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 July 11th, 2005 25

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

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

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

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 List of Exhibits 6 5 6 RONALD EVAN FOX, Sworn 7 Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 Certificate of Transcript 235 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No 3 P-496 Curriculum Vitae of Superintendent 4 Ronald Evan Fox. 10 5 P-497 Document No. 2005480, OPP memorandum 6 to the Director of Training Branch, 7 Administrative Services Division re; 8 transfer of Inspector R.E. Fox No. 9 4262, Training Branch, March 7, 1995. 14 10 P-498 Document No. 1012232, Guidelines For 11 Responding To Aboriginal Emergencies. 37 12 P-499 Document No. 2003790. Handwritten 13 notes of Tony Parkin July 30/'95 to 14 August 01/'95. 63 15 P-500 Document No. 3001085. Handwritten 16 Notes of Julie Jai, August 01/'95. 65 17 P-501 Document No. 200984. E-mail, 18 July 31/'95 from Tony Parkin to 19 Nancy Mansell. 67 20 P-502 Document No. 1000934. E-mail from 21 Ron Fox to Elaine Todres, Neil McKerrell 22 re: CFB Ipperwash, August 02'/95, 11:34. 73 23 P-503 Document No. 1011681. Fax from Ontario 24 Native Affairs Secretariat, 25 August 02/'95. 80

1 EXHIBITS (Cont'd) 2 No. Description Page No 3 P-504 Document No. 1012232. Fax from 4 Julie Jai, August 02/'95. 84 5 P-505 Document No. 3001086. Handwritten 6 notes of Julie Jai, August 02/'95. 90 7 P-506 Document No. 1012231. Minutes of IMC 8 meeting, August 02/'95 faxed on August 9 08/'95. 97 10 P-507 Document No. 1011695. Handwritten 11 Notes of Emergency Committee meeting 12 by Julie Jai, August 02/'95. 117 13 P-508 Document No. 1003740 Handwritten 14 Notes of Dave Carson re Call to 15 Ron Fox August 29/'95 137 16 P-509 Document 1012252 Fax of IMC Meeting 17 Minutes September 05/'95 from ONAS. 159 18 P-510 DOCUMENT 1011739 HANDWRITTEN 19 NOTES OF ABORIGINAL EMERGENCIES 20 COMMITTEE BY EILEEN HIPFNER SEPTEMBER 21 05/'95 183 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 10:30 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 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning, everybody. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, 12 Commissioner. The Commission calls as its next witness, 13 Ronald Fox. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Mr. Fox. 18 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 19 THE REGISTRAR: I see that you would like 20 to be sworn in by the Bible? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 22 THE REGISTRAR: And you have it in your 23 right hand? Very good. 24 25 RONALD EVAN FOX, Sworn:

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 2 morning, Mr. Fox. 3 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. 4 Commissioner. 5 6 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7 Q: I understand that you are currently - 8 - hold the rank of Superintendent? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: You received that promotion in 1996? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: You've provided, I understand, the 13 Commission with a curriculum vitae? 14 A: I did. 15 Q: Perhaps you would look at Tab 76 of 16 the binder of documents in front of you, and there 17 appears to be a curriculum vitae of Superintendent Ronald 18 Evan Fox. 19 Is that your curriculum vitae? 20 A: Yes, it is. 21 Q: And is it, by and large, accurately 22 reflect your career? 23 A: Yes, it does. 24 Q: Commissioner, I'd like to make that 25 the first exhibit of the day, please.

1 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P-496, your 2 Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-496. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-496: Curriculum Vitae of 6 Superintendent Ronald Evan 7 Fox. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 10 Q: I'd like to, Superintendent, go back 11 to your initial tenure with the Ontario Provincial 12 Police. I understand that you were hired as a constable 13 of the OPP on September the 8th of 1970? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: You were promoted to Corporal in 1986 16 and re-classified to Sergeant in 1987? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Then you were made acting Inspector 19 in 1989? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: You were next assigned, in 1992, to 22 the Ontario Provincial Police training branch at the 23 Provincial Police Academy in Brampton, as acting director 24 of field training? 25 A: That's correct.

1 Q: You were promoted to Inspector in 2 1993? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: During the course of your experience, 5 from 1970 to 1993, did you have any postings or 6 assignments which afforded you the opportunity to provide 7 policing services to Aboriginal people? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: Perhaps you could explain the nature 10 of those opportunities in terms of timeframe, locations 11 and the general nature. 12 A: When I -- when I joined the Ontario 13 Provincial Police in 1970, I was posted to Cayuga 14 Detachment, the then Cayuga Detachment, now Haldimand 15 County. Part of the patrol area included a portion of 16 the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. 17 So, I was required as a Member of the 18 Ontario Provincial Police to respond to the Territory and 19 provide policing services for a portion of it. 20 In 1986 I was promoted to Corporal and 21 transferred to Brantford Detachment. 22 Q: I wonder if I could just interrupt 23 you for one (1) minute. I wonder if you could speak a 24 little bit closer into the microphone, donÆt pull it, 25 because we know that that would disconnect important

1 wires, but perhaps you could raise your voice, just so 2 that everyone can hear you. 3 A: Thank you. 4 Q: Thank you. 5 A: In 1986, I was promoted to Corporal 6 and transferred to the Brantford Detachment, now Brand 7 County OPP. My responsibilities there were twofold: I 8 was in charge of the Detachment Crime Unit, and I was 9 assigned as the Corporal in charge of the Six Nations 10 Patrol Unit. 11 Q: Thank you. Now, what, if anything, 12 did you learn which afforded you insights into providing 13 police services to these Aboriginal communities? 14 A: There was a number of areas that -- 15 that I learned, with respect to policing the First 16 Nations. The first piece that became very vital as I 17 went through my career was that you had to establish 18 rapport with First Nations people, and ultimately a 19 trust, their trust in you to do the right thing. 20 I had a great deal of interaction with 21 both First Nations on Six Nations of the Grand River 22 Territory, and the Mississauga as the Necredda (phonetic) 23 First Nation which abuts the Six Nation of the Grand 24 River Territory. 25 Q: Thank you. Now of particular

1 interest to the Commission, you were seconded to the 2 office of the Deputy Solicitor General as the Special 3 Advisor, First Nations, in 1995; is that correct? 4 A: ThatÆs correct. 5 Q: And I note in your curriculum vitae 6 you indicated a transfer date of 1994; is that incorrect? 7 A: I assumed the duties in February of 8 1995, I was finished my tenure at the OPP Academy in late 9 -- late 1994. 10 Q: All right. And so there was a 11 transition date? 12 A: ThatÆs correct, yes. 13 Q: Now, I understand that you held the 14 position of Special Advisor from February the 20th, 1995, 15 to April of 1996; is that right? 16 A: That is correct. 17 Q: I wonder if you might go to Tab 2 of 18 your materials; it's Inquiry Document Number 2005480. 19 And -- 20 A: I have it before me. 21 Q: Thank you. And this would appear to 22 be a memorandum dated March the 7th, 1995, from Chief 23 Superintendent Chandler, to the Director of Training 24 Branch, Administration Services Division of the Ontario 25 Provincial Police, and attached is a two (2) page

1 document entitled, Human Resources Personnel, I believe 2 that's, Form, of the Ministry of the Solicitor General 3 and Correctional Services. 4 Have you seen this document before? 5 A: Yes, I have. 6 Q: And does the Human Resources Form 7 accurately set out the basic personnel information 8 relating to your secondment as Special Advisor? 9 A: Yes, it appears to. 10 Q: Commissioner, I'd like to make this 11 the next exhibit, please. 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-497. 13 COMMISSIONER LINDEN: Four ninety-seven. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-497: Document No. 2005480, OPP 16 memorandum to the Director of 17 Training Branch, 18 Administrative Services 19 Division re; transfer of 20 Inspector R.E. Fox No. 4262, 21 Training Branch, March 7, 22 1995. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Now, I understand that this document,

1 at least it appears to be signed by yourself on the 2 second page at -- on February the 16th, 1995? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And does Commissioner, then 5 Commission Tom O'Grady's signature appear underneath on 6 February the 20th, 1995? 7 A: I recognize that as the Commission's 8 signature. 9 Q: And the final signature is Michelle, 10 or appears to be Michelle Noble, Deputy Minister then, of 11 Correctional Services and Deputy Solicitor General; are 12 you able to identify that? 13 A: Yes, I am. 14 Q: Thank you. Now the second page in 15 particular, you'll note towards the bottom under the 16 designation, Reporting To, that you were to report to the 17 Deputy Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of 18 Correctional Services during your time as the Special 19 Advisor. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: But you were to send your attendance 22 record to the Office of the Division Commander, 23 Administrative Services of the Ontario Provincial Police? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: Can you just explain whether you had

1 any particular -- any other reporting functions with 2 respect to the Ontario Provincial Police during this time 3 period? 4 A: My -- my reporting in the assignment 5 was to the Deputy Solicitor General. My reporting with 6 respect to administrative matters was to the Chief 7 Superintendent in Charge of -- of Administrative 8 Services. I would always have a reporting requirement 9 relationship to a senior member -- senior rank to me at 10 the Ontario Provincial Police. 11 Q: All right. And, when you say, 12 "administrative reporting," what -- what kind of thing 13 did that cover? 14 A: That would cover off attendance, 15 vacation credits, that type of thing. 16 Q: All right. Now, did it have anything 17 to do with operational matters? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Thank you. Turning our attention, 20 then, to the Office of Special Advisor, how did you 21 receive this assignment? 22 A: I was advised in December of 1984 23 that I was going to be reassigned from the Provincial 24 Police Academy and I was asked to undertake the 25 assignment of the special advisor by then Commissioner

1 O'Grady. 2 Q: Why do you think you were chosen? 3 A: I would expect because of my 4 involvement with First Nations over the years. 5 Q: Did the Government play any role to 6 your knowledge in your selection as special advisor? 7 A: I had a very informal interview with 8 the bureaucratic side of the Government, that being 9 Michelle Noble, the Deputy Minister. 10 Q: All right. Now, what were your main 11 roles as Special Advisor of First Nations? 12 A: My primary role as the Special 13 Advisor of First Nation was to act as the negotiator for 14 the Government of Ontario in the negotiation of policing 15 agreements, both standalone and under the auspices of the 16 Ontario-wide -- Ontario First Nations Police Agreement 17 for various territories and communities. 18 My secondary response -- responsibility 19 was to provide advice to the Deputy Solicitor General. 20 Q: Advice of what nature? 21 A: With respect to ongoing matters 22 involving the First Nations community that had a direct 23 impact on the Solicitor General's Ministry. If there 24 were issues in a community that involved the police, I 25 would provide advice on those.

1 Q: And, as part of that role, were you a 2 member of the Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal 3 Issues? 4 A: Yes, I was. 5 Q: Do you know how long this position, 6 that of special advisor, had been in existence? 7 A: My belief is that it would have been 8 in about the mid-80's, but I stand to be corrected in 9 that. I can indicate to the Inquiry that preceding me 10 was Inspector Doug Scott, Inspector Ron George and 11 Superintendent Bill Currie. So, I would have been the 12 fourth that I'm aware of in that position. 13 Q: Thank you. And, I take it from your 14 list of the individuals or your predecessors that this 15 position had always been occupied by a member of the 16 Ontario Provincial Police? 17 A: That is correct. 18 Q: Do you have any knowledge as to why 19 it was always held by a member of the Ontario Provincial 20 Police? 21 A: No, I do not. 22 Q: All right. While you were the 23 Special Advisor of First Nations, did you continue to 24 have a professional relationship with the Ontario 25 Provincial Police?

1 A: Yes, I did. 2 Q: How would you characterize the nature 3 of the relationship? 4 A: I retained, certainly, all of the -- 5 the authorities of the office of a provincial police 6 officer. I was on secondment or loan to the Ministry. 7 My involvement with the Ontario Provincial 8 Police while I was a special advisor was limited to more 9 administrative matters than operational. 10 Q: All right. But, did you have any 11 active policing responsibilities while you were the 12 special advisor? 13 A: No, I did not. 14 Q: Now, not notwithstanding the fact 15 that you were seconded to this position, did you continue 16 to be subject to the Police Services Act of this 17 Province? 18 A: Yes, I did. 19 Q: And, specifically, did you continue 20 to have the duties of a police officer as specified by 21 Section 42 of that Act? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: And for the benefit of the 24 Commission, I would like to read that section into the 25 record.

1 This is Section 42 of the Ontario Police 2 Services Act, RSO-1990, CT-15: 3 "The duties of a police officer 4 include: 5 (a) Preserving the peace. 6 (b) Preventing crimes and other 7 offences and providing assistance and 8 encouragement to other persons in their 9 prevention. 10 (c) Assisting victims of crime. 11 (d) Apprehending criminals and other 12 offenders and others who may lawfully 13 be taken into custody. 14 (e) Laying charges and participating 15 in prosecutions. 16 (f) Executing warrants that are to be 17 executed by police officers and 18 performing related duties. 19 (g) Performing the lawful duties that 20 the Chief of Police assigns. 21 (h) In the case of a municipal police 22 force..." 23 We'll skip (h). 24 "(I) Complete the prescribed training. 25 Subsection 2. A police officer has

1 authority to act as such throughout 2 Ontario. 3 And Subsection 3. A police officer has 4 the powers and duties ascribed to a 5 constable at common law." 6 So, those duties still applied to you 7 notwithstanding the secondment? 8 A: Yes, that is correct. 9 Q: Now, did the fact that you were 10 essentially working for the Solicitor General, but still 11 had duties as a police officer, cause you to be concerned 12 that you could be put in a conflict of interest 13 situation, that is a situation in which your 14 responsibilities to the Deputy Solicitor General could 15 conflict with your duties as a police officer under the 16 Police Services Act? 17 A: There was a concern, yes. 18 Q: And were you, in your opinion, ever 19 placed in such a conflict of interest position, during 20 the course of your tenure as the Special Advisor? 21 A: No. 22 Q: What, if any, steps did you take to 23 avoid that possible circumstance from occurring? 24 A: I limited, certainly, my information 25 or information that was made available to me to only that

1 which I might require to function in that position. I 2 stayed away from very direct operational information and 3 I offered no opinions with respect to operational 4 information, how it may be or should be acted on, to 5 those who were in an operational role within the Ontario 6 Provincial Police. 7 Q: Okay. While you were the special 8 advisor, I take it you were also subject to Section 49 of 9 the Police Services Act, and before you answer that, let 10 me read that provision for you: 11 "A member of a police force shall not 12 engage in any activity; 13 (a) That interferes with or influences 14 adversely the performance of his or her 15 duties as a member of a police force or 16 is likely to do so. 17 (b) That places him or her in a 18 position of conflict of interest or is 19 likely to do so. 20 (c) That would otherwise constitute 21 full time employment for another person 22 or; 23 (d) in which he or she has had 24 advantage derived from employment as a 25 member of a police force."

1 And Subsection 2: 2 "Clause 1(b) does not prohibit a member 3 of a police force from performing in a 4 private capacity services that have 5 been arranged through the police 6 Force." 7 Now, you were still subject to that -- 8 those provisions? 9 A: That's correct; that section 10 generally speaks to paid duty. 11 Q: All right. And is it your 12 understanding, then, that you were granted an exception 13 to the restrictions imposed on police officers by 14 Subsection 1, by operation of Subsection 2? 15 A: To a degree, yes. 16 Q: And when you say, "To a degree, yes", 17 is there any qualification? 18 A: Yes, there is, Ms. Vella. A police 19 officer, once sworn in, is required to abide by all 20 aspects of the Police Services Act and it would supercede 21 any other direction that might be available to that 22 individual. 23 Q: So, in other words, if you were asked 24 by the Deputy Solicitor General, for example, to do 25 something which put you in conflict with Section 42 or

1 Section 49, would you be obliged to -- to decline that 2 instruction? 3 A: I'd be duty bound to decline it, yes. 4 Q: All right. Now, where was your 5 office as special advisor located? 6 A: 175 Bloor Street in Toronto. 7 Q: All right. Did you have an 8 assistant? 9 A: Yes, I did. 10 Q: Who was that? 11 A: At the time it was Sergeant Scott 12 Patrick (phonetic) who was assigned to the Ontario 13 Provincial First Nations, the then First Nations and 14 Municipal Policing Branch. 15 Q: I understand during your time as 16 Special Advisor as other OPP office -- another OPP 17 officer was seconded to the government by the name of 18 Barb Taylor; is that correct? 19 A: That is correct. 20 Q: And, can you just tell us very 21 briefly what her role was? 22 A: The then Sergeant Taylor, now retired 23 Inspector Taylor, was the Policing Advisor to the 24 Solicitor General. 25 Q: All right.

1 A: The Deputy Solicitor General, rather. 2 Q: And, was this a different office from 3 the one that you held? 4 A: That is correct. 5 Q: Did you have any interaction with 6 then-Sergeant Barbara Taylor during your tenure as 7 special advisor? 8 A: Yes. Her offices were on the same 9 floor and -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: -- and we certainly would see each 12 other daily. 13 Q: Did you have any interrelationship or 14 interaction with respect to the Ipperwash matter? 15 A: Very little. 16 Q: Now, would you advise me again who 17 your immediate predecessor was? 18 A: Superintendent -- then-Superintendent 19 Bill Currie. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: Now retired Deputy Commissioner Bill 22 Currie. 23 Q: Did you receive any briefings in 24 preparation for taking on your new position? 25 A: Yes, I did. During the -- the end of

1 the calendar year 1994 and in the first part of January 2 and February my duties at the academy allowing, I worked 3 with then-Superintendent Currie, attended a number of 4 negotiation sessions with respect to policing agreements. 5 Q: All right. Was Ipperwash, be it the 6 Military Base or Park, specifically drawn to your 7 attention during any of these briefings? 8 A: Yes, it was. 9 Q: Can you advise as to what the nature 10 or what the issues were that you were briefed on? 11 A: That it was an ongoing land dispute 12 involving the then-CFB or Canadian Forces Base Ipperwash. 13 Q: All right. And, can you be a little 14 bit more specific than that? 15 Did -- did he advise you how that or what 16 your role as special advisor might be impacted by that 17 ongoing occupation? 18 A: The -- the matter certainly was 19 stable at the point in time when I assumed the office of 20 Special Advisor. It was indicated to me that should 21 there be any issues arise, it may fall within the purview 22 of the Interministerial Group on Aboriginal Issues. 23 Q: All right. Did you provide you with 24 an understanding as to what circumstances would cause 25 Ipperwash to become the subject of the Interministerial

1 Committee? 2 A: I -- I don't think in specific terms, 3 but rather if it became an issue that needed to be -- be 4 managed, it would fall within the -- or fall to the 5 purview of the Interministerial Group. 6 Q: All right. And, I'm going to ask you 7 again to please keep your voice up for all of us. 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: It's the air conditioning. It 10 interferes from time to time. 11 Now, to your knowledge -- or did you have 12 any access to any pre-existing files to inform you as to 13 the work of your predecessor on the ongoing projects? 14 A: Yes. There was a series of files 15 maintained in the office of the -- of the Special Advisor 16 and they ranged from various minutes of meetings and I 17 would example, the Interministerial Group on Aboriginal 18 issues, but as well, all the negotiation files on First 19 Nations policing. 20 Q: All right. And, just to give us a 21 little better sense of -- of what your day-to-day 22 responsibilities were, what -- what general percentage of 23 your time did you tend to spend on negotiating these 24 tripartite policing agreements? 25 A: 80 to 85 percent of my time.

1 Q: All right. Now, to your knowledge, 2 was there information contained in the pre-existing files 3 concerning Ipperwash? 4 A: Yes. I believe that there was. 5 Q: All right. Now, to your knowledge, 6 in having reviewed a fair amount of documentation in 7 preparation for your testimony today, has the complete 8 files kept in the office of the Special Advisor during 9 your tenure been produced to the Commission? 10 A: Yes, to the best of my knowledge they 11 have. 12 Q: All right. My understanding is that 13 these files, however, were not keep intact. Is that your 14 understanding? 15 A: That's correct. When I was there as 16 the Special Advisor with respect to Ipperwash, I 17 maintained four (4) volumes, starting with the oldest 18 material available, up to the most recent material. 19 I have reviewed those files since. 20 They're not in the same chronology that they were when I 21 maintained them during my time in that position. 22 Q: But, based on your recollection, they 23 appear to be complete? 24 A: Yes, they appear to be complete from 25 what I could tell.

1 Q: All right. Now, did your primary 2 roles and functions change in any way over the course of 3 your term as special advisor? 4 A: With the pre-Labour Day 1995, yes. A 5 good portion of my time was consumed dealing with 6 Ipperwash. 7 Q: All right. However, those -- that 8 was one of your -- your ordinary roles in any case? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: All right. Now what, if anything, 11 did you know about Ipperwash and the efforts of the self- 12 identified Stoney Point people before you accepted this 13 assignment? 14 A: My -- excuse me -- my teenage years, 15 high school, was spent in the City of London. As a 16 matter of course, during the summer, one would visit this 17 area and more particularly the area known as Ipperwash. 18 I've made a point of being in contact with 19 this area throughout my -- my adult life, even though I 20 was transferred and posted elsewhere, and I frequently 21 holiday in the area. 22 It was a matter of common knowledge, at 23 least in my opinion, that there were ongoing issues 24 relative to both CFB Ipperwash and the Provincial Park 25 known as Ipperwash Provincial Park.

1 The issues were, and they were talked 2 about generally by both First Nations and non-First 3 Nations in the area that the area known as CFB Ipperwash 4 was the home of the Stoney Point people, was expropriated 5 under the auspices of the War Measures Act in 1942, and 6 there was a proposal to return that property to the 7 Stoney Point First Nation. 8 As well, I was familiar that the 9 Provincial Park, the Ipperwash Provincial Park, was the 10 home of a sacred site within the bounds of the Park in 11 the area of the Kettle Rocks. 12 Q: Okay. And now this is based on your 13 involvement with the local community? 14 A: That's correct, being in the area. 15 It was something that wasn't discussed at all times, but 16 certainly came up over the years in conversation. 17 Q: And you indicated that when you 18 looked at the files and received your briefings, you saw 19 the -- the information about the occupation of the 20 Military Base, did you, in the course of your briefings 21 or review of the files, did you have knowledge of any 22 claim of -- any claim having been made with respect to 23 the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 24 A: No, I -- I have no knowledge of a 25 formal land claim being made for the Ipperwash Provincial

1 Park. 2 Q: Okay. Were you aware of any claim be 3 it formal or informal, of a sacred burial site being 4 located within the boundaries of the Park, based on your 5 briefings and review of the files? 6 A: No, not from my briefings or review 7 of the file; from my own personal knowledge of the area. 8 Q: Now you indicated that the Ipperwash 9 situation was identified as stable for you, when you took 10 this position? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: All right. Now, I understand that 13 when you first assumed the position of special advisor, 14 the Premier was Bob Rae? 15 A: That is correct. 16 Q: All right. And the Attorney General 17 was Marian Boyd? 18 A: That is correct. 19 Q: Was she also the Minister of Native 20 Affairs? 21 A: That is correct. 22 Q: And who was the Solicitor General? 23 A: At the time, it was Mr. Kristoferson 24 (phonetic). 25 Q: I understand that about four (4) to

1 five (5) months into your secondment, the Government 2 changed? 3 A: That is correct. 4 Q: And the Premier became the Honourable 5 Michael Harris? 6 A: That is correct. 7 Q: Solicitor General became Robert 8 Runciman? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: The Attorney General and Minister of 11 Native Affairs became Charles Harnick? 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: And Chris Hodgson became the Minister 14 of Natural Resources. 15 A: That is correct. 16 Q: I understand -- did your Deputy 17 Minister/Solicitor General change from Michelle Noble to 18 Elaine Todres? 19 A: That is correct. 20 Q: And did your roles and functions 21 change in any material way with the change of the 22 Government? 23 A: With the change in the Government I - 24 - I believe it were to go on Ministry-wide, there were -- 25 were briefings, briefing books needed to be prepared.

1 Ostensibly, my job with respect to negotiating First 2 Nations policing agreements did not change. 3 Q: All right. Now, appreciating that 4 you had only been in that office for about four (4) to 5 five (5) months, did you notice any significant changes 6 in -- which impacted your ability to function as Special 7 Advisor? 8 A: I would say there was less emphasis 9 with the change in Government to First Nations matters, 10 more particularly, from my perspective, with respect to 11 the negotiation of policing agreements. 12 Q: And on what did you base -- do you 13 base that observation? 14 A: It was certainly based on what my 15 experience had been to that time, what I had heard from 16 others who were involved in the Ministry, going back 17 certainly to my predecessor, Superintendent Currie. 18 Q: All right. Was there any practical 19 impact on your ability to negotiate tripartite policing 20 agreements? 21 A: Yes, the -- the negotiation of -- of 22 First Nations policing agreements obviously requires 23 funding. The funding, I wouldn't say dried up, but it 24 was certainly held -- held in abeyance. My assumption 25 would have been until the Government had -- of the day

34
  1  had a better understanding of what the public dollars
  2  were being spent for.
  3                 Q:   Now, you've already told us that your
  4  primary responsibilities were negotiating First Nations
  5  policing agreements province-wide, and also being a
  6  special advisor on Aboriginal issues within the Solicitor
  7  General's Ministry, including membership on the
  8  Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal issues.
  9                 And I'd like to focus now on the latter
 10  position.
 11                 A:   Yes, ma'am.
 12                 Q:   I'd like you to provide your
 13  understanding of the main purposes of the
 14  Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal issues.
 15                 A:   My understanding of the Committee and
 16  -- and why it came to be and what its function was, I
 17  would liken unto a clearing house, where there may have
 18  been a matter ongoing on a First Nations Territory, that
 19  may not directly impact the police by way of example, it
 20  could impact the Ministry of Natural Resources if it was
 21  a spill, or that type of thing, the Ministry of Transport
 22  if it had some involvement with roadways or bridges. 
 23                 And it was to bring together the
 24  Ministries who would have responsibility for those
 25  various areas, and where there was a crossover to ensure

1 that there was timely flow of information, and that the 2 matter could be managed as -- as best possible by the 3 area that had the greatest degree of responsibility. 4 Q: All right. When, typically, would 5 the Interministerial Committee be convened? 6 A: Invariably, it was at the call of the 7 Chair, and that's when something had occurred. 8 Q: So, it was a reactive committee? 9 A: Yes it was. 10 Q: And the Chair of the Committee at 11 that time was who? 12 A: It was a member of ONAS staff, Julie 13 Jai. 14 Q: Okay. And what was your particular 15 role on the Interministerial Committee? 16 A: I was representing the office of the 17 Deputy Solicitor General. I would provide, at certain 18 times, information that was available within the 19 Ministry, for the Committee. 20 Q: And what type of particular expertise 21 did you bring to that Committee? 22 A: Well as a practising police officer, 23 I had police skills, I would be able to provide some 24 interpretation of information that was made available. 25 Q: All right. So, essentially, a

1 policing perspective was brought to this position by you? 2 A: That's correct, with respect to First 3 Nations. 4 Q: All right. Thank you. 5 And I wonder if you might next go to Tab 6 11, which is Inquiry document 1012232. 7 Oh, wait a minute, hang on, sorry. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Sorry, I had the wrong tab. It's Tab 12 12. And this is a fax sheet dated August 2, 1995 with 13 various attachments, and I'm interested in the appendix 14 which is entitled, Guidelines For Responding to 15 Aboriginal Emergencies. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I see that it contains twenty- 18 four (24) guidelines? 19 A: That is correct. 20 Q: And did -- do the guidelines fairly 21 describe the composition, objectives and general 22 protocols and approaches of the Interministerial 23 Committee during your tenure on that committee? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now, these guidelines appear to be

1 specifically tailored to blockades, but did the 2 Interministerial Committee treat it as generally 3 applicable to any significant form of Aboriginal 4 protests, including occupations? 5 A: Yes, that is correct. 6 Q: All right. And I note that -- and 7 perhaps we'll make this the next exhibit. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-498. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just the 10 appendix or the whole document? 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just the appendix for 12 now. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just the 14 appendix? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: P? 16 THE REGISTRAR: 498. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-498: Document No. 1012232, 21 Guidelines For Responding To 22 Aboriginal Emergencies. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Now, I note that item 2 lists the

1 objective that all efforts will be made to prevent any 2 violent situations? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Item 3, all efforts will be made to 5 ensure a timely lifting of any blockades through a 6 negotiated resolution? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Item 7 indicates those Ministries and 9 parties that were entitled to have a seat on the 10 Committee? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: That included, for example, the 13 cabinet office? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And the Premier's office? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And various Ministries? 18 A: That is correct. 19 Q: All right. And just to pause for a 20 moment, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, now 21 when would the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs 22 attend at -- at these meetings? 23 A: I cannot say that during my tenure 24 there was someone from Intergovernmental Affairs who was 25 in attendance.

1 My understanding would be where there was 2 a cross-over in responsibilities between the Federal 3 Government and the Provincial Government. 4 Q: All right. And I think we might that 5 there may have been some representation at one of the 6 meetings, but we'll get to that a little later on in your 7 examination. 8 Now, number 8, of course, further 9 indicates that the Federal Government and various parties 10 from it were entitled to be representative -- 11 represented. The Indian and Northern Affairs of Canada, 12 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Transport Canada. 13 Was that your understanding? 14 A: Yes, to be augmented by. 15 Q: Now, Item 9 refers to what appears 16 would be short -- the short term solution function of the 17 Interministerial Committee? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: "In particular, the immediate goal of 20 the committee will be to determine a 21 short-term strategy and respond to 22 demands that will result in an end to 23 stoppages. The committee will also 24 ensure that commitments made by the 25 onsite negotiators are kept. The next

1 step will be the development of a long- 2 term strategy to try to devise a 3 permanent solution to the issues and to 4 decide if, and when, negotiations on 5 the issues can begin." 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Item 10 lists the specific objectives 8 of the committee as: 9 "Guiding provincial reaction to any 10 aboriginal blockade, acting as a 11 clearing house for 12 information regarding any blockade and 13 to ensure the timely exchange of 14 information, to formulate any 15 provincial negotiation position on 16 substantive issues if such is required 17 and to negotiate the removal of any 18 blockade." 19 Did you understand those to be the 20 objectives? 21 A: Yes, I did. 22 Q: And, eleven (11) outlines a number of 23 discretionary powers vested in the committee including: 24 "Agreeing to a negotiating agenda with 25 all parties and making decisions on

1 third-party intervention, appointing a 2 facilitator or negotiator and involving 3 the Indian Commission of Ontario and 4 recommending that legal action be taken 5 amongst others." 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: So, you had the power on this 8 committee to appoint facilitators or negotiators and to 9 agree to a negotiating agenda during the course of any 10 such protest, occupation, blockade by aboriginal people? 11 A: As I understood it, yes. 12 Q: Item 12 represents a limitation on 13 those parties, that says that: 14 "While the Committee will be able to 15 authorize the Ontario Government to 16 enter into negotiations it is 17 understood that the Committee can only 18 agree to processes which may lead to 19 the removal of the blockade. Any 20 proposed solution must be brought back 21 to the appropriate policy makers for a 22 decision if it is substantive or sets 23 new policy." 24 Now, what did you understand that to mean? 25 A: My understanding was the negotiation

1 in the first instance, the primary focus would be to 2 remove the issue at hand, be it a blockade or an 3 occupation. 4 The secondary piece was -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 6 minute. Yes, Mr. Downard? Do you have an objection? 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I didn't want to 8 interrupt the answer. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My only concern is, 11 I don't know whether this Witness ever read this document 12 at the time. I don't think we've heard that, whether 13 he's reading it in -- in preparations -- 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- for this Inquiry, 16 for the first time or whether it was a document he had at 17 the time of the events and he read it at that time. So, 18 he's talking about his understanding of that document at 19 that time. That's all I wanted -- 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I can certainly clarify 21 that. Perhaps you'll just finish your answer and then 22 I'll have you -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry to 24 interrupt you in the middle of it. I thought you had an 25 objection on what he was saying.

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 THE WITNESS: Again, my -- my 4 understanding of -- of this aspect of it was that 5 negotiations could be entered into by those who were 6 dealing with the matter onsite, on scene with respect to 7 removing either the blockade or in other cases, perhaps, 8 an occupation. 9 But, before there were substantive 10 negotiations that may require policy change, that had to 11 go back and be vetted through government process. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: All right. So, is it fair to say 15 that you had the powers to deal with the specific crisis 16 as defined by the blockade or protest, but not the power 17 to resolve the underlying disputes that gave rise to that 18 protest? 19 A: That would be a correct analogy. 20 Q: Now, did you -- did you review these 21 guidelines during the course of your tenure as Special -- 22 as Special Advisor? 23 A: Yes, I did. 24 Q: Did you receive a copy at the 25 Interministerial Committee meeting of August the 2nd,

44
  1  1995?
  2                 A:   Yes, I did.
  3                 Q:   And, was this a focus of discussion
  4  there?
  5                 A:   Yes, it was.
  6                 Q:   Thank you.  And just return to those
  7  guidelines, Item 13:
  8                   "The Committee has the authority to
  9                   appoint and instruct a local or
 10                   Toronto-based provincial public server
 11                   as a fact finder negotiator to attend
 12                   any blockade sites.  The Ministries
 13                   will be asked to facilitate obtaining
 14                   individuals as required."
 15                 So, did this mean that you had the -- the
 16  Committee had the ability to appoint someone to go down
 17  to the site during the course of a blockade or protest to
 18  -- to either find facts or commence negotiations?
 19                 A:   That is my understanding, yes.
 20                 Q:   And, over to page 3 and item 17, it
 21  states:
 22                   "The activities and actions of the OPP
 23                   are subject to their own operational
 24                   guidelines."
 25                 Can you just tell us what you understood

1 that provision to mean? 2 A: I view that as a noninterference 3 clause, that the operational activities of the OPP are 4 their call; that the committee as a whole, would not 5 provide direction. 6 Q: Okay. Thank you. Now, we will come 7 back to this document a little later, but on the point of 8 the Ontario Provincial Police, I understand that the OPP 9 provided a Briefing Note for the Interministerial Policy 10 Forum in 1991, outlining the OPP's approach to handling 11 protest and blockades. 12 And I wonder if you would go to Tab 1, 13 Inquiry Document 3000759. 14 Have you seen this document before? 15 A: Yes I have. 16 Q: And were you aware of its content 17 prior to taking on the term of Special Advisor? 18 A: Yes, I would say that most, if not 19 all senior officers of the Ontario Provincial Police 20 would have been aware of it. 21 Q: And to your knowledge, was this 22 still, if you will, a valid policy as of 1995 when you 23 were the Special Advisor? 24 A: Yes it was. 25 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the

1 next exhibit, please. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm advised that 2 it's already an exhibit. 3 In any event, it's Inquiry 4 Document 3000759, and we'll find the exhibit number 5 shortly. 6 Now, was this document and/or its 7 contents, known to the Interministerial Committee while 8 you were on that Committee? 9 A: I -- I can't speak to that. I don't 10 know. 11 Q: All right. 12 Exhibit P-472. Thank you very much. All 13 right. 14 Was this the focus of conversation at all, 15 as far as you know, at the IMC meetings while you were 16 there? 17 A: yes, it -- it was insofar as not the 18 document itself, but the autonomy of the police to do 19 their job. 20 Q: Okay. And did this document 21 accurately reflect, in your opinion, the approach of the 22 Ontario Provincial Police in these circumstances in 1995? 23 A: In 1995 and in 2005. 24 Q: Thank you. Now, I note that this 25 does not appear to be specific to Aboriginal protests.

1 A: That is correct. 2 Q: The key themes appears to be to 3 avoid, well perhaps you could tell us: What's the key 4 message of this document? 5 A: It's response protocol, if you will, 6 and it speaks within the document, the philosophy remains 7 the OPP's approach to demonstrations of social unrest, 8 erected on land claim by those involved in the blockade. 9 Q: What is that approach? 10 A: That we will secure the scene and we 11 will negotiate with those who are in a position to occupy 12 the land to a peaceful resolution. 13 Q: And was there -- is there reflected 14 in this document an intention to avoid physical force if 15 possible? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And what is your understanding of the 18 rationale behind the desire to avoid physical force? 19 A: The OPP's policy and how we train our 20 people, has been and continues to be, that we will use as 21 little force as is required to maintain the safety and 22 security of -- of people involved in a particular 23 dispute -- 24 Q: Now -- 25 A: -- whether it's individual or whether

1 it's a group. 2 Q: Thank you. Now, would -- would 3 physical force as its referenced in this document, 4 include forcing occupiers back into a contained area by 5 sending in the Crowd Management Unit? 6 A: It's a possibility. 7 Q: So, the physical presence of a close 8 proximity with the apparent threat of physical force 9 would be included in the understanding of physical force 10 here? 11 A: That's correct. The first -- the 12 first codicil of force is presence. 13 Q: It appears that the second main point 14 from the document is that where the dispute is over 15 property, the OPP prefer the alleged owner to go to Court 16 to get an injunction which the police will then enforce 17 as per its terms; is that right? 18 A: That is correct. 19 Q: And, the third main point appears to 20 be that the long-term result of the use of force must 21 always be considered? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And, can you tell us what is meant by 24 that; what types of considerations are appropriate? 25 A: The primary consideration is that you

1 may have two (2) sides in the situation, if you will; one 2 who believe they have ownership for whatever reason, if 3 it's a dispute over property and the other who believe 4 they have ownership. 5 The injudicious application of force tends 6 to polarize positions, not only at the time, but 7 certainly for long-term relationships. At the end of the 8 day the police must remain within the community and 9 provide policing services to that community. 10 Q: Now, the conclusion or bottom-line 11 appears to be that negotiations are better than physical 12 force, is that fair? 13 A: That is correct. 14 Q: And, the summary of the OPP approach 15 is summarized at the bottom of this document as: 16 "1. Seek a negotiated solution. 17 2. Arrest for a breach of peace where 18 appropriate if negotiation fails and 19 release on removal from site. 20 And third, if arrest for breach of 21 peace fails to clear site after a 22 period of time, arrest and charge as 23 appropriate." 24 Is that accurate? 25 A: That is.

1 Q: Thank you. Now, had you been part of 2 any Interministerial Ministry Committee meeting prior to 3 the Ipperwash related events? 4 A: I don't recall that I was. 5 Q: All right. Were you familiar with 6 respect to the general existence and composition and 7 operation of the Interministerial Committee prior to 8 attending at your first meeting? 9 A: I had a general understanding of it, 10 yes. 11 Q: Focussing now on 1995, then, in your 12 term as special advisor, you've indicated that Julie Jai, 13 as the legal director of ONAS chaired those meetings? 14 A: That is correct. 15 Q: And, who determined, if you know, 16 which ministries would actually be invited to a 17 particular Interministerial Committee meeting? 18 A: My understanding, it would depend on 19 the circumstances. And, again, I would example if it was 20 a matter involving, perhaps, a roadway, it could be the 21 Ministry of Transportation or it could be a local 22 municipality dealing with -- with roadways. 23 Q: All right. But my question was more: 24 Who makes that decision as -- as to who is invited, if 25 you know?

1 A: That would be -- 2 Q: Who invited you, for example? 3 A: That would be the call of the Chair. 4 Q: Thank you. When was the first 5 Interministerial Committee Meeting on Aboriginal Issues 6 regarding Ipperwash related issues, which you were 7 invited to? 8 A: I believe it was August. 9 Q: Does August the 2nd, 1995 seem 10 familiar? 11 A: It does. 12 Q: And so, this is approximately six (6) 13 months after you assumed the position of special advisor? 14 A: That would be correct. 15 Q: Now, had you been involved in any 16 active policing duties relating to the Ipperwash 17 Provincial Park or Camp Ipperwash prior to 1995? 18 A: No, I had not. 19 Q: Now, did you also know Inspector John 20 Carson prior to taking this position? 21 A: Yes, I did. 22 Q: And, how did you know -- how did you 23 know him? 24 A: We became acquainted through 25 attendance at training courses together over the years.

1 I -- I would expect that we probably met in about 1980 or 2 '82 or thereabouts. 3 Q: All right. And, what was your 4 impressions of Inspector Carson as a police officer at 5 that time? 6 A: A very capable police officer. 7 Q: Now, prior to the Interministerial 8 Committee meeting of August 2nd, 1995, had you received 9 information concerning Camp Ipperwash and/or the 10 Provincial Park; and, I -- I mean post your briefings by 11 Superintendent Currie? 12 A: Not that I recall. 13 Q: Do you recall having conversations 14 with Inspector Carson, from time to time, over the course 15 of the spring and summer of 1995? 16 A: Yes, I do. 17 Q: And can you tell us what -- what the 18 nature of those conversations or communications involved? 19 A: There would be a two (2) part, to a 20 degree social and obviously there would be those times 21 when it was felt there was information available that 22 would be of assistance to me in doing my job as special 23 advisor. 24 Q: All right. And did you understand 25 that Inspector Carson was the incident commander to the

1 Ipperwash? 2 A: I was aware that he was appointed as 3 the incident commander in 1993. At that point in time I 4 was working the number 3 District, which was adjacent to 5 number 2 District, the former number 2 District, London. 6 Q: And was it usual, in your experience, 7 for an incident commander to correspond or have 8 communications with the special advisor of First Nations 9 with respect to aboriginal incidents? 10 A: I don't have a great deal of 11 reference for that, but it was certainly not unusual for 12 John and I to discuss it. 13 Q: For the two (2) of you to have 14 conversations? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Regardless of your positions? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: All right. And Superintendent Currie 19 didn't advise you with respect to any such protocols in 20 relation to receiving information of a policing nature 21 from incident commanders or other police officers? 22 A: No, he did not. 23 Q: All right. Now what kind of 24 information did Inspector Carson actually share with you 25 over the course of the spring and summer of 1995 up to

1 the August 2nd meeting? 2 A: Just that there -- there had been an 3 agreement to repatriate the former Canadian Forces Base 4 Ipperwash to the First Nation. There was some concern as 5 to how that would be accomplished, and more particularly 6 to who the -- the land may go back to. 7 We had conversations when there was 8 ultimately an occupation of CFB Ipperwash, about the 9 former Canadian Forces Base Ipperwash and that type of 10 thing. 11 Q: All right. And by "occupation" are 12 you referring to the occupation of the barracks or built 13 up area at the end of July? 14 A: Yes, that is correct. 15 Q: Now would you receive information 16 from Inspector Carson which was of a operational nature 17 during the course of these conversations? 18 A: Yes, I would. 19 Q: And were there any practices or 20 protocols in place with respect to what type of policing 21 information, not only you would receive on the one hand, 22 but then impart to the IMC or other government personnel 23 during that time frame? 24 A: There were no written protocols that 25 I'm aware of, I developed my own.

1 Q: What -- what were those protocols 2 that you developed? 3 A: First, I wanted as little information 4 as I might need to be able to do my job, and in terms of 5 disclosing that information, I provided more of an 6 interpretation. 7 If I felt that I was into an area of 8 providing information that would or could be considered 9 confidential, I did not. 10 Q: All right. And so this was something 11 that basically was an exercise of your judgment? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Did you inform Inspector Carson of 14 what your -- your own guiding principles were, in terms 15 of wanting to receive as little as necessary information 16 in terms of what you needed to know? 17 A: I believe that I may have spoken to 18 it, but I also believe that I know Inspector or then 19 Inspector Carson well enough. He would have an 20 understanding of the way I thought. 21 Q: All right. And you indicated that 22 you received some information about the takeover of the 23 built up area of the military base. 24 Prior to that, did you also -- were you 25 receiving reports with respect to policing incidents,

1 involving aboriginal people, for example, on the beach 2 front area? 3 A: Yes, that is correct. 4 Q: All right. And how was that 5 information important to your ability to perform your 6 job? 7 A: It give me, certainly, a sense of 8 what was occurring more broadly in the area, rather than 9 in one (1) specific locale. 10 Q: Did you pass along that information 11 or impart some of that information to any of your 12 colleagues at the Ministry of the Solicitor General? 13 A: Occasionally, and occasionally that 14 information was passed on to me by my colleagues on the 15 Interministerial Group. 16 Q: All right. And so at this point, 17 prior to August the 2nd, 1995, what was the level of your 18 involvement, if you will, as special advisor with respect 19 to the ongoing occupation of the Ipperwash Army Military 20 Base and -- and in the barracks? 21 A: I would say minimal, more on a 22 monitoring phase. 23 Q: And did you -- to your knowledge, 24 what was the approach, if you can speak to it, of the 25 Ministry of the Solicitor General to whom you reported?

1 A: The approach was that if it involved 2 policing that those matters would be left to the police. 3 The -- the entire area, both the Canadian Forces Base and 4 at a later point the Park, fell into the hands of the 5 Federal Government with respect to the Base and with 6 respect to the Park, the Ministry of Natural Resources. 7 Q: All right. Now just before we go 8 further into the particulars with respect to your 9 conversations with Inspector Carson over the summer of 10 '95, can you tell me what you understood to be the OPP 11 command structure and personnel regarding Ipperwash to 12 be? 13 A: I understood that Inspector Carson 14 had been assigned -- then-Inspector Carson had been 15 assigned as the Incident Commander. The policing area 16 fell in 1995, early, to the former Number 1 District 17 Headquarters in Chatham. That ultimately changed with 18 the reorganization of the OPP and it fell, then, into 19 Western Region. 20 Q: All right. Who was the chain of 21 command, if you can tell us then, starting from Carson? 22 Who would he -- who would he report to and 23 up to -- to the Commissioner? 24 A: He would report to a superintendent. 25 At one (1) point in time, the superintendent was the

1 District Commander. After reorganization, the 2 superintendent would either be the Regional Director of 3 Operations or support. 4 After reorganization, the Regional 5 Commander would have been a Chief Superintendent. 6 Q: And in the summertime of 1995, let's 7 say August, who -- who was that? 8 A: At that point in time, it hadn't -- 9 we hadn't completely gone to a regional structure -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: -- it was the divisional structure 12 and I know this is confusing, but it would have been 13 Chief Superintendent Chris Coles. 14 Q: All right. Now moving on to the 15 communications you had with then-Inspector John Carson, 16 did you make any notes of those conversations? 17 A: No, I did not. 18 Q: Now when did you first learn that a 19 group of self-identified Stoney Point people had taken 20 over the living quarters of the CFB Ipperwash? 21 A: It would have been in July of -- of 22 1995. 23 Q: Who did you learn that from? 24 A: I believe that I learned that from 25 Inspector Carson.

1 Q: All right. Do you recall receiving a 2 voice mail message from Inspector Carson on July the 3 30th, 1995? 4 A: I can't say that I have a particular 5 recall of it. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: But that likely is -- is correct. 8 Q: I'd like to refer you to Tab 3 of 9 your binder, please? 10 This is Exhibit P-410. They've already 11 been identified as John Carson's handwritten notes, 12 Inquiry Document 2002719. And if you would look at the 13 entry on Sunday, July the 30th, 1995 at 11:15 a.m., it's 14 the third page in, and there's a reference to Ron Fox? 15 Sorry, it's the fourth page in: 16 "10:20 to Ron Fox. Message to call 17 Left." 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Yes I do. 20 Q: Does that refresh your memory at all? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: The next entry I'd like you to look 23 at is at the same day but at 14:00, it's at the next 24 page: 25 "1020. Ron Fox. Update re events."

1 I can't read that exactly, but: 2 "With respect to the military and 3 public safety. Thank you. Overnight." 4 In any event, do you see that? 5 A: Yes I do. 6 Q: And is it likely that you had a 7 telephone conversation at about two o'clock p.m. on July 8 30th, in which you were informed of the takeover of the 9 barracks? 10 A: Yes it is. 11 Q: And then if you would -- let's see 12 now, if you would look at the next tab, it's Tab 4, 13 Inquiry Document Number 2003790, and we are advised that 14 these are the handwritten notes of Tony Parkin. 15 Now who -- what position did Tony Parkin 16 hold, July of '95? 17 A: Tony was Superintendent and as I say, 18 it was a transition in the reorganization, he would have 19 been the Director of Operations. 20 Q: All right. And there's an entry at 21 13:45, itÆs on the second page: 22 "Inspector Ron Fox advised of situation 23 by Inspector Carson at 13:45 hundred 24 hours." 25 There's a discrepancy of about fifteen

1 (15) minutes there, but -- 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: -- does that more or less confirm 4 your recollection? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And as a result of receiving this 7 information on Sunday, July the 30th, 1995, did you take 8 any action, as Special Advisor, on that day? 9 A: I don't recall that I did on that 10 day, but I would have in -- in -- upon my return to 11 Toronto, on the Monday. 12 Q: All right. And what action did you 13 take on the Monday? 14 A: I would have provided that 15 information, certainly, to the Solicitor -- the Deputy 16 Solicitor General and to the Interministerial Group. 17 Q: Thank you. All right. And it would 18 appear that you received an update from Superintendent 19 Parkin on Monday, July the 31st, at about 15:10; do you 20 recall being in contact with him the following day? 21 A: Yes, that's correct. I believe it 22 was by e-mail. 23 Q: All right. And what was the purpose 24 of that conversation or that communication? 25 A: Provide an update of what had

1 transpired since the takeover of the former CFB 2 Ipperwash. 3 Q: And was this an update provided by 4 Superintendent Parkin? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And do you recall what it is he told 7 you in particular? 8 A: I'd have to refer to the e-mail. 9 Q: All right. Do you have that e-mail 10 in front of you? 11 A: No, I don't. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now it may be that you're referring 16 to an e-mail that's dated August the 2nd; is that 17 possible? 18 A: It's entirely possible. 19 Q: Okay. So we will get to that in a -- 20 in a few moments. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Now had you also spoken to Julie Jai, 23 did you speak to her on July 31st? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And why would you be speaking to her

1 about this? 2 A: The -- the information provided, in 3 my view, made out an incident or matter that was within 4 the prevue of the Interministerial Group. 5 Q: And I wonder if you would go next to 6 Tab 5 of your documents, it's Inquiry Document 7 number 3001085. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: All right. And perhaps we -- before 12 we do that, can we please make the Tony Parkin notes the 13 next exhibit? 14 It's Inquiry document 2003790, July 30th 15 to August 1st entries. 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-499, your Honour. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-499: Document No. 2003790. 19 Handwritten notes of Tony 20 Parkin July 30/'95 to August 21 01/'95. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 24 Q: Now you're looking at what I'm 25 advised are notes by Julie Jai, dated August 1, 1995.

1 They purport to refer to a conversation that you had with 2 her. 3 Perhaps you -- 4 A: Yes, I have them in front of me. 5 Q: All right. And does that refresh 6 your memory with respect to the nature of your 7 conversation with her? 8 A: It does. 9 Q: There appear to be a series of issues 10 relayed by you. One was with respect to a concern with 11 respect to the water supply to the Park? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And do you recall what the nature or 14 what the cause of that concern was? 15 A: Well the -- the water supply to the 16 Park and ultimately to the former CFB Ipperwash appeared 17 to have gone down and it -- I learned from both John and 18 Tony Parkin that it was controlled by some form of 19 computer modem and that the phone lines had been cut or 20 otherwise disrupted. 21 Q: All right. And that caused the -- 22 the breakdown in the water system? 23 A: As I understand it, yes. 24 Q: All right. And there appears that 25 you also discussed -- relayed, there was a claim with

1 respect to a sacred site at the Park and -- and you 2 raised the threat of a possible takeover of the park as 3 the next target. 4 Did you do that? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And was that again based on 7 information that you received by -- from either Inspector 8 Carson or Superintendent Parkin? 9 A: I think it was a combination of 10 information that was available to both of them and made 11 available to me and from my -- my personal knowledge. 12 Q: All right. There's also an 13 indication that Pete -- that Inspector Carson was dealing 14 with Peter Sturdy of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 15 Was that information that you provided? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And based on your -- do these notes 18 accurately reflect your recollection of that 19 conversation? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: If I can make that the next exhibit, 22 please? 23 THE REGISTRAR: P-500, your Honour. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-500: Document No. 3001085.

1 Handwritten Notes of Julie 2 Jai, August 01/'95. 3 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm wondering, 5 Commissioner, whether it would be appropriate to take the 6 morning break at this time? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Certainly, 8 we'll take a break now. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 10 for fifteen (15) minutes. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 11:42 a.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 12:00 p.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed. Please be seated. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 19 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 20 Superintendent Fox, you indicated just 21 before the break, that you recalled receiving some of the 22 information on July 31st, by way of an e-mail 23 communication, and I'd like to put on the screen behind 24 you, Inquiry document number 2000984 and, in fact, 25 there's a series of communications on this Inquiry

1 document number, but here is an e-mail dated July 31st, 2 1995 at 15:20 from Superintendent Parkin to Nancy Mansell 3 and you are shown as receiving a copy. 4 Perhaps you'll take a moment to look at 5 that and tell me if this is the e-mail that you were 6 referring to? 7 A: That is the e-mail that I was 8 referring to, or referred to in Tony Parkin's notes. 9 Q: Thank you very much. I'd like to 10 make that the next exhibit, please. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-501. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Inquiry Document 13 2000984. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-501: Document No. 200984. E-mail, 16 July 31/'95 from Tony Parkin 17 to Nancy Mansell. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: Now, going forward to August the 1st, 21 the next day, and you had a conversation with Julie Jai 22 and in it you relayed the claim with respect to the 23 sacred sites at the Park and the threat of the possible 24 takeover. 25 Now, is that the first time the issue of a

1 possible takeover of Ipperwash Provincial Park raised a 2 sufficient level of concern as to warrant your 3 involvement as a -- a special advisor? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And, is this because this is 6 ostensibly provincial property as opposed to the Army 7 Camp, which was ostensibly a Federal matter? 8 A: That would be correct. 9 Q: Because you would have no role with 10 respect to the -- the Military Base in those issues? 11 A: No, I would not. 12 Q: Now, as a result of this 13 discussion with Julie Jai, did you contact Inspector 14 Carson on August the 1st? 15 A: Yes, I did. 16 Q: If you would go to Tab 6, which is 17 Exhibit P-410, Inquiry Document Number 2002720, this is - 18 - has been identified as an excerpt of Inspector Carson's 19 notes and you'll see the 15:50 entry on the second page. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What tab, 21 again, is that? 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Tab 6. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Six (6). 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:

1 Q: And, it says: 2 "10:21 from Ron Fox. Advises of 3 information from Julie Jai." 4 And, it appears that also you received 5 some information in turn from Inspector Carson; is that 6 right? 7 A: That's correct, yes. 8 Q: Do you recall that conversation? 9 A: Yes, I do. 10 Q: Then, if you would go to the next 11 tab, Tab 7, Inquiry Document 1003358, and this is an e- 12 mail communication from Julie Jai. 13 Do you recall whether you received a copy 14 of this? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: No, you didn't. Okay. 17 Now, did anything else of significance 18 occur on August the 1st with respect to the takeover of 19 the barracks and your involvement? 20 A: Not that I recall. 21 Q: And so, at this stage are you still 22 in a monitoring role or has this -- has it been elevated? 23 A: I -- I would say that it's been 24 elevated in that the -- the Chair of the interministerial 25 group, Julie Jai, has now been made aware of it. And I

1 believe that the first meeting was called shortly 2 thereafter. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: And, that would be the meeting of the 5 2nd of August. 6 Q: The meeting of... 7 A: August 2nd. 8 Q: Of the Interministerial Committee? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: All right. Now, just before we get 11 to that, perhaps you would look at the -- the next tab, 12 Tab 8 and there's an e-mail from Superintendent Parkin to 13 Nancy Mansell copy to yourself dated August 1st, 15:23. 14 And, this appears to be further 15 information that you received with respect to the 16 takeover of the barracks? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And, did you receive this e-mail? 19 A: Yes, I'm listed on the cc line. 20 Q: And, it's Exhibit P-414, for the 21 record. 22 And then, there's another e-mail on this 23 document that's dated August the 2nd, 1995 at 7:37 a.m. 24 It's from yourself to Superintendent Parkin; did you send 25 that e-mail?

1 A: I did. 2 Q: And what was the purpose of your 3 providing that e-mail communication to the 4 Superintendent? 5 A: To inform him that the 6 Interministerial Group would be meeting. 7 Q: All right. Now, was it -- why would 8 you be telling the Superintendent Parkin about the fact 9 that an IMC meeting is -- has been called? 10 A: Again, going back to the mandate of 11 the Committee, it's a repository for information in a 12 clearing house, if you will, to give the operational 13 police a sense that those other impacted Ministries would 14 be made aware of the ongoing situation. 15 Q: All right. Did you receive any 16 feedback from the Superintendent in response to this e- 17 mail? 18 A: Not that I recall. 19 Q: I'd like to make this the next 20 exhibit, please? 21 THE REGISTRAR: It's all one (1) exhibit. 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Oh, it's all one 23 exhibit? All right. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:

1 Q: This is also part of Exhibit P-14, 2 I'm advised. P-414. 3 Now, at this point, how would you 4 characterize your role vis-a-vis Inspector Carson and 5 Superintendent Parkin? 6 A: I -- I would say that I was the 7 conduit where information that would have been required 8 for the Interministerial Group to be passed along. 9 Q: All right. And did -- did Julie Jai 10 know that you were performing this role? 11 A: Yes, she did. 12 Q: Did she express any concern at you 13 discharging this role? 14 A: No, she did not. 15 Q: And next if you would go to Tab 9, 16 this appears to be an e-mail dated August 2nd, 1995, at 17 11:34 a.m., from yourself to Deputy Minister Elaine 18 Todres and to Neil McKerrell, with a copy to Tony Van der 19 Veet. 20 Do you recall sending this e-mail to those 21 parties? 22 A: I do. 23 Q: I'd like to make this the next 24 exhibit, please. 25 THE REGISTRAR: P-502, Your Honour.

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Five zero 2 two (502). 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-502: Document No. 1000934. E-mail 5 from Ron Fox to Elaine 6 Todres, Neil McKerrell re: 7 CFB Ipperwash, August 02'/95, 8 11:34. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 11 Q: And who was Neil McKerrell? 12 A: Neil McKerrell was the Assistant 13 Deputy Minister on the Correctional Services side. 14 Q: Why would you be providing this -- 15 the information about the occupation at CFB Ipperwash to 16 him? 17 A: He would be a back-up to the Deputy 18 Minister. 19 Q: Of the Solicitor General? 20 A: Yes, that's correct. 21 Q: Okay. And who was Tony Van der Veet 22 (phonetic)? 23 A: Tony Van der Veet was the Executive 24 Assistant to Elaine Todres. 25 Q: All right. And was this part of your

1 role, your reporting function then, to the Deputy 2 Minister Solicitor General? 3 A: Providing advice, yes. 4 Q: Was this the first provision of 5 advice that you made to her in relation to Ipperwash? 6 A: Correct. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: All right. And here you're providing 11 her with information, including information concerning a 12 possible takeover of Ipperwash Provincial Park. 13 A: That is correct. 14 Q: And to your knowledge, is this the 15 first time that the Deputy Minister is made aware of this 16 potential threat? 17 A: I believe it to be, yes. 18 Q: Then you provide what you consider to 19 be the most probable scenario as a result of the 20 occupation; Items 1 to 4? 21 A: Probable and possible, yes. 22 Q: Okay. You indicate an escalation of 23 tensions between the Kettle Point Band and the Stony 24 Pointers, which may result in an enjoining Order being 25 applied for by the Band?

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And what was the basis of your 3 information there? 4 A: I believe that was reported in the 5 media. 6 Q: All right. Second: 7 "An application for an enjoining Order 8 by the Federal Government re: the 9 Military, to facilitate the 10 environmental assessment of the land 11 prior to official surrender." 12 What was that about? 13 A: The former CFB Ipperwash was a 14 Military Base, unexploded munitions, an environmental 15 assessment and kind of a hold-safe order would had to 16 have been issued. 17 Q: Why, for what purpose? 18 A: For public safety. 19 Q: Yes, but what is your understanding 20 was -- gave rise to the need for the environmental 21 assessment? What was going on with the land? 22 A: Well, the Federal Government had 23 acknowledged that the land was to be returned to the 24 First Nations and before doing so, it would require an 25 environmental assessment to ensure that it was safe for

1 habitation. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: And use. 4 Q: Thank you. 5 "3. The Ministry of Natural Resources 6 may wish to have pursued legal 7 enforcement remedies relative to the 8 water supply of the Park and the rumour 9 of the possible takeover. I've asked 10 ONAS to research any outstanding claim 11 which may relate to the Park." 12 Now, did you ask for that research to be 13 done by ONAS? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: All right. And what the result of 16 that research? 17 A: Ultimately there was no official land 18 claim or -- or other claim filed by the First Nations 19 with ONAS. 20 Q: In other words, there was no formal 21 legal process that had been invoked with respect to a 22 land claim? 23 A: That is correct. 24 Q: This did not cover, however, any 25 informal notice of a request for the land?

1 A: That is correct. 2 Q: All right. The fourth: 3 "Blockade of the Ipperwash beach road 4 by the militant faction." 5 Now, when you use the term "militant 6 faction", who were you referring to? 7 A: The occupiers of CFB Ipperwash. 8 Q: All right. And what information, if 9 any, did you base your assessment of that contingent as a 10 militant faction? 11 A: I'm sorry; why did I call them a 12 militant faction? 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: The -- the recognised band, the 15 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, it's my 16 understanding, was not in support of the takeover of the 17 former CFB Ipperwash and it was my choice of words. 18 It may not have been the best choice of 19 words. 20 Q: All right. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: All right. Now, as a result of your 25 disclosure to Julie Jai with respect to takeover of the

1 barracks and the potential threat to the takeover of the 2 Park, more particularly, I understand that a -- a -- was 3 a meeting of the Interministerial Committee called by 4 her? 5 A: Yes, it was. 6 Q: And that was on August the 2nd, 1995? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Now, were there any further 9 significant communications that you recall being part of, 10 between July the 30th and the August 2nd INC meeting 11 regarding Ipperwash? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Thank you. Was the only 14 communication that you had with the deputy Solicitor 15 General the e-mail that we have just reviewed? 16 A: If there was any other interaction, 17 it would be rather informal, as we worked in the same 18 office. 19 Q: Okay. Do you have any specific 20 recollection today? 21 A: No -- no, I didn't. 22 Q: Did you have any conversations or 23 communications with the Solicitor General himself over 24 this time period? 25 A: No, I did not.

1 Q: Or with the Minister of -- of Natural 2 Resources? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: Or with the Minister of Native 5 Affairs who was also the Attorney General? 6 A: No, I did not. 7 Q: Or with the Premier? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: All right. Now, do you recall Julie 13 Jai, whether she provided you with, and other INC members 14 with any briefing materials in advance of this meeting? 15 A: Yes, I believe there was a 16 backrounder circulated. 17 Q: I'd like you to go to Tab 12, please. 18 Sorry, 11, excuse me, Tab 11. 19 It's Inquiry document number 1011681, fax 20 transmittal cover sheet. There's a number of recipients, 21 including yourself and the transmission stamp reads 22 "August the 2nd, 1995, 11:36". 23 Now, this material was perhaps sent to 24 others who participated by telephone later on, but did 25 you receive these materials in advance of the meeting?

1 A: I did, by facsimile. 2 Q: Thank you. I'd like to make this the 3 next exhibit, please? 4 THE REGISTRAR: P-503, Your Honour. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-503: Document No. 1011681. Fax 7 from Ontario Native Affairs 8 Secretariat, August 02/'95. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 11 Q: And, one (1) of the things that is 12 marked is -- is -- included is an agenda for a meeting to 13 be held at 3:30 that afternoon? 14 A: At 3:30, yes. 15 Q: All right. The second document is an 16 information note. Was this to provide background with 17 respect to the Park? 18 A: Yes, it was; that's what I was 19 referring to when I said, "backrounder." 20 Q: Do you know who prepared this? 21 A: It was prepared by ONAS and, as I'm 22 reading, it says, "Legal Services Branch within the 23 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat". 24 Q: All right. And, then the next 25 documents are maps. Do you know who prepared the first

1 map? 2 A: No, I do not. 3 Q: All right. It's intended to show the 4 different land parcels comprising of Camp Ipperwash and 5 the Provincial Park and land adjoining the Provincial 6 Park, which was formerly Stoney Point Indian Reserve. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: All right. And, there's background 9 information notes by the Ontario Native Affairs 10 Secretariat, which provides a broader background with 11 respect to the ownership of the beachfront land? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Excerpt from the London Free Press 14 and, finally, a further information note by ONAS, this 15 one with respect to the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony 16 Point and Ipperwash Provincial Park? 17 A: That is correct 18 Q: And, that essentially sets out the 19 land transaction history in relation to the Park? 20 A: That's correct 21 Q: Now, did you have any -- well, first 22 of all, is it standard practise to your knowledge, to 23 receive such background materials to inform the agenda 24 items of the IMC meeting? 25 A: I can only assume that it was.

1 Q: All right. Because this was your 2 first meeting? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: All right. And, did you have any 5 input into the preparation or creation of any of these 6 documents? 7 A: No, I did not in terms of the 8 creation of those documents. 9 Q: All right. And, did you review them 10 in advance of the meeting? 11 A: I did. 12 Q: And, did you have any significant 13 concerns with respect to the contents of any of those 14 documents? 15 A: No. Insofar as I had no reason to 16 dispute anything that was here other than while they 17 identify things that are documented and part of ongoing 18 formal processes, they do not speak to any informal 19 assertation by a First Nation or a group of First Nations 20 that may speak to a -- a believed entitlement to the 21 Parklands or CFB Ipperwash, in particular, as might 22 relate to a burial site. 23 Q: All right. And so, in other words, 24 what you saw was essentially based, as far as you 25 understood, on a documentary review of matters?

1 A: That is correct. 2 Q: And, was there other reliable sources 3 of information which you felt should have been part of 4 the research to inform these topics? 5 A: The reliable sources of information, 6 I believe that should and I believe ultimately were 7 considered at a future date, was the oral -- at least 8 spoken by First Nations of their belief that there was a 9 burial site on the -- these -- the Camp Ipper -- or, I'm 10 sorry, the Ipperwash Provincial Park. 11 Q: All right. I'd like you next to -- 12 to go to Tab 12, please, Inquiry Document number 1012232. 13 And, it's a fax cover sheet dated August the 2nd, 1995 14 from Julie Jai to three (3) individuals. And, again, 15 there's a series of documents enclosed. 16 And this appears to be documents which 17 were sent to the participants who participated by 18 telephone on August the 2nd. Do you recall whether these 19 individuals, Ron Baldwin, Peter Sturdy and Lisa, I can't 20 pronounce her last name, but whether or not they were 21 participating by telephone? 22 A: By teleconference, yes. 23 Q: Okay. Thank you. And I just note 24 for the record that included in this batch of documents 25 is the guidelines for responding to aboriginal

1 emergencies, Exhibit P-498. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And in addition, there are some 4 articles that are attached to this. You might look at 5 them at the end of the document. 6 Are these all documents including the 7 articles and the guidelines for responding to aboriginal 8 emergencies -- are these all documents that were 9 considered and reviewed during the August 2nd meeting? 10 A: That's correct 11 Q: I'd like to make this the next 12 exhibit please? 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-504. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-504: Document No. 1012232. Fax 16 from Julie Jai, August 17 02/'95. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: All right. Now I'd like to look at 21 the first document in this exhibit, it's -- the second 22 document dated July 10th, 1995. It's entitled, 23 "Procedures for Dealing with Aboriginal Emergencies." 24 It's a briefing note by the Ontario Native 25 Affairs Secretariat for the Honourable Charles Harnick,

1 the Minister responsible for Native Affairs; is that 2 correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Now is it fair to say that these 5 guidelines are similar in content to the appendix 6 guidelines, which we earlier reviewed, Exhibit 498? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: In particular, the first item is: 9 "If there is an emergency situation the 10 Committee develops recommendations, may 11 appoint a negotiator, may recommend 12 that legal action be taken and ensures 13 that adequate communications occur with 14 all affected groups including the 15 general public." 16 This is the -- the first main procedure in 17 dealing with aboriginal emergencies? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Second: 20 "ONAS, in close liaison with the 21 Ministry of the Solicitor General and 22 the OPP monitors all potential 23 emergency situations and ensures that 24 appropriate steps are taken to avert 25 the emergency if possible. If an

1 emergency situation develops the OPP, 2 which may include First Nations 3 constables, are usually the ones on 4 location dealing with the situation and 5 the OPP, Solicitor General and ONAS are 6 in frequent communication to ensure 7 that the best possible advice is given 8 to try to manage the situation safely 9 and with minimal confrontation." 10 This was discussed, also, at the meeting 11 and agreed to? 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: And then, under "Background:" 14 ôSpecifically, the Ipperwash Military 15 Base is drawn to the Minister's 16 attention as a potential aboriginal 17 emergency.ö 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And finally, the principle's guiding 20 the response to the emergencies as conveyed are the 21 prevention of violence, property damage, or personal 22 injury, a timely lifting of the blockade through 23 negotiations, a review of the aboriginal grievances and 24 issues and the establishment of processes to address 25 them, however, no substantive negotiation is to occur

1 until after the blockade is lifted. 2 And this all very similar to the 3 guidelines that were applicable to your committee? 4 A: That is correct. 5 Q: So is it fair to say that the 6 Interministerial Committee was the first line of response 7 in terms of formulating a potential governmental response 8 and analysis when an aboriginal emergency arose? 9 A: I believe that to be a fair 10 assessment, yes. 11 Q: And do you recall having a 12 conversation with Julie Jai on August the 2nd, in which 13 you updated her based on information you received from 14 Superintendent Parkin? 15 A: I do. 16 Q: And if you look at Tab 13, Inquiry 17 Document number 3001086, this appears to be handwritten 18 notes of Julie Jai, reflecting a conversation with you? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And having had a chance to review 21 this -- her notes, does that -- are they in accordance 22 with your recollection of that conversation? 23 A: Yes. And in accordance with the e- 24 mail received from Superintendent Parkin. 25 Q: All right. So you're reporting, are

1 you, that you've been advised that the OPP have met with 2 Glenn George as the spokesperson for the occupiers, the 3 Stoney Pointers? 4 A: That is correct. 5 Q: And that there's an allegation that 6 there is a burial ground in the Park? 7 A: That is correct. 8 Q: And you're also advising her of the 9 band, that is the Kettle and Stony Point band's position, 10 the fact that they passed the BCR to get everyone off the 11 base. 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: And there's also a notation here that 14 Ovide Mercredi has offered to mediate this difficulty or 15 the occupation with the military base. 16 Was that something that you had been 17 informed of? 18 A: I was, during this telephone 19 conversation, yes. 20 Q: By Julie Jai? 21 A: That is correct. 22 Q: Thank you. And that Bob Antone from 23 Oneida has also been involved. Is this something that 24 you were informed? 25 A: At that time, yes.

1 Q: And what was your understanding about 2 the nature of Mr. Antone's involvement to date? 3 A: I'm not certain if Mr. Antone had 4 been involved prior to. What my understanding is that 5 both Mr. Mercredi and Mr. Antone may have been considered 6 TPI's or third party intermediaries for the purposes of 7 negotiation. 8 Q: All right. So, these were two (2) 9 potential candidates under your guidelines with respect 10 to third party inter -- Intervenors? 11 A: That would be correct, yes. 12 Q: And this information came from Julie 13 Jai? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Do you know where she received the 16 information? 17 A: I can only speculate -- 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: -- but that would be within the data 20 banks of ONAS in terms of -- 21 Q: All right. 22 A: û- who may be appropriate. 23 Q: Well I won't ask you to speculate, 24 but that's fine. I'd like to make this the next exhibit, 25 please.

1 THE REGISTRAR: P-505, your Honour. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-505: Document No. 3001086. 4 Handwritten notes of Julie 5 Jai, August 02/'95. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 8 Q: Now stepping back for a moment. 9 Based on your interactions with Julie Jai to this point 10 of time, that is from February of '95 through to the 11 summer of 1995, did you form any impressions of her 12 relative scope of knowledge regarding the ways and 13 traditions of the aboriginal peoples of Ontario? 14 A: Was my opinion based on conversations 15 with Ms. Jai that she was new to it, that she wouldn't 16 have had a great in-depth understanding of broader First 17 Nations issues or the cultural aspects of different First 18 Nations relationships. 19 That's not to say that she had no interest 20 in that. My opinion is, she was probably new to it. 21 Q: All right. And that's based on your 22 conversations with her about these matters? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And did you do anything to assist her 25 in this regard?

1 A: I believe that I did. 2 Q: And what was that? 3 A: Provide certainly what was my 4 understanding of the culture of the First Nations as I 5 had encountered through the course of my career, provided 6 her my understanding of the situation as might have been 7 reported to me, and when I say "reported," not 8 officially, but one might garner from being in the area 9 over the years. 10 Q: All right. Now moving to the August 11 2nd IMC meeting and, Commissioner, for the record when I 12 say "IMC" I'm referring to the Interministerial Committee 13 of Aboriginal Issues, did you attend in person at the 14 August 2nd IMC meeting? 15 A: Yes, I did. 16 Q: And do you recall who, of note, also 17 attended in person at that meeting? 18 A: I'd have to refresh my memory from 19 the list of attendees attached to the minutes. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: I have it in front of me. 22 Q: Thank you very much. All right. And 23 with that document in front of you, does that refresh 24 your memory? 25 A: Yes, it does.

1 Q: And who of note was in attendance at 2 that meeting in person? 3 A: Julie Jai as the -- the Chair, 4 Nathalie Nepton was the minute-taker, Janina Korol was, I 5 believe, involved in communications within ONAS, David 6 Moran was legal counsel with ONAS, Elizabeth Christie, 7 Andrew MacDonald of MAG, were legal counsel. 8 Q: That's the Ministry of the Attorney 9 General? 10 A: Yes, the Ministry of the Attorney 11 General. Barry Jones was legal counsel with Ministry of 12 Natural Resources. 13 Peter Allen, I believe, was the Executive 14 Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Ministry of Natural 15 Resources. 16 Jeff Bangs is identified as being with 17 Natural Resources; I'm unsure at this point today it was 18 his position. 19 Brett Laschinger, from the Premier's 20 Office, Claude Galipeau from the Cabinet Office, myself 21 from Solicitor General Correctional Services, and Peter 22 Sturdy and Ron Baldwin, both of MNR and part of the 23 conference call. 24 Q: Thank you. And this meeting was 25 called specifically as a result of the takeover of the

1 built-up area of Camp Ipperwash and the resultant 2 possible risk to the Park posed by that occupation? 3 A: That's correct, and related as well 4 to the interruption of the water supply. 5 Q: To the Park? 6 A: That is correct. 7 Q: All right. Now from a reading of the 8 guidelines of the IMC, which we reviewed earlier, a 9 representative from Indian and Northern Affairs was 10 eligible to participate in this meeting at the request of 11 the Chair. 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: Was there any such representative 14 invited, to your knowledge? 15 A: Not to the best of my knowledge. 16 Q: Was there any discussion around the 17 advisability of having Indian and Northern Affairs 18 present, given the link between -- the possible link 19 between the occupation of Camp Ipperwash and the 20 perceived risk to the Park's operations? 21 A: I can't say with certainty there was 22 at this meeting; I know it was discussed at meetings 23 later on. 24 Q: On reflection, might this have been a 25 -- might it have been constructive to have had a

1 representative from INAC at the August 2nd meeting? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Why? 4 A: Clearly the -- the former CFB 5 Ipperwash was at that point Federal property, the 6 Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 7 Canada would certainly have much of a historical 8 reference with respect to the surrender of certain lands 9 that ultimately became the Ipperwash Provincial Park. 10 They, I would assume, would be more in -- 11 in tune with timely developments relative to the 12 environmental assessment and such things. 13 Q: And in developing the first line 14 governmental response, or potential response, would it 15 not have been helpful to have known what the Federal 16 Government's intentions or plans were with respect to 17 Ipperwash -- Camp Ipperwash? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now, did you take notes of this 20 meeting? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Was it your practise generally to 23 take notes at IMC meetings? 24 A: No, it was not. 25 Q: And why not?

1 A: The discussions were reflected in the 2 minutes, which were ultimately circulated. If I 3 disagreed with, or wanted to add to, I would signify to 4 the Chair my desire to do that. 5 Q: All right. Now before going through 6 the Minutes themselves, perhaps you could give us an 7 overview of what transpired at the meeting, based on your 8 recollections and your specific contributions to that 9 meeting? 10 A: My responsibility there was to 11 provide information with respect to the situation on 12 ground from a police perspective and I did that. There 13 were also MNR staffers who were, if you will, frontline 14 people here in the Forest area who would provide their 15 perspective with respect to what was ongoing at the time. 16 Q: And in providing the policing 17 perspective in particular, based on your conversations 18 and communications with Superintendent Parkin and 19 Inspector Carson, did the police view the risk to the 20 Park's operation as real, at this time? 21 A: I -- I believe their perspective was 22 that it was a risk, but there was a -- a short-term work- 23 around, if you will, in place or at least proposed. 24 Q: What do you mean there was a "short- 25 term work-around?"

1 A: To re-establish the water flow 2 through a re-connection of the computer control 3 equipment. 4 Q: The water? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: What about with respect to the 7 potential takeover? Was that perceived, based on your 8 conversations, as a -- as a real risk at this time? 9 A: It was viewed as a possibility, I 10 wouldn't suggest a real risk. 11 Q: All right. And minutes were clearly 12 generated from this meeting? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And that was the standard practice of 15 the -- for the IMC? 16 A: That is correct. 17 Q: You received a copy of these minutes? 18 A: That is correct. 19 Q: And you're already at Tab 14, I 20 believe. It's Inquiry Document 1012231? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: These appear to be meeting notes of 23 the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues, 24 Interministerial Committee dated August 2nd or held 25 August 2nd, 1995. Are those the finalized minutes?

1 A: That is correct. 2 Q: I'd like to make this the next 3 exhibit, please? 4 THE REGISTRAR: P-506, Your Honour. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Five-o-six 6 (506). 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-506: Document No. 1012231. 9 Minutes of IMC meeting, 10 August 02/'95 faxed on August 11 08/'95. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: And do you recall that this meeting, 15 in fact, took place from 3:30 to 5:15 on August the 2nd, 16 1995 in the ONAS boardroom at 595 Bay Street? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And do they accurately capture the 19 main points of information relayed at this meeting and 20 the various issues raised and concerns discussed? 21 A: Just a moment if I might, please. 22 Q: Certainly. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 A: They do. 2 Q: And were you given a chance to 3 comment on these minutes -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- in terms of accuracy? All right. 6 Now looking at the composition of the 7 attendees, perhaps you can just briefly identify -- 8 firstly, were any -- were all of these participants civil 9 servants or were some political staffers? 10 A: A moment, if I could? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: There was one (1) political staffer. 15 Q: Who was that? 16 A: That would be from the Premier's 17 office, Deb Hutton. 18 Q: I'm sorry, I think she was -- she 19 wasn't present at this meeting, was it Brett Laschinger 20 substituting for Deb Hutton? 21 A: My apologies. You referred me to Tab 22 14. 23 Q: Yes. Is it not Tab 14 in your 24 binder? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the

1 tab. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I hope it is. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's Tab 14 and I'm 4 looking at the -- the attendees. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7 Q: In the meeting notes page 1? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And does it say, "Brett Laschinger 10 P.O. substituting for Deb Hutton P.O?" 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think he's 12 looking at the fax cover sheet. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Oh, I apologize. Thank you for 16 pointing that out. Perhaps you could go to the second 17 page and it's entitled, "Emergency -- 18 A: My apologies. You're quite correct, 19 sir. 20 Q: Thank you. That's fine. And so it 21 was Mr. -- did you understand Mr. Laschinger to be a 22 political staffer? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Now, in your experience, Ipperwash 25 aside, how common was it for political staffers to attend

100

1 at IMC meeting? 2 A: Bearing in mind that I didn't have a 3 great deal of experience attending IMC meetings, I had 4 heard that it was very unusual. 5 Q: All right. Did you attend at IMC 6 meetings after the Ipperwash incident, in other words, 7 unrelated to the Ipperwash incident? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. And at those meetings 10 were there political staffers that you can recall? 11 A: No. 12 Q: And similarly at -- based on your 13 experience in attending at IMC meetings unrelated to 14 Ipperwash, was it usual for the Premier's office to be 15 represented? 16 A: No. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir? 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Sir, I don't 22 understand how these questions can provide any 23 information that's helpful to you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have to 25 speak into the microphone now, sir.

101

1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Sir, I don't 2 understand how these particular questions provide any 3 information that is helpful to you. 4 They can be cross-examined upon, readily, 5 upon other documents -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- that will show to 8 the contrary, but this Witness has testified that he 9 hasn't been to an Interministerial -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is his 11 first meeting. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- Meeting, before 13 the Ipperwash meeting of August 2nd, so I don't 14 understand how can he have any experience to assist you? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I think I can 16 answer that, Commissioner. Simply based on what he had 17 briefed by his predecessor and based on the fact that he 18 did attend -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Subsequently. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- at INC -- 21 subsequently, which I believe I prefaced my question 22 with. And therefore having this Witness' understanding 23 with respect to the functioning and composition of the 24 IMC meeting which is -- Committee, which is clearly an 25 important committee in this Inquiry, I think is helpful

102

1 to the Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What he 3 understood occurred before and what he knew occurred 4 after from that? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Correct, correct. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 I think that's a good question. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 13 Q: Now, did you take anything from the 14 presence of the political staffer at -- staffers at these 15 meetings, at the IMC -- Ipperwash related IMC meetings? 16 A: I -- other than that it was unusual, 17 at least I felt that it was unusual, I did -- I took 18 nothing from it. 19 Q: Thank you. Now, focussing on the 20 minutes, page 1, under Item 1, it appears that the first 21 thing that the Committee discussed was background on 22 Kettle Point and Stony Point First Nation and the Stoney 23 Point group -- 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: -- is that right?

103

1 Can you recall who presented this 2 information? 3 A: I believed it was called by the Chair 4 and it was presented legal staff from ONAS, which one I'm 5 not certain. 6 Q: And is this -- was this based, to 7 your -- on your knowledge on the research undertaken by 8 ONAS prior to the meeting? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And the second topic that was 11 discussed, according to the minutes on page 3, was an 12 update from the Solicitor General. 13 Do you recall who presented this 14 information? 15 A: I did. 16 Q: All right. And what was your 17 information source or sources? 18 A: A combination; Superintendent Parkin 19 and Inspector Carson. 20 Q: And here you relayed then, to them, 21 the issue of the telephone wires and how that posed a 22 risk to the water flow to the Park? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And you -- you reported on the events 25 of the takeover of the barracks on July the 29th?

104

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And you reported that there was some 3 indication that members of the Stoney Point group might 4 try to takeover the Park? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And you reported that the current 7 situation was such that the OPP and the Ministry of 8 Natural Resources were monitoring the bases -- sorry, the 9 boundaries, both to the Army Camp and to the Park? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And the third topic that was 12 discussed, is entitled, MNR Concerns and Options. 13 Do you recall who presented this part of 14 the information? 15 A: I think it was a combination of the 16 two (2) gentlemen who were in -- via conference call. 17 Q: All right. So, Peter Sturdy and Ron 18 Baldwin? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And had you had any interaction with 21 these individuals prior to this meeting? 22 A: I didn't know them. 23 Q: All right. And then Item 4 on the 24 next page is, Options. 25 A: Yes.

105

1 Q: Now was this reflective of a general 2 discussion or did anyone present specific options? 3 A: This is more reflective of general 4 discussion. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: Bearing in mind this was the first 7 meeting. 8 Q: Okay. And I note that that appears 9 to be -- well, first of all, how were decisions made at 10 this Committee? 11 A: They were discussed, but ultimately 12 they didn't arrive by consensus, there was general 13 agreement with the realization that there would be, or 14 could be things that were germane to a particular 15 Ministry, that would only be within their prevue to agree 16 or to disagree with. 17 Q: All right. And so was the discussion 18 here of the options, did this reflect the general 19 agreement as -- as indicated? 20 A: Yes, I would say it was a general 21 agreement. 22 Q: And it indicates that it was agreed 23 that the MNR and OPP staff at Ipperwash would continue to 24 monitor the situation closely. 25 A: Correct.

106

1 Q: That options as to how to proceed 2 will depend on what occurs. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: In other words, no decision, no 5 formulation yet, was started with respect to a 6 Governmental response? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: So a statement that closing the 9 Provincial Park at this point would be extreme; do you 10 recall that coming up? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And was there a consideration of the 13 option of closing the Park? 14 A: Yes, it was. 15 Q: And based on the conversations at the 16 meeting, why was it considered to be -- that solution 17 considered to be extreme? 18 A: If I recall correctly, I think the 19 discussion went along the lines that the Park was 20 occupied now, it would require the Park -- 21 Q: Sorry, the Park was? 22 A: The Park was occupied by Campers, I'm 23 sorry, being used by campers. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: And that it would be perhaps not in

107
  1  the best interests of public safety to close the Park at
  2  that time.  And there was nothing at that point that
  3  would suggest that there would be some eminent takeover.
  4                 Q:   There would be...?
  5                 A:   An eminent takeover of the Park.
  6                 Q:   All right.  Why -- I'm just -- why
  7  would there be a concern of public safety if the Park was
  8  closed?
  9                 A:   Then you have to get the people out
 10  of the Park.
 11                 Q:   Well, they were -- weren't they there
 12  as -- as day users and campers?
 13                 A:   At that point in time, and I stand to
 14  be corrected, the Park was full-function.  So it would be
 15  overnight or weekend or week-long camping as well.
 16                 Q:   All right.  So, who identified the --
 17  the concern of public safety in the event that the Park
 18  was closed?
 19                 A:   I think there was a collective
 20  identification of that.
 21                 Q:   Did you discuss this option with
 22  either Superintendent Parkin or Inspector Carson, prior
 23  to this meeting? 
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   And then finally:

108

1 "MNR and OPP will respond appropriately 2 in a measured way, should any further 3 problems arise." 4 Now what did -- what was that, what 5 thought was that capturing? 6 A: Well I think it goes back to the 7 second sentence in the Option, and that is to proceed 8 will depend on what occurs or how to proceed. If there 9 was sort of a minor interruption, it probably wouldn't 10 call, by way of example, for a closure of the Park. 11 Q: All right. Now I note that there is 12 not reflected in these Minutes, any discussion of 13 appointing a Third Party Intervenor or Facilitator or 14 Negotiator. 15 Was that -- any of those options canvassed 16 during the course of this meeting? 17 A: Not that I recall. 18 Q: Now you were aware of those being 19 possible options? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: All right. And you indicated, based 22 on your -- that -- in your experience in providing 23 policing service to some Aboriginal communities, that the 24 issue of trust and developing trust, was important? 25 A: Yes.

109

1 Q: Did you think about the possibility 2 of, at this point, having a search conducted for an 3 appropriate person who might have the prerequisites, if 4 you will, pre-existing relationship with the people -- 5 A: I -- 6 Q: -- to assist? 7 A: I believe as individuals that we 8 thought about it; as a collective, I don't believe at 9 this meeting we did anything to make that happen. 10 Q: All right. And then Item 5 appears 11 to be the next steps or possible resolutions? 12 A: Yes? 13 Q: And again, this is based on general 14 consensus arrived at the meeting? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And if I can summarize it 17 essentially, I guess the bottom line was that the OPP and 18 the MNR would monitor and exercise restraint in any 19 response it deemed -- or they deemed necessary? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: That public safety would be the 22 paramount concern? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And was this an adequate resolution 25 to the situation as it stood on August the 2nd from your

110

1 point of view? 2 A: In hindsight, no. 3 Q: Why not? 4 A: I think that all the -- the signs 5 were there that something may occur, although not 6 definitive, that something in particular would actually 7 occur. 8 In hindsight, we probably should have been 9 in a position, as a committee, to identify someone who 10 could make the approach and determine exactly what it is 11 those who were taken to occupy either the Camp, or 12 possibly the Base, wanted. 13 Q: So that would have been, in 14 hindsight, a good planning position to have undertaken on 15 August the 2nd? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: I also note, upon review of the 18 formal minutes, that there doesn't appear to be any 19 mention of the burial ground allegations. 20 Do -- do you recall whether that topic was 21 raised? 22 A: I don't recall if it was discussed at 23 this meeting or not, but it certainly had been discussed 24 by those of us who were involved in this. 25 Q: You mean outside of the context of

111

1 the meeting? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And why wouldn't you have raised this 4 as a relevant piece of information at this meeting? 5 A: Myself, personally? 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: I -- I can't answer that. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: I don't know. 10 Q: Now, at this meeting, did you make 11 any recommendations concerning possible further 12 investigations or research with respect to the allegation 13 that there might be a burial ground within the Park 14 boundaries? 15 A: I can't recall whether I made it at 16 this meeting, but I know that I did at subsequent 17 meetings and actually made that request of ONAS. 18 Q: All right. And do you recall what, 19 specifically, you recommended in terms of the form of 20 investigation or research? 21 A: Two (2) part -- to -- to ensure that 22 there was no formal land claim -- 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: -- but my position had been that even 25 if there was an informal claim, that it should be

112

1 researched to the extent possible. 2 Q: All right. And would this have 3 included speaking to the local residents and members of 4 the local aboriginal community about their understandings 5 or beliefs? 6 A: I believe that's how it would have to 7 be done, yes. 8 Q: All right. And did you make that 9 specific recommendation? 10 A: I'm -- I'm not prepared to say I did 11 at this meeting. I have done that, yes. 12 Q: Was it prior to September the 6th 13 that you made this -- 14 A: Yes, it was. 15 Q: All right. And to your knowledge, 16 was your specific recommendation acted upon by ONAS? 17 A: I believe ONAS identified that there 18 was no formal land claim process in place and I believe 19 we fell short of identifying, perhaps, a third party 20 intermediary who could have attended and asked those 21 questions. 22 Q: All right. To your knowledge were 23 any such oral history interviews conducted, prior to 24 September the 6th? 25 A: Not to the best of my knowledge.

113

1 Q: Now during the course of this 2 meeting, did you make any observations regarding the 3 various approaches or viewpoints to the potential risk of 4 the takeover of the Park by the various stakeholders at 5 the meeting? 6 A: I don't believe I made an observation 7 with respect to if they viewed whether that was a reality 8 or a possibility or what weight they may have put to it. 9 I was certainly of the opinion, based on what I heard at 10 the meeting, that it was a dispute over land and that 11 there was identification through process that it was 12 properly deeded and surrendered. 13 Q: In other words, that the -- the land 14 claim didn't have merit? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And who, if you will, vocally 17 articulated that position at the meeting? 18 A: It was MNR's position that they had 19 deeded title to the land with respect to the Park. The 20 base was in the throws of being returned. 21 Q: All right. Now did the topic of guns 22 or weapons arise during the course of this meeting? 23 A: Not that I recall. 24 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 15, 25 Inquiry document number 1011695.

114

1 These are, apparently, the handwritten 2 notes of Julie Jai, dated August 2, 1995 in relation to 3 the IMC meeting. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you'll -- you'll see on the first 6 page of the notes, about two-thirds (2/3) down, there's a 7 mention of no weapons being overtly shown. 8 This is in relation to the discussion with 9 respect to the occupation of the barracks, and this would 10 appear to fall under your name with respect to providing 11 background regarding the takeover of the military base. 12 Do these notes refresh your memory at all? 13 A: They refresh my memory. What Julie 14 has written here is not attributed to me. 15 Q: All right. Well -- what's --I guess 16 what's important is what you recall. Do you recall 17 raising -- advising the IMC that there were no visible 18 weapons during the course of the takeover of the 19 barracks? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. And why would that be an 22 important thing for you to mention? 23 A: I do recall that there were other 24 sources of information that suggested there were weapons. 25 Q: Were these other sources raised at

115

1 the meeting? 2 A: Yes, that's correct. 3 Q: Who raised them? 4 A: As I recall, that was done by the 5 participants on the conference call. 6 Q: So the -- Mr. Baldwin and/or Mr. 7 Sturdy? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: All right. And so was this in 10 response to their information? 11 A: Yes, that -- that is correct and that 12 is the information I had from both Inspector Carson and 13 Superintendent Parkin. 14 Q: All right. And just if you can 15 recall, were Mr. Sturdy and/or Mr. Baldwin indicating 16 that they thought there might be weapons present, or were 17 they also saying there were not? 18 A: Mr. Sturdy and Mr. Baldwin were party 19 to briefings the OPP held, so they would have access to 20 information that I wouldn't have. 21 Q: Okay. But what was their -- what was 22 the substance of their information about the weapons? 23 A: And I can't be specific on that, 24 because I -- I don't know. 25 Q: I guess what I'm wondering is, did --

116

1 A: There had been reports of gunfire in 2 the area. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: And attributed to having come from 5 either CFB Ipperwash or perhaps the edge of the Park 6 Q: Okay. And was that the information 7 that was conveyed by those gentlemen at this meeting? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Thank you. Now did the fact that 10 either Mr. Sturdy or Mr. Baldwin have access to this kind 11 of information, which you presumed was from the OPP 12 briefings, did that cause you any concern? 13 A: Yes, it did. 14 Q: And why did it cause you concern? 15 A: The information that is there, quite 16 frankly, requires the interpretation or police 17 interpretation. And in fairness to either of those 18 gentlemen, they wouldn't be able to do that. 19 As I read Ms. Jai's notes more thoroughly, 20 there are things here with respect to resources that were 21 deployed, that I would not provide in a meeting such as 22 that. 23 Q: And why is that? 24 A: They speak to the operational 25 response by the police and that's not something that I

117

1 would nor should it be shared with that meeting. 2 Q: All right. So if I understand you, 3 there was some information shared at this meeting which 4 you consider to be of an operational nature from the OPP, 5 which ought not to have been conveyed? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And particularly ought not to have 8 been conveyed to non-police officers? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Thank you. Commissioner, I wonder if 11 we might firstly make that the next exhibit? 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-507, Your Honour. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-507: Document No. 1011695. 15 Handwritten Notes of 16 Emergency Committee meeting 17 by Julie Jai, August 02/'95. 18 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And I wonder if we 20 might take the lunch break at this time? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It seems 22 like a good time. We will take a lunch break now, 23 Superintendent. 24 THE REGISTRAR: All rise, please. This 25 Inquiry stands adjourned until 2:15.

118

1 --- Upon recessing at 1:03 p.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 2:15 p.m. 3 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can we start 5 without George? 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 8 Q: Sure. With all respect, I think we 9 can start. 10 Just prior to the lunch break, 11 Superintendent, we were reviewing the Julie Jai notes of 12 the August 2nd IMC meeting. And if her notes are 13 accurate, it would appear that the active participants at 14 that meeting were yourself, Peter Sturdy, Peter Allen, 15 Ron Baldwin, and to a lesser degree Jonathan Batty, and 16 Andrew Macdonald. 17 Now, are you able to recall whether that 18 accords with your memory of the meeting? 19 A: That would be correct. 20 Q: And as I understand it, Peter Sturdy, 21 Peter Allen, and Ron Baldwin were all representatives of 22 the Ministry of Natural Resources? 23 A: That is correct. 24 Q: Jonathan Batty was a representative 25 of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs?

119

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And Andrew Macdonald was with the 3 Ministry of the Attorney General Aboriginal Issues Group? 4 A: Legal Services -- ONAS. 5 Q: Legal Services? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Thank you. And indeed, it 8 would appear that the majority of the discussion occurred 9 as between yourself and the various MNR representatives? 10 A: That would be correct. 11 Q: Now, apparently Peter Sturdy is 12 reported to have said that the occupiers had been telling 13 others that quote: "Soon you'll be paying us for the 14 Park", and that they had indicated they were interested 15 in taking over Matheson Drive and the Park. 16 Do you recall him making that statement at 17 the meeting? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: What was your initial reaction to 20 this type of information being shared with the IMC? 21 A: I had no particular concern. I had 22 heard that information before, and I believe the police 23 on scene had heard it as well. 24 Q: And if you look at page 3 of the 25 notes, the very bottom where it says: "Ron...

120

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. And this is after the MNR 3 representatives have expressed further concerns about the 4 -- a possible takeover of the Park and the consequent 5 risk to the Park users. You are recorded as saying: 6 "There are many risks in many parks, 7 i.e., falling off cliffs, but that it 8 seemed illogical that the Stoney 9 Pointers would take over the Park." 10 Is that something that you conveyed at 11 that meeting? 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: And what was the basis of your 14 assessment? 15 A: My -- my belief was based on past 16 experience, and it is -- is this summarized: My view was 17 the -- it was always a possibility, but in terms of 18 probability, I didn't think that that to be probable at 19 that time; that the land was being surrendered, that 20 being the former CFB Ipperwash to the First Nations. 21 Q: Okay. And then, later at page 5 of 22 these notes, you appear -- at least it's reported that 23 you said that you would be more concerned if the group 24 was being supported by the Mohawks of Ahkwasasne, at the 25 top of the page.

121

1 Did you recall saying something like that? 2 A: I didn't use the term, "Mohawks of 3 Ahkwasasne." 4 Q: What -- 5 A: I would -- I would have used the term 6 "warrior". 7 Q: Okay. All right. And -- and how is 8 it that you can recall that you would have used the term 9 "warrior" and not "Mohawks"? 10 A: Mohawks of Ahkwasasne is a stand 11 alone First nations territory, and while they are Mohawk 12 people, and warriors may generally be Mohawk, that's not 13 to suggest for a moment that the Mohawks of Ahkwasasne 14 would be there in any other capacity. 15 But I did feel that it would be concerning 16 if the warriors had taken an advocate position, if you 17 will, for those occupying the base. 18 Q: And what gave rise to your concern, 19 then, with respect to the warriors taking an advocacy 20 position? 21 A: Well, I think it's been shown in 22 previous First Nations matters where the warrior society 23 has been a presence, and it has, certainly from my 24 perspective, caused situations to denigrate as opposed to 25 be of assistance.

122

1 Q: All right. Did you have the -- any 2 prior experiences that supported that perception? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Can you tell me about those? 5 A: Yes. From working -- excuse me -- on 6 Six Nations, the Grand River territory, there were a 7 number of blockades. Some resolved very quickly. 8 I do recall one (1) in 1987 that was 9 somewhat more protracted, and it was the warrior faction 10 within the community that instituted that blockade. 11 Q: All right. And what -- what is -- 12 what was your understanding of what the term "warrior" 13 connoted as -- as you used that term? 14 A: I believe in -- in Algonquin culture, 15 it's identified as those who are responsible for 16 providing security services, for lack of a better word, 17 to the people of a given community. 18 I'm not certain, in my mind, that that 19 exact same reality exists today. 20 Q: All right. Now had -- had anyone, 21 such as Inspector Carson, expressed any concerns -- 22 similar concern about the possible presence of warriors 23 at this occupation? 24 A: Yes, as well as Superintendent 25 Parkin.

123

1 Q: All right. And when they expressed 2 that concern, let me ask you this: had they expressed it 3 as at August the 2nd? 4 A: I would think probably before August 5 the 2nd. 6 Q: And what was the -- the nature of 7 their concern in relation to the Ipperwash situation? 8 A: Well, I believe it would be the same 9 as I've indicated to the Inquiry, and that is it's been 10 an experience, a collective experience, I think of not 11 only myself, but other police officers, that when the 12 warrior society is involved situations tend to worsen as 13 opposed to get better. 14 Q: And worsen in what way? 15 A: There have been incidents of violence 16 in the past. 17 Q: All right. Had you any information 18 as at this time as to the presence, or a pending presence 19 of warriors at Camp Ipperwash? 20 A: Possibility only, as opposed to 21 probability. 22 Q: Okay, so not probable but possible? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Okay. And that inform your 25 recommendations with respect to the next steps at all?

124

1 A: That would be something I would 2 consider, yes. 3 Q: All right. Now, was it agreed that 4 the Committee would meet again only if an occupation of 5 the Park occurred? 6 A: I believe that was the last line of 7 the -- the minutes, yes. 8 Q: In the minutes -- at least the notes 9 of Julie Jai at page 6, it's indicated that, in the last 10 line, "Our Committee will meet again if there is an 11 incident". 12 And was it your understanding that 13 anything short of an occupation would prompt a meeting? 14 A: Well, I -- I can't say that it was 15 simply identified to an occupation, and again, I'm 16 reading from the minutes under Tab 14, the last: 17 "It was agreed that the committee will 18 reconvene if an actual incident at 19 Ipperwash occurs." 20 I -- I think that that's somewhat 21 subjective in terms of what type of incident it would 22 need be to recall the committee. 23 Q: All right. But did you have an 24 understanding as to what was referred to there? 25 A: Yes.

125

1 Q: An occupation? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, we've 4 observed, and I think you've indicated that you can't 5 recall there being any mention at the meeting of the 6 allegation that a burial grounds existed within the Park. 7 Does -- does that mean that you did not 8 see this allegation as increasing the risk of occupation 9 of the Park? 10 A: No, not at all. I -- I think what it 11 really was is that there was probably a belief on the 12 part of many there, certainly myself, that this would 13 have been, or should have been common knowledge to many 14 who were there, more particularly with MNR who were 15 dealing with the Park on a regular basis, and would, in 16 all likelihood, have heard that on a fairly regular basis 17 from First Nations people who were gaining access to the 18 Park. 19 Q: So, would you reconcile for me the -- 20 the position that you expressed at this meeting that it 21 was illogical that an occupation was likely to occur with 22 the viewpoint that -- the fact that there was an 23 allegation of burial grounds increased the risk of 24 occupation of the Park? 25 A: I think if -- illogical would be

126

1 Julie's words. I -- I think, again, it's possibility 2 versus probability. Was or could an occupation be 3 possible? Yes. 4 My view at that point in time it was not 5 as probable as it was possible. 6 Q: All right. All right. So, the fact 7 of the allegation of the burial grounds increased the 8 possibility, but didn't elevate it to a probability in 9 your view? 10 A: That's correct, at that point. 11 Q: All right. And when you left this 12 meeting, did you have any outstanding concerns which were 13 not dealt with, or dealt with in your view adequately by 14 the Interministerial Committee? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Now, the minutes referred to the 17 existence, or development of a contingency plan for the 18 Park in the -- in case the evacuation was required? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Can you tell me what -- what, if 21 anything, you knew about the contingency plan? 22 A: I had no personal knowledge of the 23 contingency plan insofar as how it would unfold. 24 Naturally, one would have to know how many campers were 25 in the Park, and then determine the best method to have

127

1 them safely egress from the Park. 2 Q: All right. So by a contingency plan, 3 was it simply that you knew the fact of the existence of 4 -- of a plan to evacuate if it was needed, but not the 5 details? 6 A: That's correct. I'm certain that the 7 MNR would have a contingency plan for other, perhaps, 8 naturally occurring events that would impact the 9 operation of the Park. 10 Q: As a result of this meeting, did you 11 take any steps specific to Ipperwash; in other words, did 12 you do anything as a result of this meeting? 13 A: Not that I recall. 14 Q: Did you continue to keep in contact 15 with Inspector Carson over the balance of August, and 16 through to September the 3rd of 1995? 17 A: Yes, I did. He or Superintendent 18 Parkin. 19 Q: And how frequent was that contact in 20 that time frame? 21 A: I would suggest fairly infrequent. 22 Q: And what was the nature of the 23 contact? 24 A: Just to determine from one (1) of the 25 members what the situation was on the ground, or if there

128

1 was anything that may have particularly changed that 2 would require the recall of the Interministerial Group. 3 Again, I would advise Julie of that. 4 Q: And what, if anything, did you learn 5 from Inspector Carson, and/or Superintendent Parkin about 6 the ongoing developments on the ground during August and 7 early September? 8 A: There was -- there was certainly some 9 changes. Obviously, one (1) of the ones was that the -- 10 the Park was, in fact, occupied. 11 Q: Well, prior to the Park occupation 12 please; prior to September the 4th? 13 A: Yes. I'm sorry, I -- 14 Q: Sorry. I was asking what type of 15 specific information you learned from Inspector Carson or 16 Superintendent Parkin concerning the developments on the 17 ground between August the 2nd and September the 3rd, that 18 general time frame. 19 A: The situation was indicated by them 20 to be reasonably stable, and there was nothing 21 particularly overt that had occurred. 22 Q: Okay. And how much of your time do 23 you think you devoted to the Ipperwash matter between 24 August the 3rd and September the 3rd? 25 A: Well, it would drop down from what I

129

1 had previously indicated of about 80 percent, because I 2 did have many other negotiation files to address. 3 Q: When you say it "dropped down to 80 4 percent", 80 percent with respect to what? 5 A: No, I -- I said it had dropped down 6 from the 80 percent that I had previously indicated. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: And my sense is probably down to 9 about 30 percent of my time would be occupied with that 10 type of monitoring. 11 Q: All right. And so were you going 12 back more to the issue around negotiating tripartite 13 agreements and... 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: All right. Did you have further 16 discussions with anyone on the Government's side 17 concerning Ipperwash, such as the Deputy Minister, Elaine 18 Todres, or Julie Jai? 19 A: No. 20 Q: As at September the 3rd, 1995, did 21 you have any knowledge of the OPP's contingency plan in 22 the case of the occupation of Ipperwash Park called 23 "Project Maple?" 24 A: No, I did not. 25 Q: All right. Did you have any

130

1 understanding, or knowledge about how the OPP intended to 2 handle an attempted, or successful occupation of the 3 Park? 4 A: Generally, I -- I would be of the 5 view, and the belief that the Ontario Provincial Police 6 would contain the situation and negotiate. I was 7 generally aware of some operational decisions that had 8 been made. I became aware of those at one (1) of the 9 Interministerial Meetings. 10 Q: All right. Was it subsequent to the 11 -- the 3rd? 12 A: Prior to, I believe. 13 Q: Prior to the 3rd? 14 A: I believe. 15 Q: All right. Now, we have heard 16 evidence from Deputy Commissioner Carson that the Ontario 17 Provincial Police had some information that the Park 18 might be occupied after the Labour Day weekend; were you 19 given any heads up about this possibility? 20 A: Yes, I was aware there was some 21 information -- unconfirmed. 22 Q: Some information unconfirmed? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: All right. As a result of this 25 information then, did you advise Julie Jai?

131

1 A: Yes, I did. 2 Q: And was there any further 3 Interministerial Committee meeting called as a result of 4 this information? 5 A: No, there was not. 6 Q: Did you ever express any concern to 7 Inspector Carson, or Superintendent Parkin concerning the 8 advisability of providing some operational policing 9 information to MNR personnel? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: When did you do that? 12 A: Whether it was before the second or 13 after, I -- I can't say. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I -- I think you'll find that it was 16 before, and if I recall back to testimony given, and 17 there was a reference to an e-mail that I had sent to 18 Superintendent Parkin. I put in the e-mail, as I recall, 19 asking would you, or Inspector Carson be available to 20 communicate to the committee by telephone, perhaps to put 21 to rest some of the rumours that -- that would start -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- with respect to certain 24 information. 25 Q: What was the response to that

132

1 suggestion? 2 A: It was felt that from an operational 3 perspective things were busy enough; they wouldn't have 4 time to do that. 5 Q: All right. And was this -- do you 6 recall whether that was prior to, or during the 7 occupation of the Park? 8 A: No, that was prior to. 9 Q: All right. Thank you. And was one 10 (1) of your concerns that perhaps information of a 11 sensitive nature was either being misunderstood, or 12 perhaps not understood to be confirmed, or lack thereof, 13 and that that was causing perceptions on the committee? 14 A: Yes, that is correct. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: Some of the information -- the 17 information wasn't sourced in -- in my view, properly. 18 It was one of those things that people say, but it wasn't 19 sourced to determine the validity of it. 20 Q: Okay. And aside from the e-mail, did 21 you have any other conversations that -- did you express 22 this concern to Inspector Carson in any other way? 23 A: No, I don't believe so. 24 Q: All right. Did you continue to 25 exercise judgment, yourself, as to what information you

133

1 should share with the Government that you obtained from 2 the OPP, and what information you should not? 3 A: Yes, I did. 4 Q: And did that continue to be along the 5 lines of if it was operational, generally you would not 6 pass that along, but if it was non-operational, then you 7 would? 8 A: That's correct. It's very much like 9 reporting to a Police Services Board. You provide a 10 general overview that doesn't get into the details of how 11 a police operation would be managed. 12 Q: Okay. And what -- what's -- what's 13 the purpose -- why is it so important not to share 14 operational -- current operational information to non- 15 policing people? 16 A: There's a number of reasons for that, 17 the primary being public safety, secondary being officer 18 safety. 19 It would be, at all times, unwise for a 20 situation, or Incident Commander to telegraph to others 21 what his or her intended strategy would be with respect 22 to an ongoing operation. 23 Q: All right. Is it fair to say that 24 you were disappointed that your suggestion wasn't 25 implemented?

134

1 A: My suggestion of? 2 Q: Of having direct contact between the 3 police, Inspector Carson, and the IMC to cut out, if you 4 will, the -- the middle person of relaying information? 5 A: I don't believe it was -- that was my 6 suggestion, Ms. Vella. I believe what my suggestion was 7 that, perhaps either Inspector Carson or Superintendent 8 Parkin could participate in the conference call to 9 probably downplay, and probably source out some of these 10 rumours. 11 I was quite content being the intermediary 12 to provide the police update. The position I found 13 myself in was that other people were providing what I 14 felt to be the police update. 15 Q: Okay. All right, and those were 16 people from the MNR? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Thank you. Do you recall speaking to 19 Dave Carson on August the 29th, 1995, regarding 20 Ipperwash? 21 A: I do. 22 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 16, 23 Inquiry document number 1003740, and these appear to be 24 the notes of Dave Carson. 25 Firstly, who was Dave Carson, or what was

135

1 his role in relation to Ipperwash? 2 A: I believe, and I stand to be 3 corrected, that he worked for the MNR in an advisory 4 capacity, perhaps as an assistant, but I -- I don't know 5 that for a fact. 6 Q: All right. But he did call you on 7 August the 29th? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And had you had any dealings with him 10 prior to this telephone call? 11 A: No, I had not. 12 Q: All right. And what was the purpose 13 of this call, or at least what -- what important 14 information did you receiving during the course of this 15 call? 16 A: I don't know so much as it's any 17 particular information. There was obviously a response 18 needed to correspondence developed by Mr. Beaubien, who 19 was the local MPP for -- for this area, and it made -- in 20 it, it would certainly have some response required from 21 the Solicitor General, the Solicitor General's ministry, 22 and as a matter of course, when it goes through the 23 correspondence unit, they contacted the First Nations' 24 advisor. 25 Q: Okay. Now, and then as you've

136

1 indicated -- indicates that you were advised that Mr. 2 Beaubien, since July 31, had met with Superintendent 3 Parkin, and -- sorry. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Sorry -- and Inspector Carson -- 8 excuse me -- to discuss the -- the matters generally, and 9 that they had been on August the 18th. 10 Now, what did you understand Carson, Dave 11 Carson, to want from you, if anything? 12 A: I'm not so sure that he wanted 13 anything in particular from me, and I think he was 14 telling me that, and also indicating that from his 15 perspective the -- it should probably be a Solicitor 16 General's -- or, at least the office of the Solicitor 17 General's -- in -- in its purview, to respond to 18 correspondence. 19 Q: Okay. All right, and there's a 20 mention at the bottom of this note of a recent Court 21 decision; do you know what -- what that -- what he was 22 referring to? 23 A: I believe it was a Civil decision 24 with respect to Ipperwash Beach West. 25 Q: All right, and do you recall whether

137

1 or not you passed along that piece of information to 2 Inspector Carson, or Superintendent Parkin, or someone 3 else? 4 A: I don't recall whether I did. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. I'd like to 6 make this the next exhibit, please? 7 REGISTRAR: P-508, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-508: Document No. 1003740 Handwritten 10 Notes of Dave Carson re Call to 11 Ron Fox August 29/'95 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: All right, and did you continue to 15 keep in regular contact with Inspector Carson then, over 16 the course of August, and over the Labour Day weekend? 17 A: Yes, I did. 18 Q: I think you indicated it was 19 infrequent but -- but regular? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: All right. And was one of the topics 22 which Inspector Carson briefed you on the matter of 23 incidents reportedly taking place, from time to time, 24 between members of the military and park users, and some 25 members ostensibly from the Stoney Point group?

138

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And what was your understanding of 3 the nature of these incidents? 4 A: At that point in time, relatively 5 minor. 6 Q: All right, so they were minor in 7 nature, or you had a minor understanding? 8 A: No, they were relatively minor 9 incidents, sorry. 10 Q: That's fine. And what value or 11 significance, if any, did you attach to these incidents 12 from your perspective as the special advisor? 13 A: What it showed to me is that the 14 matter was still ongoing, that it obviously hadn't 15 resolved itself, but that it certainly hadn't worsened 16 from, say, August the 2nd. 17 Q: All right. Would you consider this 18 then still to be a stable situation? 19 A: Reasonably so, yes. 20 Q: And not requiring the intervention of 21 the IMC? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Now, by August of 1995 you were alert 24 to there being at least a realistically -- realistic 25 possibility of a -- the takeover of a park, perhaps as

139

1 early as the park season ends? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And as you were thinking through the 4 possible implications of such an event, did you consider 5 proper -- possible measures, if you will, to be taken in 6 order to decide -- either prevent or manage such an 7 occupation from the Government's end? 8 A: I think those discussions were 9 certainly had, and I think that generally Committee 10 Members had turned their minds to that. 11 Q: All right, and can you give us a 12 sense as to what was being considered? 13 A: Generally it was to ensure that there 14 was clear title to the park, and that certainly the -- 15 the Ministry's responsibly, in a position, to say that 16 they in fact had clear title to the park. 17 Q: And as a result of that conclusion, 18 were there any further considerations to other options, 19 or possibilities with respect to preventing or managing 20 the occupation? 21 A: No, there were not. 22 Q: All right, and how did you feel about 23 that? 24 A: As I testified earlier, I think there 25 was an opportunity that was missed in terms of being

140

1 proactive. 2 Q: All right, in terms of perhaps 3 selecting a third party intervenor, facilitator, or 4 negotiator? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Or even perhaps getting the Indian 7 Commission of Ontario involved? 8 A: The ICO; someone who was in a 9 position to ask those people on the ground what it is 10 that they wanted. 11 Q: All right. Now, just how would a 12 search for such a person have taken place; a person who 13 could act as an intermediary? 14 A: Practically? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: Again, I can only -- excuse me -- 17 give you my opinion, having not been part of the 18 committee when that may have been done before. 19 But I will suspect that there would be a 20 repository, likely within ONAS, of those who have been 21 called upon in past, and perhaps, have been successful in 22 working with and negotiating, at least some front end 23 work with First Nations people. 24 Q: All right. For example, if there had 25 been individuals identified by the Military as having

141

1 been successful communicators with the occupiers, that 2 would have been one (1) source of information that you 3 would have liked to have known about? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: Now, when we go back to the minutes 6 of August the 2nd, the only options discussed which were 7 formerly reported were: a) closing the Park, or b) have 8 the OPP and MNR monitor, with public safety as the prime 9 concern. 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Did the possible effect of Section 35 12 of the Constitution Act come to your -- come into your 13 discussions about Ipperwash at the IMC meeting? 14 A: Section 35 of the Constitution Act? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: You'll have to help me out. 17 Q: That enshrines, or recognizes the 18 constitutional rights of aboriginal people with respect 19 to pre-existing rights? 20 A: I don't believe it was ever discussed 21 in detail. 22 Q: Were you aware of that provision, and 23 the possible impact on -- on your deliberations? 24 A: With respect to fiduciary rights, 25 yes.

142

1 Q: Okay. Now, did you continue to have 2 the discussions with Inspector Carson over the course of 3 the Labour Day weekend itself, prior to the actual entry 4 into the Park? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And what were the nature of those 7 conversations? 8 A: It was simply advising me what the 9 situation was at that point in time, and there had been, 10 again, some minor things that would suggest that the 11 situation was increasing in -- in magnitude. 12 Q: But not -- nothing sufficient to 13 warrant, in your view, the intervention of the IMC? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Did you pass along any of this 16 information to any of your superiors, or fellow members 17 of the IMC? 18 A: No, I don't believe that I did. 19 Q: As a result of your discussions with 20 Inspector Carson over the Labour Day weekend, did you 21 have any reason to believe that an occupation of the Park 22 was about to occur? 23 A: Yes. It would be getting to the 24 point where possibility had shifted to probability. 25 Q: All right. And that occurred over

143

1 the course of the Labour Day weekend? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Were you present at any of the OPP 4 briefings held prior to the occupation of the Park? 5 A: No, I was not. 6 Q: Is that something that, in 7 retrospect, you feel you ought to have been part of? 8 A: No, I -- I don't believe I should 9 have been a part of it. 10 Q: All right. And why is that? 11 A: Once again, those briefings are meant 12 to be tactical in nature, where direct operations are 13 being discussed. I don't want to put myself in a 14 position of knowing something, and either by 15 inadvertently letting it out to others who are non-police 16 personnel. 17 Q: Were you also concerned about 18 possible conflict of interest? 19 A: To a degree, but that wasn't my 20 primary concern. My primary concern was as I've stated. 21 Q: All right. And by this time, were 22 you aware of -- of the plan known as Project Maple? 23 A: No, I was not. 24 Q: All right. When is the first time 25 you learned of the existence of Project Maple?

144

1 A: When I came to Western Region in 1996 2 in April. 3 Q: Did you have any further particulars 4 or details of the MNR emergency evacuation plan as of 5 that time? 6 A: No, I did not. 7 Q: Okay. Now, based on your 8 understanding of the operation and powers of the 9 Interministerial Committee, did the Premier have power to 10 tell the IMC what options to consider in resolving this 11 type of an incident? 12 A: No, I believe it was the other way 13 around. 14 Q: And were there any substantive 15 changes to the guidelines which governed, if you will, 16 the Interministerial Committee that occurred between 17 August the 2nd, when you reviewed them, and September the 18 7th, 1995? 19 A: None that I'm aware of. 20 Q: When did you first learn that 21 Ipperwash Provincial Park had been occupied by aboriginal 22 persons? 23 A: I believed I learned it through 24 Inspector Carson in a telephone conversation? 25 Q: Do you recall what date?

145

1 A: I believe that it was Labour Day. 2 Q: September the 4th? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Would you kindly look at Tab 17 of 5 your brief. It's Inquiry document number 1002419, 6 previously entered at Exhibit P-426, and these have been 7 identified as the scribe notes of the OPP operations at 8 Ipperwash. 9 And you'll see, half way down, there's an 10 entry: 11 "22:18: Inspector Ron Fox was called by 12 John Carson at his residence. Advising 13 him approximately forty (40) natives in 14 the Park and are setting up camp. 15 Advised him of earlier problems in the 16 afternoon and planning on serving a 17 notice tonight and working on the 18 injunction. 19 At 22:24 he was off the phone." 20 Now, does that accurately reflect the 21 general nature of your conversation with Inspector 22 Carson? 23 A: Yes, I believe it does. 24 Q: Okay. All right, and was there 25 anything else of significance that Inspector Carson told

146

1 you during the course of this telephone call? 2 A: Not that I recall. 3 Q: Now did he express surprise to you 4 about the fact that the occupation started before the 5 Park was technically closed for the season? 6 A: Yes, I believe he did. 7 Q: Okay. Had you known that the OPP was 8 sending in, or was have -- was going to have a number of 9 officers within the Park in anticipation of the possible 10 occupation on September the 4th? 11 A: I was aware of that, yes. 12 Q: All right. given the various 13 discussions you had had with Inspector Carson in the 14 preceding days and weeks, were you surprised at this 15 occurrence either in terms of it becoming a reality, or 16 the timing of the occupation? 17 A: I don't think surprise with it 18 becoming a reality, but rather with the timing. 19 Q: All right. And why were you 20 surprised at the timing? 21 A: The Park was still an active park, 22 and it's my understanding there had been some information 23 that if the First Nations were to take it over, they 24 would take it over when it was closed for the season. 25 Q: All right. Now did you provide any

147

1 advice to Inspector Carson at this time? 2 A: Not that I recall. 3 Q: All right. Did he provide you with 4 any information of an operational nature, with respect to 5 how the police were going to handle the situation now? 6 A: No, he did not. 7 Q: Did he request any assistance from 8 you, or any information from you, in your capacity as 9 special advisor? 10 A: Other than researching the validity 11 of any land claims or the existence of any land claims -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- yes. 14 Q: All right. And did you pass along 15 the results of that research to him? 16 A: I don't recall if at this point in 17 time I would have passed that along, but I certainly did 18 it at -- at some point in time. 19 Q: All right. Prior to the 7th or 20 after? 21 A: No, it would have been prior to the 22 7th. 23 Q: All right, thank you. To your 24 knowledge, were you the first member of the IMC who 25 received news of this occurrence from Inspector Carson?

148

1 A: I don't know the answer to that. 2 Q: Based on your discussions with 3 Inspector Carson and your general knowledge of the OPP's 4 approach to resolving these types of Aboriginal disputes, 5 did you have a general understanding of what his game 6 plan, or approach to resolving this occupation was as at 7 September the 4? 8 A: General, a -- a broad overview, yes. 9 Q: And what was that? 10 A: Contain, negotiate. 11 Q: When you say containment, does that 12 mean setting up perimeters, if you will, to restrict who 13 goes in and out of the occupied area? 14 A: Yes, the concept in principle as I 15 see, isolate, secure, evacuate, and then negotiate. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: But it would be setting up perimeters 18 and making contact. 19 Q: And did you take any -- any notes of 20 this telephone conversation? 21 A: No, I did not. 22 Q: Were you aware that Inspector Carson 23 had had a conversation with Rosemary Ur about the 24 occupation? 25 A: No, I was not.

149

1 Q: Did you ask Inspector Carson about 2 the status of any negotiation plan? 3 A: Yes, I do recall asking if there had 4 been contact, and if so what were the demands, if any, of 5 those who had occupied. 6 Q: All right. And was that a little 7 later on? 8 A: Yes, it was. 9 Q: All right. Did you discuss with him, 10 at this time, the role of an injunction, or the possible 11 role of an injunction? 12 A: I don't know that we discussed it at 13 that time. 14 Q: Now, as a result of this conversation 15 did you contact anyone from the IMC? 16 A: Yes, I would have notified Julie Jai, 17 who was the Chair. 18 Q: And would that be protocol -- would 19 that be protocol? 20 A: Yes, it would. 21 Q: This would be considered an incident 22 now? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: I understand that you received a 25 further telephone conversation from Inspector Carson

150

1 later on that evening, at about 23:02; do you recall 2 that? 3 A: That's correct, I do. 4 Q: And if you look at the same Tab, same 5 exhibit number, at the entry of September the 4th at 6 23:02? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Near the bottom it says "Advised Ron 9 Fox of the situation", and what was -- what was it that 10 Inspector Carson conveyed to you was the status of the 11 situation at that time? 12 A: That there had been a takeover, that 13 it was, at that point in time, quiet, and they were just 14 going to hold the perimeters and wait for daylight. 15 Q: All right. Did he provide any 16 information about what had happened to the Police 17 Officers who were within the park? 18 A: He said that they were required to 19 withdraw from the park. 20 Q: Did he advise you that there had been 21 any kind of a altercation at the outset of the 22 occupation? 23 A: No, I can't recall that he did. 24 Q: Now, I'm just looking at the scribe 25 notes here; it says that the --

151

1 "They had been drinking, anywhere - 2 thirty (30) to forty (40) men, women 3 and children, holding tight for 4 tonight, wait for daylight, briefed on 5 various entry points. Judas George is 6 a problem. Bert Manning is being 7 civil. Les Kobayashi and Vinny going 8 to serve papers from -- down at the 9 maintenance building". 10 Does that refresh your memory at all about 11 anything more that may have been -- been conveyed to you 12 that evening? 13 A: I'm not certain that John would have 14 conveyed to me everything here. This is a -- a Command 15 Post log. 16 Q: Fair enough -- 17 A: So, to the best of my knowledge there 18 was nothing more told to me by Inspector Carson that 19 evening. 20 Q: All right, so all you were advised, 21 essentially, was that the police had lost control of the 22 park and had to leave, but you can't recall the 23 circumstances? 24 A: The circumstances? 25 Q: Giving rise to the police leaving the

152

1 park? 2 A: Well, no I can't explain to you, or 3 to tell you from personal knowledge exactly what 4 occurred. What I was told is that the police were 5 required to withdraw from park. 6 I'm reticent to use the word 7 confrontation, but obviously there would have been two 8 factions who came into contact with one another, and the 9 determination was made on the part of the Officers to 10 leave the park. 11 Q: Did you have any concerns upon 12 learning that the police had had to leave the Park? 13 A: Obviously I would have a concern with 14 it to determine, you know, what the next steps would be. 15 Obviously, there were some safety issues there. 16 Q: Do you form any impression as to 17 whether Inspector Carson changed his game plan as a 18 result of losing the Park? 19 A: No. Certainly nothing that he told 20 me; nothing that I would expect him to do. 21 Q: All right. Did you have any 22 indication, at that time, that Inspector Carson might be 23 contemplating deploying a TRU team or a Crowd Management 24 Unit to the site of the occupation? 25 A: No, I did not.

153

1 Q: Did you have any specific indication 2 as to whether Inspector Carson was intending to implement 3 a negotiation strategy at this point? 4 A: I have nothing first hand from 5 Inspector Carson, but knowing the way we do business, 6 that would have been what occurred. 7 Q: That was your assumption? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Did you go into your office on -- at 10 all on September the 4th? 11 A: No, I did not. 12 Q: Did you communicate with any other 13 OPP Member that evening? 14 A: I don't recall. 15 Q: Did you speak with Julie Jai that 16 evening? 17 A: I believe I called her, and made her 18 aware of it. 19 Q: Aware of the occupation? 20 A: That's correct, yes. 21 Q: All right. Did you receive any 22 further communications in the early morning of September 23 the 5th, 1995, regarding Ipperwash? 24 A: I believe that I did. 25 Q: Did you go to your office that day?

154

1 A: I was in the office on the 5th, yes. 2 Q: All right. Do you recall what time 3 you arrived? 4 A: I generally arrived by no later than 5 6:00 in the morning. 6 Q: Where was your office located at the 7 time? 8 A: 175 Bloor Street in Toronto. 9 Q: Right. And were you advised of any 10 IMC meeting to be scheduled for that day? 11 A: Yes, I was. 12 Q: What time did that meeting start, 13 approximately? 14 A: I believe it was 11:00, or 15 thereabouts. 16 Q: Did you have any discussions, or 17 communications of note with anyone prior to 11:00 a.m. 18 that morning? 19 A: Not that I recall. 20 Q: Were you provided with any briefing 21 material in advance of the September 5th IMC meeting? 22 A: I may have been, I'm -- I'm not 23 certain. 24 Q: All right. I'd like you to go to Tab 25 19, Inquiry Document Number 1012252.

155

1 And it appears that there's a -- a notice 2 dated September the 4th, 1995, purportedly signed by Les 3 Kobayashi who is the Park Superintendent for Ipperwash, 4 fax sheet, and meeting notes for the 5th, is that right? 5 A: Yes, that's correct. 6 Q: All right. Now, the first page, 7 which appears to be a trespass notice, did you see this 8 on September the 5th? 9 A: Yes, I believe that I did. 10 Q: All right. And was that present, or 11 available at the IMC meeting? 12 A: Yes, I believe that it was. 13 Q: All right. I'd like to make the 14 trespass notice the next exhibit, please? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Okay, that's fine. 16 That's fine. It's already an exhibit. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 19 Q: Now, what was your understanding 20 regarding this -- this particular trespass notice in 21 terms of whether it had been attempted to be served, or 22 was served, and what the purpose of it was? 23 A: My -- my belief is that it's a 24 general notice that would be served to people using the 25 Provincial Park, to indicate that the Park had been

156

1 closed, and that they were to vacate the premises. 2 Q: Did you know who Les Kobayashi was? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. You knew that he was the 5 Park Superintendent? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: I believe for Ipperwash and the 9 Pinery. 10 Q: And Pinery? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Do you know, or what was your 13 understanding of his role during the initial stage of 14 this occupation? 15 A: He's the Park Superintendent. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: What he did on a day to day basis, 18 I'm not certain. 19 Q: Fair enough. Where was the IMC 20 meeting held? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Sorry about that, we're just -- for - 25 - for the record, the trespass notice was Exhibit P-459,

157

1 although under a different Inquiry document number. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-459? 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's right. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 6 Q: Sorry, Superintendent. 7 A: Yes, the meeting was held at ONAS at 8 595 Bay Street, in Toronto. 9 Q: And approximately how far is that 10 from your office? 11 A: About fifteen (15) minutes by cab. 12 Q: Okay. And about how far away is that 13 from the Queen's Park by cab? 14 A: Perhaps five (5) minutes, ten (10) 15 minutes max. 16 Q: Okay. Did you attend in person at 17 this meeting? 18 A: I did. 19 Q: And who called this meeting? 20 A: The Chair, Julie Jai. 21 Q: And was it at your suggestion or 22 request? 23 A: It wasn't at my suggestion or 24 request. When I made her aware of what had occurred, I 25 think it felt -- felt -- it met the criteria that we had

158

1 discussed earlier. 2 Q: All right, fair enough. Did you 3 brief Julie Jai in advance of the meeting? 4 A: In general terms, yes. 5 Q: And what did you tell her? 6 A: That there had been an occupation of 7 the Provincial Park prior to the closure, the season's 8 closure, that involved a number of First Nations persons; 9 that the OPP did not have control of the Park at this 10 time. 11 Q: All right. And how long did this 12 meeting last? 13 A: It went through the lunch hour. 14 Q: All right. The minutes say 11:00 15 a.m. to 2:00 -- 16 A: To 2:00 -- 17 Q: -- p.m.? 18 A: So it would either be right at 2:00, 19 or shortly before. 20 Q: Now, we see a list of people who are 21 in attendance, or listed to be in attendance; does that 22 reflect your recollection? 23 A: It does. 24 Q: All right. I'm looking now, 25 Commissioner, at the meeting notes which are part of the

159

1 same Tab and Inquiry Document Number, and can you 2 identify -- do you recognize these meeting notes? 3 A: I do. 4 Q: Are they the meeting notes -- minutes 5 of the September 5th, 1995 IM -- IMC meeting? 6 A: They are. 7 Q: I'd like to make this the next 8 exhibit, please. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-509. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 509. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-509: Document 1012252 Fax of IMC 14 Meeting Minutes September 15 05/'95 from ONAS. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: Now who were the most active, by 19 which I mean vocal, participants at this particular 20 meeting? 21 A: Representative of the Premier's 22 office and MNR. 23 Q: And who was the representative of the 24 Premier's office at this meeting? 25 A: Deb Hutton.

160

1 Q: And who were the act -- the most 2 active MNR representatives at this meeting? 3 A: Conferenced in by telephone, Mr. 4 Sturdy and Mr. Baldwin. 5 Q: Okay. And when you look at this 6 list, were there any other political or -- sorry, were 7 there any political staffers at this meeting? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Who were those? 10 A: Deb Hutton, Kathryn Hunt, and I 11 believe that was it. 12 Q: All right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Let me see. I also see that the -- 17 David Moran was present at this meeting; Do you recall 18 what position he held? 19 A: I'm sorry, I don't. 20 Q: All right, fair enough. Now, what 21 did you see your role to be at this September 5th IMC 22 meeting? 23 A: I came to represent the office of the 24 Deputy Solicitor General, provide information from the 25 field, if you will, in terms of what the situation was at

161

1 that point in time. 2 Q: All right, and I guess I'm -- I'm 3 just having a little bit of difficulty understanding the 4 difference between operational information and field 5 information, one -- which was advisable to pass along, 6 and one which wasn't. 7 If you could just give me a layperson's 8 sense of the difference? 9 A: I'll -- I'll certainly try. The -- 10 the information that something has occurred, that's 11 generally in the -- in the public purview and public 12 knowledge. 13 It's how the police may respond to that 14 that becomes very operational in nature. In other words 15 what, if any, tactics might be employed. 16 The information that I felt it was my duty 17 to provide the Committee was the what has occurred, what 18 perhaps is occurring, and also what might occur for the 19 purposes of the group coming together to make a 20 determination if there's anything that could be done at 21 that level for resolution, as per the Charter of the -- 22 of the Committee, if you will. 23 Q: And in terms of unconfirmed data, how 24 -- what kind of information is that considered, is that 25 field or operational?

162

1 A: Well, the -- the information when 2 it's unconfirmed is simply a story told. There -- there 3 has to be some validation given to -- or some work has to 4 be done to validate that information. 5 I was certainly in no position there to 6 validate that information. Information simply repeated 7 without the benefit of being validated is not 8 particularly helpful. 9 Q: Right, okay. Thank you. Now, did 10 you make any recommendations, or offer any views 11 regarding the potential Government response to this 12 occupation? 13 A: I made, -- I -- I would say, fairly 14 clear statements as to generally how the OPP would 15 respond to this situation, and that was it. 16 I didn't offer suggestions of how the 17 Government should respond. 18 Q: And did your -- well, tell me what -- 19 what -- what you told them in that respect, in terms of 20 the OPP's likely response? 21 A: That the OPP -- OPP position would be 22 to contain, and to negotiate a peaceful resolution, that 23 an -- an examination would have to be done to determine, 24 you know, why people were there. 25 I do recall indicating to the Committee

163

1 that what needed to be examined is what the rationale was 2 of the people that were there, if they felt they had some 3 reasonable entitlement to be there, and I did speak about 4 Colour of Right at that meeting. 5 Q: All right. Can you explain your 6 understanding of Colour of Right, please? 7 A: Despite the fact that there may be 8 needed access, or at least access to a park, or any 9 property for that matter, by deed, it may be that there 10 are those who feel that as a result of either, in this 11 case previous treaties, previous agreements that were 12 orally agreed to, that they may have a right or 13 entitlement to be there. 14 One of those things would be a burial 15 ground that would cause people to say that they had a 16 right or entitlement to be there. 17 Q: All right. And this is something 18 that has to be factored into the OPP response? 19 A: I believe it does, not just for the 20 OPP, but in response of any police agency. 21 Q: Did your views meet with any vocal 22 opposition or resistance at this meeting? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And can you tell me who and -- and 25 what that opposition was?

164

1 A: I think generally the view was on the 2 part of MNR and Ms. Hutton, was that it was a very 3 simplistic venture, that it was purely a trespass to 4 property and should be dealt with in that fashion, or a 5 criminal mischief with respect to interfering with the 6 lawful use or enjoyment of the property. 7 My position was that it may be those 8 things, but an examination had to be undertaken as to why 9 people were there or felt they should be there. 10 Q: And with respect to the trespass or 11 criminal offence approach, would a court order be needed 12 before the police would act on either of those grounds? 13 A: If there was an actively occurring 14 criminal offence, certainly the police would take action 15 in the manner that they saw fit. 16 But it's been the policy of the Ontario 17 Provincial Police that in situations where there is 18 dispute over land, not solely with First Nations, but any 19 dispute over land, particularly when an element of colour 20 of right may or may not exist, it's been the policy of 21 the OPP to seek an injunction and have it taken to a 22 court of competent jurisdiction for review. 23 Q: Now, when you say, "seek an 24 injunction," would the OPP seek an injunction? 25 A: No. That would, invariably, be up to

165

1 the property owner to do. Now, there may be times where 2 -- and I can't recall one -- but there may be times where 3 a police agency may take an act of pardon doing that, but 4 invariably it would be the property owner. 5 Q: All right. And did you convey that 6 response to the IMC at this meeting? 7 A: I did. 8 Q: What was the response to your -- your 9 response? 10 A: Again, my view is that there were 11 those who treated it as a simple trespass to property and 12 felt that it should be dealt with in that matter. There 13 were a number of other people who, it was fairly clear to 14 me, were completely on side with the notion that an 15 injunction would and should be sought. 16 Q: And can you identify, based on your 17 attendance at that meeting and any statements made at 18 that meeting, who amongst the attendees less vocally 19 supported the approach you had suggested of obtaining or 20 encouraging an injunction? 21 A: ONAS staff members down to an 22 individual did. 23 Q: All right. And what about MNR? 24 A: MNR were more inclined to be of the 25 view that it was property owned by the Government of

166

1 Ontario, managed by MNR and that it was either a trespass 2 under the Trespass to Property Act or the Provincial 3 Parks Act. 4 Q: So, it's your impression at least, 5 that the MNR were not persuaded by your approach? 6 A: I don't believe they were. 7 Q: And what about Ms. Hutton, if you can 8 speak to that? 9 A: I don't feel that she was. 10 Q: And what's the basis of your 11 impression? 12 A: Generally, when one puts forward a 13 proposition, if it's agreed to, at the very least you'll 14 see a head nod or some acknowledgement, but yes, I agree 15 with you. I didn't see that. 16 Q: All right. Is it fair to say, then, 17 that there appeared to be developing, at least at this 18 meeting based on your observations, an initial dividing 19 line as to what approach the Government should encourage 20 to resolution to this matter? 21 A: I believe so, yes. 22 Q: And is that -- is that approach as 23 you have explained it on the one (1) side the 24 advisability of seeking an injunction versus the 25 advisability of proceeding under the Trespass to Property

167

1 Act or under the Criminal Code? 2 A: Yes. Again, I -- I believe it's 3 looking at an issue and either making it very simplistic 4 or viewing it with a complexity that in my opinion this 5 one had. 6 Q: And were you at all reticent in 7 expressing your opinions at this meeting? 8 A: No, I was not. 9 Q: Now, was there any discussion at this 10 meeting to your recollection concerning how -- sorry, 11 concerning how the OPP had initially managed the entry 12 into the Park by the aboriginal people? 13 A: There was no particular discussion 14 with respect to how the OPP had proceeded. Again, I fall 15 back on what I testified to and that is, it would seem to 16 me to have been the view of some that it was very 17 simplistic in nature and could have been resolved in the 18 very early stages. 19 Q: And did you hear any comments at that 20 meeting about how it might have been resolved more easily 21 and quickly? 22 A: In the first stages that the OPP 23 would have removed the occupiers from the Park. 24 Q: Who expressed those views? 25 A: Deb Hutton.

168

1 Q: Was -- all right. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Was the issue of burial grounds being 6 possibly located within the Park, discussed at this 7 meeting? 8 A: I spoke to it. 9 Q: And what -- what did you speak to in 10 that respect? 11 A: I -- I -- and again, this was a 12 reiteration of things that had been said before and were 13 certainly nothing new to those who were on our staffers. 14 But that it was the belief in the minds of 15 many First Nations people that there was a burial site 16 within the Provincial Park or the Ipperwash Provincial 17 Park. 18 Q: What reaction, if any, did you 19 receive to your submission with respect to the burial 20 grounds? 21 A: The Province has valid title to the 22 Park. 23 Q: Plain and simple? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And who uttered that response, or

169

1 conveyed that response? 2 A: I think it was conveyed broadly 3 within the room. It was certainly the position of MNR, 4 it was certainly the position of the Premier's office. 5 Q: All right, when you say broad -- 6 A: At least as reported. 7 Q: I'm sorry? 8 A: At least as reported by those in 9 attendance. 10 Q: As -- thank you. When you say 11 "broadly", are you including, then, also the ONAS people? 12 A: No, I'm not. 13 Q: Or the people from the Ministry of 14 the Attorney General. 15 A: No, you must appreciate these people 16 are legal Counsel and they would be there, I think, to 17 provide advice with respect to any legal options that may 18 be available. 19 Q: So you mean these lawyers actually 20 only spoke in a certain -- when there was legal advice to 21 be provided? 22 A: Yes, they did. They didn't take hard 23 positions either way, but I think from my perception, in 24 watching the dynamic of the room, they certainly 25 understood what I was saying and I believe they

170

1 understood, equally as well, what others were saying. 2 Q: Okay, fair enough. And I see that 3 someone from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs 4 appeared to be at this meeting; Cheryl Mounsey? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now, do you recall what her 7 particular contribution to this meeting was? 8 A: I'm sorry, I don't. 9 Q: All right. You don't recall if she 10 made any suggestion or reaction with respect to the 11 colour of right issue or the burial ground issue? 12 A: I don't recall. 13 Q: Now, did you make any recommendations 14 at this meeting regarding whether or not the colour of 15 right issue or the sacred burial ground issue ought to be 16 pursued after the Interministerial meeting? 17 A: Yes, I did make not so much a 18 recommendation. I felt that it should be something that 19 was examined and I made that, I believe, fairly clear. 20 And I might add that I wasn't the only one who had 21 indicated that, either. 22 Q: Who else indicated that? 23 A: ONAS staff members. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: And if I recall correctly, I believe

171

1 Eileen Hipfner was one (1) of those staff members who was 2 legal Counsel at ONAS. 3 Q: And when you say "examined" what did 4 you mean by a proper examination? 5 A: Comes right back to what we discussed 6 before, that is someone had to approach the people and 7 ask them, why are you here? What it is that you want? 8 And if you have a certain belief, how did 9 you come to have that belief? 10 Q: All right. And then from there you 11 would be able to investigate the basis of the belief? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Were any of your recommendations for 14 examination or further investigation, implemented, to 15 your knowledge? 16 A: There was more work done on it and I 17 understand that some information was unearthed with 18 respect to a First Nations person having been buried at 19 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 20 Q: Hmm hmm. Was that, again, based on a 21 documentary review? 22 A: I believe it was part documentary, 23 and it's my understanding, although I wasn't part of 24 doing that review, that individuals were interviewed who 25 were in a position to have either been in the employer,

172

1 at least related to someone in the employ of the Ministry 2 of Natural Resources and working at the park who had some 3 firsthand information on that. 4 Q: Was that a Park Superintendent's 5 daughter? 6 A: I believe that's correct, yes. 7 Q: Any efforts made to your knowledge 8 and pursuant to this recommendation to actually speak to 9 any of the Aboriginal people of the region who might have 10 oral history or direct knowledge of this? 11 A: Not that I'm aware of. 12 Q: Was that a mistake in your view? 13 A: Yes, it -- it was. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I wonder, Commissioner. 15 We're very close to 3:30. Before I move on to the next 16 document this might be an appropriate time for the 17 afternoon break? 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 19 for fifteen (15) minutes. 20 21 --- Upon recessing at 3:28 p.m. 22 --- Upon resuming at 3:48 p.m. 23 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 25 resumed. Please be seated.

173

1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you, 2 Commissioner. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 5 Q: Superintendent Fox, I just wanted to 6 clarify that the questions I asked you prior to the break 7 were all relating to the events of the September 5th IMC 8 meeting, was that your understanding? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Thank you. I'd like to go to the 11 minutes, or meeting notes, of that meeting. Exhibit P- 12 509 at tab 19 please. And under item 1, the Background 13 and Related issues; do you recall who provided this 14 information? 15 A: I can't say which member of ONAS 16 staff it was, but it would have been ONAS that did it. 17 Q: All right, and under item 2, Updates 18 from the Solicitor General and MNR, perhaps you could go 19 through the individual items and advise whether you 20 reported on any of those? 21 A: Yes. The first bullet point I would 22 have reported on, the second bullet point I did not 23 report on, the third bullet point I did not report on, 24 the fourth bullet point I reported on. 25 I did not report on the fifth bullet

174

1 point, nor the sixth, nor the seventh. 2 Q: All right, and with respect to the 3 matters which you did not report on, do you recall who 4 did? 5 A: It was done by teleconference, Mr. 6 Baldwin -- 7 Q: Ron Baldwin? 8 A: Correct, or Mr. Peter Sturdy. 9 Q: All right. Were you able to 10 distinguish who, on the telephone? 11 A: I could not, no. 12 Q: Okay, so it's one (1) or the other is 13 what you're saying? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Thank you. Now, with respect to the 16 last bullet point, in particular it says, 17 "However, they may have stolen an OPP 18 vehicle, cut down some trees, and have 19 blockaded Matheson Road". 20 That's the last line of the last bullet 21 point? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And this information came from one 24 (1) of the MNR representatives? 25 A: That's correct, who were part of the

175

1 OPP briefings. 2 Q: As part of the OPP briefing? 3 A: Who were part of the OPP briefings. 4 Q: All right, did -- did you understand 5 that one (1) or either both of these gentlemen were part 6 of OPP briefings at this time? 7 A: Yes, I did. 8 Q: Do you know which? 9 A: Which one? 10 Q: Yes? 11 A: Both. 12 Q: Both of them, okay. 13 A: Sorry. 14 Q: Thank you. And were you surprised at 15 all by the fact that these individuals from MNR were 16 communicating this kind of information or even -- that 17 they had even been provided with it? 18 A: I was surprised that they were 19 communicating it, yes. 20 Q: Okay. Were you surprised that they 21 had been provided with it? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And again, is that -- would you 24 consider this to be of an operational nature? 25 A: Yes, it is.

176

1 Q: Did you express any concern at the 2 meeting? 3 A: My response was that I would have to 4 look into some things and I do recall saying that I found 5 it very unlikely that an OPP vehicle would have been 6 stolen. 7 Q: All right. And were you, in fact, 8 asked by anyone at the Interministerial Committee to go 9 back to your police sources to verify or not those pieces 10 of information? 11 A: I did it of my own volition. 12 Q: All right. You were not asked? 13 A: Not that I recall. 14 Q: And why is it that you felt it 15 important to ascertain the accuracy or lack thereof of 16 these -- this particular information? 17 A: As I testified to earlier, 18 information that is received and not well sourced, in 19 terms of validity, can be very problematic. 20 Q: So, as far as you knew, these were at 21 the stage of rumours? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And unhelpful rumours at that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Moving on to the "Options" section,

177

1 item 3 or heading 3, can you give us your recollection or 2 have you already now, of these options; that is, the 3 options of criminal charges, trespass offences, and/or 4 civil injunction proceeding? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: All right. And you've discussed 7 already with us, I believe and testified about who was 8 advocating for which option? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And it would appear that the 11 resolution was as follows: 12 "It was agreed that more work is needed 13 to evaluate their legal risks, 14 logistics and timing related to those 15 options. It was agreed, however, that 16 staff would recommend that ministers 17 approve an injunction." 18 So, by the end of the meeting, then, was 19 it understood by you that first of all, some -- the 20 lawyers had to go and investigate the -- the legal 21 evaluations, if you will, of the three (3) options? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And then, secondly, that there would 24 be a recommendation from the committee that the ministers 25 approve seeking an injunction?

178

1 A: That was the recommendation of the 2 committee and my sense is the lawyers within ONAS and 3 MNR, their busy work would be involved with the 4 injunction. 5 Q: I note again that there is no 6 mention in these minutes of an appointment or possible 7 appointment by the IMC of a -- a negotiator or third 8 party intervenor or the Indian Commission of Ontario. 9 Was that option or any of those options discussed at all 10 at this meeting? 11 A: I don't recall that they were. 12 Q: Do you recall whether there was any 13 discussion of the advisability of appointing at this 14 point the third party to at least start to build 15 relationships or develop communication on behalf of the 16 IMC with the occupiers? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Now, given the fact that an 19 occupation had now occurred and knowing that the OPP 20 strategy continued to be one of containment and 21 negotiation, why didn't you raise this option as a 22 possibility? 23 A: I believe that I did. And I believe 24 that I testified to that. 25 Q: You recommended a negotiator?

179

1 A: I recommended that there had to be 2 contact with the First Nations people. 3 Q: Yes, that there would be contact. 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: And if it led to negotiation, that 7 would be a good thing. 8 Q: All right, so you recall specifically 9 recommending that the IMC investigate selecting a 10 possible third party intervenor? 11 A: I think that that was something that 12 many of us on the Committee believed would be just a 13 natural matter of course to do. 14 Q: But that's not reflected in the 15 minutes anywhere? 16 A: No, it is not. 17 Q: And you didn't, on reviewing these 18 minutes, you were given an opportunity to review them? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: And you didn't ensure that that was 21 mentioned under one (1) of the -- 22 A: I did not. 23 Q: -- options? So can I take it from 24 that, that that wasn't, at the end of the meeting, 25 considered one (1) of the options?

180

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: You know why that wasn't ultimately 3 included as an option? 4 A: I can only give you my opinion. I 5 think there are, perhaps, two (2) reasons for that is 6 that it was fairly early into this matter and, second, if 7 one reads the charter for the Committee it speaks to 8 negotiation and it talks about not getting into areas 9 where there would be substantive policy changes and that 10 sort of thing. 11 And I'm not sure that that was perhaps 12 well understood by all and there might have been some 13 reticence to do that. 14 Q: All right, and I understand that this 15 is your perception, but was it your perception that 16 people on the IMC didn't understand the different roles 17 of a negotiator, for example, one (1) being to try to 18 resolve the occupation versus a different negotiator who 19 would try to resolve the underlying issues? 20 A: No, I think people understood. I 21 think there was reluctance, perhaps to enact that. The 22 lines do, and I would suggest, tend to blur from time to 23 time. 24 Q: Hmm hmm. All right. Now, in 25 addition to the matters recorded in these minutes, was

181

1 the issue of the possibility of the existence of an 2 aboriginal burial ground raised during this meeting? 3 A: Yes, it was. 4 Q: All right, and who raised it? 5 A: I don't recall whether it was myself 6 or it was a member of ONAS that did, but there was 7 discussion about that. 8 Q: All right. And perhaps I can take 9 you to Tab 23, Inquiry Document 1011739. And these 10 appear to be the notes, handwritten notes, of Eileen 11 Hipfner of the September 5th IMC meeting. And I think 12 you've explained that Eileen Hipfner was with ONAS? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And partway down, under number -- 15 below number 2 and just above number 3, her note says: 16 "MNR guy on telephone. New 17 archeological evidence that there may 18 be a burial site in the Park." 19 Does that refresh your memory at all? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And did, in fact, either Mr. Baldwin 22 or Mr. Sturdy raise this issue or at least address it? 23 A: It's entirely possible. 24 Q: Okay, and do you recall what the new 25 archeological evidence was?

182

1 A: No, I don't. 2 Q: No? 3 A: No. 4 Q: All right. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, as a result of this information, 9 were there any further discussions held concerning how, 10 perhaps, what further steps should be made to determine 11 the accuracy or validity of the new archeological 12 evidence? 13 A: I think there's always work going on 14 in the background with the various ministers and, in more 15 particular, with ONAS. 16 What exactly they may have done, I -- I'm 17 not aware of. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: But there was nothing in terms of the 20 meeting itself, that was minuted, that would suggest that 21 court -- course of action. 22 Q: All right. And did you express any 23 views at this meeting concerning the possibility that a 24 burial ground existed would affect the analysis of the 25 overall legitimacy of the occupation and inform,

183

1 therefore, the IMC's recommendations to the Government as 2 to how to respond; for example, whether an injunction 3 might be more appropriate than arrests under the Criminal 4 Code? 5 A: Yes, and I -- I believe I've 6 testified to that, that my view was that there was an 7 aspect of Colour of Right that should ought to be 8 considered. 9 Q: All right? 10 A: And that the best place to vet that 11 through would be a Court of competent jurisdiction. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, I'd like 13 to make the notes the next exhibit, please? 14 REGISTRAR: P-510. 15 THE COMMISSIONER: Which notes, the ones 16 at tab 20 -- 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: This is tab 23. 18 THE COMMISSIONER: Right. 19 REGISTRAR: P-510. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: 510. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-510: DOCUMENT 1011739 HANDWRITTEN 23 NOTES OF ABORIGINAL 24 EMERGENCIES COMMITTEE BY 25 EILEEN HIPFNER SEPTEMBER

184

1 05/'95 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Now, I note that the next meeting was 5 scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Wednesday September the 6th, 6 1995? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And was that meeting date set at the 9 conclusion of the September 5th meeting? 10 A: Yes, I believe that it was. 11 Q: Okay, and do you know what the 12 purpose of the follow up meeting was to be? 13 A: Well, this was now an ongoing matter, 14 and there would be a report back certainly from legal 15 staff in terms of what were the next steps, or what might 16 be required with respect to an injunction, and whatever 17 the research findings were with respect of the 18 substantive offences either under the Provincial law, or 19 the Criminal Code. 20 Q: All right. And I see that under the 21 next steps there were a number of next steps that were 22 set out by this meeting. 23 First of all, that each Ministry is to be 24 responsible for briefing its Minister regarding this 25 issue. Second, that the MNR will act as the spokesperson

185

1 regarding this matter in the short term, and that it will 2 inform the public that (a), the Province has valid title 3 to the park, (b) the occupiers have been told they are 4 trespassing and have been asked to leave, (c) the 5 Province will take steps to remove the occupiers as soon 6 as possible. 7 Now, just pausing on that communication, 8 do you recall conversation or consensus that the MNR 9 would send out a communication or -- that contained these 10 three messages? 11 A: I recall that -- that it was -- or, 12 it fell to the MNR to provide that communication, yes. 13 Q: And did you have any views or report 14 any views with respect to the propriety of the three 15 messages that were to be communicated? 16 A: Yes, I did. I wasn't making any 17 comment with respect to whether people were there legally 18 or illegally; I had already said my piece with respect to 19 Colour of Right. 20 In terms of necessary action to remove the 21 people, I did caution the group that that was within the 22 purview of the Ontario Provincial Police, and they would 23 do so in a manner and time that they felt was 24 appropriate. 25 Q: And what was the reaction, if any, to

186

1 that comment? 2 A: It was received. 3 Q: How? 4 A: Again, I -- I go back to my previous 5 answer where I indicated that I -- it's my view, based on 6 the dynamic of the room that some people felt this was 7 very simple in nature, and could be easily remedied. 8 Q: At the end of the day, was your view 9 accepted, in your view; at the end of the day, I mean at 10 the end of this meeting? 11 A: By many, yes. 12 Q: By the majority? 13 A: I would say. 14 Q: Who didn't accept it, based on your 15 observations and attendance at that meeting? 16 A: I -- I would say certainly there was 17 marginal acceptance by MNR, and not well received by the 18 Premier's office, the representative of the Premier's 19 office. 20 Q: When you say it -- it -- the -- with 21 respect to the MNR's position, what's the basis upon your 22 evaluation of that position? 23 A: Well, the focus of all that was 24 presented is that the park was the property of the 25 Government of Ontario, and the responsible land owner was

187

1 MNR. 2 There was no consideration given to the 3 possibility that someone else may have claim to that 4 title. 5 Q: And what was the basis of your 6 impression with respect to the Premier's office apparent 7 position? 8 A: Was that the title to the park was 9 clear. It was in the -- it belonged to the Province, 10 that it was controlled by the MNR. People were 11 trespassing, and they should be removed. 12 Q: All right. And when you left this 13 meeting at or about 2:00, September the 5th, 1995, did 14 you have any serious concerns as the special advisor to 15 the Solicitor General, about the direction of the IMC as 16 a whole as you perceived it regarding the approach it was 17 formulating to the Governmental response to the 18 occupation of the Park, and its assessment of the merits 19 of the aboriginal claims to the Park? 20 A: I had concerns, not necessarily with 21 the -- the Interministerial Committee. I had concerns 22 that, again, this was viewed as overly simplistic, and 23 things that ought to be done were not being done, or at 24 least contemplated. 25 Q: And what was the most important thing

188

1 that you took away from this meeting, Superintendent Fox? 2 A: My -- my sense was that positions 3 were somewhat polarized. There was a position that there 4 was a bonafide owner of the land, in the minds of some, 5 and that there was going to be no consideration for any 6 other area that might be examined, that might suggest at 7 the end of the day that there was some -- either one (1), 8 or other persons with an interest. 9 Q: Is it fair to say that as a result of 10 this meeting you determined that you would call the 11 Incident Commander, John Carson? 12 A: I did. 13 Q: In fact, did Inspector Carson beat 14 you to it and call you at approximately 2:47 -- 15 A: He did. 16 Q: -- that day? And where were you when 17 you received this call? 18 A: At my office on Bloor Street. 19 Q: At this point in time, now that the 20 occupation had commenced, and the fact that John Carson 21 was no doubt busy dealing with the policing operation, 22 did you form any understanding as to when and for what 23 purposes it would be justified for you as special 24 advisor, to contact the Incident Commander? 25 A: One (1) of the options identified was

189

1 certainly the injunction, and clearly as we discussed in 2 past testimony that's not something that's applied for by 3 the police, it is by the property owner. Necessarily, 4 there would have to be some police involvement in 5 providing information to obtain that injunction. 6 Looking at whether criminal charges are 7 preferred or not preferred, and the substance of those 8 charges, obviously there would have to be some 9 information provided by the police. So I view it is -- 10 my -- my responsibility is two-fold: 1) to provide 11 information to Inspector Carson with respect to the 12 injunction; and to glean information from him with 13 respect to the ongoing activity that could be examined to 14 determine the appropriateness of either charges under the 15 provincial statutes, under the Criminal Code, or the 16 injunct -- 17 Q: And were you asked to contact 18 Incident Commander Carson to get this information, or did 19 you do so -- 20 A: There was no direction to me; that, 21 again, is of my own volition. 22 Q: All right. You understand that to be 23 part of your role as Special Advisor? 24 A: I did, yes. 25 Q: Now, at the time of this telephone

190

1 call with Inspector Carson, at the time that it commenced 2 were you aware that it was being recorded? 3 A: No, I was not. 4 Q: At some point during the course of 5 the conversation do you become aware of that? 6 A: No, I did not. I became aware that 7 it was recorded July the 21st, 2003. 8 Q: All right. Is that with public -- 9 I'm sorry. What -- what gave rise to that discovery? 10 A: A meeting with the Deputy 11 Commissioner. 12 Q: All right. Fair enough. Now, did 13 the fact that you were unaware that the telephone call -- 14 let's put it this way, had you known that the call was 15 recorded, do you think you would have conveyed different 16 information? 17 A: Had I known the telephone call was 18 recorded I would have conveyed the same information. I 19 would have chosen more carefully my language in doing so. 20 Q: Now, when you expressed your views to 21 Inspector Carson during the course of the telephone call, 22 were you being candid? 23 A: Yes, I was. 24 Q: Were you being honest? 25 A: Yes, I was.

191

1 Q: They represented the views you had 2 developed during, and shortly after, the IMC meeting of 3 that day? 4 A: That is correct. 5 Q: Now, Superintendent Fox, I am going 6 to play for you the recording of this telephone call, 7 which for the record, is Exhibit P-428, and I'd like to 8 refer you to Tab 24, Exhibit P-44(a) (sic) which is a 9 transcript of that telephone call. 10 And I'd like you just to listen to the 11 call straight through, if you will, and then I will ask 12 you some questions following that. 13 A: Very good. 14 Q: Thank you. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Is there any confusion about the 19 transcript that I've referred Counsel to? Because I know 20 that it was also in another book. Everyone is okay? All 21 right. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just for the record or

192

1 further clarification, that's Exhibit P-444(a), Tab 16. 2 3 (AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TRANSCRIPT BELOW) 4 5 RF: Ron Fox. 6 JC: Hi Ronald, John here. 7 RF: How are you? 8 JC: Not bad! 9 RF: (laughs) I was just dialling your phone 10 number! 11 JC: Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That's timing eh? Sorry 12 I've just been inundated with calls and 13 things. 14 RF: No, I can well imagine. I don't want to 15 hold you up 16 JC: (simultaneous) No, no problem! 17 RF: ...I just want to let you know what went 18 on at this Inter-ministerial Committee on 19 Aboriginal Issues this morning. 20 JC: Okay. 21 RF: First of all the Premier's Office had 22 representation there in the form of one 23 Debra Hutton. 24 JC: Okay. 25 RF: And she's quite an attractive lady.

193

1 JC: Uh huh. 2 RF: Very much powered (?). And ah basically 3 the Premier has made it clear to her his 4 position is there'll be no different 5 treatment of people in this situation. In 6 other words native as opposed to non- 7 native. 8 JC: Okay. 9 RF: And the bottom line is, wants them out and 10 you know, was asking well what would the 11 police do in a situation where there 12 wasn't natives. I said well, I mean, you 13 can't compare apples and oranges. 14 JC: Right. 15 RF: I said, you know I come to your house and 16 I plunk myself down and you ask me to 17 leave and I don't. And you call for police 18 intervention. Chances are I don't have 19 Colour of Right for being there. 20 JC: Right. 21 RF: Whether its actual or perceived. And I 22 said it's a little bit different here. 23 We're talking about land claims and 24 treaties. Well no! So I mean this is - its 25 all - I mean its our property. And I said

194

1 yes. By virtue of letters patent (?) that 2 were produced in 1929. But I said I mean 3 these people refer to treaties that go 4 back to pre-Confederation days. So I said 5 I'm not suggesting for a minute that the 6 course of action is a course of non- 7 action- 8 JC: Just - just - just - just a second. Is 9 that thing playing out there when I'm 10 talking here? Can you hear it on the 11 speakers? (Answer is inaudible) ôCause I 12 thought I could hear an echo coming back 13 on this [inaudible]. ...coming over. Okay. 14 Okay. I'm sorry, just some things going on 15 here. 16 RF: No problem. Don't want to be broadcast! 17 (Laughs) 18 JC: Ha ha ha ha ha - don't sweat it. Anyway, 19 I'm sorry. 20 RF: So the bottom line is - I said you know 21 I'm not suggesting a course of non-action 22 but I said my theory has always been make 23 hay slowly. 24 JC: Right. 25 RF: And I said, what has to be done - I mean

195

1 there's a whole whack of real steps that 2 are in place now and I know are being 3 done. 4 JC: Right. 5 RF: MNR by the way, kind of were against 6 getting an enjoining order. 7 JC: Oh really! 8 RF: Yeah. Yeah. Preferring basically to pass 9 it over and say well, you know I mean 10 there's criminal code offenses of mischief 11 you know if you're lawful enjoinder, or 12 use of property, trespass. So I very 13 carefully explained to them that you know, 14 under the trespass to property an officer 15 could go serve process, escort somebody to 16 the gate, and then they come back in. And 17 we'll go on forever this way. And I 18 explained the same with the criminal code 19 and the provisions of the Bail Reform Act 20 and how release procedures work. And I 21 said quite clearly this is a civil dispute 22 and it has to be adjudicated in a court of 23 law, and the police given sufficient 24 authority to act. 25 JC: Right.

196

1 RF: So they finally agreed, the consensus is 2 they'll get an enjoining order. And the 3 MNR will provide a large part of the 4 affidavit. But they wondered who they 5 might speak to if they needed some 6 perspective from the police. And I 7 suggested yourself. 8 JC: Mmmmhmm. 9 RF: And I confirmed by - when I say confirmed 10 I was talking to Coles just to let him 11 know what went on here after I spoke to 12 you earlier. And he's quite content that 13 you be that contact. 14 JC: Okay. Yeah. That's no problem. 15 RF: So. In a nutshell what came up was about 16 the service of this notice last night. 17 JC: Yes. 18 RF: And these people, you know I mean they 19 just get right in the minutia and I said 20 well - I mean these people have been told, 21 I'm sure that you're trespassing. 22 JC: Yip. Yip. 23 RF: And I said whether they actually took the 24 paper that doesn't matter. I'm sure 25 whoever the officers were, that did it,

197

1 that's been well noted. 2 JC: Yup. And the thing is, on the Trespass to 3 Property Act, its up to the trespasser to 4 get permission to be on property, not vice 5 versa anyway. 6 RF: That's right. 7 JC: But would we have reinforced that today 8 with meetings anyhow? 9 RF: Mmmhmmm. 10 JC: With -we have met with Bert Manning whose 11 you know - allegedly one of the, you know, 12 people in the know there, or leaders if 13 you would. 14 RF: Yeah. 15 JC: And ah, he - he asked that our roadblocks 16 be taken down and we said that's not going 17 to happen. And ah, you know, that they are 18 trespassers and that as far as we're 19 concerned they are breaking the law and we 20 will continue to proceed in that 21 direction. 22 RF: Mmmhmm. Yeah, we'll take action that may 23 be appropriate. 24 JC: That's right, that's right. That's right. 25 RF: What are their demands?

198

1 JC: They have none. 2 RF: They have none. 3 JC: No. No. Its their - terminology - burial 4 grounds. 5 RF: Mmhmm. 6 JC: Yeah. 7 RF: Okay. 8 JC: So there are no demands other than its 9 their property and for us to stay the hell 10 off. 11 RF: Mmhmmm. 12 JC: Yeah. 13 RF: Okay. Okay. Now the other thing that come 14 up at the meeting. One of the MNR chaps - 15 it wasn't Sturdy. It was the other guy - 16 Ron - 17 JC: Baldwin. 18 RF: Yeah. 19 JC: Yes. 20 RF: And he'd said that he had just got 21 information that they meaning these 22 insurgents had an OPP car. And I said no I 23 very much doubt that. 24 JC: (laughs) 25 RF: Well, you know. Why can't they be charged

199

1 with mischief. They're cutting our trees 2 down and they're gonna - and I said I 3 understand they are. But I said one has to 4 be identified as the perpetrator of a 5 criminal offence. 6 JC: Yup. 7 RF: And I said I'm sure the police are working 8 away at that and they'll do what they can. 9 JC: We have three people - we have warrants 10 for their arrest. Roderick George, Stewart 11 George, David George - charged with ah, 12 each with one count of mischief. David 13 Abraham George is charged with one count 14 possession of weapon, namely a flare,... 15 RF: Mmmhmm. 16 JC: ...for the purpose dangerous to the 17 public. And he's also charged with one 18 count of assault police. 19 RF: Mmmhmm. 20 JC: Okay so we have those warrants. 21 [Background noise] 22 RF: Right. 23 JC: And there's a press release gonna go out 24 shortly to that respect. 25 RF: Okay. Yeah.

200

1 JC: That's right? 2 RF: Yeah. But again, you've got them 3 identified... 4 JC: Yup. 5 RF: ...Got warrants for them. 6 JC: That's right. 7 RF: ...Now it's a matter of affecting arrest. 8 JC: That's right. That's right. 9 RF: Now how I prefix my remarks in terms of 10 the little briefing to them... 11 JC: Yes. 12 RF: ...is that I said that I'm told there's 13 between thirty-five and forty people 14 there. 15 JC: Right. 16 RF: And I said that means men, women and 17 children. 18 JC: That's right! 19 RF: So I thought I wouldn't have to explain 20 anymore. 21 JC: Yes. 22 RF: Well, I'll tell ya, this whole fuckin' 23 group is on some sort of testosteran or 24 testosterone high. Then I finally had to 25 get right out and say look. I mean here's

201

1 the strategy those folk will employ. The 2 women and children will be at the 3 forefront. 4 JC: That's right. 5 RF: The police are going to be faced with. 6 JC: That's right. 7 RF: And I said you got to understand that the 8 provincial police will never shirk their 9 responsibility. But read - their hands 10 will get dirty - read - so will the 11 government's. 12 JC: That's right. 13 RF: And as long as we're prepared for that. 14 JC: That's right. But I doubt if they are. Oh, 15 I - you know I doubt if - 16 RF: This - listen - this - 17 JC: (interrupting) I mean if we're going to do 18 that over a trespassing?! 19 RF: That's exactly right! And I said you know 20 you just can't do that! 21 JC: That' right. I mean if we're going to do 22 that - I - we have to have the force of 23 the law behind us to provide some 24 recognition by a court in this land. 25 RF: Mmmhmm. And let's not lose sight of the

202

1 fact that this is a civil matter! 2 JC: That's right. That's right! 3 RF: It's ?? there's no element of criminality 4 here yet. I'm sure with those clowns 5 you've got charged, they have done 6 something overt... 7 JC: Yeah. 8 RF: ...that amounts to a criminal offense. 9 JC: That's right. 10 RF: And they will be arrested.JC: 11 Yup. 12 RF: Well now, will they be letting people in? 13 I said no! The park is cordoned off. But I 14 said, here's the chunk of reality. 15 (Laughs) It's a big park! (Laughs) Well, 16 and I said, like knowing the area as well 17 as I do, I said I could get into that park 18 and the police would never know it! 19 JC: That's right. Well, they can come in 20 through the military base that we don't 21 have control over. 22 RF: Yes. 23 JC: So they can drive all through the military 24 base and come on through a fence that we 25 have no access to.

203

1 RF: Yeah. 2 JC: At this time. 3 RF: That's right. So I mean that's the - 4 that's the other aspect. But I mean, as 5 far as people showing up. 6 JC: Yup. 7 RF: Well then their concern was - it was like 8 you know - there may be warriors show up - 9 that was one guy from MNR. 10 JC: Yeah. 11 RF: And I said, well that's a possibility. I 12 said there's only so many Stoney Pointers 13 in life. 14 JC: That's right. 15 RF: I think its nanve to presume that there's 16 as many Stoney Pointers as there are 17 people there now. 18 JC: Right. 19 RF: And I said the police information is well 20 substantiated that people from other 21 territories are there. 22 JC: Right. 23 RF: So they understand that. 24 JC: Okay. 25 RF: But there's no negotiating with these

204

1 people I guess ?? ? 2 JC: Well, we've talked to them there. They 3 said they'll talk to us tomorrow at noon. 4 Again. And they're meeting with their 5 elders tonight to - to discuss their 6 strategy. I think they're pretty 7 disorganized at this point still. 8 RF: Yeah. 9 JC: And I think they're pretty nervous. 10 RF: Yeah. 11 JC: Cause they don't know what we're going to 12 do. 13 RF: Okay. What the other thing that Baldwin 14 brought up was it was his information that 15 the group had dwindled down to seven 16 people now. 17 JC: Well - there was that many people seen 18 this morning 19 RF: Mmmhmm 20 JC: ...From one point. But the problem is, 21 there's seven there now. And you walk in 22 and deal with them and you got twenty more 23 coming wheeling up the road behind them. 24 RF: Well particularly when there's unlimited 25 access between the military base and the

205

1 park. 2 JC: Well that's our problem! We don't have 3 control of those access points yet. 4 RF: Yeah. Yeah. And I mean how does one do 5 that being as the Park - you know the 6 boundary is integral with the Base? 7 JC: That's right! That's exactly right. 8 RF: You know, unless you take over the 9 base...JC:Yeah. 10 RF: ...If you do that you might as well take 11 over the Park! (laughs) 12 JC: Well that's right. 13 RF: Catch twenty-two. 14 JC: Well, and I'm hesitant to get too excited 15 about moving on the Park until we have 16 some court injunction like a ... 17 RF: That's right. 18 JC: ...For the mere trespassing is - is pretty 19 flimsy grounds. 20 RF: Mmmhmm. 21 JC: You know, to go start arresting people. 22 RF: Yeah. 23 JC: You know, its not going to look very good 24 on Canada AM I'll tell ya. 25 RF: Yup. Well, and that's the whole point.

206

1 JC: Yeah, yeah. Okay. 2 RF: Well, I just wanted to get just a bit of a 3 feel for it. 4 JC: No, you're right on the money Ron. As 5 usual. 6 RF: Let me assure you that I pushed them and 7 they are going to apply for this enjoining 8 order. 9 JC: Okay. 10 RF: And it sounds like they'll do the emergent 11 form. 12 JC: Good. Good. Okay, well we'll hold the 13 line. I got another line ringing here. 14 RF: Take care John. 15 JC: Appreciate it Ron. 16 RF: See you later. 17 JC: Thank you much. 18 RF: Bye." 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Now, is this the telephone 22 conversation which you had with Inspector John Carson on 23 September the 5th at approximately 14:47 p.m.? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And as you indicated, Inspector

207

1 Carson initiated this call? 2 A: That's correct, yes. 3 Q: Although you were about to call him? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Now, you've indicated on the first -- 6 the first page of the transcript, part way down, you say, 7 "very much powered." 8 A: That should be "empowered." 9 Q: Sorry? 10 A: That should be "empowered." 11 Q: Empowered? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 "Very much empowered. And ah basically 15 the Premier has made it clear to her 16 his position is there'll be no 17 different treatment of people in this 18 situation. In other words, native as 19 opposed to non-native." 20 Now, to whom were you attributing that 21 message to? 22 A: Deb Hutton. 23 Q: Now, had you met Ms. Hutton prior to 24 this meeting? 25 A: No, I had not.

208

1 Q: Did you form any understanding based 2 on this meeting as to why the Premier's office was 3 represented at it? 4 A: Other than the fact that it's within 5 the Charter of the -- of the Interministerial Committee 6 to have representation, no I did not. 7 Q: All right. So, they certainly had 8 entitlement to be there, the Premier's office? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: But did you identify any particular 11 stake holding interest of the Premier's office in being 12 there? 13 A: No, I did not. 14 Q: Now, based on your attendance at this 15 meting, what, if any -- did you form any impression of 16 Ms. Hutton in her role as the Premier's representative at 17 this meeting? 18 A: She spoke as if she were the voice of 19 the Premier. I believe that's what I would have used in 20 my conversation with John Carson, the word is 21 "empowered." 22 Q: Now, carrying on with the 23 transcripts, the next response is on page 1: 24 "And the bottom line is, wants them 25 out, and you know, was asking, well,

209

1 what would the police do in a situation 2 where there wasn't natives. 3 I said, well, I mean, you can't compare 4 apples and oranges." 5 Now, what's -- what did you intend to 6 convey through this exchange with Ms. Hutton? 7 A: What my intention was, was to bring 8 to the matter at hand what I believed was the necessary 9 complexity, as opposed to the simplicity. And I likened 10 what would be a simple trespass, and I exampled myself 11 going to her home, and being an unwanted guest, being 12 asked to leave, not leaving, and the police had 13 intervention. 14 It would be entirely different if I were 15 to go to someone's home, but I felt that there was a 16 right and entitlement for the -- for me to be there. 17 Again, that's something that any police 18 officer would have a very difficult time trying to 19 adjudicate, nor should he or she on the side of the road. 20 Q: All right. And did you actually give 21 this -- this example at the meeting? 22 A: I -- I used that one, and I believe I 23 used a beverage room one as well. 24 Q: I'm sorry, a what? 25 A: A beverage room, with an un --

210

1 unwanted guest in a beverage room. 2 Q: Okay, perhaps you could tell us what 3 that example is? 4 A: The same set of circumstances. The 5 hotelier makes a call to the police, indicates there's an 6 unwanted guest, asks guest to leave, guest won't leave, 7 the police intervene. 8 The individual has no lawful right and 9 entitlement to be there if he isn't abiding by the rules 10 of -- of the hotel or the beverage room. 11 Q: Right. 12 A: There is no particular colour of 13 right in a situation like that. 14 Q: All right. Now, did Ms. Hutton 15 advise that she had personally spoken with Premier Harris 16 in advance of this meeting; that he had communicated to 17 her what his position was in the handling of the Park 18 occupation? 19 A: The way she spoke, I can only assume 20 that she had communication with the Premier because she 21 was speaking in his voice, if you will. 22 Q: All right, but did she actually -- 23 said she had been briefed or did you infer it? 24 A: No, she did not use those words that 25 I recall, but she used the phrase: he wants this.

211

1 Q: Certainly she gave you the impression 2 that she was speaking on behalf of the Premier at this 3 meeting? 4 A: That was my impression, yes. 5 Q: All right. And based on this 6 exchange that we have just reviewed from page 1 of the 7 transcript, did you form any views as to what the 8 Premier's position regarding aboriginal land and treaty 9 rights amounted to, in relation to the occupation at 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 11 A: Once again, I -- I don't see that the 12 issue of aboriginal or treaty rights was taken into 13 consideration. It was a dispute over property without 14 the benefit of having any understanding, or at least 15 acknowledging that there may be those with other 16 interests in it. 17 Q: Right, and so to continue on with the 18 transcript, at page 1, you're -- you say: 19 "I said, you know, I come to your house 20 and I plunk myself down, and you ask me 21 to leave and I don't. And you call for 22 police intervention. Chances are, I 23 don't have colour of right for being 24 there. 25 John Carson: Right.

212

1 Ron Fox: Whether it's actual or 2 perceived. And I say it's a little bit 3 different here. We're talking about 4 land claims and treaties." 5 And so that is, again, what you were 6 trying to -- what you were referring to when you said 7 this to Inspector Carson? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: All right. And did Ms. Hutton 10 respond to your attempts to explain to her the concept of 11 colour of right, in the way you've illustrated it with 12 those two (2) examples? 13 A: There was no response from Ms. Hutton 14 with respect to whether she understood or accepted 15 Q: All right. And did you -- how would 16 you characterize her demeanour throughout this meeting? 17 A: Cocky. 18 Q: Confident? 19 A: Confident. 20 Q: All right. Did that change at all 21 during the course of this meeting? 22 A: Not that I recall. 23 Q: And you also made some comments 24 regarding the position of the MNR in this telephone call 25 and I think you indicated -- well, let me ask you this:

213

1 What was their initial position with respect to the 2 suggestion that an injunction should be obtained? 3 A: Again, the matter should be dealt 4 with by virtue of substantive offenses, be they 5 provincial or under the Criminal Code. 6 Q: All right. And do you recall who 7 from the MNR personnel was the most vocal in -- in 8 communicating that? 9 A: As I recall, in reading the -- the 10 transcript here, you asked my that question earlier -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- and it would appear that it was 13 Mr. Baldwin. 14 Q: All right. Indeed, at page 2, your - 15 - you say: 16 "RF: MNR by the way, kind of were 17 against an enjoining order. 18 JC: Oh, really! 19 RF: Yeah. Yeah. Preferring basically 20 to pass it over and say, Well, you 21 know, I mean, there's Criminal Code 22 offenses of mischief. You know, if 23 you're lawful enjoinder, or use of 24 property, trespass. So I very 25 carefully explained to them that, you

214

1 know, under the Trespass to Property, 2 an officer could go serve process, 3 escort somebody to the gate and then 4 they come back in. And we'll go on 5 forever this way. And I explained the 6 same with the Criminal Code and the 7 provisions of the Bail Reform Act and 8 how release procedures work. And I 9 said quite clearly this is a civil 10 dispute and it has to be adjudicated in 11 a court of law and the police given 12 sufficient authority to act. 13 JC: Right. 14 RF: So, they finally agreed, the 15 consensus is they'll get an enjoining 16 order. And the MNR will provide a 17 large part of the affidavit." 18 And is that an accurate reflection of that 19 exchange? 20 A: It's accurate with the exception of, 21 "lawful enjoinder." That -- my -- listen to my voice 22 again, it was, "lawful enjoyment or use of property". 23 Q: Lawful enjoyment? 24 A: That is correct. 25 Q: Thank you. It's on page 2 of the

215

1 transcript. 2 Now, going onto page 3 of the transcript 3 there's a discussion where John Carson raises the issue 4 of burial grounds? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you were familiar -- were you 7 familiar with the fact of the issue of contention -- 8 sorry, that John Carson was aware of the burial grounds 9 issue prior to this telephone call? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And move on to page 4. It also 12 appears that you raised, with Inspector Carson, the 13 information which Ron Baldwin passed onto the IMC 14 regarding the seizure or the alleged seizure of an OPP 15 car? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And were you surprised that Ron 18 Baldwin had this type of information? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And are you aware of what the source 21 of the information was? 22 A: He was party to some of the OPP 23 briefings. 24 Q: All right. Now, had you raised with 25 John Carson your concerns about the advisability of

216

1 passing along this kind of information to non-police 2 personnel prior to this conversation? 3 A: In general terms, I did and I believe 4 we discussed that earlier. I made it the subject of an 5 e-mail in suggesting that perhaps he or Superintendent 6 Parkin participate to -- in a telephone or be conference 7 called in to put to rest some of these. 8 Q: But this wasn't something that was 9 raised in this telephone call? 10 A: No, it was not. 11 Q: And why was that? 12 A: There's certainly a necessity for -- 13 for OPP senior staff, in particular, the -- incident 14 commander to have interaction with other areas and other 15 individuals who do have an interest in the matter. 16 I'm not being at all critical that these 17 members were part of the briefing, but the information 18 they were providing, it wasn't theirs to provide and, in 19 fairness, it did need to be qualified by someone with a 20 policing background. 21 Q: Now, were you aware at this time that 22 there was a vehicle used by the occupiers, which they 23 called the, "OPP Who?" car? 24 A: I don't know if I would have been by 25 that time, but I -- I certainly have -- have saw video

217

1 footage from the media. 2 Q: Subsequently? 3 A: That's correct, yes. 4 Q: All right. I'm just wondering that 5 the subject of the "OPP Who?" car was not raised during 6 the course of this conversation by Inspector Carson? 7 A: No, it was not. 8 Q: Now, at page 5 of the transcript you 9 say that you prefixed your brief -- briefing of the IMC 10 with the comment that there were approximately thirty- 11 five (35) to forty (40) men, women and children and that 12 you didn't think you needed to explain any more than 13 that. 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: What did you mean by that comment? 16 A: Just what I said, that it wasn't 17 exclusively a male dominant entity, there were women and 18 children present. 19 Q: And how would that be relevant to the 20 Governmental response? 21 A: Well, I think it's one (1) of those 22 things that ought to be and really needs to be 23 considered, whether it's the Government or a police 24 response to a set of circumstances. 25 Q: Were you concerned about the police

218

1 effecting arrests of individuals when there were children 2 involved? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And was that a safety issue? 5 A: It's certainly a safety issue for the 6 children, but there's also an issue of -- of just what 7 they may have to experience; dependent on their age, they 8 may not have a clear understanding of what's going on. 9 Q: All right. And did the group readily 10 -- or the whole group readily accept your position? 11 A: The majority did. 12 Q: But not all of them? 13 A: I'm -- I'm reticent to say they 14 didn't accept it. I mean, they heard the position that I 15 put forward; whether they bought into it, I really can't 16 answer that. My sense is probably not. 17 Q: Is it fair. based on what you told 18 John Carson, at least at the time, that your initial 19 impression was that not all of the group readily 20 understood the significance of the fact that there were 21 women and children at the Park? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Now, go to page 5, two-thirds of the 24 way down and you say the following: 25 "RF: Well, I'll tell ya, this whole

219

1 fuckin' group is on some sort of 2 testosteran or testosterone high. Then 3 I finally had to get right out and say, 4 Look. I mean here's the strategy those 5 folks will employ. The women and 6 children will be at the forefront. 7 JC: That's right. 8 RF: The police are going to be faced 9 with. 10 JC: That's right. 11 RF: And I said you got to understand 12 that the provincial police will never 13 shirk their responsibility. But read - 14 - their hands will get dirty - read - 15 so will the Government's. 16 JC: That's right. 17 RF: And as long as we're prepared for 18 that. 19 JC: That's right. But I doubt if they 20 are. Oh, I -- you know I doubt if -- 21 RF: This -- listen, this -- 22 JC: [John Carson] I mean if we're 23 going to do that over a trespassing? 24 RF: That's exactly right. And I said, 25 you know, you just can't do that.

220

1 JC: That's right. I mean, if we're 2 going to do that -- I -- we have to 3 have the force of the law behind us to 4 provide some recognition by a court in 5 this land. 6 RF: Mmmhmm. And let's not lose sight 7 of the fact that this is a civil 8 matter. 9 JC: That's right, that's right. 10 RF: It's?? There's no element of 11 criminality here yet. I'm sure with 12 those clowns you've got charged, they 13 have done something overt... 14 JC: Yeah. 15 RF: ...that amounts to a criminal 16 offense. 17 JC: That's right. 18 RF: And they will be arrested. 19 JC: Yeah." 20 Now, you said that this whole group was a 21 -- on some sort of testosterone high. When you stated 22 this, was it -- was it in reaction to the fact that at 23 that point in the meeting certain factions were still 24 advocating the use of -- the use of police to go in and 25 effect arrests and have occupiers removed without a court

221

1 order? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Wait a 3 minute. 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: With -- with 5 respect, Commissioner, your Counsel is supposed to be 6 independent in this matter and, in my submission, she 7 should not be leading the Witness as she is very clearly 8 suggesting an answer in this area. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: With all respect, I 10 think that Commission Counsel is entitled to lead certain 11 points in the examination and Mr. -- Superintendent Fox 12 has already addressed this issue to a degree and simply, 13 we're going through what his own words were in this 14 transcript. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 16 objecting to the particular question, because your 17 objection started before she finished asking the 18 question? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just to reply, it's 20 essential to the integrity of this Commission, that 21 Commission Counsel be independent and there are parties 22 who have opposing views. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And if Commission 25 Counsel is going to -- going to be asking leading

222

1 questions in sensitive areas that could give rise to the 2 appearance that she has stepped down into the arena and 3 taking a side -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And in my respectful 6 submission, it is very important that that not happen. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we're 8 trying to -- 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I certainly hear My 10 Friend, and wouldn't want to give the appearance of any 11 such position. Commission Counsel is neutral -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- and while I thought 14 that this is more than appropriate, I'm quite prepared to 15 ask the following question -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May I step in for a 17 minute, please? 18 I have a submission, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 20 that this affects you, Mr. -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, it certainly 22 -- with great respect, it does affect Aboriginal Legal 23 Services as I wouldn't be surprised if it affects other 24 parties, gratefully not other parties who seek to rise at 25 this point.

223

1 The mere statement that your Counsel has 2 asked a leading question, does not in any way, with 3 respect, compromise your Counsel's independence -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and that's an 6 effort to control your Counsel, and with respect, getting 7 your Counsel to change her questioning, because it 8 doesn't suit Mr. Downard's -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- views of 11 independence, I'm just concerned because, obviously -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- many leading 14 questions have been asked about -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, and we 16 will continue to do that, Mr. Falconer -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- my 19 Counsel will continue to ask leading questions on matters 20 that aren't particularly sensitive or require my Counsel 21 to appear to be taking a position. 22 I think that's what you said you would do, 23 Ms. Vella? 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's correct, 25 Commissioner.

224

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You appear 2 on behalf of Ms. Hutton, do you? 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I do. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 5 might have an interest in this. 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I do. 7 Commissioner, my only concern is that this 8 witness can only testify as to what he saw and heard, and 9 I just have a concern that he not relay information as to 10 what's going on in the heads of various people who -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 12 legitimate point. 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- at this very 14 critical meeting. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 16 very much, carry on. I think it's important that when 17 you lead up to a point and then be a little more careful, 18 perhaps. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Now, certainly, Superintendent, I'm 22 not asking you to get into the mind or head of any 23 individual. I think that you understand that? 24 A: I do. 25 Q: And that your questions are -- your

225

1 answers are to be based on your observations at that 2 meeting and what you heard and saw. 3 A: I will. 4 Q: Thank you. Now, can you tell me then 5 what it was you were reacting to when you chose to 6 characterize a group within the IMC as being on some sort 7 of testosterone high? 8 A: My characterization there was that it 9 would move forward and it was speaking to force. The 10 force, generally, and -- and, I suppose, more pronounced 11 in the male of the species and hence my comment. 12 It was that there was no consideration for 13 other ancillary thoughts, that one must move ahead solely 14 on the fact that the property is owned and the document 15 well titled and there was no other consideration to be 16 had. 17 And it was quite forcefully, I would 18 suggest, put within that meeting. 19 Q: All right, thank you. And you 20 indicated that you said that, you know: 21 "Their hands will get dirty - read - 22 so will the Government's". 23 What did you mean when you said that: 24 "Their hands will get dirty - read - 25 so will the Government's."

226

1 A: Well, again, this is in -- it's 2 rhetorical comment on my part and I think it was received 3 in like and kind by Inspector Carson. 4 The reality of it is going back to what I 5 said. I said the strategy of these -- these folk will 6 employ, the women and children will be in the forefront, 7 and that comes from my personal experience. 8 And I'm not suggesting it's right or 9 wrong, I'm suggesting that that's what occurs. For a 10 simple trespass, if people are very strong in their 11 conviction to be in a particular place, we will have to 12 go in, if that was the decision of the police, and use 13 force. 14 In doing so, there is a good chance that 15 someone will be injured. If the police do that we, in 16 particular the Ontario Provincial Police, are a part of 17 the Government of Ontario. 18 So by virtue of the activities that the 19 police may undertake, the Government, too, would be seen 20 in that same light. 21 Q: And so, were you concerned that there 22 would be a -- a public perception that the actions of the 23 OPP would be seen to be the actions of the Government? 24 A: I think the perception comes from 25 only this reality, that the OPP is a part of the

227

1 Government of Ontario. 2 Q: But was this a public perception you 3 were concerned about? 4 A: Well, perhaps it's a public 5 perception and -- and yes, that's always of concern, I 6 think, to any practising police officer. More to the 7 point, my concern was one for the safety of certainly the 8 people who were in the Park and I know that my concern 9 would also be for the members of the Ontario Provincial 10 Police that were responding. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. Next, it 12 appears that you were also asked whether the OPP would be 13 controlling the entry of persons into that Park. 14 Is that something that you were asked at 15 the IMC meeting? 16 A: That -- that's correct, it came up. 17 Q: I think you spoke to that. 18 A: I believe so. 19 Q: Was -- was your sense essentially 20 that the OPP would not knowingly allow persons into the 21 Park, but that they were not able to guarantee that? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And what was the reason for that 24 inability to guarantee? 25 A: The first -- the first thing being

228

1 considered, certainly, by Inspector Carson would be 2 containment. The practical ability to contain the Park 3 was just not there because it is contiguous land to 4 Canadian Forces Base Ipperwash as well as to the 5 beachfront. 6 Q: Was there another basis or is that -- 7 is that it? 8 A: That's it. 9 Q: Okay. Thank you. And so you were 10 alert to the -- the problem posed to the police by the 11 fact that they had no ability to control the Military 12 Base? 13 A: That's correct, yes. 14 Q: Now, let me pause there. Did -- does 15 this -- was this the issue of the inability to control 16 people in and out of the Military Park -- Military Camp - 17 - raised with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs 18 to your knowledge? 19 A: If the representative from 20 Intergovernmental Affairs was there, then obviously they 21 would have heard this discussion. I don't know that it 22 was officially raised, it wasn't by me; it could have 23 been by -- by the Chair of the Interministerial Group, it 24 may. 25 Q: Okay. And did you -- I take it that

229

1 you understood that the -- the problem for the OPP -- or 2 did you understand that the problem for the OPP was that 3 they had not received any requests or certainly didn't 4 have an injunction that would allow them to control who 5 would go in and out of the Military Base? 6 A: That would certainly be a part of it, 7 yes. 8 Q: And did you raise with the 9 Interministerial Committee the impediment which the Army 10 Camp was proposing for the OPP in this respect, in other 11 words, their inability to contain the Park as well as 12 they'd like to? 13 A: That was part of the discussions at 14 the Interministerial Committee meeting, yes. 15 Q: And what was the result of that 16 discussion? 17 A: Well, I think that part of the result 18 was that there was a greater interest in looking at the 19 injunction as opposed to just looking at substantive 20 offenses under the -- the Code or Provincial Statute and 21 hence the other work that was -- was taken on to do. 22 Q: I guess my answer was more about, was 23 there any discussion with respect to extending the 24 perimeter -- assisting the OPP to extend the perimeter to 25 include the Army Base?

230

1 A: Not that I recall. 2 Q: All right. You then, at page 7, 3 advise Inspector Carson that the MNR raised concerns that 4 warriors could show up and join up the occupiers, is that 5 right? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: What was your understanding of what 8 the MNR person meant when he used that term, "warriors", 9 at the meeting? 10 A: I -- I don't know what he might have 11 believed it to be. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: I -- I think I've given evidence as 14 to what my understanding of the warriors are. 15 Q: And what was Inspector Carson's 16 response to this concern? 17 A: Well, I -- I don't think he dismissed 18 that out -- out of hand. I'm sure that Inspector Carson 19 is very well experienced, not only in this area, but 20 elsewhere in the province, and he would have had occasion 21 to encounter those First Nations people who are described 22 as warriors. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

231

1 Q: Now, going to the last page of the 2 transcript, you appear to tell Inspector Carson that it 3 appears that the MNR is going to seek an injunction in 4 the emergent form. 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Now, what did you understand that to 7 mean? 8 A: The emergent form, or ex parte, is 9 without notice. 10 Q: All right. And was there, in fact, 11 at the Interministerial Committee meeting of September 12 5th, a discussion about the different types of 13 injunctions that might be got or sought by the -- the 14 MNR? 15 A: Yes, there was, and some discussion 16 about what might be required to -- to set either in 17 process. 18 Q: All right. And do you recall -- did 19 you have a particular view as to what type of injunction 20 was likely more advisable? 21 A: No, I didn't, personally. 22 Q: And were there different views 23 expressed as to the type of injunction that would be most 24 advisable? 25 A: Yes, and that came from -- from legal

232

1 counsel that was present. 2 Q: All right. And do you what legal 3 counsel's advice was in that respect? 4 A: I think, as I recall, legal counsel's 5 advice was somewhat split. There were those who would 6 advocate the ex parte form of injunction and those who 7 would suggest it more prudent to proceed with an 8 injunction with notice. 9 Q: And in terms of your position as 10 special advisor, and with your background both as a 11 police officer and in relation to aboriginal matters, did 12 you have a view as to what type of injunction would be 13 most appropriate? 14 A: Not at that point in time. 15 Q: All right, thank you. Now, when this 16 call was ended, did you have any concerns about any of 17 the matters you had discussed with Inspector Carson? 18 A: No, I believe that I -- I had 19 fulfilled what I -- I believed to be my mandate, and that 20 was to clarify some of the information that I felt was 21 erroneous or at least had heard and -- and felt was 22 erroneous. 23 I felt the other part of my mission here 24 was to provide Inspector Carson with the information that 25 an injunction was being sought and to indicate that I'd

233

1 had some discussion with his superior in terms of having 2 a contact person to give necessary evidence from a police 3 perspective, if required. 4 Q: And did you receive any information 5 from Inspector Carson during the course of this 6 conversation which you considered to be operational? 7 A: I wouldn't say it was operational in 8 nature. I think it was more general and I think John 9 spoke to me very carefully about what -- what he was 10 doing. As I go through the car -- the conversation, 11 there was nothing there that would be provided by him, 12 solicited by me, that would speak to police operations. 13 Q: All right. And so were there any 14 restrictions placed upon you either implicitly or 15 expressly about disseminating the information which you 16 received from Inspector Carson during this call? 17 A: There was no third party rule, if 18 that's what you're asking. The only -- only restrictions 19 were self-imposed, as I've testified to earlier. 20 Q: All right. And did you advise anyone 21 on the Interministerial Committee or at the Ministry of 22 the Solicitor General of this particular conversation 23 that day? 24 A: I would have advised in the -- the 25 course of -- of responding to, and I'll example, the --

234

1 the stolen or at least seized OPP car, that I was able to 2 rule that out. 3 But did I give specifics to the 4 conversation? No. 5 Q: Okay, thank you. Commissioner, I'm 6 prepared to move on. I'm wondering -- its' five (5) to 7 5:00, if we might adjourn for today? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 9 is a good time to adjourn for today; we've had a long 10 day. We'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much. 14 15 (WITNESS RETIRES) 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 18 adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 12th, at 9:00 19 a.m. 20 21 --- Upon adjourning at 4:56 p.m. 22 23 24 25

235

1 2 3 Certified Correct 4 5 6 7 8 _________________________ 9 Wendy Warnock 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25