 I look at my answer. It looks, at the time, the gist of 10 what I think the -- the Opposition members were getting 11 at was did I have any improper involvement, giving any 12 direction to the OPP as to how they should carry out 13 their job at Ipperwash. I did not. I'm very comfortable 14 with that then, and very comfortable now. 15 Q: And your point to me is that it's 16 easy for me to say now in this environment of quiet 17 questions that you should have caught every nuance; but 18 your point is to me you were focussed, you were focussed 19 in your answer on this issue of an allegation of you 20 being involved with the police in making decisions around 21 Ipperwash; that's what you were focussed on? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you and that person with the 24 skill for optics had met that morning and talked about 25 the presence of Ron Fox in that small boardroom, correct?

153
  1                 A:   I think the gist probably, as I read
  2  the article, would have been his presence in the
  3  Interministerial Committee Meetings.  And Ms. Hutton may
  4  very well have indicated that -- that he was or I think
  5  he was also in -- in the informal meeting that we had. 
  6  That could have all been, I can't recall that.
  7                 Q:   Right.  And it's fair to say that you
  8  would have known -- well, let me -- let me take a step
  9  back.
 10                 Did Ms. Hutton have any discussion with
 11  you about the optics of Mr. Fox, a liaison officer from
 12  the OPP, being in the small boardroom with you when the
 13  final call was made?
 14                 A:   No, I recall Ms. Hutton being
 15  surprised or shocked, if that's -- that's a better word
 16  for your purposes, that -- that he was, indeed, an OPP
 17  officer.  
 18                 And I can't recall whether it was that
 19  morning or whether it was subsequent to that, but that I
 20  think Ms. Hutton would have tried to ascertain in -- then
 21  in what capacity he was there and that he was seconded,
 22  so that he was not there in the capacity of OPP officer.  
 23                 And I think Ms. Hutton has given evidence,
 24  I believe, and I have given evidence, and I certainly
 25  over the years indicated that -- that I don't believe

154

1 that I would have had Mr. Fox there for the part of the 2 meeting other than -- than giving information, but that I 3 was uncomfortable nor did I feel that I had said anything 4 at any time that could ever be construed as giving 5 direction to the OPP. 6 Q: I have one (1) last question about 7 this passage. 8 You -- you said that you weren't -- and 9 I'm at passage at page 4 whether Mr. Wildman asks you 10 about the press secretary's quote. You said that you 11 can't catch every nuance. 12 You'd agree with me that the heart of the 13 question was: Mr. Premier, your press secretary said you 14 weren't at any formal meetings, were you at any informal 15 meetings? That was the heart of the question right? 16 A: Well, I believe that the heart of the 17 information that needed to get out and what the 18 Opposition politicians were getting at, and I think 19 you'll find a few occasions where I ignored nuances or 20 allegations, some obviously incorrect, some perhaps 21 intentionally incorrect, and got to what I felt was the 22 gist of what they were asking was their -- their -- did I 23 give any improper direction or did my staff, to the OPP. 24 So I would go to that answer. 25 Q: Do you recall, then, not being

155

1 present in the House for a number of -- and I don't mean 2 the circumstances being in the House if you weren't 3 there, but not being in the House; in other words, some 4 time passes before you're addressing matters in the House 5 again. 6 And in fact primarily Mr. Harnick has the 7 brief for answering questions? Do you remember that? 8 A: No, I don't recall when questions 9 came or -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: Sometimes I referred them to Mr. 12 Harnick. I -- I know there were questions over the 13 period of time to Mr. Harnick, and then to the -- Mr. 14 Young, I guess, the subsequent Attorney General. 15 Q: That's correct. Now, if I could 16 just, for example, show you, if you just flip to the -- 17 the index -- if you flip to the index at the start of P- 18 973, you'll see that Tab -- 19 A: That's this -- this book here? 20 Q: That's right. I'm sorry, sir. It's 21 the binder of Hansards. If you flip to the index of 22 that, you'll see that Tabs 4, right? There's a May 30th, 23 1996, a Question Period that you don't show up on the 24 record for. 25 A: Okay.

156

1 Q: And then similarly, Mr. Harnick deals 2 with it, Tab 5 is June 4th, 1996, again Mr. Harnick deals 3 with it. Tab 6 is June 5th, 1996, and again both Mr. 4 Harnick and Mr. Hodgson this time deal with it. 5 Now I want to stop you there. You can 6 review it at the break but I'm going to put to you, sir, 7 that at no time up to and including June 5th, 1996, do 8 you ever refer to the existence of the dining room 9 meeting. 10 Do you accept that? 11 A: If -- if you say so, sure. 12 Q: Neither does Mr. Harnick refer to the 13 existence of the dining room meeting. Neither does Mr. 14 Runciman refer to the existence of the dining room 15 meeting. 16 In fact, the dining room meeting is simply 17 unmentioned. Do you accept that or do you want me to 18 take you through each line? 19 A: No. If you say so, I accept that. 20 Q: Right. 21 A: And I -- that's fine. 22 Q: Now can we go to June 5th, 1996, Tab 23 6 and I'm trying to move this fast. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: All right? Tab 6, June 5th, 1996.

157

1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: Now this is Mr. Harnick. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, that's 4 not in your binder. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 6 see it. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: We have Mr. Harris' 8 comments in the binder. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So can you 11 put it on the screen? 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: I'm going to ask some general 15 questions before we go line by line through this. I just 16 want to understand something. 17 If I look at the -- the Hansard at Tab 6, 18 sir, you -- you're not named, formally. There's no 19 reference to Mr. Harris. Is that right? You could just 20 -- it's two (2) pages. 21 A: No, I don't -- I don't believe so, 22 yeah. 23 Q: What generally happens? Is there any 24 way to know whether this is indicative of you being 25 present in the House or not or is there anything to be

158

1 gleaned from it? 2 A: It could be I am present and 3 questions don't go to me or I'm not in the House. 4 Q: Okay. I -- I thought that that might 5 be the case that we could glean very little. You might 6 be or you might not be there, correct? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Okay. I take it when you were there 9 generally on the issues of Ipperwash, you were the first 10 person they asked questions of and then subsequently they 11 would ask questions of others? 12 A: I don't know. 13 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And I did that 14 little timing early, Mr. Harris. I was -- as Mr. Millar, 15 very helpfully, is getting a binder for this P-973 for 16 the Commissioner. 17 So I'm at Tab 6 of P-973, the Hansard 18 binder. And I'm at June 5th, 1996. 19 Now, we've heard from Mr. Harnick about 20 his inaccurate statements to the House about the -- the 21 expletive, et cetera. But Mr. Hampton has a question 22 that I -- and -- and that's not why I'm taking you there, 23 sir. Mr. Hampton has a question of Mr. Harnick, it 24 starts: 25 "My questions for the Minister

159

1 Responsible of Native Affairs and the 2 Attorney General..." 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And then he refers to the request to 6 investigate the expletive, do you see that? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And then he says, this is Mr. Hampton 9 for Rainy River speaking. 10 "Yesterday our Leader asked you again 11 what actions you'd taken to investigate 12 whether and when this offensive comment 13 had been made. 14 You've not answered the question, so I 15 ask you again, what actions have you 16 taken to investigate who made this 17 comment? 18 What investigation process have you 19 started? What have you come up with? 20 What do you have to report back to this 21 House?" 22 Mr. Harnick says: 23 "I have spoken to those who, I 24 understand, attended some of the 25 meetings that have been referred to and

160

1 I've not found anyone who knows 2 anything about that comment or whether 3 it was made or who made it." 4 All right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And we've heard from Mr. Harnick 7 about that. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And then Mr. Hampton says: 10 "I want to ask the Minister Responsible 11 for Native Affairs who's also the 12 Attorney General, who you've spoken to 13 then and what meetings you're referring 14 to." 15 You see, he says "what meetings you're 16 referring to." Do you see that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: "You will know that this morning the 19 lawyers for the George Family held a 20 press conference and they raised 21 questions regarding the Government's 22 involvement in directing the actions of 23 the OPP. 24 Those lawyers advised that they've been 25 contacted by several different sources

161

1 who provided facts in the course of 2 their job, that the Premier's office 3 was involved in directing the actions 4 of the OPP. 5 So I ask you, whom have you spoken to 6 and what meetings are you referring 7 to?" 8 Mr. Harnick's answer: 9 "I've spoken to members of my staff, 10 colleagues of people who have attended 11 the meetings that My Friends across the 12 way have referred to. 13 Quite simply, I will say again there's 14 been no government involvement in 15 directing the OPP." 16 Now, he's asked what meetings he refers to 17 and Mr. Harnick, the Attorney General, says, I'm 18 referring to the meetings My Friend across the way is 19 referring to. 20 So we know from this passage, do we know 21 this, that June 5th, 1996 would not be the day in which 22 the dining room meeting was disclosed to the people of 23 Ontario? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

162

1 Q: I'll rephrase the question so we can 2 keep going. Would you agree with me that based on the 3 Hansard I've taken you through, January -- June 5th, 4 1996, that notwithstanding the request for details as to 5 what meetings happened, that the dining room meeting is 6 not mentioned? 7 A: I don't see specific reference to the 8 dining room meeting -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 10 see -- 11 THE WITNESS: -- fair enough. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fine. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 14 how it helps to ask this Witness. He's not at this 15 meeting. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We can see 18 that. You can tell us that, you can make that in your 19 argument. I'm not telling you not to do it. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 22 here. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You see my 24 dilemma -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's the

163

1 point of asking -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Mr. 3 Commissioner, as I asked a few foundation questions 4 before. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's possible that 7 you're in the House when the Minister enters -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 9 did, but -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and it's 11 possible that you're not in the House? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So first of all, I 14 will do not do this often, but I want to emphasize 15 something -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Carry 17 on, I don't want you to explain, because that takes 18 longer. Carry on, then, let's go. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just -- if 21 you've got a witness on the stand -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is through -- 23 insight into my personality -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have a 25 witness on the stand and I'd like you to ask questions --

164

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I understand -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that this 3 Witness can answer. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- but there is a 5 point to the question and I'll now make it. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Would you agree with me -- well, let 10 me back up and ask you this, sir. 11 Was there any discussion between you and 12 Mr. Harnick of any kind, in which you instructed him not 13 to raise the dining room meeting? 14 A: No, not that I can recollect. 15 Q: Not that you can recollect. I only 16 ask you that because repeatedly Mr. Harnick's in the 17 House and repeatedly issues of personal involvement in 18 the Government with the police come up and repeatedly the 19 dining room meeting is never disclosed. 20 That's why I ask you, sir, all right? 21 A: Well, I think I've indicated that my 22 information came from the 5th, 6th, including the dining 23 room meeting, and I've never broken down anything -- any 24 -- any difference from that. 25 Two (2) were formal meetings, the

165

1 Interministerial Committee, one was a gathering, 2 informally, to chat about the -- the information that the 3 Interministerial Committee had, receive any new 4 information and make a confirmation of the -- of the 5 decision to seek to a -- an ex parte injunction. 6 There may have been other informal 7 meetings that others attended, there may have been other 8 discussions that Mr. Harnick had with his Ministry, with 9 others, in fact I think we've heard evidence to -- to 10 that effect. 11 But I would suggest to you that there's an 12 implication today of a great deal of emphasis on the 13 dining room meeting and I didn't, at the time, have any - 14 - attach any significance to this meeting, nor do I 15 obviously attach the same significance others do, to what 16 they think occurred at this meeting. 17 Q: Now, having -- and I appreciate that 18 clarification. After you've said all that you've just 19 said, you and I can agree that if we look through these 20 tabs -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And now we're -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 24 helpful, Mr. Falconer -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to where

166

1 Mr. -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what 3 you're asking him -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Harris speaks -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But what 6 you're asking him -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to where 8 Mr. Harris speaks. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but 10 you're asking him to comment on questions that were not 11 asked at meetings that he was not at. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm going -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to where Mr. 15 Harris speaks. It's Tab 15. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 17 sorry. You're going to another place? 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's all right. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 22 You're at Tab 15 now? 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 25

167

1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: Going through these tabs, we find you 3 speaking on the floor on October 30th, 1996 and it's you 4 and Mr. Harnick; is that fair? 5 Just go to, please -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- Tab 15. 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is 10 October the 30th, '96? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: "MR. PHILLIPS [for Scarborough 15 Agincourt]: My question is to the 16 Premier and it has to do with actions 17 of government members as well. It has 18 to do with the incident at Ipperwash on 19 September 6th, where for the first time 20 ever, one of our Native people was 21 killed during a dispute about land. 22 We have been told that on three (3) 23 separate occasions the Conservative 24 member for Lambton, Mr. Beaubien, was 25 at the command post of the OPP.

168

1 We've also been informed that on three 2 (3) separate occasions, apparently, he 3 was in touch with your office, either 4 yourself or your staff, including, on 5 one (1) occasion, written 6 communication. 7 That is right up until the shooting 8 took place on September 6th. 9 Premier, can you confirm that Mr. 10 Beaubien talked to either yourself or a 11 member of your staff during those three 12 (3) days leading up to the shooting of 13 Natives at Ipperwash -- of the Native 14 at Ipperwash? 15 MR. HARRIS: Not to the best of my 16 knowledge. If the Attorney General 17 knows more, I'm happy to refer to him." 18 Now, I've called this to your attention 19 because the issue of Mr. Beaubien is now raised in the 20 House, and the issue of what communication -- his 21 presence at Command Post and what communications he had 22 with your office, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And this issue, if you flip through 25 the next few tabs in which you are present in -- at Tab

169

1 17, and you are also present at Tab 21 of P-973. These 2 questions about Mr. Beaubien are all directed to the 3 issue, is there a connection by or through Mr. Beaubien 4 to your office, given that Mr. Beaubien was present at 5 Command post, correct? That's what the questions are 6 directed to? 7 A: Yeah, I'm not sure whether I was in 8 the House on the 31st or not. 9 Q: Well, we started at the 30th. 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: And then I asked you to direct your 12 attention -- the next tab I asked you to look at was 17. 13 It's not your fault, I'm going pretty fast -- Tab 17? 14 A: Oh, yes, okay. 15 Q: Right? You were there on November 16 5th, 1996? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And then, indeed, Tab 18 you're there 19 on November 6th, 1996; right? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And then Tab 21, you're there on 22 November 20th, 1996, correct? 23 Just a second. Flip to Tab 21 please. 24 A: Yes. Well, let me just see, 21? 25 Q: November 20th, 1996.

170

1 A: November statements -- yes? 2 Q: All right. So -- 3 A: All right. 4 Q: -- in the time period between October 5 30th, 1996, and November 20th, 1996, you are repeatedly 6 asked about this connection, correct? 7 A: The connection with...? 8 Q: Between Mr. Beaubien who was at 9 Command Post and was sending faxes to the Premier's 10 office -- 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: -- and you, correct? 13 A: Okay. I see that reference there on 14 the 21st. I didn't look at the others just to see if my 15 name appeared. If -- if that's what they're talking 16 about, then that would be it. 17 Q: Well, to assist you you're quite 18 right. You're entitled to have each one put in front of 19 you. Tab 17 November 5th, 1996. I've read to you from 20 October 30th, 1996; right? Now, if you flip to November 21 5th, 1996, -- 22 A: November -- 23 Q: -- Mr. Phillips, the second -- 24 A: November 5th. The question is -- 25 Q: Gerry Phillips.

171

1 A: -- there's reference to Mr. Beaubien, 2 yes? 3 Q: Second paragraph: 4 "We now know, Premier, that on at least 5 three (3) occasions the local 6 Conservative Member --" 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: "Mr. Beaubien was at the police 9 command post. We also know he says, 10 and I will quote him from a newspaper 11 clipping --" 12 A: Right. 13 Q: " -- that he was in constant contact 14 with the Premier's Office and the 15 ministries involved. 'It was my job to 16 keep them apprised.' The question is: 17 Is this an acceptable standard 18 behaviour for members of your 19 Conservative caucus?" 20 And you answer; right? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: All right. And the bottom line is, 23 and you can flip to the next day which is November 6th, 24 1996. 25 A: Right.

172

1 Q: And on November 6th, 1996, is the 2 passage that I read to you before but now we give it 3 context. And it's on the second page of the Hansard. 4 Mr. Phillips is speaking. It starts with: 5 "We're at the heart of the matter." 6 And if you flip to the previous page 7 you'll actually see Mr. Phillips as being quoted? 8 A: On the first page I see Mr. Phillips. 9 Q: Yeah at the bottom -- 10 A: The bottom. 11 Q: -- and then -- 12 A: "Premier, in both cases...?" 13 Q: That's right. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: So if you go to the top -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- and for my -- for the purposes of 18 my question -- 19 A: Right. 20 Q: Quote: 21 "We're at the heart of the matter. For 22 some reason this incident was handled 23 very differently from other incidents 24 with our Native community." 25 This is November 6th, 1996, second page.

173

1 "This incident happened two (2) months 2 after you became Premier. The question 3 is right at the heart for you. What 4 role did you play in it? Why did you 5 and your government decide to handle 6 this differently? Did you tell the 7 police to get tough? Did you instruct 8 the police to handle it differently? 9 The reason I'm posing this is what we 10 have now asked you several questions on 11 this matter and frankly I would use 12 stronger language. Your answers have 13 not been straightforward. Will you now 14 agree to establish an independent 15 public inquiry? 16 And you answer: 17 "Let me say in response to the Member's 18 questions that I have given all of the 19 information that I have been aware of 20 every day at every instance and 21 continue to do so going back to the 22 events over a year ago." 23 Do you see that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you know that the gist of the

174

1 allegations were that you, Premier Michael Harris, at the 2 time, were personally involved in one (1) fashion or 3 another with the OPP, in relation to the Ipperwash 4 matter, correct? 5 A: The allegation was that I had given 6 direction to the OPP, which was not true. And I continue 7 to answer that it's not true. 8 Q: You made a point of stating, not only 9 that you hadn't given them direction, but on occasions 10 you made a point of saying, I didn't influence the OPP 11 and I didn't express opinions to the OPP. Do you 12 remember saying that? 13 A: I -- I may have, because I believe 14 that to be true. 15 Q: And all the while that you were 16 saying that, you would have known that you sat in a small 17 boardroom with the liaison officer from the OPP in the 18 Premier's dining room where you made the final call on 19 the matter. 20 Correct? You would have known that. 21 A: Well, I didn't know it at the time, 22 no. 23 Q: You didn't know? When you answered 24 these questions in the House though -- 25 A: When I answered these questions in

175

1 the House -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- I had the new information between 4 the year later and this is now a year and a half, or 5 whatever timeframe you want to put on it, that -- that 6 there was not an OPP liaison officer, but there was a -- 7 somebody who was an OPP officer who was in there, 8 seconded to the Minister. 9 I think that was now a fact known by 10 everybody. Mr. Phillips and me and the world. 11 Q: Then you were -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 13 Falconer, you've used the term "final call" a number of 14 times. My recollection from Mr. Harris when the "final 15 call" -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Please, Mr. 17 Commissioner, I can clarify -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- was made. 19 Please excuse me. When that's the term was first used, 20 he indicated that it meant ex parte or normal injunction. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that what 23 you're referring to? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When you say

176

1 "final call"? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Whether the 4 injunction was to be ex parte or normal? 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 I just want to be clear, because that's my recollection. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Tab 3. Please, could you flip back 12 to Tab 3, Mr. Harris? I'm trying to address your last 13 answer. Tab 3, second page. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Tab 3, second page of P-973 is the 16 Hansard of May 29th, 1996. Now you -- you made reference 17 to the fact that -- and this is what I need to clarify. 18 When I said to you, All the while you 19 knew, I was talking about your state of mind in the House 20 when answering questions, all right, sir? 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Not your state of mind prior to May 23 29th, 1996, okay? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: For the purposes of my last

177

1 question -- 2 A: Right. 3 Q: -- now if you flip to the second 4 page, you assisted us and you looked at P-1081, the 5 Toronto Star article of May 29th, 1996 -- 6 A: Right. 7 Q: -- you looked at it and said, Yeah 8 that would be the article that twigged me and that's when 9 we experienced the collective shock, Deb Hutton and I, et 10 cetera; right? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: Now at page 2 and -- and you told us 13 and you assisted us, you would have been briefed in the 14 morning and then you provide the information you were 15 briefed on to the people of Ontario in the House. Right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: The second to last paragraph, when 18 you speak about the IMC meeting in the presence of Mr. 19 Fox, do you remember saying to me, the person you were 20 talking about, in the second to last paragraph, was Mr. 21 Fox, do you remember saying that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. You say -- you say, sir: 24 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 25 officer who was assigned to that

178

1 Committee in these circumstances." 2 A: Right. 3 Q: So you referred to him as a liaison 4 officer, correct? 5 A: I did. 6 Q: And you mentioned that he was from 7 the OPP, correct? 8 A: I did. 9 Q: All right. So when I ask you all the 10 while you knew you had been in a small boardroom with the 11 liaison officer from the OPP, that's your language, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: It's your language to call it a small 15 boardroom, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And it's your language to refer to a 18 liaison officer from the OPP, correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And you experienced this shock, 21 remember? 22 A: I do. 23 Q: And having experienced the shock, the 24 one thing that the Commissioner can be certain of at the 25 end of the day is you addressed your mind to the dining

179

1 room meeting, right? 2 A: Or to the -- and to the 3 Interministerial Committee meeting. 4 Q: Sure. Both of them. 5 A: Both Ms. Hutton and I were surprised 6 that -- that -- 7 Q: That's right. 8 A: -- that there was anybody from the 9 OPP, seconded from the OPP, formally with the OPP at any 10 of these meetings that had not been disclosed to us. 11 Q: And now when we move from May 29th, 12 1996, six (6) months to November 6th, 1996, and you are 13 repeatedly being asked about your personal involvement, 14 not once including, might I add, November 6th, 1996 when 15 you were in the House, not once do you disclose the 16 existence of the dining room meeting. 17 Am I right? 18 A: No. I didn't specifically. I -- the 19 question that I was asked, asked about, for some reason 20 did we handle it differently. I didn't believe so. And 21 then there was a whole series of other questions that 22 were asked what role did I play, did your Government 23 decide to handle it differently, did you tell the police 24 to get tough. 25 No, I didn't get into all the answers of

180

1 that. You really got to the crux of what the question 2 was, will I call an inquiry. And all the preamble is -- 3 is what Mr. Phillips put into the question. 4 Q: And you knew that Mr. Phillips, Mr. 5 Wildman, Mr. Hampton, all of them kept going back to your 6 personal role with the police, yes? 7 A: Yes. They went back to my role, did 8 I -- 9 Q: And the -- 10 A: -- direct the police. 11 Q: -- only time that you were in a 12 meeting, as it related to Ipperwash before the shooting, 13 was in the dining room? 14 A: No, but that was the only time I 15 recall being in a -- in an informal gathering and a 16 meeting. There may have been, as I indicated, morning 17 briefing, I think on the morning of the 5th and possibly 18 on the morning of the 6th, it could have been discussed 19 there. 20 Q: With your staff? 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: But outside of you and your personal 23 staff. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: I'm talking about the only meeting

181

1 you were in with others was that dining room meeting. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Where you were with a liaison officer 4 from the OPP? 5 A: I didn't know that at the time, but 6 that became -- we became aware of that and was disclosed 7 approximately a year later or whenever it was in '96, 8 yes. 9 Q: May 29th, 1996. 10 A: Fair enough. 11 Q: Correct? 12 A: Yes, that's what we -- 13 Q: When you say, I didn't know at the 14 time, I just -- 15 A: Right. 16 Q: -- want to clarify my question -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- because I want to be fair to you. 19 A: Right. 20 Q: My questions address your state of 21 mind when you're being asked questions in the House as of 22 May 29th, 1996, okay? 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And what I'm going to suggest to 25 you --

182

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- is that between May 29th, 1996 and 3 now November 6th, 1996, six (6) months has gone by and 4 even though you did know who Ron Fox was -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- and even though you had directed 7 your mind to the dining room meeting -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- you never disclosed its existence, 10 correct? 11 A: No, I didn't disclose the existence 12 of any meetings, nor was that the question. You've got 13 the gist of the questions and I responded to the 14 question. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're about 16 ready for a lunch break. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm about three (3) 18 to four (4) minutes away from -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is that all right? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, by all 22 means. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: So, when you say you didn't disclose

183

1 the existence of all the meetings, how do I reconcile or 2 how does the Commissioner reconcile that with your 3 statement at November 6th, 1996 that I've brought you to, 4 to Mr. Phillips, quote: 5 "I have given all the information that 6 I've been aware of every day at every 7 instance"? 8 I -- with great respect, sir, you were 9 actually asked about an informal meeting, did you go to 10 an informal meeting. Do you remember? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you said, informal meetings? 13 Well, do I informal meeting when I sleep at night? 14 Do you remember you said you were very 15 satisfied with that answer, right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Right. But here's the one thing you 18 didn't do, sir, with great respect. You didn't disclose 19 the existence of the dining room meeting and you could 20 have, correct? 21 A: I could have, if I thought it was 22 significant or appropriate or it was asked or -- or meant 23 anything to anybody, and as I've said to you, my response 24 and my personal involvement as a result of briefings I 25 received on the 5th, on the 6th, perhaps an informal

184

1 meeting with my staff and an informal meeting where we 2 all gathered. 3 And at that point in time, as I received 4 information, I've given you what -- what my thoughts were 5 on it and that I concurred with how the situation was to 6 be handled. 7 Q: At Tab 21, November 20th, 1996, 8 you're again questioned on your government's involvement 9 with the police, correct? 10 A: I don't -- 11 Q: If you go to Tab 21 and flip to the 12 last page. 13 A: Tab 21, last page, okay. Right, this 14 is about -- 15 Q: And the date is -- 16 A: -- Mr. Beaubien? 17 Q: -- November 20th, 1996, correct? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: "I have a new question concerning the 23 Ipperwash incident." 24 You see Gerry Phillips, Scarborough/ 25 Agincourt?

185

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: "You will recall, Premier, that in 3 September '95, three (3) months after 4 you became Premier, for the first time 5 ever in Canada a first Nations persons 6 was killed in a land dispute. There 7 are many questions about your 8 government's role in this affair." 9 Do you see that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now the person who you depicted to 12 Mr. Rosenthal, the person who you said wanted to clear 13 the air and hold forth and didn't listen to his lawyers 14 and wanted to say everything you knew to address the 15 misconception -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that person -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please ask 19 the question. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 22 need the wind up, yes. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:

186

1 Q: Sir, would you agree with me that, 2 again, on November 20th, 1996 you make no reference to 3 the dining room meeting? 4 A: No, I think the question has to do 5 with the table of facts from Mr. Beaubien and I believe 6 that's what I responded to. 7 Q: Thank you. Tab 22, please. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Tab 22 is dated November 25th, 1996. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it's, again, a situation where 14 you're in the House and, Mr. Commissioner, I'm almost 15 done this part and we can break for lunch, subject to 16 your approval. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: Mr. Hampton first asks questions on 21 the first page, do you see that, sir? 22 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 23 Q: And then Gerry Phillips, Scarborough/ 24 Agincourt, he was a recurring theme for you, was he, on 25 Ipperwash?

187

1 A: He asked quite a few questions. 2 Q: Yeah. 3 "SCARBOROUGH/AGINCOURT: My question 4 is to the Premier and it has to do with 5 the Ipperwash Provincial Park incident, 6 where a Native died for the first time 7 in a hundred years in a land claim 8 dispute. As more and more information 9 comes out it is clear there was 10 extensive political interference by 11 your government in this very sensitive 12 police operation." 13 A: That's at the top of the page there? 14 Q: No. 15 A: Oh, at the bottom of the first page. 16 Q: Do you see that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And then to the top of 19 the next page? 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: "The report on the weekend from the 22 paper points out that your member Mr. 23 Beaubien arrived at the Police Command 24 Post only after -- after the beginning 25 of this informing the police he was

188

1 going to phone you, Premier." 2 Then he goes on to talk about the Beaubien 3 information, right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you respond: 6 "I am tempted to refer to deliberate 7 distortion of the facts because that's 8 what we've just heard from this Member 9 repeatedly on the whole situation at 10 Ipperwash. Let me make it very clear 11 that there has been no political 12 interference and that to draw any other 13 conclusions is a distortion of the 14 facts. I want to make it clear -- I 15 want to make it clear and repeat that 16 as far as police operations there has 17 been no interference in anything that's 18 gone on. We've indicated that you 19 either by myself or by any members of 20 our staff, as has been indicated by the 21 Attorney General and by the Solicitor 22 General because there are a number of 23 cases pending soon and as soon as we're 24 advised it's appropriate we're happy to 25 release information and we've not ruled

189
  1                   out a public inquiry."
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And Mr. Phillips, second paragraph. 
  4  The first paragraph he deals with Beaubien, right?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Second paragraph.  Mr. Phillips,
  7  quote:
  8                   "The problem is that, frankly, we don't
  9                   trust you on this matter.  We want to
 10                   see a public inquiry into this matter
 11                   so we can get at the root of this
 12                   political interference in this."
 13                 A:   I'm sorry, where does it say that?
 14                 Q:   This is the second paragraph.
 15                 A:   Oh, second paragraph.  Okay.
 16                 Q:   Quote:
 17                   "The problem is that, frankly ,we don't
 18                   trust you on this matter."
 19                 A:   Right.
 20                 Q:   "We want to see a public inquiry in
 21                   this matter so we can get at the root
 22                   of this political interference in this.
 23                 Now, do you see the next paragraph you
 24  answer him?
 25                 A:   Okay.

190

1 Q: Do you see any reference, by you, to 2 the only meeting you attended? I'm allowed to ask this 3 question. If My Friend wants to re-examine -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's allowed 5 to make his objection. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I guess everybody can 7 read it. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 9 minute. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: I would accept you weren't asked 13 about a dining room meeting, so we're clear, to be fair 14 to you; I'm not suggesting. These would have been 15 occasions you spoke to the issue of Ipperwash and 16 political interference in the House, correct? Yes? 17 A: Well, I responded to the questions 18 and they look like pretty good answers to me. 19 Q: Right. And you would have spoken to 20 the issue of political interference in Ipperwash in the 21 House? 22 A: I did. 23 Q: Right. And you would have spoken to 24 it on November 25th, 1996? 25 A: I did.

191

1 Q: And do you see anywhere where you 2 disclose the existence of the dining room meeting? 3 A: No, nor would I have expected to. 4 Q: So it's fair to say that, certainly 5 up until November 25th, 1996, unless somebody directly 6 asked you, were you in any informal meeting, personally, 7 you weren't going to tell them about the dining meeting, 8 true? 9 A: I don't know whether I recall the 10 informal meetings or what informal meetings I recall. 11 And I -- I don't know whether I would call this, you 12 know, under your definition, a meeting. 13 I was happy to relay that at no time did I 14 give any direction to the OPP on -- on any operations, 15 and that seemed to be the gist of what was being asked. 16 So at any meeting, at any time, formal, informal, at any 17 occasion when I had an opportunity to discuss this issue, 18 did I give direction to the OPP. 19 And I continue to answer that way in the 20 Legislature and here and -- and -- 21 Q: And this is my last question -- 22 A: -- believe that. 23 Q: -- before the break, Mr. Harris. Mr. 24 Harris, when you said you didn't know if you had it in 25 your mind, how can one reconcile that, with your evidence

192

1 about your collective shock the morning of May 29th, 2 1996, and your evidence and your statements in the House 3 on May 29th, 1996, in answer to a direct a question by 4 Mr. Wildman as to whether you participated in an informal 5 meeting. That isn't six (6) months later, that isn't 6 three (3) months later, -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- sir, with 9 respect, it's the same day. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 11 You've asked the question now let him answer. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What's the 15 question? 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll repeat the 17 question. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Sir, you made a reference in your 22 answer to the fact that you don't know if you were 23 thinking about the dining room meeting in all of these 24 times in Hansard. And I drew your attention to the fact, 25 sir, just now, in my question, and I'd do it again.

193

1 How do explain that the collective shock 2 you experienced on the morning of May 29th, 1996, was the 3 very same day in the afternoon you were asked whether you 4 were personally involved in any informal meetings? 5 How do you reconcile the two (2)? 6 A: Well, because I was asked four (4) or 7 five (5) things, I think. I can go back to that if you 8 want to talk about the same day, and I believe I -- I 9 answered what I thought was an appropriate question. 10 Q: Fair enough. 11 A: Now, was it top of my mind three (3) 12 months, six (6) months later; no. Did I get over the 13 shock pretty quickly; yes. 14 Am I quite comfortable that I didn't say 15 anything inappropriate as to giving direction to the 16 police then or at any meeting I've been at? Was I then? 17 Yes. Am I now, yes. 18 Q: And sir, you know, ultimately, you -- 19 you would have had an opportunity to look over the 20 Hansards, preparing to testify? 21 A: Yes, I would have had that 22 opportunity. 23 Q: You know, ultimately, that the 24 existence of the dining room meeting was not disclosed in 25 the House until December 2000. Sir, five (5) years, more

194

1 than five (5) years later, the existence of the dining 2 room meeting was not disclosed in the House until then. 3 And only then after Sam George, in the 4 litigation, figured out that the meeting happened. Isn't 5 that true? 6 A: That could be true. 7 Q: Thank you. This is a good time. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Mr. Falconer. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 11 adjourned until 1:45. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 12:36 p.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 1:45 p.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This inquiry is now 17 resumed. Please be seated. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you give 19 me some idea now, Mr. Falconer, where you are with 20 respect to time? It's a quarter to 2:00. How much 21 longer do you think you might be? 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I expect to be to 23 the 3:30 point. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Finish at 25 3:30?

195

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand that's 2 the expectation of me and I often take expectations from 3 people -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- as directions. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I was 8 hoping you might be finished earlier. But no later than 9 3:30. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, that's fair. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, I 12 just, you know, thought that you might. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Harris. 20 A: Afternoon. 21 Q: Mr. Harris, based on your answer 22 prior to the break, I had provided your counsel a copy 23 of, and Commission Counsel a copy of, an exchange of 24 correspondence between Counsel for the Sam George and 25 family, and counsel for the Crown in relation to the

196

1 production or disclosure -- first disclosure of 2 information about the dining room meeting. 3 You know what I mean? In other words, a 4 single piece of paper was produced. Julie Jai's single 5 page note about the Ron Fox telephone call. And based on 6 that note some questions were asked by Sam George's 7 lawyers and so I'm going to put in front of you the 8 correspondence that was exchanged -- 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: -- between the two. And basically 11 this goes to the issue I was asking you about just before 12 lunch as to when it first surfaced; the issue of the 13 dining room meeting, all right? 14 A: Okay. Thank you. 15 Q: And I'm showing you a copy, if Mr. 16 Commissioner could also be given a copy, please? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And what I've put in front of you, 21 Mr. Commissioner and the witness, is correspondence dated 22 September 15th, 2000 to the Crown, signed by Murray 23 Klippenstein and Andrew Orkin. And you know that Mr. 24 Klippenstein is counsel for the George Family; he's asked 25 you questions. And, of course Mr. Orkin, at the time,

197

1 and he continues to be counsel for the George family, and 2 he'd be here if he could. 3 But the bottom line is that there are two 4 letters, one dated September 15th and the other dated 5 October 24th of the year 2000, relate to this issue that 6 I was speaking to you before the break as to when it 7 first became known or public about the dining room 8 meeting, all right? 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: Now, secondly, I'm going to put in 11 front of you a single page which is Exhibit P-515, which 12 is the Julie Jai note about a telephone conversation with 13 Ron Fox and I'm also putting one in front of the 14 Commissioner. It's already an exhibit. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: But I simply want to clarify with 19 you, sir, that it is Document Number 2011485. 20 A: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are these 22 letters September 15th and October 24th already exhibits? 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll make 25 them exhibits.

198

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I propose to make 2 the letter dated September 15th -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- 2000 the next 5 exhibit, which I believe is 1082, Mr. Commissioner? 6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1082: Fax from M. Klippenstein /A. 10 Orkin to Crown lawyers re. 11 Disclosure of Documents, 12 September 15, 2000. 13 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And the letter 15 dated October 24th, 2000 Exhibit 1083. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1083: Correspondence from D. W. 19 Brown, Crown counsel to M. 20 Klippenstein, replying to 21 letter of Sept. 15, 2000, 22 October 24, 2000 23 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And then I would 25 point out that -- Millar's helped me out. I've

199

1 misidentified the Inquiry document number for Exhibit P- 2 515. It is 3001088. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: You see, Mr. Harris, what we're -- 6 what we live with here? 7 Now, -- 8 A: But mine is 2011485? 9 Q: Yeah. And what -- what it is that 10 depending on where it gets printed out from -- from 11 databases the same note could have a number of numbers on 12 it and so the -- the best bet is to always listen to Mr. 13 Millar. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I agree with 15 that. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: All right. So, Mr. Harris, what I 19 just want to, very quickly, not spend a lot of time on, 20 is this single page note, Exhibit P-515, is a -- is a 21 note that Julie Jai's already testified she made, 22 contemporaneous with a telephone call she had with Ron 23 Fox, dated September 6th, 1995. All right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And the subject of the exchange of

200

1 correspondence between the lawyers for Sam George and the 2 lawyers for the Crown is primarily in part about this 3 single page; okay? 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: And I'll take you through it in a 6 second. But you -- you do -- you've seen this note 7 recently, haven't you? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. And so you recognize or 10 have been told and -- and you know that there's evidence 11 that this is Julie Jai's note of a Ron Fox telephone call 12 after the dining room meeting. All right? 13 A: I'm sorry. This is -- 14 Q: Julie Jai's note -- 15 A: Note. 16 Q: -- and Julie Jai was the Chair of the 17 Interministerial Committee. 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And she gets a telephone call shortly 20 after the dining room meeting, from Ron Fox. 21 A: Okay. So that's what all this is 22 referencing? 23 Q: That's right. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: And so Julie Jai writes "Ron Fox," do

201

1 you see that? 2 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 3 Q: And then she makes a note of what Ron 4 tells her. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And so this single page, this single 7 page note gets produced to the -- to Sam George in the 8 fall of 2000. 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: And from this single page note Mr. 11 Klippenstein and Mr. Orkin write the Crown and say, We 12 didn't know about a meeting of September 6th. What's 13 going on? And they make inquiries. 14 Fair enough? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: All right. And I'm trying to 17 properly set the picture for you, sir, and for the record 18 in terms of what we understand was the sequence of events 19 that led to the disclosure of the dining room meeting. 20 All right? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, in this note it says: 23 "RON FOX: Tim has asked for someone 24 from OPP to give viva voce evidence 25 before a judge today in Sarnia."

202

1 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And that, of course, is Tim McCabe, 4 the lawyer for the Attorney General. And Ron Fox is 5 referring to the fact subsequent to the dining room 6 meeting that they now are looking to get before a judge 7 today in Sarnia. 8 Do you see that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And I take it that's consistent with 11 your memory that to some extent it was made clear, 12 consensus or otherwise at that dining room meeting that 13 things were to move as soon as possible, right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And if you could get a judge today 16 then that would be the best? 17 A: I -- I -- yeah, or words to that 18 effect. I think that was my feeling at the time. 19 Q: Right. And you told Mr. Klippenstein 20 when he read you a passage about how Mr. Taman, Deputy 21 Attorney General, expeditiously, quickly moved his way 22 over to the AG's office and -- and basically found 23 Elizabeth Christie and said, Find me a judge today you 24 said you were, quote, "impressed," with the speed at 25 which Mr. Taman appeared to be moving, right?

203

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And that again is really further to 3 the notion in the dining room meeting this is to be done 4 as quickly as possible, right? 5 A: As soon as possible, yes. 6 Q: Right. Now, it goes on to say: 7 "Now OPP Commissioner is involved. 8 Decision will be made at his level." 9 Right? 10 A: That's what it says, yes. 11 Q: And again this is Ron Fox talking to 12 Julie Jai after the dining room meeting. And there's no 13 doubt in your mind, I take it, that Ron Fox was at the 14 dining room meeting? 15 A: No, all the evidence subsequent has 16 indicated that he was at the meeting. 17 Q: He was called into Cabinet, Larry 18 Taman was also there and was eloquent and I mispronounce 19 that gentleman's name so often, it's Larry Taman, was 20 there and was eloquent. Do you see that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, we've heard evidence that, "he 23 was called into Cabinet" actually is reference to Ron 24 Fox. Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.

204

1 Q: So Ron Fox was called into Cabinet; 2 Larry Taman was also there and was eloquent. 3 "He cautioned about rushing in with ex 4 parte injunction. Can't interfere with 5 police discretion." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: I see those as two (2) separate 8 thoughts, yes. 9 Q: Okay. That's very fair, sir, and for 10 the record it actually says "dash," quote: 11 "He cautioned about rushing in with ex 12 parte injunction - and can't interfere 13 with police discretion." 14 Period. Correct? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And it's fair to say that that's 17 fairly consistent with your memory that Mr. Taman 18 preached caution, right? 19 A: Yes, well, I -- I think my 20 recollection was that it was Ms. Todres that talked about 21 the interfering with police direction. I think there's 22 been other evidence that both Ms. Todres and Mr. Taman 23 had -- had made that caution. 24 Mr. Taman, in my recollection, talked 25 about the differentiation, at least the part that I

205

1 remember from the meeting of ex parte versus with notice. 2 Q: Fair enough. So whether you would 3 attribute that last part, "interference with police 4 discretion to Mr. Taman," it would have been said by 5 someone, and in your view it was said by Deputy Solicitor 6 General Todres? 7 A: That -- that was my recollection but 8 this note says that that's Julie Jai's I guess or Julie 9 Jai's recollection of a phone call from Ron Fox, that 10 she's making notes. 11 Q: Fair enough. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: Then the note -- and you understand 14 this is a contemporaneous note taken the day she spoke to 15 Ron Fox, and in respect of an experience Ron Fox had that 16 day? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Understand? 19 A: Yes. Yeah. 20 Q: "But Premier and Hodgson came out 21 strong", do you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And it's consistent with your 24 recollection that you and Mr. Hodgson were both of the 25 view that this had to be dealt with as swiftly as

206

1 possible? 2 A: Yeah I don't -- yes but I don't 3 recall Mr. Hodgson expressing that view at any meeting 4 that I was at. But it was my view. 5 Q: Often liaise lawyers get kind of 6 irritating when we do this question to people who say 7 they can't remember. So please bear with me. 8 Do you dispute that account that Mr. 9 Hodgson -- in other words, do you have a specific memory 10 to the contrary? 11 A: I don't have memory of anybody in the 12 meeting having a contrary view. 13 Q: All right. And Larry, Elaine Todres 14 were at Cabinet, Ron was there for part of discussion, 15 decision to go ex parte appeared to have already been 16 made. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that's consistent with what 19 you've told us, that is the Commission, you've told us 20 about the decision that was made, correct? 21 A: Yeah. I believe there was 22 concurrence that should be the way to go before this 23 meeting and then confirmed at this meeting. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

207

1 Q: I want to read to you from a excerpt 2 of evidence from Mr. Runciman, then Solicitor General, 3 dated January 10th, 2006 with respect to your presence, 4 sir, at this dining room meeting. And I'm at page 168. 5 I'm sorry at page 167, line 25. 6 Could this be put in front of the Witness, 7 please. And I apologize, Mr. Commissioner. I think I 8 don't have a copy but I know -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. Can 10 we put it on the screen? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Mr. Millar will 12 put it on the screen. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps Mr. 14 Millar could get it on the screen. Thank you. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's on 19 the screen now. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: I'm at page 167, line 25 and so you 23 know, Mr. Harris, this is me questioning -- that is me 24 Julian Falconer questioning Mr. Runciman, all right? 25 January 10th, 2006.

208

1 "Q: All right. And when did you 2 first come to the conclusion or have 3 this concern crystallized in your mind 4 as to the appropriate of Premier -- as 5 to the appropriateness of Premier 6 Michael Harris being at the dining room 7 meeting? 8 A: I'm just guessing. Probably 9 fairly early on once the -- once the, 10 you know, the concerns were expressed 11 that there was some sort of political 12 interference with respect to direction 13 given to the OPP." 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: "Q: And what was it about Premier 16 Harris' presence at the dining room 17 meeting that caused you to reflect that 18 his attendance might not -- might have 19 been inappropriate?" 20 Then there's an exchange. And then top of 21 page 169, line 1. 22 "Q: When you say that you reflected 23 on the attendance of Premier Harris, is 24 it fair to say what you were trying to 25 convey to the Commissioner, was it on

209

1 reflection you might have reconsidered 2 having Premier Harris attend that 3 meeting? 4 A: Well, that wasn't my -- my role to 5 play having the ability to advise the 6 Premier when or when not to attend the 7 meeting. The meeting was called by his 8 staff and I attended as requested. 9 I just have felt for some time, 10 specifically how long I can't give you 11 a specific answer, that if -- if he 12 hadn't been in attendance, we may not 13 have been sitting here today." 14 Going on: 15 "Q: And what was it about his 16 attendance that made you think that? 17 What was the difficulty arising from 18 his attendance? 19 A: Well, I think the fact that 20 anything he said and you -- you have, 21 you know, eight (8) nine (9), 10 22 people, people can interpret, infer, 23 and sometimes those can be -- can be 24 skewed and misunderstood and in my view 25 that's exactly, perhaps, what

210

1 happened." 2 Now, you know and understand that Mr. 3 Runciman is expressing the view that your words may have 4 been misconstrued by some in the room, correct? 5 A: That appears to be the case. 6 Q: Mr. Runciman goes on: 7 "Q: And when you say, Can be skewed 8 or misinterpreted, you meant by the ten 9 (10) people, some or one (1) of the ten 10 (10) people present? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: And you referred in your evidence 13 in-chief, in answer to questions by Mr. 14 Millar, to the fact that the Premier -- 15 then-Premier Michael Harris, as you put 16 it, has a strong personality? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Now, you -- you also, in answer to 19 queries about this, indicated you 20 weren't friends socially but you were 21 somewhat comrades, political comrades 22 in the sense you both hailed from the 23 early '80's in terms of your political 24 careers? 25 A: That's right.

211

1 Q: And that your time with him starts 2 in the early '80's in terms of 3 political careers, correct? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: So it would have been, with the 6 benefit of what we now have as twenty- 7 five (25) years that you say he was a 8 person with a strong personality? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: That left a real impression on 11 people, true? 12 A: I think that's fair. 13 Q: He sat not on the seat of that 14 chair, he sat on the arm of that chair; 15 is that true? 16 A: That's my recollection. 17 Q: And he did that throughout his 18 presence at that meeting? 19 A: I believe so." 20 And just stopping there, Mr. Harris, 21 because no one's actually asked you this, is your memory 22 consistent with Mr. Runciman's, that you didn't actually 23 sit on the seat of the chair at the head of the table, 24 but you sat on the arm of the chair? 25 A: No.

212

1 Q: All right. 2 "Q: And the arm of the chair, like 3 any other chair, there is nothing 4 special about the Premier's chair, was 5 it? It would be an arm that may be, 6 what, one (1), two (2) feet above the 7 base of the chair, fair? 8 A: I assume so. 9 Q: Two (2) feet above the seat above 10 the chair, yes. 11 A: I imagine. 12 Q: So in addition to being a strong 13 personality, he would have been 14 somebody who was actually seated 15 slightly above everybody else at the 16 table, true? 17 A: True. 18 Q: And he had the kind of personality 19 that could be blunt at times, correct? 20 A: Frank. 21 Q: And frank is -- is sort of a more 22 diplomatic word for "blunt?" 23 A: Could be. 24 Q: And I want you to know this is a 25 bit of a pot calling the kettle, so I'm

213

1 certainly not -- not above being blunt 2 myself. 3 I'm going to suggest to you that when a 4 person with a strong personality is 5 frank and they occupy the position of 6 Premier, the likelihood of that 7 skewing, or misconstruction, or 8 misunderstanding increases; would you 9 agree with that? 10 A: I would say that's a possibility. 11 Certainly I, as you -- I think where 12 you're going on this is that I knew him 13 quite well and others didn't. 14 Q: Now, I'd asked you about the Fox 15 tape and I'm hoping that we're at the 16 stage where it can be played." 17 So the first thing is, I raise this in the 18 context of the Julie Jai note because in it Ron Fox, 19 right after the dining room meeting, says to Julie Jai, 20 "Premier and Hodgson came out strong." 21 You do understand, don't you, Mr. Harris, 22 that there are going to be people who don't know you 23 personally and may have the level of misunderstanding 24 about your personality that Mr. Runciman, who's known you 25 for twenty-five (25) years, observes?

214

1 You do understand that? 2 A: I can't speak to that. 3 Q: So it's fair to say that whatever was 4 in your mind on September 6th, 1995 you didn't, in your 5 mind, think about the impact your personality might have 6 on people who didn't know you in the room? 7 A: I can't tell you what I thought then, 8 I'm sorry. 9 Q: You -- all right. Let me see if -- 10 and I take it that's because of the passage of time? 11 A: Yes, and the lack of significance of 12 this meeting versus other meetings or -- at the time. 13 But I don't recall what I was thinking at the time. 14 Q: When you said, "lack of significance 15 of this meeting versus other meetings," you are -- you 16 are not trying to tell this Commission that you attended 17 other meetings with people outside of your political 18 staff in relation to Ipperwash before the shooting, are 19 you; you're not suggesting that? 20 A: No, I'm suggesting this meeting had 21 no particular impact on me as being any more important 22 than other meetings. 23 Q: Fair enough. But having said that, 24 when you say, "other meetings," there are no other 25 meetings outside of your political staff, right?

215

1 Before the shooting? 2 A: No, there were several meetings where 3 it -- 4 Q: That you were at. 5 A: -- I believe the Interministerial 6 Committee, where I think there was a consensus, as soon 7 as possible would be better, all things being equal. And 8 also where the issue of ex parte versus with notice 9 injunction were discussed. 10 Q: We've down this path before. I -- I 11 just want -- 12 A: I have. 13 Q: -- to know if there's any other 14 meetings before the shooting that you were at that 15 weren't with your political staff. 16 And I take it the answer is "no"? 17 A: I don't believe so, no. 18 Q: Right. And so you say to us today, 19 though, that as far as you're concerned in respect of the 20 only meeting you attended outside of your political 21 staff, that that meeting didn't have a lot of 22 significance to you? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Right. Now I want to go through, in 25 addition to the note that refers to you coming out strong

216

1 and the Runciman evidence about your personality, I want 2 to go to the letters are exchanged very briefly. 3 And I just want to confirm in your mind, 4 and it won't take but a minute, that in fact this would 5 have been the first opportunity of the revelation of the 6 Jai note. 7 And I just ask you to direct your 8 attention, if you don't mind, sir, to September 15, 2000. 9 Mr. Klippenstein and Mr. Orkin, for the Sam George, is 10 speaking in their letter in the third paragraph. 11 "We would request disclosure and copies 12 of all Cabinet minutes related to that 13 discussion." 14 And you see the previous paragraph? 15 "We are enclosing copy of a handwritten 16 note dated September 6th, 1995 --" 17 A: Which -- which letter are you 18 referring to? 19 Q: On September 15th, 2000. 20 A: September 15th, 2000. Okay. To 21 Eleanor Cronk and John -- 22 Q: That's right. Exhibit P-1082 and 23 it's the letter to the Crown and your letter personally, 24 right? About the revelation of the Julie Jai note. Do 25 you have that? Second paragraph.

217

1 "We are enclosing --" 2 A: "We are enclosing a copy of a 3 handwritten note." 4 Yes. I've got that letter. 5 Q: Dated September 6th, 1995. 6 A: Yeah. This is a letter to -- 7 Q: To your lawyer. 8 A: -- my lawyer and to -- 9 Q: The Crown lawyer. 10 A: -- the Ministry of the Attorney 11 General. Okay. They're the Crown lawyers? 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: "We would request disclosure and 15 copies of all --" 16 And I apologize, back up. 17 "We are enclosing a copy of a 18 handwritten note dated September 6th, 19 1995 which refers to a Cabinet meeting 20 on the morning of September 6th, at 21 which potential government and police 22 actions regarding the Ipperwash 23 protesters were discussed." 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: "We would request disclosure and

218

1 copies of all Cabinet minutes related 2 to that discussion on that day, et 3 cetera." 4 The next paragraph. 5 "We would also ask for your explanation 6 as to why the existence of the 7 September 6th document, which is 8 obviously very relevant and very 9 important to the issues in this lawsuit 10 was not disclosed." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: Until it -- it appeared in the 14 Affidavit of Documents recently. You got all that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Then the next -- the letter in 17 response is second paragraph, dated -- 18 A: This is -- 19 Q: -- October 24th, 2000. 20 A: October -- 21 Q: The letter to Mr. Klippenstein. Do 22 you have that? 23 A: October 26th? 24 Q: No. 25 A: Oh received the 26th, sorry.

219

1 Q: That's right. 2 A: Okay, dated October 24th, got it. 3 Q: That's right. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Second paragraph: 6 "As part of the production obligations 7 of the Crown and our other clients in 8 this matter, numerous and comprehensive 9 inquiries and searches for relevant or 10 potentially relevant documents have 11 been undertaken by our offices." 12 And then the next paragraph -- next 13 sentence. 14 "As a result, I can confirm that at no 15 time prior to the events of September 16 7th, 1995 were any actions or potential 17 actions regarding the Ipperwash 18 protesters discussed in a Cabinet 19 meeting. 20 No Cabinet minutes or notes exist with 21 respect to this topic. All relevant 22 documents of which we are aware 23 concerning these matters have been 24 identified in the Crown's original list 25 and supplementary list."

220

1 Do you have that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Next page. Now this is the 4 disclosure to Sam George and -- and his family. 5 "With respect to the reference to 6 Cabinet contained in Crown production 7 11774 [which is that Julie Jai note] I 8 can advise that on September 6th '95 a 9 meeting of various Provincial 10 Government officials took place 11 attended by Larry Taman, the Premier, 12 Christopher Hodgson, and Elaine Todres, 13 among others. This was not a Cabinet 14 meeting." 15 Now, do you dispute, sir, that this would 16 be the first time that Sam George was told, well, he -- I 17 want to finish my question. And I make a mistake when I 18 respond to people who are whispering on the side. I will 19 rephrase my question again. 20 Do you dispute -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 22 I missed that. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just don't 24 understand -- these are documents that we get over lunch 25 for the first time. I don't understand the point of

221

1 this, at all. There's no indication the Witness ever saw 2 these documents. 3 There's -- he's asking whether the -- 4 whether this Witness disputes, whether this is the first 5 time that this list provided -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I don't -- I can 7 withdraw the question. I withdraw the question and will 8 move on. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: I put the letters to you, sir, so you 14 would have an opportunity to address any information you 15 have that could supplement this exchange of information? 16 That is do you know of any information, sir, that would 17 suggest that the Julie Jai note or the existence of the 18 dining room meeting was ever raised before this date of 19 October 24th, 2000? 20 A: I -- I don't, but I've not -- not 21 looked for it either, so. 22 Q: Thank you. Now, we'd had a brief 23 discussion, prior to the lunch break, about when this 24 first came up in the House and I want to draw your 25 attention to that now.

222

1 If you could, please -- and when I say, 2 "this," I'm referring, of course, to the dining room 3 meeting. Could you please direct your attention, again, 4 to Exhibit P-973, the binder of Hansards. 5 A: This is the second binder? 6 Q: It's the black binder of Hansards. 7 A: Yeah, well I have one (1) that goes 8 up to ninety-seven (97). I'm assuming that's not the one 9 you're referring to. You're referring to the index, sir? 10 Q: You're quite correct. You're ahead 11 of me actually. You're doing better than I am. 12 A: Well, I wouldn't say that. 13 Q: I don't know if they can spell 14 obsequiousness for the transcript Mr. Harris, but point 15 well taken. 16 All right. If -- if you could have 17 regard, Mr. Clerk's going to hand you a separate binder 18 of Hansards. This is an additional set of Hansards. 19 A: I've got some. 20 Q: It's a thin one. 21 A: They -- they were just handed to me 22 when I came in. 23 Q: Mr. Commissioner will have that as 24 well. 25 A: Okay.

223

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What do they 2 go up to? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Do you see -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The one I 5 have is May 13th/'97. Is that as far as they go? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. You now have a 7 second volume that's been placed in front of you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. I've 10 got it. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Ever wishing to add 12 to the record. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How far does 14 this one go? This goes to October -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This takes us to 16 October 2001. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Now, I want to be clear, Mr. Harris, 20 so there's no misconception. This does not represent all 21 of the Hansards and I'll be dealing with that in a 22 minute. So I'm not suggesting for one minute that Tabs 1 23 through 15 which are February 5th, 1997 to October 9th, 24 2001 is everything. 25 These are selected Hansards that I want to

224

1 ask you questions about, all right? 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: If you could turn please, sir, to Tab 4 11? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: All I ask you to address here, and 9 you -- you are actually referred to here in the -- in the 10 oral questions so you were present in the House, it's -- 11 it's a simple one and a half (1 1/2) pager. 12 You see how Mr. Phillips speaks first? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Five (5) lines down: 15 "In a memo that has been released..." 16 Do you see that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: "...within the last twenty-four (24) 19 hours, it indicates that the day of the 20 shooting death you met with the OPP 21 Commissioner along with one (1) other 22 of your Cabinet ministers, that you 23 gave advice the day -- I apologize -- 24 that they gave you advice that day, the 25 police did, as well as the Deputy

225

1 Attorney General, on how you should 2 proceed and you decided to ignore or go 3 against this advice and seek a 4 particular type of injunction." 5 My question is: Do you still today stand 6 by your comment, quote: 7 "I determined nothing. I gave no 8 direction. I gave no influence on it. 9 We left that entirely to the OPP. I 10 assumed there would be negotiations." 11 Close quotes. 12 And of course Mr. Phillips is quoting 13 previous statements by you in the House, correct? 14 A: I guess so. 15 Q: And you say, "Absolutely," right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And then halfway down the page you 18 say: 19 "HONOURABLE MR. HARRIS: The document 20 you refer to..." 21 And of course we're talking -- with all 22 due respect, sir, so we're all quite clear, the document 23 we're talking about is the Julie Jai note, Exhibit P-515. 24 A: Right. 25 Q: The document -- and this is you

226

1 speaking, Mr. Harris: 2 "The document you refer to I think was 3 released months ago and it confirms 4 that the OPP Commissioner was at a 5 meeting that I was at, something 6 indicated quite freely five (5) years 7 ago at the time of the Ipperwash 8 situation. I can tell you that the OPP 9 Commissioner sought an injunction and 10 that we gave them one." 11 You said that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And then Mr. Hampton -- and to be 14 fair to you sir, by the way, you put a correction on the 15 record later that you didn't meet with the Commissioner, 16 all right? To be fair to you, I want you to know that -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- that that correction was in the 19 binder. 20 A: No, I -- I know that, but I was 21 responding to somebody waving a document so -- 22 Q: That's right. 23 A: -- there's this document says you met 24 with the Commissioner. 25 Q: That's right. And to be fair to you,

227

1 sir, it isn't the issue of you saying you met with the 2 Commissioner, all right? And that's what you correct 3 later. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: It's the issue of the revelation of 6 the dining room meeting and this being the first time; 7 that's what I'm asking you about, okay? 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: And I'll even point to you where you 10 correct it, about not meeting with the Commissioner that 11 day, in a moment. 12 So Mr. Hampton then says: 13 "I don't think that was an answer." 14 Do you see that? 15 A: "Mr. Hampton, question for the 16 Premier?" 17 Q: No, you go further down. 18 A: Okay. Oh, there, yeah. 19 Q: "I don't think that was an answer. 20 This is quite germane evidence in the 21 death of an unarmed man and for some 22 reason your government kept it out of 23 the public for five (5) years. 24 Premier, I want to ask you this; you've 25 always maintained that decisions to

228

1 interfere at Ipperwash, decisions to 2 get an ex parte injunction were made, 3 not by your government, but this memo 4 pretty clearly indicates that the OPP 5 Commissioner was called into the 6 meeting and that you and your cabinet 7 colleagues were warned, don't interfere 8 with police discretion. Don't force an 9 ex parte injunction. 10 And then it says, quote: 11 "But Premier and Hodgson came out 12 strong." 13 Close quotes. 14 "I think any reasonable person would 15 conclude that you and Mr. Hodgson 16 directly interfered. That you and Mr. 17 Hodgson made the decision over the 18 heads of the OPP Commissioner and the 19 Deputy Attorney General to directly 20 interfere with Ipperwash. If that's 21 not the right conclusion, Premier, 22 please give your explanation?" 23 A: Right. 24 Q: And then you go on to give an 25 explanation that:

229

1 "The OPP requested an injunction and we 2 responded to their request for the ex 3 parte injunction." 4 Do you see that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: It's about the only accurate thing 8 I've heard here on this question. 9 Q: Pardon me? 10 A: It's about the only accurate thing 11 I've heard so far in this question from the questioner; 12 what I indicated the OPP requested -- 13 Q: You're saying you -- 14 A: I'm saying the question is pretty 15 inaccurate. 16 Q: Right. 17 A: The answer was accurate; the OPP 18 requested an injunction, that's my understanding. And we 19 responded to the request for an ex parte injunction and 20 that's my understanding. 21 Q: The liaison officer from the OPP was 22 Ron Fox; yes? 23 A: Sorry. 24 Q: The liaison officer, that's how you 25 described him on May 29th, 1996 --

230

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: -- Ron Fox. The liaison officer from 3 the OPP was Ron Fox? 4 A: The liaison officer wasn't from the 5 OPP, I think. That may have been how I described him. 6 And I don't dispute that when I was asked about it. I 7 think the facts are, though, that he was not attached to 8 the OPP at the time, but was attached to the Ministry of 9 the Solicitor General, I think, at the time. 10 Q: Quote: 11 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 12 officer, who was assigned to that 13 committee in these circumstances." 14 Close quotes. 15 A: Correct, yes. 16 Q: After being briefed in the house -- I 17 need to finish my question. After being briefed, prior 18 to addressing he house about Ron Fox, you came, not with 19 the knowledge you have today, but you came to the house 20 on May 29th, 1996 and you told them quote: 21 "Invited from the OPP was a liaison 22 officer." 23 Quite simply; that's what you told them, 24 right? 25 A: Yes. I read that and confirm that --

231

1 Q: All right. 2 A: -- could very well be what I said and 3 I've indicated to you that that isn't why he was invited 4 to the meeting. 5 Q: Fair enough. But in any event -- in 6 any event you were asked on the date I just read to you, 7 December 20th, 2000, about this meeting that happened. 8 They still didn't know where it happened, right? 9 But not they've got a Julie Jai memo and 10 they now are asking you about this meeting, correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And, in particular, what they're 13 seeking from you is an explanation as to why this memo 14 was never revealed over five (5) years, right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: So are we safe to assume, therefore, 17 based on what you and I just read over, that the first 18 time the existence of the dining room meeting was ever 19 addressed in the House was December 20th, 2000? 20 A: It could be. 21 Q: All right. Now, going on from there 22 it's important, would you agree with me, that when 23 something is misstated or inaccurate, that you correct it 24 as best you can? 25 A: If I think it's significant or if

232

1 somebody has misunderstood something, yes. 2 Q: And so you did move to correct the 3 inaccuracy about you meeting with the Commissioner, 4 right? 5 A: I -- I -- I don't know when we did. 6 I think this was the last day before we adjourned for 7 Christmas on December 2000 over five (5) years after the 8 events so -- 9 Q: Yeah. No, and I can help you on 10 that. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: Because I did tell you that I'd show 13 you where the correction happens -- 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: -- if you turn to Tab 12? 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Now, I want you to know that the way 18 Tab 12 is set up there are two (2) Hansard's in there, 19 even though the index suggests one (1). There's a May 20 14th, 2001 that addresses your correction of May 2nd, 21 2001. And if you look at the back of the tab you will 22 find the May 2nd, 2001 Hansard. 23 And all of this is provided to you, sir, 24 so that you can satisfy yourself that your correction 25 that you put on the record on May 2nd, 2001 appears at

233

1 Tab 12. And the correction that you put on the record 2 was that you had not met with the Commissioner on 3 September 6th, 1995. 4 And if you take a look you can satisfy 5 yourself of that? 6 A: Sorry, sir, where was the correction? 7 Q: May 14th, 2001. 8 A: Right. What page? 9 Q: You'll see it at Tab 12? No, that's 10 right. There's a reference to the correction, is what 11 I'm trying to tell you, sir. And the correction is 12 attached as a May 2nd correction at the back of the Tab. 13 A: Oh, sorry. 14 Q: All right. Go to the back of the 15 Tab -- 16 A: The back of the tab -- 17 Q: The last two (2) pages. 18 A: Oh, okay, all right. 19 Q: And you say: 20 "I think I may have indicated that we 21 did meet with the OPP Commissioner. 22 I'm told we did not meet with the OPP 23 Commissioner, I did not." 24 Right? 25 A: Yes.

234

1 Q: Okay. You don't correct any other 2 aspect, just that, correct? 3 A: Yes, because the question was about 4 the meeting with the OPP Commissioner, 5 "Discuss the situation at the Park, 6 that's what you said in the 7 Legislature. That was a new revelation 8 to us. I don't know why it was new to 9 us, because he misquoted an -- a piece 10 of paper he was waving up and either 11 inadvertently or intentionally misled 12 the House about this meeting. 13 I didn't correct that at the time and 14 now I am correcting it." 15 That's what this looks like to me. 16 Q: All right. And this is all in May 17 2001? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And the first time the information 20 pertaining to the meeting in the dining room arises is 21 December 20th, 2000? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: With -- 24 A: Which has nothing to do with the 25 meeting. This has to do with the OPP Commissioner.

235

1 Q: Well, I'll let the evidence speak for 2 itself. Let's keep moving. 3 A: Well, that's -- 4 Q: Tab 6, sir. 5 A: Okay. Tab 6? 6 Q: Of that small binder. Tab 6, if you 7 could go to that. 8 A: Okay. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Mr. Phillips asks you a question on 13 August 20th, 1997 and we're now going three (3) years 14 back towards the shooting, all right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: About two (2) years after the 17 shooting, and Mr. Phillips asks you the following. It's 18 the first page: 19 "My question is to the Premier, and has 20 to do with his and his office's role in 21 the Ipperwash affair." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: "You've indicated Premier, in the 25 House, that you had no files, no

236

1 records, because you had no involvement 2 in it." 3 Now, you did say that, didn't you, in the 4 House? 5 A: That's what it looks like, according 6 to this record. 7 Q: "The minutes that were released last 8 week indicate that your executive 9 assistant, Ms. Hutton, was at a meeting 10 on September 6th, that was developing 11 recommendations around Ipperwash. The 12 notes indicate that she had been 13 speaking with you [quote] 'last night, 14 [close quotes], on the matter and that 15 these are quotation marks, these were 16 your wishes. [Quote] 'Out of the Park, 17 only, nothing else' [close quotes]. 18 My question is, and I'm sure you've 19 talked to Ms. Hutton about how accurate 20 those were, do those notes accurately 21 reflect what Ms. Hutton said at that 22 meeting, and do they accurately reflect 23 what you told Ms. Hutton, your wishes 24 in the matter of Ipperwash?" 25 And you answer:

237

1 "You're quite right." 2 This is Michael Harris speaking on August 3 20th, 1997. 4 "You're quite right in the sense that 5 we did not have any meetings. We did 6 not have the lead role." 7 You see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: When you said, "We did not have any 10 meetings", that might have been a time to clarify that, 11 in fact, you did have an informal meeting. 12 Would you agree with that? 13 A: Might have been, but that wasn't what 14 was on my mind as opposed -- as reference to what the 15 questioner was asking about. 16 Q: Then, further down you refer to 17 Cabinet being briefed. Can you assist me with that? 18 It's the second to last paragraph. Four (4) lines down, 19 under your name, Honourable Mr. Harris. Page 1, August 20 20th, 1997. 21 "Let me say that I was briefed, I 22 think, on almost a daily basis over 23 that period of time, because it was 24 quite a serious issue..." 25 A: Yes.

238

1 Q: "And it would be Ms. Hutton who would 2 brief me and I think Cabinet was 3 briefed. I believe the Attorney 4 General and the Solicitor General would 5 be briefed. Let me quote this to you." 6 Now, in this Hansard, you actually say 7 "Cabinet was briefed", correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I take it you recognize now that 10 Cabinet wasn't briefed, correct? 11 A: It's possible. I think I indicated 12 that there may have been a quick briefing at Cabinet, but 13 nothing substantive was discussed at Cabinet. 14 I think I indicated that -- that there 15 would be a meeting after Cabinet of the relevant 16 ministers that were involved, so -- but that could very 17 well be. 18 Q: Stated by your lawyers and lawyers 19 for the Crown, sir, quote, at Exhibit P-8 -- I'm sorry, 20 P-1083, the letter of October 24th, 2000, to Sam George. 21 "As a result, I can confirm that at no 22 time prior to the events of September 23 7th, 1995 were any actions or potential 24 actions regarding the Ipperwash 25 protesters discussed in a Cabinet

239

1 meeting." 2 A: That's what I said. 3 Q: Right. If you could flip to Tab 7. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, Mr. -- in August of 1997, Mr. 8 Phillips doesn't know there was a dining room meeting, 9 correct? 10 A: I'm sorry, Mr. Phillips says what? 11 Q: Mr. Phillips, in August -- because we 12 know now that the revelation of the dining room meeting 13 happens in December 2000, certainly in August 1997 Mr. 14 Phillips doesn't know about the dining room, correct? 15 You can't say what he knows, I'll withdraw 16 the question, rephrase it. 17 Q: All right. All right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Millar has me 20 well trained. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: It's fair to say that on the face of 24 this Hansard of August 26th, 1997, it appears that Mr. 25 Phillips doesn't know about the dining room meeting,

240

1 would you agree with that? 2 A: Well, he -- he doesn't reference it, 3 that's for sure. 4 Q: Okay. And then the second paragraph, 5 it says August 26th, 1997. This is six (6) days after 6 your reference to a Cabinet meeting in the previous tab, 7 you know, we just went over that, sir? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. 10 "When you were questioned on this last 11 week you indicated that Ms. Hutton had 12 told you she'd been in touch with you 13 in North Bay. We've checked the 14 records; it now appears that's 15 incorrect. It appears to us that you 16 were in Toronto on Tuesday, September 17 5th. The day before which was Labour 18 Day you had been in a golf match. You 19 were preparing for a Cabinet meeting on 20 September 5th. The meeting of the 21 Cabinet took place on September 6th." 22 Now, that's actually objectively accurate 23 that there was a Cabinet meeting on September 6th, right, 24 Mr. Harris? 25 A: Yes.

241

1 Q: And on the 20th of August, 1997, you 2 actually said -- you made reference to the Cabinet 3 meeting in relation to the Ipperwash affair, correct? 4 Do you want me to take you back there? 5 A: No, but I -- I know Cabinet took 6 place on September 6th, if that's what you're saying. 7 Q: And: 8 "Premier, are you prepared..." 9 This is still Mr. Phillips: 10 "Premier, are you prepared to correct 11 the record and tell the public that you 12 were in Toronto on the day in question 13 when that comment was made by you and 14 can you tell us whether the meeting was 15 face to face with Ms. Hutton?" 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And then you speak: 18 "MR. HARRIS: I think when I was asked 19 the question I was given a date of the 20 long weekend by the leader of the 21 Opposition." 22 And just for your own edification, Mr. 23 Harris, this may be the best record of your movements 24 that weekend. It's two (2) years later and you seem 25 quite detailed.

242

1 Quote: 2 "On the long weekend I was in North 3 Bay, and I have checked the record now, 4 on the Sunday for the Mike Harris 5 celebration of labour and family picnic 6 and fireworks, which will be held this 7 year as well, on Sunday. On the 8 Monday, you're right, I was with the 9 Prime Minister playing in the Canadian 10 Open golf event and on the Tuesday I 11 was in a similar event at Greystone." 12 That -- that would be accurate, Mr. 13 Harris? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Just for my own idle curiosity, was 16 Fred Couples with you and the Prime Minister or was it 17 the next day at Greystone? 18 A: No, he wasn't with -- he wasn't with 19 the Prime Minister. 20 Q: So it would be Greystone? 21 A: And actually I didn't play with the 22 Prime Minister, I played in a foursome behind. 23 Q: All right. 24 "The recollection of Ms. Hutton..." 25 I'm sorry, I just satisfied something I

243

1 needed to know. 2 "The recollection of Ms. Hutton is that 3 she had relayed information to me by 4 phone and I think everything else is a 5 matter of public record. Any results 6 from any of the meetings that took 7 place were in Cabinet on Wednesday, 8 where, as you know, the Attorney 9 General suggested and Cabinet accepted 10 the advice and the recommendation that 11 we seek an injunction." 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Now, may I ask you, sir, may I ask 14 you, when you were being asked questions by Mr. Phillips 15 -- just go back to the question because the question 16 always informs your answer; that's what you said today. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: Going back -- you smile a bit. 19 There's a bit of irony there, right? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. Going back to the 22 question by Mr. Phillips, when you were questioned on 23 this last week and he refers to the meeting of September 24 5th. Do you see that, the Tuesday? 25 He refers to the Tuesday, September 5th.

244

1 Do you see that? We checked the records, it now appears 2 to be correct -- 3 A: Yes, yes, correct. 4 Q: -- you were in Tuesday, September 5 5th, the day before? 6 A: Right, yeah. 7 Q: Then he goes on to talk to you about 8 your Wednesday, which was Cabinet on the 6th? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Okay. And then you answered him 11 about Cabinet on the 6th, don't you? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And you say, the last four (4) 14 lines of that paragraph, you say: 15 "The recollection of Ms. Hutton is that 16 she had relayed information to me by 17 phone and I think everything else is a 18 matter of public record." 19 So you made it quite clear that, you know, 20 Ms. Hutton was talking to you by phone on that long 21 weekend, right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: "Any results of any of the meetings 24 that took place were in Cabinet on 25 Wednesday where, as you know, the

245

1 Attorney General suggested and Cabinet 2 accepted the advice and recommendations 3 that we seek an injunction." 4 Would you agree with me, Mr. Harris, that 5 might have been a propitious time for you to tell the 6 people of Ontario that, in fact, Cabinet did not meet and 7 consider an injunction; that it was done in the dining 8 room, a small boardroom with an OPP liaison officer 9 present along with others. 10 Would that have been the propitious time 11 to tell the people of Ontario the truth? 12 A: If I'd remembered that at the time. 13 At the time, obviously, I -- my recollection, three (3) 14 years after, being asked out of the blue in a -- probably 15 a nice warm day in August, was that that was made by 16 Cabinet. It turns out it wasn't, it was confirmed by 17 members of Cabinet at a separate meeting. 18 Q: Fair enough. And so it was an error? 19 A: Sorry? 20 Q: It was an error? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: An unintentioned error. 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Much like the Commissioner meeting 25 you, that was an unintentioned error?

246

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And it was an important error, saying 3 Cabinet did something when Cabinet did not? 4 A: I -- I didn't see it as -- as 5 particularly important. It was some -- 6 Q: Is that -- 7 A: It was something that I and the 8 members, relevant members, of Cabinet concurred in. 9 Q: But you -- you recall I asked you 10 this morning, is there any chance that dining room was a 11 Cabinet meeting and Counsel objected and you said it 12 wasn't a Cabinet meeting? 13 Remember we went through that? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Right. And so you had told the 16 people of Ontario that Cabinet met and approved 17 something, a formal process had taken place and approved 18 it, right? 19 A: That's what it looks like I said on 20 the -- August 22nd. And as well all know that isn't 21 correct. 22 Q: Right. And we know that when you 23 make mistakes of that nature you strive to set the record 24 straight, correct? 25 A: If I think it's significant or has

247

1 significant information or impact, yes. 2 Q: Like when you were put in a small 3 boardroom with the Commissioner you strove to correct 4 that, right? When you said -- 5 A: I'm sorry. 6 Q: -- I was -- 7 A: I strove to correct -- 8 Q: -- when you said or I'll rephrase the 9 question, I can see the problems with the question. 10 An example would be the example we 11 referred to before, the correction with respect to you 12 and the Commissioner on September 6th, 1995. 13 That's simply an example of correcting the 14 record, right? 15 A: When I said that the Commissioner -- 16 I didn't meet with the Commissioner. 17 Q: That's right. It's simply an example 18 of correcting the record? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: I can't find where you correct the 21 assertion that Cabinet, with all of its formal 22 safeguards, all of its accountability, I can't find the 23 assertion where you say Cabinet did not make this 24 decision, did not make this final call. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.

248

1 Downard...? 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Is there a question? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, so far 4 I assume the question is... 5 Well, do you want to ask the question, Mr. 6 Falconer -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sure. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- without 9 some of the lead-up? 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Can you assist me to find where you 13 correct the record in terms of Hansard or your knowledge? 14 You don't have to -- it doesn't have to be an 15 encyclopaedic knowledge of Hansard, I just want to know 16 if you have a memory of correcting the record -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 18 Downard...? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- as it pertained 20 to the -- you know what, it's not worth an argument so 21 I'm going to -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- rephrase the 24 question again because we're trying to get to the facts. 25 This isn't a trial, this is an Inquiry.

249

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know 2 that, but -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm well trained. 4 I'll try to ask the question again. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 6 Mr. Falconer. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Mr. Harris -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: Mr. Harris, I cannot find on my 14 review of all of the Hansards any reflection of a 15 correction of the record, to this statement of August 16 26th, 1997. Do you know of anything different? 17 A: No, I don't, but I haven't looked for 18 one, either. 19 Q: Did you say you're up for one? 20 A: No, I say I haven't looked for one. 21 Q: All right. Now, what I'm going to 22 ask you, and I said that in good faith. 23 A: I'm up for one if you have one. 24 Q: Yeah, I thought you said you were up 25 for one.

250

1 Sir, and that's an indication of how 2 misunderstandings can happen from what you say, right? 3 Sir, would you agree with me that just to 4 the reasonable person, to -- to the people watching a 5 process if you tell them we had a formal process with 6 minutes where a -- a Cabinet met and there was a Chair 7 and we were in the Cabinet chambers, with all those 8 safeguards that democracy operates under, would that 9 imports or implies for a formality and an accountability 10 that the dining room meeting did not? 11 A: I -- I guess -- I -- I can't answer 12 that. I can tell you what I thought was important and 13 significant was that the Government had made a decision 14 to seek an ex parte injunction, and did so. 15 Q: I'm going to put it to you, sir, that 16 the Government was Mike Harris and Deb Hutton. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? Is 18 that your question? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, it is. Sir? 20 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I think I can 21 recall quite a few other members of the Government. I -- 22 I could go through the list, if you like, of the Cabinet 23 of the day, of the MPP's on the government side of the 24 ninety thousand (90,000) or so civil servants, I think, 25 that all collectively make up the government.

251

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Well, let's start with Ron Fox. You 4 felt that there was some level of consensus arising from 5 Ron Fox's presence in the small boardroom, the dining 6 room; correct? 7 A: I felt the consensus of the dining 8 room meeting because nobody certainly had said anything 9 to the contrary. After having listened to everything 10 and -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: -- and expressed whatever 13 views were expressed when the decision was confirmed that 14 we would seek an ex parte injunction and to this day I 15 don't know whether Mr. Fox felt that was the right 16 decision or not but I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 THE WITNESS: -- can tell you he didn't 19 express that he did not think it was the right decision 20 at that meeting -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 THE WITNESS: -- to the best of my 23 recollection. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you're 25 going over territory that has been gone over, Mr.

252

1 Falconer. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's fine, 3 we'll keep moving, keep moving. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Mr. Harris, I direct your attention 8 to -- well, let me back up a step. I -- I only want -- I 9 leave this topic with this, sir. 10 Assuming I'm correct and that there is no 11 correction of the record, there is no alteration of the 12 record to reflect the dining room meeting as in a 13 deliberate correction of a misstatement, it certainly 14 leaves the dining room meeting undisclosed. 15 Would you agree with that? 16 By not correcting the record and saying it 17 didn't happen at a Cabinet meeting, as I said on August 18 26, 1997 and implied it on the August 20th, it -- it 19 leaves the existence of the dining room meeting 20 undisclosed, because to correct the record you would have 21 had to disclose it; am I right? 22 A: Weren't thoughts that went through my 23 mind, but... 24 Q: Well, just as a matter of common 25 sense, isn't it fair to say, sir, that having misstated

253

1 where the decision took place, as a matter of common 2 sense, the correction would point to where the decision 3 took place? 4 A: No. I wasn't uncomfortable with the 5 fact that -- that our government had made that decision. 6 I thought that was the most relevant point. 7 Q: Moving to Tab 9, at the same time 8 that you are asking the House about the Ipperwash matter, 9 another issue arises. 10 And it's the issue with respect to the 11 destruction of records. Now Tabs 9 and 10 collectively 12 address this. On September 30th, 1998 and October 20th, 13 1998, questions are asked on the floor. 14 And to be fair to you, sir, it appears 15 that on the first day you don't appear in the Hansard, 16 but on the second day you do and they both refer to the 17 same topic. Okay? 18 A: Okay. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Give the dates, 20 please. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: October 20 -- I'm 22 sorry, September 30th, 1998, Tab 9 of Hansard. And then 23 Tab 10 is October 20th, 1998, Tab 10 of Hansard. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:

254

1 Q: Now this is the issue that's raised 2 by Mr. Phillips: 3 "My question is to the Solicitor 4 General. It has to do with key 5 Ipperwash files that are missing from 6 your office. As you know, a key 7 participant in the Ipperwash affair was 8 Mr. Ron Fox, 9 OPP officer on secondment to your 10 office. He was at the September 6th 11 Interministerial meeting where the 12 Premier's Executive Assistant said 13 she'd been talking to the Premier the 14 previous night. 15 'Out of the Park only,' were her 16 instructions to the group. Mr. Fox 17 then made a phone call to the police 18 command post at twelve (12) minutes 19 after 11:00 that morning. 20 The evening Dudley George was shot and 21 a police officer convicted of criminal 22 negligence causing death. 23 On April 19th, 1996, seven (7) months 24 later, Ron Fox was transferred. We now 25 know, based on sworn testimony from

255

1 your Deputy, that all of Mr. Fox's 2 electronic files were destroyed shortly 3 after he left. Knowing how crucial Mr. 4 Fox's files would be to an inquiry, how 5 could it possibly happen that his files 6 were destroyed shortly after he was 7 transferred?" 8 Mr. Runciman answers. 9 "I know that the Privacy Commissioner 10 reviewed this matter with respect to 11 how files are kept and found nothing 12 wrong with respect to the issue of 13 missing files. The Deputy has 14 explained that as best as we can and 15 asked for a review of the systems that 16 are utilized in terms of retention of 17 files. 18 Beyond that, Superintendent Fox, whom I 19 know quite well, has an outstanding 20 record of service in the policing 21 community of this Province, I would not 22 want anyone to suggest otherwise." 23 And then Mr. Phillips adds, second line, 24 quote: 25 "I have nothing but respect for Mr.

256

1 Fox." Close quotes. 2 Now can you assist me on this, sir? Is it 3 a satisfactory state of affairs that during your 4 Government and, in particular, in the time period in the 5 year that followed the shooting death of Dudley George, 6 that the man's files, the man who was in the small 7 boardroom with you, his electronic files would end up 8 destroyed. 9 Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? 10 A: I -- I don't know what was destroyed 11 or what wasn't. It would not be satisfactory to me if 12 there was anything that would be relevant to any ongoing 13 investigation was destroyed. 14 Q: The next day is October 20th, 1998. 15 The next day this is dealt with in Hansard and it's at 16 your Tab 10. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: "MR. PHILLIPS: I will give you one 19 specific --" 20 And this is the second paragraph, sir. So 21 if you look at Gerry Phillips, top of the page. 22 "I will give you one specific which we 23 found out about only a few weeks ago. 24 The key person, who is the liaison 25 between your Interministerial group and

257

1 the police command post, left the 2 Ministry on April 19th, 1996. 3 As soon as he left his files were 4 erased and thirty (30) days later, the 5 backup files were erased. Key 6 documents required for inquiry into 7 Ipperwash are being systematically 8 erased. 9 PREMIER: Will you at least agree to 10 this, that you will send all your 11 Cabinet Ministers and your Ministries 12 that are affected by Ipperwash an 13 instruction that all Ipperwash files 14 that have not been destroyed be 15 retained for the conceivable future." 16 And you answer: 17 "Yes." 18 So it's fair to say that, at minimum, this 19 was a very unfortunate development that Mr. Fox's 20 electronic files were destroyed in their entirety, 21 agreed? 22 A: I don't know. I don't know if 23 anything was destroyed that wasn't duplicated anywhere 24 else. I don't know whether there were hard copies. I -- 25 I don't know that, I wasn't privy to any of that.

258

1 And I -- and I, to this day, I don't know 2 if -- if something was destroyed that -- that was 3 relevant that -- that was done over Mr. Fox's objections 4 or that was done inappropriately; that would be -- that 5 would be a concern. But I don't know that. 6 Q: Now, what I'm going to suggest to you 7 though, sir, is that -- and I want to be fair to you in 8 the Hansards there's a reference at one (1) point by Mr. 9 Runciman that some of Mr. Fox's records were kept in a 10 paper form, some of them. 11 So none of this stuff is ever black and 12 white. But having said that, it is obviously a source of 13 concern to you that files would be destroyed in this way, 14 correct? 15 A: If it was a file and the only record 16 and copy of a file and it was relevant and pertinent and 17 information that we or others would want, it -- it 18 shouldn't be destroyed but I -- I don't know what was 19 destroyed, under whose orders and what was there. 20 Whether there were other copies. I -- I -- I haven't 21 been privy to any of that. 22 Q: Fair enough. Now, moving on, on -- 23 and this is reflected, sir, at Tab 13. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: On June 26th, 2001, a question is put

259

1 to you by Mr. Phillips. June 26th, 2001. We're now 2 almost six (6) years after the shooting, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: September -- yes? 5 A: Yes, we're at June 26th, 2001. 6 Q: Mr. Phillips: 7 "My question is to the Premier; 8 Premier, I believe you're in a serious 9 conflict-of-interest situation..." 10 Do you see that? It's three-quarters 11 (3/4) of the way down the page, the first page of June 12 26th, 2001 which is at Tab 13? 13 A: Okay, got it. Yeah. 14 Q: "My question is to the Premier. 15 Premier, I believe you are in a serious 16 conflict-of-interest situation and you 17 must remove yourself from that conflict 18 of interest. I refer to the Ipperwash 19 Provincial Park issue. On the one (1) 20 hand there's considerable evidence that 21 you were deeply and personally involved 22 in the events surrounding the shooting 23 death. Yesterday evidence was made 24 public that you, I'm quoting 'desire 25 removal within twenty-four (24) hours'.

260
  1                   On the other hand, it is you who
  2                   controls whether or not there is a
  3                   public inquiry into the events.  So you
  4                   have a serious conflict of interest. 
  5                   You are personally, deeply involved in
  6                   it.  But it is you who controls whether
  7                   there is a public inquiry that will
  8                   look into your actions.  Will you
  9                   agree, Premier, to remove yourself from
 10                   this conflict by referring the matter
 11                   to the Chief Justice of Ontario so he
 12                   can make a recommendation on whether or
 13                   not there should be a public inquiry?"
 14                 And you answer:
 15                   "Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to refer
 16                   the question to the Attorney General."
 17                 And then Mr. Young deals with it.  First
 18  of all, can I ask you this, sir, just looking at this for
 19  a moment, in circumstances where your personal
 20  involvement is the subject of serious scrutiny and
 21  serious allegations, would you agree with me that it does
 22  put you in a somewhat awkward position to be making the
 23  call as to whether there should be an investigation into
 24  your actions?  
 25                 It puts you in a bit of an awkward

261

1 position? 2 A: Well, you know, I think at this 3 particular time the position of the government, and I 4 think it may have been articulated by the Attorney 5 General, was that this matter was before the courts. 6 I think at this time we were probably 7 dealing with a civil action, and that the position of the 8 government was not to make a decision whether to call an 9 inquiry or not; that, in fact, we would defer or delay 10 having to make that decision until such time as the civil 11 action was complete. 12 And then we would make an assessment if 13 the George family or others felt there was more 14 information still to come out or that they would like, 15 then we would re-look at that question at that time. 16 So we deferred the decision is my 17 recollection. 18 Q: You made reference to the civil suit; 19 isn't it true, and certainly at this point it's David 20 Young now talking and previous to that it was Mr. 21 Harnick, isn't it true that one (1) of the themes or 22 messages you conveyed on numerous occasions is many facts 23 will come out in the civil action and it may obviate the 24 necessity for a public inquiry; true? 25 A: Yes. Or that was a possibility we

262

1 said. We'd review what -- what all evidence had come 2 out. There had been some evidence, I think, at that 3 time, But I -- you're going to correct me if -- what 4 stage we were at in the civil suit at this point in time. 5 Q: Well, -- well, I asked you -- 6 A: But that was my understanding. 7 Q: I apologize. I ask you that question 8 for this reason: You instructed your lawyers to seek 9 personal costs against Mr. Klippenstein, the lawyer for 10 Sam George. You instructed him to seek personal costs 11 that could have bankrupted him. Why in the world -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 13 minute -- just a minute, Mr. Falconer. Just hold it 14 there because I have a feeling that this is a question 15 that is being objected to. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I want to 17 finish my question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- but 19 you've asked enough to raise the issue. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute. Yes, Mr. Downard...? 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: What on earth is the 24 relevance of that question -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm

263

1 not sure either. 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- to your mandate. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We haven't 4 heard the whole question. But what I did hear I'm 5 wondering the same thing. Do you want to explain that? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'd like to finish 7 the question. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 Well I'm not even sure that -- 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: If your -- if your intention was to 13 use the civil trial to have as mentioned -- facts or as 14 many facts come out as possible, why would you bring a 15 personal cost application against the only lawyer Sam 16 George has that would have had the effect of bankrupting 17 the lawyer? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well just a 19 minute now. Yes, Mr. Millar...? I'm not sure how that's 20 relevant. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That question is not 22 relevant. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 24 think this is relevant to this Inquiry. It's a very 25 interesting issue but it's not relevant to the Inquiry.

264
  1                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   All right.
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  3                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   It is relevant to
  4  the issue of conflict of interest and that's where I'm
  5  at.
  6                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, your
  7  issue a conflict of interest may be worth pursuing.
  8                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Thank you.
  9                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   But that's
 10  certainly not relevant.
 11                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Well, let me -- let 
 12  me --
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Maybe --
 14                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   -- make another
 15  approach.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- but I'm
 17  not sure.  We'll see.
 18                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Fair enough.  Let
 19  me take another approach.  Somebody's always worried of
 20  me.
 21  
 22  CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:
 23                 Q:   Let me take another approach.  And --
 24  and it's this, sir.
 25                 If instead of being required to make the

265

1 personal call you would have to make about a public 2 inquiry, if instead there was a protocol wherein which 3 when serious allegations of political interference are 4 made against the Government, some form of protocol kicks 5 in. 6 So that, for example, the Attorney General 7 or, frankly the Solicitor General, would have a method or 8 mechanism to ensure a proper investigation of the facts, 9 conservation of records and files and, ultimately, a 10 process whereby which a third party, not connected to 11 your Government, would make the decision on whether an 12 inquiry was appropriate. 13 Don't you think that would put you in a 14 better position in terms of the awkward role you found 15 yourself in as reflected in the questions of you on June 16 26th, 2001? 17 A: That's possible. I hadn't really 18 reflected on it. 19 Q: Fair enough. 20 A: But I will if you'd like me to. 21 Q: And -- and I appreciate that. And -- 22 and the reason I ask that, sir, is because obviously this 23 Commission has a dual mandate. Facts and systemic 24 issues, you know that? Yes? 25 A: Sorry.

266

1 Q: This Commission has a dual mandate -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- to look at facts and systemic 4 issues. You know that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And if the Commissioner were of the 7 view at the end of the day and of course there are many 8 parties that will make many different submissions. 9 If the Commissioner were of the view that 10 governments would benefit from a protocol, express 11 guidelines, this is what you do when serious allegations 12 of political interference are made against -- personally 13 against heads of state, this is what you do especially 14 political interference with the police, I take it you'd 15 have no objection to that? 16 A: I'd have no objection to the 17 Commissioner making recommendations? 18 Q: That's right, of the protocol. 19 A: Well, I certainly won't object to any 20 -- the Commissioner making recommendations. I think I'll 21 wait until I see them though to -- to give you my opinion 22 as to whether -- 23 Q: All right, I'm trying -- let me -- 24 A: -- I might agree with them or not. 25 Q: -- put some meat on the bones. Fair

267

1 enough and that's what I'm asking. You see, you were the 2 sitting Premier. It was you that was the target of the 3 allegations, fair? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. So running by you is 6 probably appropriate. So what I'm asking you is, let me 7 give you an example. 8 The Solicitor General, we've heard 9 evidence about his role in terms of civilian oversight of 10 police. All right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And the Solicitor General's role 13 includes the notion of, in essence, being the top 14 civilian oversight individual over the OPP, you 15 understand that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now the Solicitor General has what is 18 argued to be a buffer through the Deputy Attorney General 19 between him and the police. You know that too? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: But you also know, do you, that the 22 Solicitor General's role includes, at times, being a 23 buffer between other Cabinet members and the police. Did 24 you know that? 25 A: Could be.

268

1 Q: And would you agree with me if that 2 Crown officer on serious allegations of political 3 interference by the Government with the police, if the 4 Crown officer was able to make decisions or take steps 5 independent of being part of Cabinet, that might assist 6 to create a perception of distance from the allegations, 7 would you agree? 8 A: It's hard to disagree with something 9 that might deal with perceptions. 10 Q: Fair enough. And would you also 11 agree with me that in those circumstances the Solicitor 12 General who might enjoy that distance or the Attorney 13 General who might enjoy that distance, it might be open 14 to them to request an investigation by an independent 15 third party. 16 Would you agree? 17 A: It might be. 18 Q: Are you familiar with the functions 19 of the Auditor General of Ontario? 20 A: Generally, yes. 21 Q: And you know that for example, I mean 22 going Federally for a moment, we've looked at both pieces 23 of legislation. There's some similarities, mostly 24 similarities. 25 The Auditor General of Canada was actually

269

1 the one and would you forgive the colloquial but who blew 2 the whistle on the Gomery issue, on the -- on the 3 advertising scandal? 4 You know that? 5 A: You -- you've told me and I know he 6 was involved, yes. 7 Q: She. 8 A: She, okay. 9 Q: Ms. Fraser. 10 A: The office was involved. 11 Q: Right. And so it's an example. An 12 Auditor General reports independently to Parliament in -- 13 in the country, that is federally, and an Auditor General 14 of Ontario is capable of reporting independently to the 15 House in the province. 16 Do you understand that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And so the theory would be that if an 19 Auditor General who has powers to seize records, who has 20 powers to conduct investigations were brought into this 21 kind of situation, things such as the Fox records might 22 be preserved, yes? 23 A: I -- I -- yes, but I would hope that 24 the Fox records were preserved, any that were relevant to 25 this. I don't have any evidence they weren't.

270

1 Q: Number 2. In addition to the Fox 2 records being preserved there would not be the situation 3 where it was all left to you, the subject of the 4 allegations on whether you should be investigated, -- 5 A: Well -- 6 Q: -- right? 7 A: -- I -- I don't think it was all left 8 to me but if what you're saying is the Premier could 9 overrule everybody else when it came to this issue that 10 might be true. I'm not sure that's how we arrived at any 11 decisions that we took as to whether we would have an 12 inquiry or when we would have an inquiry. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 14 very interesting submission though -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 17 Falconer. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll go on. I've - 19 - I've asked as many questions -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I 21 welcome that. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- as I need. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 24 welcome that suggestion -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you.

271

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for 2 submission from you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: At -- at Tab 14 could you turn to the 6 September 25th, 2001? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: You'll see that on September 25th, 9 2001, and this is at Tab 14 Hansard involves an exchange 10 first between Mr. McGuinty then Leader of the Opposition 11 and you, Mr. Harris. 12 A: Yes? 13 Q: And that it involves an exchange 14 between Mr. Hampton and you, Mr. Harris. 15 Do you see that? It's on two (2) pages. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I -- I don't propose to spend a 18 lot of time on this but I -- I want to understand your 19 answers that you gave. 20 On the second page of this exchange 21 halfway down the page it's Mr. Hampton. 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: "The fact of the matter in the court 25 case is that you've tried over and over

272

1 again through manoeuvres in court to 2 either have the civil case stopped or 3 to have the civil case limited such 4 that many of the questions that need to 5 be answered you would not be forced to 6 respond to or to limit the documents 7 that you are forced to disclose." 8 And you know, sir, Mr. Harris, that you 9 know that the subject of criticism against you was that 10 as the Litigant in the private lawsuit you were 11 exercising your right to defend yourself and they were 12 saying that that was inconsistent with all the facts 13 coming out. 14 That was the allegation against you 15 correct? 16 A: I don't recall. 17 Q: All right. If we go back over the 18 last five (5) years and I'm back to quoting Mr. Hampton. 19 Quote: 20 "If we go back over the last five (5) 21 years first you said that you did not 22 meet with OPP officers about the 23 Ipperwash occupation. Documents show 24 you did. Then you claimed to have met 25 them at a Cabinet Committee meeting but

273

1 the records of the Cabinet Committee 2 meeting show you weren't there. In 3 fact you met with them afterwards at a 4 meeting where no records were kept or 5 at least so far you haven't disclosed 6 whatever record was kept. 7 Premier, the question is this: How can 8 people across Ontario believe you today 9 when over the last six (6) years you've 10 been forced to change your story as the 11 evidence has emerged?" 12 Do you recall being asked that question by 13 Mr. Hampton? 14 A: Not at the time but after having 15 reviewed it I believe that's the question that he asked. 16 Q: And then you refer to the civil 17 litigation and that you're going to cooperate. Do you 18 see that under your -- your response? I want you to take 19 your time because I -- I don't want to be -- appear to be 20 flying over this stuff. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Just looking at it it says, Mr. 23 Harris, and you go: 24 "Evidence -- statements are sought. 25 I'll cooperate with them [et cetera]."

274

1 A: Right. 2 Q: Okay? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And then Mr. Hampton asks you another 5 question and you put at the bottom: 6 "The very question you seek answers to 7 is a matter before the Court case. The 8 sworn affidavits are there. I don't 9 know whether you're challenging the 10 validity of the OPP sworn affidavits or 11 not. It seems to me perhaps you are. 12 The evidence, as I see it, it's very 13 clear and I stand by that. The Court 14 will decide." 15 Of course you're talking about the civil 16 litigation? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. So you're offering as an 19 alternative for investigating the facts in the Ipperwash 20 matter the lawsuit that Sam George raised, yes? 21 A: I think it would -- a better more 22 accurate description is that I said there is a civil 23 case. It is underway. 24 I welcome the opportunity I think to put 25 my side as I indicated before this civil case and that

275

1 after that I was prepared to review whether there were 2 still questions, still unanswered questions that those 3 had, as to my involvement or any political interference 4 with the police; this seemed to be the main allegation. 5 I was very comfortable with that, I was 6 comfortable in a civil suit. I'm actually very 7 comfortable in a Public Inquiry that I did not, nor did I 8 direct any of my staff, and I don't believe any of my 9 staff or any of the -- the members of my Cabinet, in any 10 way, gave operational direction to the OPP at any time. 11 So I was quite comfortable, knowing in my 12 own mind that, at whatever forum. 13 So, I think that's -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 THE WITNESS: The question was that I was 16 prepared to replace one with the other; I don't think 17 that's true. 18 I was prepared to hear one out, see what 19 information came forward, hoped that, through that, that 20 answers would have answered the allegations and then I 21 said I would review it. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: Do you understand -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want

276

1 to -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the irony -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 4 Falconer, I either want to have a break or be sure that 5 you're going to finish before the break, one or the 6 other. 7 Because it's three o'clock and if you're 8 going to be -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- finished, 11 then we'll keep going until you finish. Is that fair? 12 I don't want to rush you, but I do want 13 you to finish. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. And to 15 normal people that would be fair. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That is 17 fair. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm not so normal. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are 20 normal and I'm treating you as such and I'd like -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, I know, 22 but -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- know -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I don't want to 25 be messing around with you and make a misstatement to

277

1 you. If we don't take a break and we finish at 3:30 on 2 the dot, the answer is, I'm likely to be finished in and 3 around that time period. 4 I believe that we don't need a break 5 unless the witness says he needs a break and then -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So if we 7 keep going, you'll finish by 3:30? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then let's 10 keep going. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to do my 12 best. I know -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that I have an 15 area to cover. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You may -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It may take me to 18 3:40, et cetera, but I'm very close. I'm very close to 19 getting -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 3:40 21 is too late. You'd said you'd be -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll do my best. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- done by-- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And we'll keep 25 going.

278

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, at 2 3:30 I'm expecting you to be finished, Mr. Falconer. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I understand -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So let's 5 keep going. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that your 7 expectation is a direction -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's keep 9 going. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: If you could look at the bottom of 14 page 2: 15 "My question is to the Premier and it 16 is on Ipperwash. On September 6th, the 17 key meeting was held on Ipperwash" 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Page -- sorry, which page 2. 20 Q: It's page 2 of this Hansard of 21 September 25th, 2001 at the bottom. My question -- 22 A: Oh, yeah, from Mr. Phillips, yes. 23 Q: Yes. 24 "My question is to the Premier and it 25 is on Ipperwash. On September 6th, the

279

1 key meeting was held on Ipperwash. We 2 are aware that there were at least six 3 (6) people at that meeting, perhaps 4 more." 5 You see that? 6 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 7 Q: The top of the page. 8 "You were there, Mr. Hodgson, two (2) 9 OPP officers, Fox and Patrick. Two (2) 10 deputy ministers, Todres, Taman. 11 The only note that we've been able to 12 secure is from deputy Minister Taman. 13 It says this [quote] 'The Attorney 14 General was instructed by the Premier 15 that he desires removal within twenty- 16 four (24) hours,' [close quotes]. 17 Was that which you told the meeting, 18 Premier?" 19 And you respond: 20 "The Attorney General can respond." 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Now, based on my review this is 23 pretty well the first time anybody gets it bang on, the 24 diningroom meeting, and puts it to you. 25 Based on my review, and I could be wrong.

280

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me. 2 Yes, Mr. -- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Actually, the evidence 4 of Mr. Taman is at odds with this particular statement. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, so we're 6 clear. The significance of referring to the Taman note 7 at the end is not the issue, and I concede what Mr. 8 Millar says. 9 The significance relates to six (6) people 10 being at a meeting, cabinet ministers, police officers, 11 deputy ministers -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But when you 15 said "bang on," I wasn't clear what you were referring 16 to. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, that's a very-- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's a very -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- legitimate 22 point. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: And so I say to you, Mr. Harris,

281

1 finally, finally, what has occurred is, someone has 2 gotten enough information about the dining room meeting 3 to directly confront you about it; isn't that fair? 4 A: No. 5 Q: And your response to that direct 6 raising of the issue is to pass it to Harnick; isn't that 7 fair? 8 A: No. 9 Q: To Young, sorry, to Young. 10 A: I think in this case, and as I 11 sometimes did, referred the questions to the Attorney 12 General, that's correct. 13 Q: Yeah. Now, then on October 9th, 14 2001, to be fair to you, as I must, Tab 15, to be fair to 15 you, October 9th, 2001 comes out the mistaken identity 16 theory. 17 Do you see it here? You -- Mr. Phillips 18 pursues you on more questions about the meeting, right? 19 And you say: 20 "I stand by the affidavit and the sworn 21 affidavits." 22 I'm at Tab 15. 23 "I stand by the affidavit and sworn 24 affidavits that we've given. There was 25 a meeting, as you know, that I

282

1 indicated I attended. Mr. Scott, 2 whatever his name is [and I think 3 you're talking about Mr. Patrick] at 4 the time I wasn't aware that he was at 5 the meeting. 6 It was an informal meeting. He was not 7 there in the capacity of a police 8 officer; didn't identify himself as a 9 police officer; took no action as a 10 police officer." 11 You said all of those things. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Leaving aside that you said all of 14 those things six (6) years after the meeting; leaving 15 aside that, isn't it fair to say that that's quite a 16 mouthful in the sense that, first of all, you didn't even 17 know he was there, right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: But then you say, basically, I'm 20 going to suggest to you the gist of what you say is, If I 21 did know he was there I didn't know he was there as a 22 police officer? Isn't that what you're doing here? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And then you're saying, Well, if I 25 did know he was there and I did know he was there as a

283

1 police officer, well, I didn't think he was acting in his 2 capacity as a police officer; isn't that right? 3 A: Yes, that's my understanding today 4 too. 5 Q: Now, you talked about the teacher. 6 Remember you said that you, Mr. Harris, when you were a 7 Premier you were really a seconded teacher to the 8 government -- to the people of Ontario, true? That's 9 what you said? 10 A: I think I said something to that 11 effect, yeah. 12 Q: Now, we've heard from former Attorney 13 General Charles Harnick that he doesn't think you can 14 draw the line for a police officer. Say, a police 15 officer can sit in that meeting if he's a seconded police 16 officer versus just a police officer on full active duty. 17 But you draw the line on the basis of what 18 a teacher would do, right? 19 A: Well, I think I was making the -- I 20 didn't say it was exact and I didn't say that it dealt 21 with every nuance that everybody may bring forward but 22 I'm saying that I was trained as a teacher. And I was a 23 teacher. 24 And I was, at this point in time, not 25 acting in my capacity as a teacher. I was acting as --

284

1 as the Premier of Ontario. I may have had background in 2 dealing with issues that dealt with teachers. But 3 whenever I was acting on those issues I was acting in my 4 capacity as Premier, not as a teacher. 5 And I made that analogy. If it was the 6 incorrect analogy then it was made many years after the 7 fact, and I apologize. 8 Q: All right, so you're apologizing for 9 the analogy you made last week -- 10 A: No. No. 11 Q: -- may I finish -- 12 A: I'm apologizing if you -- 13 Q: -- my question. Mr. Harris, may I 14 finish my question? 15 A: Well, you put words in my mouth. You 16 said I apologised -- 17 Q: No, no. Allow -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 19 minute. Stop. Stop. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I was asking 21 a question -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please stop. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Let the Witness 24 finish. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, he's

285

1 interrupting me. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 3 all right. Just a minute. Mr. Miller, everybody please 4 stop. Okay. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May I ask my 6 question first, then let this Witness talk. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are we 8 now? Just if everybody's talking we're not getting 9 anywhere. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The Witness 11 testified that if the analogy was incorrect he 12 apologizes, it was made years after and then I was moving 13 to my next question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. He 15 felt that you were putting words in his mouth that he 16 should be -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's my job. 18 It's called reading questions. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, well, 20 but it's his job to take them out and put his words -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. After 22 I've -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- finished my 25 question. That's all I'm asking to do.

286

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You finished 2 your question and he -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I hadn't -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, Mr. 5 Falconer. You asked a question and the Witness felt that 6 your follow up was putting words into his mouth that he 7 was uncomfortable with and he wanted to clarify them. He 8 should be given an opportunity to do so. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's -- and I -- 10 can I finish my question that he has a problem with 11 though? That was -- that's the difficulty, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 14 see. Do you remember which words you were having a 15 problem with or let's see if he asks the question again 16 if we can straighten this out. 17 THE WITNESS: I'm not even sure what it 18 is -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 20 ask the question again. And maybe we'll be back where we 21 were. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: You appreciate, Mr. Harris, that I 25 don't want to be interrupting you or engaging in any kind

287

1 of conflict with you that way, right? You understand 2 that? 3 A: I'm sorry, I thought you interrupted 4 me. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not -- I 6 think you should just ask the question, Mr. Falconer. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. Mr. 8 Harris -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the 10 question. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: Mr. Harris, when you said it was an 14 analogy that you made years later and that if it was a 15 poor one, you apologize; that's because on reflection you 16 now appreciate equating issues of a liaison officer from 17 the OPP being in a small boardroom with the Premier, with 18 the existence of your teacher's certificate is a poor -- 19 poor analogy; would you agree with that? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop there. 21 There's the question. 22 THE WITNESS: No, I take the analogy as 23 quite relevant for the aspect of they're not there now in 24 the capacity of an OPP officer. In that sense the 25 analogy is quite an appropriate and quite a good one.

288

1 And if you want to get into every nuance 2 of -- and take that analogy to -- to cover everything, I 3 would say it's not a good analogy to say that -- that 4 their knowledge as a police officer and the information 5 that they have a police officer is not, as a liaison 6 officer, beneficial. 7 But in what capacity one is operating, 8 that person is now operating as a civil servant, not an 9 OPP officer. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Would you agree with me that it was 13 you that said the issue on May 29th, 1996, you said that 14 the allegation of your government's political 15 interference with the police goes to the heart of 16 democracy, right? 17 A: I believe it does. I think it's very 18 important, yes. 19 Q: And the presence of a seconded 20 teacher doesn't go to the heart of democracy; does it? 21 A: Not in this case. 22 Q: No. And that, sir, is why I'm cross- 23 examining you on that analogy, sir, with respect. Now, 24 I'm going to suggest to you that you and Deb Hutton, sir, 25 were never shocked by Ron Fox's status as a police

289

1 officer on the morning of May 29th, 1996. That's my 2 suggestion to you, sir. 3 A: I'm sorry, I'm -- am I supposed to 4 respond? You're saying -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- I lied? I didn't lie, it's the 7 truth. 8 Q: I am saying you lied, sir. 9 A: Well, I hear you saying that, but you 10 saying it doesn't make it so. 11 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you that 12 by telling this Commissioner that you were shocked the 13 morning of May 29th, 1996, that you forgot about the 14 dining room meeting in the afternoon of May 29th, 1996, 15 you've in fact shown one (1) of two (2) things. 16 Either you have an extraordinarily poor 17 memory or that you concealed the dining room meeting 18 meaningfully and intentionally. 19 What do you say to that, sir? 20 A: I think you're wrong, sir. 21 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that what 22 really happened in this case is that woman, who's very 23 smart, as you've put it, the woman with an excellent 24 ability on optics, met with you on the morning of May 25 29th, 1996.

290

1 And you, perhaps with other staff or not, 2 you and her agree that the existence of the dining room 3 meeting would not be disclosed unless they discovered it? 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I don't think he -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm suggesting it. 6 I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's making 8 a suggestion. 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: You've put that 10 allegation to attack Ms. Hutton's character -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- without having had 13 the courage to face her down with it when she was here. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, she -- 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Ms. Hutton's 16 evidence -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It could 18 have been a question he could have asked. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let me -- let me 20 help My Friend on this. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Then you make this 22 stuff up and put to it this witness. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let me help My 24 Friend on this. 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: But it's -- it's too

291

1 late now. It's unfair. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: First of all, My 3 Friend, Mr. Downard, I can't remember when he agreed to 4 act for Ms. Hutton, but given their relationship I guess 5 that's possible, he's not her lawyer. 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, I -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's not her lawyer 8 and I'm not hearing from her lawyer. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please stop 10 this. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Now the second -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're 13 getting to the end of this -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The second point 15 is -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Ms. Hutton -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 19 putting up with this. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- testified she 21 remembers nothing about when -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- she learned 24 about Fox. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not

292

1 putting up with this anymore, so you're going to have to 2 conduct yourselves appropriately or we're going to end 3 it, right now. 4 This Witness is going to be finished. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Harris -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So ask 7 proper questions in a proper manner or we're finished. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Mr. Harris, Ms. Hutton testified that 11 she didn't remember when she learned of the identity of 12 Mr. Fox. If you want a page number, I can give it to 13 you. Did you know that? 14 A: No. But I may have read that or when 15 I reviewed what I had of her evidence. 16 Q: Ms. Hutton testified that she did not 17 recall Mr. Fox being in the dining room. Did you know 18 that? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Now, for a very smart person who's 21 memory is, as far as you know, average, she seems to have 22 forgot she was shocked, correct? 23 A: I believe she was surprised when she 24 found out the Mr. Fox, that had been in meetings that she 25 attended was an OPP officer, because I was surprised and

293

1 she told me she didn't realize that either. 2 Q: The suggestion I make to you, with 3 respect to your conduct, sir, with respect to your 4 conduct, is that when you attended to meet with your 5 staff on the morning of May 29th, 1996, I suggest, with 6 respect, sir, that what really went through your mind, is 7 to put it colloquially, I'm in a pickle, and the last 8 thing I need to do is disclose that I was in a small 9 boardroom with a liaison officer from the OPP. 10 I'm suggesting to you that is what 11 occurred to you? 12 A: Well, that's totally wrong and 13 actually silly and ridiculous when I have testified that 14 I am quite comfortable with the entire truth coming out 15 in this Inquiry because, A) I've told nothing but the 16 truth to this Inquiry; 17 And B) I did not give any direction to the 18 OPP as to any operational issues; 19 And C) after I did find out that Mr. Fox 20 and perhaps others, and I found out at this Inquiry, I 21 guess over ten (10) years later, that there was a third 22 seconded OPP officer there, I don't believe, in my mind, 23 that I said anything that would cause me concern. 24 Q: And as a result, you would be as 25 content today, to have that liaison officer from the OPP

294

1 in a small boardroom with you, as you were then? 2 A: I think I gave evidence something to 3 that effect, yes. As long as I knew that officer was 4 there as -- as a civil servant, seconded to the Solicitor 5 General and to help give advice to those that were 6 making, at that point, I think, confirming a decision as 7 to whether an injunction would be ex parte or with 8 notice. 9 Q: Will you bear with me for one brief 10 moment, sir? I just need to pull up a document. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You should 15 be winding down, Mr. Falconer. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's, by my count, 17 3:10. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but you 20 should be winding down. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right, 23 that's fine. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, thank you. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps this small

295

1 book of Hansards that run from February 5th, 1997 to 2 October 9th, 2001, of 15 tabs, should be marked as the 3 next exhibit? 4 It's been referred to extensively. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This one 6 here? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-1084, Your Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1084. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1084: Selected Hansard documents, 12 Feb 05/'97 to Oct. 09/'01 in 13 3-ring black binder. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: I'm sorry, Mr. Harris. There's a 17 passage I want to read to you from the evidence of Mr. 18 Fox for your response. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: While my colleague's looking for the 23 passage, I'm going to suggest to you that what really 24 occurred here in addition to what I suggested before 25 about a meeting over damage control.

296

1 I'm going to suggest to you what really 2 occurred here is that having realized as I put it, pickle 3 you were in, you set about for as long as possible 4 holding back on the existence of the dining room. 5 A: No. 6 Q: And I'm also going to suggest to you 7 that just as you acknowledged that being forthright and 8 clearing the air and saying everything you knew in the 9 House, would address the misconception of your political 10 interference with the police, that having shown I'm going 11 to suggest to you, having shown that you did the opposite 12 that you didn't hold forth, that you didn't reveal the 13 existence of the dining room, it shows your consciousness 14 of your misconduct at the time. 15 What do you say to that? 16 A: No. 17 Q: I'm going to -- I wanted to bring a 18 passage to your attention, sir, of the evidence of Mr. 19 Fox dated July 18th, 2005. July 18th, 2005 it's line 18. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What page? 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Page 156. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: "Q: I asked Deputy Commissioner 25 Carson about this and I'm going to ask

297

1 you as well. And I'm very alive to the 2 issue of the hour, Mr. Commissioner." 3 I quite like that first opening part. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER. 7 Q: "Q: That is I asked for an hour and 8 that's what -- well I think I'm sending 9 relief to you, Superintendent Fox. 10 I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Fox -" 11 And then it says line 24. 12 "-- in policing often perceptions can 13 be important as reality, would you 14 agree? 15 MR. FOX: I do. 16 Q: And that fostering confidence from 17 the community, all communities in 18 policing, engenders and involves being 19 very guarded and protective about how 20 police are perceived. Would you agree 21 with that?" 22 A: Sorry this is questioning of Mr. Fox? 23 Q: This is my questioning of Mr. Fox. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Mr. Fox states:

298

1 "A: I would agree that police have to 2 be very, very cognisant of how they're 3 perceived in the community, yes." 4 Line 9: 5 " Q: And thus it not only becomes 6 important--" 7 And let me preface this as the person that 8 was the liaison -- 9 "-- you were intimately involved in any 10 suggestions or -- or allegations that 11 there was undue influence by the 12 Premier because 13 you relayed information back and forth, 14 right? 15 A: I did. 16 Q: Yeah, and so it impacts on you as 17 a person whether or not this actually 18 happened because in all candour, you 19 were a major vehicle of information 20 flow, correct? 21 A: I was. 22 Q: But even if hypothetically, even 23 if hypothetically the police staved off 24 this effort to influence, all right? 25 You would agree with me that the

299

1 perception problem remains there. 2 That there would be a Premier 3 expressing these kinds of opinions in 4 the presence of the OPP and the OPP 5 being subjected to this kind of 6 political pressure, that's a perception 7 problem, isn't it? 8 A: It is a perception issue, yes, 9 sir." 10 Now first of all and I apologize he 11 actually says "It is a perception issue, sir, yes." 12 Now first of all, do you agree with Mr. 13 Fox that it was at minimum an issue of perception? 14 Perception problem? 15 A: Well at the time, I didn't know Mr. 16 Fox was a police officer as you know. And so he is 17 responding that if he was there or in the situation or if 18 somebody was saying something to an OPP officer, I'm just 19 not sure what you're asking. 20 Q: Fair enough. I -- I'll read on. 21 "Q: [line 5] All right. And you can 22 speak for Ron Fox about how it affected 23 you, right? 24 A: I believe I have. 25 Q: And you're tape certainly does,

300

1 doesn't it? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: Can anyone doubt, from Tabs 16 and 4 37 of those tapes of September 5th and 5 6th, 1995, that Ron Fox did not think 6 it was [I apologize] -- can anyone 7 doubt that Ron Fox thought it was a bad 8 thing that the Premier be seen to be 9 directing the OPP? Is there any doubt 10 of that?" 11 He answers: 12 "I don't believe so. 13 Q: No? So you can speak for Ron Fox? 14 A: I can. 15 Q: You might even be able to speak 16 for John Carson? 17 A: To a degree. 18 Q: All right. Now, we move down the 19 officers. Can you speak for the whole 20 command group? Do you know that each 21 one of the members of the command 22 group, to the extent they received 23 information that you passed on, not 24 deliberately to influence somebody but 25 passed on, can you speak for each one

301

1 of them that they weren't influenced? 2 A: That would be impossible, sir. 3 Q: Thus we have the perception 4 problem you and us -- I discussed 5 before, correct? 6 A: It is. It is a problem of 7 perception, yes. 8 Q: And I hope you'll bear with me but 9 many, many moons ago, it's actually the 10 twelfth century, King Henry the Second, 11 in relation to Thomas Beckett, once 12 made the magic utterance, Will no one 13 rid me of this meddlesome priest? And 14 lo and behold his knights went out and 15 Thomas Beckett was ultimately killed. 16 Now, throughout history it's always 17 been a question, did, in fact, Henry 18 the Second give an order, give a 19 direction? But he expressed an 20 opinion, didn't he? 21 A: He did. 22 Q: And no one will ever know if the 23 knights followed that opinion, will 24 they? 25 A: No, sir."

302

1 Sir, it's possible to state an expectation 2 such as, Julian Falconer, will you be finished at 3:30 3 today, right? 4 A person in authority could do that. They 5 could state an expectation of someone, correct? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And the person could reasonably 8 interpret that expectation as a direction, correct? 9 A: I -- I haven't been through the 10 Inquiry, I don't know whether you plan to follow the -- 11 the direction or not. 12 Q: Good answer. 13 A: Or -- or the suggestion or not. 14 Q: Good answer. Good answer. Would you 15 agree with me, though, about this, that whether you're 16 assessing Julian Falconer, Ron Fox, or ten (10) other 17 people in that small boardroom, there would be a 18 reasonable chance that most of the more reasonable 19 lawyers in this room would interpret the Commissioner's 20 expectation as a direction. 21 Would you agree with that? 22 A: I think he would certainly, the 23 Commissioner would be disappointed if you weren't 24 finished at 3:30. 25 Q: And so you say to me --

303

1 A: I could -- 2 Q: -- you say to me -- 3 A: I could have a ten (10) minute answer 4 that will take me there and we won't get any more 5 questions in -- 6 Q: If you said to me -- 7 A: -- because you won't interrupt me, I 8 heard that. 9 Q: You say to me, sir, you say, I had an 10 expectation that they be out as quickly as possible, and 11 you made that expectation known to everyone in that small 12 boardroom, right? 13 A: The expectation that I had, that I 14 made known in the boardroom was that, Let's get an 15 injunction as soon as possible so we could end the 16 occupation as soon as possible. 17 Q: Now, I'm not going to go through each 18 item, I simply will, for Counsels' benefit, advise them 19 of where they can find it, but the evidence, certainly 20 thus far in these proceedings, has been that following 21 the IMC meeting on September 6th, and you can find this 22 on September 28th, 2005, page 68 to 69, following the IMC 23 meeting Mr. McCabe, the Attorney General's lawyer, 24 thought he was pursuing an injunction on short notice, 25 returnable on Friday.

304

1 He walks out of the IMC meeting on 2 September 6th, 1995, as the evidence reflects at the page 3 numbers I've just given you, and he thought he was 4 pursuing an injunction with notice, and it's reflected at 5 68 to 69, all right? That's the first point; that's the 6 first piece of evidence. 7 Then it's Mr. McCabe's account that, in 8 the afternoon, Elizabeth Christie came to see him in the 9 hours after the dining room meeting and lo and behold he 10 knew he had to have a judge that day or the next morning. 11 That was his evidence, all right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now, Ms. Christie testified, and 14 again I'll assist Counsel with the reference, and you'll 15 find this at September 26th, 2005, Ms. Christie testified 16 at page 146 and 147, she testified that in the afternoon 17 hours after the dining room meeting, that Mr. Taman, the 18 Deputy Attorney General, you know the one who was at the 19 dining room meeting, he came to her and he said, Can you 20 get me a judge today and he looked anxious, all right? 21 Do you understand? 22 A: I -- I hear what you're saying. 23 Q: Now, Julie Jai -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25

305

1 CONTINUED BY JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: -- she testifies -- Julie Jai 3 testifies, and you can find this at September 12th, 2005, 4 page -- I know it's not page 1 but I've got a "1" on the 5 page. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 7 asking him to comment on these -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- matters 10 you're reading? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: Julie Jai testifies that the one (1) 15 thing she's certain of, quote: 16 "I felt that the consensus was that it 17 would be a regular injunction, not ex 18 parte." 19 Line 18 and 19. Then she says, line 21: 20 "And that's what's reflected." 21 Well, that was what was reflected in the 22 minutes. What was then the minutes were then changed 23 after we heard that the direction was we were to seek an 24 ex parte injunction, all right? 25 That was her testimony, the Chair of the

306

1 IMC. 2 A: That she changed her minutes? 3 Q: Yes. She altered the minute after to 4 post script the fact that a new decision had been made 5 after the IMC meeting. 6 A: But she changed her minutes of the 7 meeting? 8 Q: No, she added to them, she 9 supplemented to them. 10 A: Well, I thought you said she changed 11 the minutes of the meeting. 12 Q: Fair enough, sir, you've distracted 13 me. Now, having said that, she added to the minute and 14 the evidence is that as far as she was concerned, the IMC 15 meeting resulted in an injunction, short notice but with 16 notice, not an ex parte injunction. 17 Now this is what I want to put to you, 18 sir. It is obvious and, in fact, Deb Hutton gives this 19 evidence, sir, that she does not dispute -- she doesn't 20 remember it, but she doesn't dispute the fact that she 21 might have said, the Premier is hawkish on this issue. 22 She doesn't dispute that. 23 A: I've heard that. 24 Q: Ron Fox, and she doesn't dispute 25 this, Ron Fox from the OPP, well, he says, Traditionally

307

1 we've done a wait and see approach. We should go slow 2 and have a view to the longer term issues. 3 And that there's this exchange of views 4 between Ron Fox and Deb Hutton at that meeting. Deb 5 Hutton testifies that Ron Fox spoke often, all right? 6 A: And do we have any idea of what he 7 was referencing when he said those words? 8 Q: The wait and see approach? The 9 guidelines, the Project Maple, peaceful resolution, sir. 10 A: Yeah. We -- which I 100 percent 11 agree with, by the way. 12 Q: You agree with peaceful resolution if 13 it happens now, right? 14 A: No. I was asking you whether it was 15 the injunction or not; whether he was making those 16 references with respect to any debate that was taking 17 place over ex parte versus with notice -- 18 Q: And -- 19 A: Or whether this was just a general 20 thing that he had indicated at the start of the meeting. 21 Q: It was a response to Deb Hutton's 22 statement that the Premier wants them out as soon as 23 possible. You see the difference between wait and see, 24 slow, view to the longer term issues, and the statement, 25 as soon as possible, this is not a Native issue, this is

308

1 an illegal trespass. 2 You see the difference between the two 3 (2), don't you? 4 A: Yes, but I don't think they're 5 incompatible with seeking an injunction as soon as 6 possible and then the OPP taking whatever action they're 7 going to take, as they deem appropriate. 8 I think that was the expectation that we 9 had. 10 Q: Now the scribe notes, Exhibit P-426, 11 pages -- the date is September 6th, 1995 at 11:12 a.m., 12 the scribe notes reflect that a call was made to Mr. 13 Carson, the incident commander by Ron Fox, September 6th, 14 1995. 15 Right in the middle of that IMC meeting, 16 all right, sir? 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: Now, Ms. Hipfner notes in Exhibit P- 19 636, Document Number 1011784 at pages 2 and 3: 20 "Hutton: Can we confirm that? [about 21 the gunfire] 22 Fox: We'll make inquiries." 23 So at the IMC meeting, Hutton wants the 24 confirmation as to the existence of gunfire, Fox -- 25 absences himself and makes the call that we see in the

309

1 scribe notes. 2 And then Mr. Bangs, staff, political staff 3 and is Mr. Bangs with the Ministry of Natural Resources 4 or the Attorney General's office? 5 A: Ministry of Natural Resources, I 6 believe. 7 Q: Mr. Bangs testifies on November 3rd, 8 2005 that Fox interjected and this led to the request 9 that he go out and confirm. 10 Now, he comes back in the room about the 11 gunfire information. 12 Would you agree with me that certainly on 13 those facts, on those facts, that it certainly appears 14 that Ron Fox was seen as -- as you put it, as the liaison 15 officer with the police on the ground? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 17 minute, before you answer -- 18 THE WITNESS: I wasn't at this meeting. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 20 minute, Mr. Harris. 21 You were going to say he wasn't at the 22 meeting? 23 OBJ MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And that, of course, 24 is precisely the objection. This witness -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine --

310

1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- wasn't at the 2 meeting. He can't answer -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 4 fair -- 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- that question. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: When Ms. Hutton talked to you about 11 her shock on the morning of May 29th, 1996, did she raise 12 to you the fact that she'd suggested that Ron go out and 13 check about the gunfire at incident command? 14 Did she raise that with you? 15 A: No. 16 Q: No. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again -- 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: So that would be key information -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute. Just a minute, you're leaving something on the 23 record that Ms. Perschy wants to correct. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, my objection is 25 that that's not the evidence that the request for

311

1 confirmation was directed at Ron Fox. 2 Secondly, there's lots of evidence that 3 MNR also went to seek confirmation. So My Friend's mis- 4 characterizing the evidence that we've heard and again, 5 this witness wasn't there. 6 It's simply not fair to this witness. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 That's fine. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Moving on, Mr. Harris, from the point 12 of view of the process, the notes reflect a lawyer at an 13 IMC meeting on September 6th, 1995 thinking he's going 14 for an injunction with notice that's returnable early as 15 Friday. 16 It reflects a chair of the IMC who thought 17 they were going for an injunction with notice. It 18 reflects a liaison officer from the OPP who advocated a 19 wait and see approach. 20 After the IMC meeting something happened. 21 Something happened that caused Larry Taman to approach 22 Elizabeth Christie in a state of anxiety and asked for a 23 judge today. 24 The only thing we can find, the only thing 25 we can find that happened is the meeting in the dining

312

1 room. All right? 2 There is no other meetings that we know of 3 between the time Taman goes to Christie, Taman was in the 4 dining room. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 6 Falconer, you're giving evidence. Just ask the 7 questions. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Do you know of any other meeting that 11 happened between the conclusion of that IMC meeting and 12 the afternoon of September 6th, 1995 as related to 13 Ipperwash? 14 A: There may have been. But not that I 15 was involved in. 16 Q: And as you put it, you may -- you 17 actually debated the issue of ex parte versus with 18 notice. 19 You said that we debated that? 20 A: Yes, we did. 21 Q: And you recanted. You said you 22 expressed your views. 23 A: I did. At what point in the meeting 24 I don't recall, but I did. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're just

313

1 repeating evidence that we've already heard. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sorry -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now please 4 bring it to a close. It's 3:30. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 8 that in expressing your views as Mr. Phillips so 9 prophetically put it on May 29th, 1996 -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. whom? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Phillips. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 13 sorry, Mr. Phillips. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: As he put it on May -- as he put it 17 on May 29th, 1996, you in essence reflected having your 18 hand in it. Your hand was what in essence moved it up a 19 gear, put it into overdrive. From wait and see to must 20 be done now. True? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now that's 22 your suggestion. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Yes?

314

1 A: No. I -- I don't believe that is 2 true. It's not my recollection of event. 3 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that the 4 hand that you had in it left fingerprints and the first 5 fingerprint I'm going to suggest to you is the 6 consciousness of your misconduct by concealing the 7 existence of the dining room meeting for over five (5) 8 years. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 10 you've already asked that question. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: Your response to that? 14 A: No. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 16 you've already asked that question -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine I'm 18 going to the next question. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and had 20 it answered. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that what 24 drove your actions was the realization that your presence 25 in the dining room would feed the misconception of OPP

315

1 involvement, true? 2 A: No. 3 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that as 4 soon as it went badly, as soon as the tragedy happened 5 and that Sam George lost a brother, as soon as Dudley 6 George died that night, you became conscious of things 7 you ought to have been conscious of before he died which 8 is the importance of restraint as a Premier of a 9 Province. 10 That's what I'm suggesting to you. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm asking 12 you to make -- ask a question and not make a speech. 13 Clearly -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- ask a 16 question. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: You became conscious after Dudley 20 George died, you became conscious of the restraint you 21 should have exhibited before he died, true? 22 A: No. 23 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that your 24 suggestion of a consensus at that dining room meeting in 25 view of Ron Fox's conversation right after the dining

316

1 room meeting is a perfect example of messaging that has 2 no bearing on reality? 3 A: No. 4 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that the 5 fact that your own Solicitor General felt that your 6 personality was such that you shouldn't have been in the 7 room is a reflection of what I'm talking about right now. 8 That you exerted a level of influence over 9 the actions of others that you weren't conscious of, 10 true? 11 A: Well it's not true. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How could he 13 answer if he wasn't conscious of it? 14 THE WITNESS: And I'm not sure that's 15 exactly what -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can't 17 answer something that you are not conscious of. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand, I'll 19 leave the question. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER 22 Q: In a nutshell, sir, at the end of the 23 day the problem that arose here is that you and Deb 24 Hutton had less than three (3) months as Government 25 officials under your belt and you didn't understand the

317

1 importance of protocol whether it was dealing with the 2 police or dealing with bureaucrats in the positions the 3 various Ministries were in, true? 4 A: I think all the evidence I've seen 5 and heard suggests that's entirely false. 6 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that one 7 (1) of the realities that attended your Common Sense 8 Revolution in September 1995 is that under your common 9 sense principles is that ministries across the board were 10 all going to take serious cuts, true? 11 A: There would be a number of reductions 12 in government spending, yes. There were some exclusions, 13 I -- I think, but that was one (1) of the components of - 14 - of The Common Sense Revolution, yes. 15 Q: And the serious cuts would mean 16 people would lose their jobs in the various bureaucracies 17 across the government, true? 18 A: Some people -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I 20 don't know what that has to do with -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm going to 22 explain. True? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure I want your explanation. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: People would lose

318

1 jobs? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There is absolutely no 5 evidence -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's got 7 nothing to do with this, Mr. Falconer. You're past your 8 time and you're asking questions that are not relevant. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, but what's 10 important is that the questions weren't put to the civil 11 servants whose -- who were at the meetings. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 13 to hear about that. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That could -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's opening 16 an entirely new area. I'd like you to bring it to a 17 conclusion, now. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: Did you address your mind to 21 discussions with Deb Hutton about the protocol that 22 should attend her dealings with bureaucrats in the IMC 23 meetings of September 5th and 6th, 1995? 24 A: I don't recall specifically giving 25 Ms. Hutton directions about any protocols.

319

1 Q: And you've also said that you didn't 2 have any idea that the nerve centre, that is the -- the 3 system Mr. Taman and Dr. Todres put in place right after 4 September 6th, 1995, had anything to do with the conduct 5 of your staff, true? 6 A: I don't know if I said that but I'm - 7 - I'm not aware of what was put into place so... 8 Q: It was the evidence of Mr. Taman, 9 that as a result of the interaction between political 10 staff, including your political staff and the 11 bureaucrats, on the 5th of September and the 6th of 12 September, 1995, they put in place a process whereby 13 there would be a separation between the political staff 14 and the lower level bureaucrats. 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My Friend has to be 16 careful with his insinuations. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Mr. Taman was in no 19 way critical of any conduct of -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes, I 21 know. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- Ms. Hutton. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That is not -- 24 that's not my question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, Mr.

320

1 Falconer, I'm not sure you understand me. I want you to 2 bring it to a conclusion. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 5 finished? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm close but -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you're 8 not -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that's a proper 10 question. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Close 12 isn't -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, it's 3:33, 14 Mr. Commissioner -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want you 16 to bring it to a conclusion. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The problem with the 20 question is that it includes an editorial comment -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- that I don't think 23 that Mr. Taman put in his evidence. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It is clear that Mr.

321

1 Taman thought -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's going 3 to open up a whole new area. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- that it was 5 appropriate to make a change on September, 7th along with 6 the other deputies, and they did. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: And to this day you don't know why he 11 made that change; is that true? 12 A: I -- I recollect there was some 13 evidence that Mr. Taman thought it would be beneficial to 14 have meetings separate from political staff. 15 I think I indicated in my testimony, I 16 didn't know if that was to replace entirely, the process 17 that had been put in place -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: -- but that that would be-- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're just 21 repeating evidence that you've given earlier. 22 THE WITNESS: I gave that I think two (2) 23 or three (3) days ago, I guess three (3) or four (4) days 24 ago now. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.

322

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: In my -- in closing -- and I'm 4 addressing the answer you gave at the beginning of your 5 evidence, in closing you said at the start of your 6 evidence in answering my questions that you wouldn't 7 change anything you did back then in terms of your 8 personal actions. 9 You've reviewed evidence of many different 10 witnesses in relation to questions around the conduct of 11 Deb Hutton and others. And I'm simply going to ask you 12 this: 13 I take it you maintain that neither nor 14 Deb Hutton in any way breached or appeared to breach any 15 protocols that you should have been adhering to as 16 government officials, Premier and advisor? 17 A: That's true. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. Those 19 are my questions. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 for bringing it to a close, Mr. Falconer. Do you need 22 time now, Mr. Downard? I take it you have some 23 questions? 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, I don't intend to 25 ask any questions.

323

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 2 intend to ask any questions? 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: None. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar, 5 do you have any re-examination? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Can I use Mr. 7 Downard's time? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We started 9 at 9:30 instead of our usual start to give you an extra 10 hour, yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I have no questions in 14 re-examination and I don't have -- our next witness is 15 going to be Mark Wright, Detective Inspector Mark Wright. 16 And he'll be here tomorrow morning -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- at 9:00 a.m. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And so that's what we 21 have for today. And in closing -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- we'd like to thank 24 Mr. Harris -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.

324

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and thank all our 2 witnesses for attending and giving evidence at the 3 Inquiry. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I would like 5 to thank you, as well, for coming and giving us your 6 evidence, Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. 7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 8 9 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And that 12 brings the day to a conclusion and we'll adjourn now and 13 reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00. Thank you very 14 much. 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 16 adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February the 21st at 17 9:00 a.m. 18 19 --- Upon adjourning at 3:36 p.m. 20 21 Certified Correct, 22 23 _________________ 24 Carol Geehan, Ms. 25