1
  1  
  2  
  3                 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY
  4  
  5  
  6  
  7                   ********************
  8  
  9  
 10  BEFORE:        THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN,
 11                 COMMISSIONER
 12  
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  Held at:       Forest Community Centre
 17                 Kimball Hall
 18                 Forest, Ontario
 19  
 20  
 21                   ********************
 22  
 23  
 24                    November 30th, 2005
 25  

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

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

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

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

6
  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                PAGE NO.
  3  List of Exhibits                                            7
  4  
  5  ELAINE MELLER TODRES, Resumed
  6   Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Donald Worme         8
  7   Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard                   121
  8   Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat               125
  9   Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith                       127
 10   Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Lauwers                   135
 11   Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman                  200
 12   Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy                    220
 13   Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Sandler                    251
 14   Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont                  298
 15  
 16   
 17  
 18  Certificate of Transcript                                 304
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  

7
  1                         EXHIBITS
  2  No.            Description                               Page
  3  P-985          Diagram of floor plan of Premier's 
  4                 Boardroom, Council Chamber, EA's office,
  5                 reception, hallway and washroom: marked 
  6                 by witness, Dr. Elaine Todres, Nov. 
  7                 30/'05                                     251
  8    
  9  
 10  
 11  
 12  
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  

8
  1  --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m.
  2  
  3                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Public Inquiry is
  4  now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden
  5  presiding.  Please be seated.  
  6                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Good morning,
  7  Commissioner.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Good
  9  morning.  Good morning, everybody.
 10                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Good morning, Dr.
 11  Todres.
 12                 THE WITNESS:   Good morning.
 13                 MR. DONALD WORME:   May I, Commissioner?
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 15                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you.
 16  
 17               ELAINE MELLER TODRES, Resumed
 18  
 19  CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME:
 20                 Q:   Dr. Todres, we left off yesterday,
 21  you were -- you confirmed for us that there had been
 22  certain communications between members of your staff, Mr.
 23  Fox in particular, and the InterMinisterial Committee;
 24  you recall that?
 25                 A:   Yes, I do.

9
  1                 Q:   Thank you.  If we can just move from
  2  there, I just wanted to ask you a little bit, you were
  3  aware that the local MPP, Mr. Beaubien; you were familiar
  4  with him?
  5                 A:   Yes I was familiar with his name.
  6                 Q:   Right.  And were you aware of
  7  communications to Members of Cabinet by Marcel Beaubien,
  8  the MPP, concerning the situation at Ipperwash during
  9  that summer of 1995?
 10                 A:   I don't recall specifically being
 11  aware of letters that he wrote, but I was aware that he
 12  was -- that he as a definition of being a constituency
 13  representative required him to be intimately involved on
 14  the groung.
 15                 Q:   And perhaps I can ask you to turn to
 16  Tab 14 in the book -- in the book of documents before
 17  you.  And at that tab you will see a document that has
 18  been marked as P-534.  It's a letter, on the letterhead,
 19  of Marcel Beaubien, MPP; do you see that, dated July
 20  31st, 1995?
 21                 A:   Yes, I do.  Hmm hmm.
 22                 Q:   And it's addressed to the Honourable
 23  Charles Harnick.
 24                 A:   Yes, I've seen it.  I see it now.
 25                 Q:   All right.  And you'll see that it's

10
  1  -- it's copied to the Honourable Bob Runciman and that of
  2  course would be your Minister of the day.
  3                 A:   Yes, I -- I noticed that.
  4                 Q:   And you'll see that it describes a
  5  meeting between Mr. Beaubien and local non-Aboriginal, I
  6  take it, Ipperwash residents, concerning litigation
  7  initiated by the local First Nation and it talks about
  8  tensions in the area.
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And at page 2 it states:
 11                   "Law enforcement is basically non-
 12                   existent and the OPP does not seem too
 13                   keen in getting involved."
 14                 Do you read that?
 15                 A:   Yes, I see it.
 16                 Q:   And when you mentioned earlier that
 17  you weren't aware of particular letters, I gather from
 18  that that you didn't see this letter.
 19                 A:   That's correct.  Perhaps I might just
 20  shed -- shed some light if I might -- 
 21                 Q:   Would you please?
 22                 A:   -- contextually on what happens with
 23  Ministerial correspondence, because I think it would be
 24  useful.
 25                 Ministerial correspondence, especially in

11
  1  large Ministries is a very large function indeed. 
  2  There's an entire unit that would be assigned to working
  3  on Ministerial correspondence.
  4                 When a letter comes in, the letter is
  5  stamped, a Minister would not see the letter upon
  6  receipt.  You can appreciate that in some cases there
  7  might be thousands of letters a day that might come in.
  8                 Those letters are immediately referred to
  9  the Ministerial correspondent unit -- unit.  The unit
 10  then decides on the basis of its judgment, and there are
 11  a whole series of protocols and rules and timing and so
 12  on, in terms of customer service about when one expects
 13  to responds, to whom it goes.
 14                 The appropriate staff people would be
 15  contacted to prepare the drafts of the response and they
 16  would waft through, back through the Ministerial
 17  correspondents, through the Minister's Executive
 18  Assistant for his signature.
 19                 So, in the normal course of an event,
 20  there would be no way that I or any Deputy Minister would
 21  see a letter of this kind.  Now, if the Prime Minister
 22  had written and there was a -- a matter of national
 23  importance or provincial importance, there might have
 24  been occasions where I'd personally, directly would have
 25  seen a letter.

12
  1                 But, that would have been extremely
  2  unusual.  And in this particular case, it wasn't a letter
  3  to Minister Runciman.  It was a CC, so by courtesy a
  4  letter of this kind would have been referred to the
  5  Ministerial unit and likely its response would have been,
  6  Take no further action, it's a CC item.
  7                 If the Minister's staff would have felt
  8  that it was significant enough they might have taken some
  9  actions. I would have been unaware of those.
 10                 Q:   And perhaps I can ask you then to
 11  turn to Tab 16.  There's a -- what appears to be a
 12  routing memo.  Am I correct in calling it that first of
 13  all?
 14                 A:   Correct, yes.
 15                 Q:   It's Inquiry Document 2000425.  It's
 16  marked as P-588.  And perhaps you can just describe this
 17  to us.
 18                 A:   Well, this is the physical
 19  manifestation of the template as we like to call all
 20  things like this; the template or the rules by which the
 21  routing -- the -- the routing of a Ministerial letter
 22  would come forward.
 23                 So, the first section there was a log and
 24  date because that's terribly important.  And might I say
 25  that over time as governments became more preoccupied

13
  1  with customer service we would have had benchmarks
  2  imposed on us in terms of what would have been a
  3  reasonable response time.
  4                 And that reasonable response time would be
  5  tempered by an analysis of the complexity of the issue. 
  6  So, not only was there a date, but there would have been
  7  an expectation from me as the Deputy and from others
  8  about how soon a letter like this or any letter would be
  9  responded to.  Hence the necessity for the date and the
 10  log reference and so on, the subject matter 
 11                 What I find confusing about this
 12  particular one is that there's a tick of a charge out of
 13  an assignment to the Commissioner, but when you actually
 14  follow through the action taken the instructions are that
 15  upon reflection there is no response necessary at this
 16  time as it wasn't addressed to the Minister.
 17                 So, that would be the instructions.  And
 18  you'll note from those who've seen it that it would have
 19  been an FYI to the Deputy Minister's office and an FYI to
 20  the Issues Unit.  So, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Zunder in the
 21  course of their work as they were preparing material and
 22  issue notes would have been informed by -- by receipt of
 23  this letter that Mr. Beaubien had an interest.  But I
 24  would not have seen this.
 25                 Q:   All right.  Thank you for that.  And

14
  1  for the purposes of the record, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr.
  2  Zunder --
  3                 A:   Mr. Zimmerman was the senior person
  4  in charge of the Issues -- Issues Unit, and Mr. Zunder
  5  reported to him.  He was a seconded -- I think he -- I
  6  don't recall whether he was -- he was from the OPP,
  7  whether he was still seconded from the OPP I don't
  8  recall, but he was seen to be one of our police experts -
  9  - policing experts.
 10                 Q:   Thank you.  Dr. Todres, at Tab 23
 11  there's another letter from Marcel Beaubien to the
 12  Honourable Charles Harnick dated August the 14th of 1995
 13  re. the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point.  Are you
 14  with me on that?
 15                 A:   Yes, thank you.
 16                 Q:   And you'll see that it's also copied
 17  to your Minister Mr. Runciman?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   All right.  And you see where it
 20  describes in the content of that letter the -- an August
 21  11th, 1995, meeting between Mr. Beaubien, Tony Parkin,
 22  Dale Linton, John Carson, and Wade Lacroix?  And you'll
 23  know those people to be officers, police officers that
 24  is?
 25                 A:   Yes.

15
  1                 Q:   All right.  And we see the purpose of
  2  that was to discuss Ipperwash Provincial Park and West
  3  Ipperwash Property Owners' Association as well as the
  4  First Nation that I referred to earlier.
  5                 And -- and he goes on to describe an
  6  agreement reached by him and the OPP members to the
  7  following effect.  And you see at the bottom of the page:
  8                   "1.  As the Ipperwash campground is
  9                   provincially owned we should be in
 10                   position to legally uphold this
 11                   property."
 12                 It continues on the next page:
 13                   "Enforcement is only a short-term 
 14                 solution. Thirdly, the Ministries involved
 15                 have to the OPP clear guidelines for law
 16                 enforcement."
 17                 And:
 18                   "4.  The long-term solution is a
 19                   negotiated settlement."
 20                 And it continues on:
 21                   "However we need to see a clear stand
 22                   on what provincial ownership of land
 23                   means and that the laws of the Province
 24                   will be upheld.  This needs to be made
 25                   very clear without delay."

16
  1                 And you see where it continues, Dr.
  2  Todres?  It says:
  3                   "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson,
  4                   Harnick, and Runciman we will take the
  5                   following position until further
  6                   instruction is received from the
  7                   Ministries.  We will be legally
  8                   prepared to uphold Ipperwash Provincial
  9                   Park.  Enforcement is a short-term
 10                   solution and we need the Ministries to
 11                   give clear guidelines to OPP
 12                   enforcement.  We would like a
 13                   negotiated settlement, failing that, a
 14                   clear stand on what are provincial
 15                   matters and what -- and [pardon me]
 16                   that the laws should be upheld."
 17                 And I guess, firstly, I just want to ask
 18  you whether or not you had seen this letter?
 19                 A:   No, I had not.
 20                 Q:   And were you aware of the meeting
 21  that is described in there?
 22                 A:   No, not that I recall.
 23                 Q:   And understanding now that such
 24  meeting took place and this purported agreement, I should
 25  say, that the -- the OPP have not indicated that they

17
  1  were -- that there was any such agreement made, right.
  2                 But, having said that, did that give rise
  3  or does it give rise now to any concerns that such
  4  meeting, first of all, would have occurred?
  5                 A:   Yes, well let me, as I seem to always
  6  be saying give some context to this.  I'm contemplating
  7  about where to begin on this one.
  8                 I think we have to recognize that it's
  9  always a struggle within any government to sort out the
 10  demarcation lines between constituency responsibility and
 11  political responsibility.
 12                 So, that is a very significant issue that
 13  all governments struggle with.  And we see it and it
 14  becomes more apparent when it's a Ministerial
 15  responsibility, when the Minister in the course of her
 16  exercising her Ministerial responsibility still has to do
 17  something at the constituency level and, Oh, my goodness,
 18  why was this letter written and why was that letter
 19  written.
 20                 So, that is a difficult in and of itself. 
 21  Secondly, I think we have to recognize that this letter
 22  was written in the early days of a government where
 23  caucus and the relationships between back benchers and
 24  what Ministers needed to do was probably unclear.
 25                 This reads to me as, if I can say this, as

18
  1  -- I'm trying to be fair and I wouldn't know what the
  2  intentions of Mr. Beaubien were, but I had been aware
  3  over the course of the briefings, I can't say
  4  specifically which date and what meeting and what
  5  briefing, that Mr. Beaubien was -- was of the mind that
  6  his direct involvement was helpful.  And I can only say
  7  that that was not the view of the OPP, that did not seem
  8  to be the view of the IMC, that was not the view of the
  9  deputy Minister's office.
 10                 And I doubt very much, not withstanding
 11  this letter, that anyone would have agreed that a
 12  backbencher sitting in a room somewhere -- somewhere,
 13  would have had the authority or the ability to construct
 14  an agreement with the OPP; that would not have been the
 15  case.
 16                 But, the policy question that arises from
 17  a letter like this, I think, is obviously who has contact
 18  with whom, what needs to be put in writing from a caucus,
 19  and a political view, and remember I'm a -- I'm a former
 20  Deputy Minister, so I didn't delve a great deal into --
 21  in fact, to say that I didn't delve isn't accurate.
 22                 I didn't delve at all into the
 23  relationships between backbenchers and Ministers and
 24  caucus and so on.  I would simply say that in the early
 25  days of a -- of a new government when there is a

19
  1  transition team that is involving itself with roles and
  2  responsibilities, policing and the subjects around
  3  policing are so highly particularistic and so complex,
  4  that it might mean not only separate forms of briefing
  5  but perhaps ongoing.
  6                 And clearly what happened in a case like -
  7  - well, I don't know if it's clear or not, but my
  8  reaction to this letter is that there didn't seem to be,
  9  given that this was the second letter, discipline with
 10  discipline from the Party Whip with respect to what was
 11  going on with -- with the backbench.  And that would be
 12  something for others who are more expert in the overt
 13  political processes to comment on.
 14                 Q:   And if I can ask you just to look at
 15  item number 3 on the second page, 
 16                   "Ministries involved have to give the
 17                   OPP clear guidelines for law
 18                   enforcement."
 19                 A:   Exactly.  Factually incorrect,
 20  statutorily incorrect, clumsy, and not within his purview
 21  to comment on.
 22                 Q:   All right. And who would review a
 23  letter like this, and I know you've just taken a moment
 24  earlier to explain the routing process, but what would
 25  happen with a letter like this, what would be the

20
  1  process, who would deal with it?
  2                 A:   I don't recall who Dan Newman was. 
  3  Dan Newman, I don't recall that name being a civil
  4  servant.  He may have been a parliamentary assistant, I
  5  don't recall.
  6                 Q:   You're referring to the first name 
  7  on --
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   -- on the cc?
 10                 A:   Yes.  I guess in -- in view of the
 11  fact that he was named as part as group of politicians,
 12  he probably had a parliamentary assistantship.  We'd have
 13  to check that out factually.
 14                 Well, what would have happened in the --
 15  in the Attorney General's office would have been exactly
 16  the same as happened in ours.  We had -- he had a -- the
 17  Attorney always had a very large correspondence unit,
 18  that letter would have been referred.  I would suspect it
 19  would have gone through the chain.  They would have
 20  understood that the cc's were just FYI's.  
 21                 And I would have imagined, although I
 22  can't speculate, that the political staff would have been
 23  involved in this, in checking off whether or not the --
 24  prior to the Minister signing any response, the
 25  legislative assistant, and the issues person, and the

21
  1  executive assistant, would have actually reviewed the
  2  Minister's letter and indicated that they were in support
  3  of it.  
  4                 And it's possible, although I can't
  5  speculate, that given the tone and the inaccuracies in
  6  this letter it's possible that they might have said some
  7  further conversations need to occur either with Mr.
  8  Beaubien, or there is a formal process, which I wouldn't
  9  have been aware of, between the Premier's office and
 10  backbenchers with respect to what next steps had to be
 11  taken.
 12                 Q:   All right.  And would it surprise you
 13  if I told you that Inspector Fox had testified that this
 14  letter was passed along to him for response?
 15                 A:   Very surprised.
 16                 Q:   Would the person -- whoever --
 17  whoever was in possession of this for -- for response,
 18  would they be in a position to assess whether or not the
 19  policy that we discussed yesterday of non-interference
 20  with police operations by government, would they be in a
 21  position to determine whether that was adhered to or not?
 22                 A:   I'm sorry, I didn't catch the -- the
 23  tone.  Try it again.
 24                 Q:   And I -- and I've asked it poorly. 
 25                 Whoever is dealing with a letter such as

22
  1  this would --
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   -- they be able to make an assessment
  4  as to whether the policy of police independence or non
  5  government interference, to put it another way, with
  6  police operations, as a general policy was that being
  7  adhered to?  Can they make that assessment when looking
  8  at...
  9                 A:   Well, I -- I'm thinking that when --
 10  I'm very surprised that it would have -- I -- I can't
 11  speak to -- to what Mr. Fox said, but this was not a
 12  letter to our Minister, this was a letter to Harnick. 
 13  So, in -- forgive me, that sounded disrespectful.  It was
 14  a letter to the Attorney General.
 15                 Insofar as it was a letter to the General,
 16  and we were an FYI, there would have been no reason for
 17  us to have seen it.  Perhaps they would have sent it to
 18  us as an FYI, but if it was an FYI it was meant not to be
 19  responded to.  
 20                 And that office and our office were very
 21  keenly aware of the distinction between policy and
 22  operations; that after all is the sum and substance of
 23  some of the most critical issues facing both an attorney
 24  and a solicitor general.
 25                 Q:   And perhaps I can tell you this --

23
  1                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner,
  2  it's not an objection to a question but it is a concern
  3  about the extent the speculation can go.
  4                 Now, with great respect Dr. Todres is
  5  speaking to the -- her entire office and their keen
  6  awareness as to the division, and with great respect,
  7  while she can speak to some specific circumstances or
  8  specific employees it just seems to me that it -- it gets
  9  more and more speculative and more and more vague.  And -
 10  - and with respect it just seems to me that there has to
 11  be a limit on her knowledge and her observations.
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You were
 13  speaking to your belief or your understanding.  I mean
 14  yes, I think some of what Mr. Falconer is saying we have
 15  to be careful that you don't speculate beyond the area
 16  that you're being asked about.
 17  
 18                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 19  
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, Mr.
 21  Worme...?
 22                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you,
 23  Commissioner.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Perhaps --
 25                 MR. DONALD WORME:   I'll keep that in mind

24
  1  as I ask my questions --
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  3                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- and -- and ask Dr.
  4  Todres if she can be more particular.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
  7                 Q:   Just going back to the letter for a
  8  moment, Dr. Todres, Dan Newman, did you know him at all
  9  as a -- as a -- the parliamentary assistant for ONAS?
 10                 A:   I don't recall him in particular.
 11                 Q:   All right.  Thank you.  Let me move
 12  on then.  
 13  
 14                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15  
 16                 Q:   Did you have any briefings, Dr.
 17  Todres, during August of 1995 that you can recall,
 18  specifically with respect to -- to the Ipperwash matter?
 19                 A:   Well, as I indicated yesterday I saw
 20  a memo here where -- in the binders where Mr. Fox sent a
 21  memo to both me and Neil McKerrell on -- early in August
 22  apprising me of some briefing notes.  There would have
 23  been no reason for him to send a CC to the ADM of
 24  Corrections, Adult Correction, unless Mr. McKerrell was
 25  acting as my -- in my stead while I was on vacation as

25
  1  Acting Deputy Minister.
  2                 And I would often refer to him, I would
  3  often delegate responsibility to him.  So I can only
  4  infer from that that I wasn't around for much of August;
  5  that must have been my holiday time.  I can't be certain
  6  of that but that was likely the case and I -- I wouldn't
  7  have taken a month off.  It was early days of a new
  8  government.
  9                 So, I probably would have come back at
 10  some point in August and at that point would have been
 11  briefed on whatever was going on.
 12                 Q:   All right.  Thank you.  And do you
 13  recall receiving a briefing from Ron Fox and Barbara
 14  Taylor together, with respect to the incident at
 15  Ipperwash on or about September 5th of 1995?
 16                 A:   On September 5th I recall a very,
 17  very detailed briefing with -- with Barb Taylor present
 18  and Ron Fox present, Scott Patrick may have been present,
 19  he probably was, in my boardroom where not only did they
 20  brief me in detail but they took a piece of chalk and
 21  stood in front of my chalkboard and actually drew a
 22  physical map of the area explaining to me the details of
 23  the Camp and the Park.
 24                 And we spent a considerable amount of time
 25  having been briefed -- me being briefed.

26
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm sorry,
  2  when was that, Ms. Todres?  I just --
  3                 THE WITNESS:   The morning of -- of
  4  September the 5th.
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  6                 THE WITNESS:   First thing in the morning.
  7  
  8  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
  9                 Q:   And do you recall having a meeting
 10  with Larry Taman, or Taman, pardon me, in and around this
 11  period of time?
 12                 A:   I believe that in the afternoon; I
 13  can't be absolutely certain whether it was the 5th, the
 14  6th although I believe that it was the 5th.  Larry and I
 15  had a meeting with both Ministers, Runciman and Harnick,
 16  and their Executive Assistants on general matters.
 17                 And if I can just provide background to
 18  that.  We were given large cuts and the Deputy Attorney
 19  General and I had determined that it was extremely
 20  necessary for the Government to consider us as a sector
 21  and not individual ministries.
 22                 That whilst we weren't advocating a
 23  Minister of Justice, as occurs in some provinces, we were
 24  asking that, for purposes of financial allocation,
 25  capital allocation, operational day to day -- not day to

27
  1  day, but the construct within which we would go and --
  2  and get decisions, that we needed to think about the
  3  justices system and as a whole.
  4                 And if I can just spend a moment or two
  5  (2) because I think this is rather important.
  6                 I found it very frustrating as the Deputy
  7  Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of Corrections
  8  that independent decisions were being made about where a
  9  court house would be located, where a jail would be
 10  located, where a police detachment would be located.    
 11                 Independent decisions were being made with
 12  -- because Ministers have their own individual
 13  responsibilities, that those -- they would each send up
 14  their estimates package or their financial package with
 15  no systemic review about what all of this meant.  And I
 16  can give countless examples, whether it's technology or
 17  whatever.
 18                 So, the Deputy Attorney General and I felt
 19  short of moving toward a united Ministry which we felt
 20  would be preposterous given the size of the -- of the
 21  Province, the geographic expanse and the potential
 22  inherent conflicts of interest that might arise from one
 23  Minister being responsible for all of them, we believed
 24  that we actually needed to change the way in which the
 25  central agencies were viewing us, and the way in which

28
  1  our -- the decision making process was, with respect to
  2  what we were doing, would be reinvented, if I can put it
  3  that way.
  4                 So, simply put, what we were saying was
  5  one or two things.  One, when proposals were to go
  6  forward, whether it was capital or -- let me give you
  7  another example.
  8                 Let's say a government says we're
  9  interested in zero tolerance for violence in schools. 
 10  It's very interesting and very important when a Minister
 11  of Education makes such announcement.  It has a huge
 12  ripple impact on both policing charges and at the end of
 13  the day from my concern, the number of beds we had for
 14  young offenders.
 15                 And given that there didn't appear to be
 16  that kind of systemic thinking, we wanted to encourage
 17  that and not only encourage that, but change the way in
 18  which the two (2) Ministers would actually put proposals
 19  together.
 20                 Given that we were dealing in the summer
 21  with 40 percent cuts, that would have meant two (2)
 22  things.  One, we were actually recommending joint
 23  submissions on what it is the two (2) Ministries wanted
 24  to propose including cuts and including capital and so
 25  on.

29
  1                 And two, we were proposing and actually
  2  putting into place joint management meetings between the
  3  Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the
  4  Solicitor General.  And I think -- I think it would be
  5  fair to say that from the view of cautious lawyers,
  6  cautious jailers and cautious police officers, this might
  7  have been seeming to be virtually revolutionary in
  8  concept.
  9                 So, we began doing -- began to do a lot of
 10  thinking about that and we'd actually sought direction
 11  from the Secretary of Cabinet.  And we were working
 12  toward a meeting with the Minister to discuss -- the two
 13  (2) Ministers to discuss things like that.
 14                 I believe that in the afternoon of the
 15  5th, we finally -- because you can appreciate how
 16  difficult it is to actually get two (2) Ministers
 17  together, and we were not proximate in terms of our
 18  location of offices.
 19                 I believe that we had a general meeting on
 20  a number of matters like that and because Ipperwash was
 21  beginning to bubble up, it was still not a crisis by any
 22  means, it was an issue, but we'd received notes and so
 23  on, that Ipperwash was one of the subjects of that
 24  particular meeting on the 5th.
 25                 Q:   If I can ask you to turn to Tab 24. 

30
  1  It's  a document entitled, Project Maple, dated September
  2  1995, it's Exhibit P-424.
  3                 A:   Yes, I see it.
  4                 Q:   First of all, I should ask you, were
  5  you aware of -- of anything called Project Maple?
  6                 A:   No.  I would not have known the name,
  7  I would never have seen this material.
  8                 Q:   And you will know that this is, in
  9  fact, the operational plan with respect to the OPP's --
 10  with respect to -- to the reaction to the Ipperwash
 11  matter?
 12                 A:   Yeah, well I now understand that to
 13  be the case, having read it briefly.
 14                 Q:   Would you, as a matter of policy or
 15  as a matter of course, ever see these kinds of documents?
 16                 A:   As a matter of policy, I would never
 17  see a document of this kind.
 18                 Q:   And you'll see that within the --
 19  within the document, that it obviously contemplates as --
 20  as one option, perhaps a last option, the possible use of
 21  force.
 22                 A:   Yes, I believe I -- I can't find the
 23  reference, but I take your word for that.
 24                 Q:   Do you know whether or not, Dr.
 25  Todres, within your Ministry there was any debate about

31
  1  the use of force and particularly the use of the -- of
  2  the tactical response unit?
  3                 A:   I'm not aware of any such debate.
  4                 Q:   And I take it from what you had
  5  testified to yesterday, that you weren't aware that there
  6  was, first of all, a police build up in the area or...?
  7                 A:   Well, it's difficult to reconstruct
  8  precisely what I knew at the time.  I would have been
  9  given some operational details about what was going on,
 10  but I certainly wouldn't have been aware of a TRU force.
 11                 Q:   All right.  And if you were aware of
 12  a relatively large scale police operation being -- being
 13  set up, being planned, being implemented during that
 14  particular period of time, would you have had any policy
 15  concerns?
 16                 A:   Well, I guess it's a hypothetical. 
 17  All of the briefings I'd had up to that point indicated
 18  slow as she goes, steady negotiations and I -- I simply
 19  didn't think beyond that.
 20                 I was very comfortable that that was the
 21  direction that was being taken.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And if you would have had
 23  concerns, what would be the appropriate mechanisms for
 24  dealing with those and for ensuring an information flow
 25  so that -- so those concerns could be properly aired?

32
  1                 A:   Well, if I would have had significant
  2  concerns at that point in time I would have probably
  3  spoken to my director of Legal, as I did on -- on all
  4  occasions, to say what precisely are the limits or the
  5  de-limits around what it is that I can say.
  6                 I would have -- I may have called the
  7  Commissioner and made sure that I was talking about
  8  matters that were not beyond what it is that I was
  9  permitted to say.  And again, hypothetically, I -- I
 10  don't know what more to say other than that I would have
 11  exercised judgment at that point in time as to whether or
 12  not I needed to inform the Minister, and I would have
 13  been aided by advice from -- from my lawyers.
 14                 And what I often did when something was a
 15  large, legal issue, I would have sought personal advice
 16  from the Deputy Attorney General.
 17                 Q:   All right.  We were talking about
 18  September the 5th and -- and yesterday we had spoke
 19  briefly about the InterMinisterial Committee on
 20  Aboriginal emergencies, the blockade committee --
 21                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 22                 Q:   -- known variously by other names as
 23  well.
 24                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 25                 Q:   And were you aware that they were

33
  1  meeting on September the 5th and indeed on September the
  2  6th?
  3                 A:   In retrospect I -- I must have been
  4  aware that they were meeting.  I don't recall
  5  specifically being told, we're meeting now.  But, in
  6  order for the briefing notes and for the option to have
  7  been considered, I would have known that the IMC was
  8  meeting.
  9                 Q:   You confirmed for us yesterday that
 10  Ron Fox was your designate --
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   -- at such meeting.
 13                 A:   Correct.  Correct.
 14                 Q:   And it would have been typical that
 15  he would have briefed you on --
 16                 A:   That's right.
 17                 Q:   -- on the meeting?
 18                 A:   He would have returned from the
 19  office and he would've knocked on my door and informed me
 20  of what happened.
 21                 Q:   And at Tab 26, Dr. Todres, there are
 22  meeting notes from the IMC meeting of September the 5 --
 23  September 5th, pardon me.  It's marked as Exhibit P-509. 
 24  Do you --
 25                 A:   Yes, I see it.

34
  1                 Q:   -- see that?
  2                 And having read those and having had the
  3  opportunity to review those, do you -- do you recall that
  4  you were in fact briefed on these?
  5                 A:   Yes.  I believe I was briefed on
  6  those.  I wouldn't have seen the minutes, but Ron would
  7  have briefed me.
  8                 Q:   And what was your understanding, Dr.
  9  Todres, of Ron as you call him, Ron Fox, Inspector Fox,
 10  of his obligations to be at the meeting around providing
 11  information that he would have received from his
 12  colleagues on the ground?
 13                 A:   Well, being a seasoned -- being a
 14  seasoned officer, and I might indicate that I never
 15  referred to him as Inspector Fox, he was Mr. Fox to me,
 16  he would have exercised judgment.  I mean, he appreciated
 17  that in order for the InterMinisterial Committee to have
 18  a factual base upon which to make reasoned
 19  recommendations, not decisions, but recommendations, that
 20  they ought to have had a certain degree of information.
 21                 He would not have shared with them, I
 22  don't believe, tactical --
 23                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner,
 24  with respect, I understand Dr. Todres is doing her best
 25  in helping, it's not the question, it's just that if Dr.

35
  1  Todres is speculating based on what she knew at the time
  2  or in fact knows now, that is, Fox reported to her X and
  3  Y.  
  4                 But, if it's purely he would haves, I have
  5  no memory, but he would have, and with great respect to
  6  Dr. Todres, it's probably not of assistance and we get
  7  confused about whether it's a knowledge base or not.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just a
  9  minute.  Yes, I hear you, Mr. Falconer.  I hear you Mr.
 10  Falconer.  Mr. Sandler has something to say.
 11                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I was just going to
 12  suggest that we may be getting a little too overly
 13  technical in objecting here --
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- because I think
 16  it's important that -- that we get a sense because there
 17  are interesting and important systemic issues here about
 18  what Dr. Todres would expect --
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 20                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- to be communicated
 21  and why certain things would be appropriate to be
 22  communicated --
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 24                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- and if it's framed
 25  that way, what her expectations would be, I can't imagine

36
  1  any objection to it.
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  There
  3  is a fine line and some of the testimony of Dr. Todres
  4  has been very helpful, even thought it hasn't been -- it
  5  might not be classic evidence or admissible in a trial or
  6  whatever, but it's been very helpful.  And so exactly
  7  where to draw the line between pure speculation which is
  8  of no assistance to anybody, and useful -- useful
  9  assistance is a difficult one.
 10                 Let's just try to keep our eye on it as we
 11  go through it.
 12                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you,
 13  Commissioner.  It just seems to me that Dr. Todres does
 14  have a wealth of information --
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 16                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- to provide and
 17  obviously this Inquiry's mandate goes beyond simply the
 18  testimony here.  There's a second aspect to it that I --
 19  I believe that this ought to be helpful.  And I --
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, you
 21  have to be careful that's all. 
 22                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- appreciate Mr.
 23  Sandler's remarks.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We have to
 25  be careful, we have to keep Mr. Falconer's concerns in

37
  1  mind.  So, let's move forward.
  2                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you for that,
  3  Commissioner.
  4  
  5  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
  6                 Q:   Dr. Todres, perhaps I can tell you
  7  that Inspector Fox has testified here and he had made a
  8  distinction between field information which I think he
  9  described, and I'll be corrected by the record if I'm
 10  wrong, is information that was publicly known as opposed
 11  to operational or strategic type of information.
 12                 First of all, were you aware of such
 13  distinction?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that he testified that it was his
 16  obligation to provide this kind of field obligation --
 17  pardon me, field information, to the IMC.  And I think
 18  you've already confirmed that --
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   -- that was your expectation --
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   -- of what he would do?  All right.
 23                 Did you have any meetings, Dr. Todres,
 24  that you can recall for us on September the 5th with
 25  respect to the Ipperwash matter?

38
  1                 A:   Well, all I can recall is the
  2  specific briefing, the detailed briefing that I -- that I
  3  received on the 5th, and to the best of my recollection,
  4  a generic meeting with our two (2) Ministers in which
  5  Ipperwash was discussed briefly.
  6                 And it was discussed in the context of
  7  what our prevailing, if I can put it, policy constructs
  8  were, which is slow, steady negotiation, no options -- no
  9  other options at the time being considered.
 10                 And on the afternoon of the 5th none of us
 11  in that room had unusual concerns about Ipperwash.   So,
 12  I left the office on the 5th as I would any other day
 13  with the Solicitor General.
 14                 Q:   And specifically did you have -- I'm
 15  sorry.
 16                 A:   I had no concerns about Ipperwash.
 17                 Q:   And specifically did you have any
 18  concerns about the -- the policing of the situation?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   All right.  If you had any concerns
 21  what would be the appropriate manner of -- of raising
 22  those concerns or of intervening --
 23                 A:   Well, again it would have depended on
 24  what the nature of the concern would be --
 25                 Q:   All right. 

39
  1                 A:   -- so given the earlier cautions I'm
  2  not going to speculate too much.
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine. 
  4  That's fine.
  5                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you.
  6                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   She didn't
  7  have any concerns.
  8  
  9  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
 10                 Q:   Did you speak to the OPP Commissioner
 11  O'Grady on that day --
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   -- at any time prior to September the
 14  7th, to your knowledge?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   And would it have been appropriate
 17  for you to contact the Commissioner about an ongoing or a
 18  contemplated police operation?
 19                 A:   No, I didn't believe it was.
 20                 Q:   All right.  Were you aware that
 21  Inspector Fox, or Mr. Fox was having conversations with
 22  John Carson who was the incident commander?
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   All right.  And if you were aware
 25  that such conversations were occurring would that raise

40
  1  any issue for you?
  2                 A:   No, I -- I don't know how a person
  3  can discharge their -- how a person can discharge his or
  4  her responsibilities to keep the IMC and the Deputy
  5  informed without speaking directly and finding out as
  6  much information, otherwise we would have relied on the
  7  briefing notes from Phil Duffield from the OPP.
  8                 I would have expected the protocols to be
  9  observes, as we've discussed earlier, in the transmission
 10  and eliciting of information back and forth.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And if you were aware that
 12  there was also meetings with Inspector Fox and certain
 13  political staff who -- who may or may not have been
 14  expressing opinions does that raise any issue for you?
 15                 A:   Well, --
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just a
 17  minute, Mr. Worme.
 18                 Yes, Ms. Twohig...?
 19                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:    Yes, Mr. Commissioner,
 20  I just think it's important for Dr. Todres to have the
 21  context. If we're talking about interacting with
 22  political staff for example at an IMC meeting that may be
 23  very different from other types of interaction.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We've got
 25  too general a question.

41
  1                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:    Yes.
  2                 MR. DONALD WORME:   I appreciate My
  3  Friend's comments.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Be a little 
  5  more --
  6                 MR. DONALD WORME:   She's absolutely
  7  right.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  9  
 10  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
 11                 Q:   During the course of an IMC meeting
 12  where political staff may be present and they may be
 13  expressing opinions on behalf of their respective
 14  Ministers does that raise any issue for you?
 15                 A:   Let me -- let me again provide just a
 16  little bit of an historical context on that particular
 17  question.
 18                 I'd attended as a junior staffer many,
 19  many InterMinisterial Committees.  I was never a member
 20  of IMC. But it had been the case for many years that
 21  political staff would attend IMC meetings.  The behaviour
 22  of those staff at those meetings was to listen and to
 23  provide a conduit to the Minister because after all that
 24  Committee only had recommendatory powers.
 25  

42
  1                 So, those staff would have been aided by
  2  attending those meetings so that when political choices
  3  were actually put forward with respect to options they
  4  would have had some information.
  5                 I think in the case that you're referring
  6  to what -- what I understood to be different in this
  7  particular case was that we had political staff who were
  8  taking active  -- who were active involvement -- they
  9  were actively involved, not just attentive listeners.  
 10                 And that was a flag for me and that was a
 11  flag for the Deputy Attorney General.  And that is why we
 12  were concerned a little later on about what we needed to
 13  do in terms of placing limits around political staff
 14  being present. 
 15                 Because what happens, as I indicated, in
 16  my -- as I was speaking yesterday, first of all do we
 17  take the view that if  a political staffer is there that
 18  it is -- it is actually the same as having the voice of
 19  the Minister?
 20                 And for junior staff it can be very
 21  confusing to have political staff present, because it's
 22  difficult for them to differentiate personal opinion
 23  expressed by that particular person versus policy
 24  direction from a Minister. And -- and often political
 25  staff will present with the use of collective nouns in a

43
  1  way in which their personal views can be misinterpreted.
  2                 So, that was a caution for me when I
  3  became aware of the active involvement of political staff
  4  at such meetings.
  5                 Q:   I think you've testified that you
  6  left the office then on that day, September the 5th. 
  7  There was no urgency to this situation --
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   -- as you understood it?
 10                 On September the 6th, Dr. Todres, you
 11  would have arrived, I take it, at your office at the
 12  usual -- usual time.
 13                 Is there anything extraordinary on the
 14  morning of the 6th that you can tell us about?
 15                 A:   On the morning of the 6th then, my
 16  days began very early in that Ministry, I received a
 17  briefing again, a daily briefing.  I believe Ron Fox and
 18  Barbara Taylor and again, Scott Taylor -- Scott Patrick
 19  may have been there on the latest update.
 20                 And as of the morning -- of early morning,
 21  that might have been seven or eight o'clock in the
 22  morning --
 23                 Q:   Perhaps I can just interrupt you
 24  briefly.  If I can have you turn to Tab number 29.  It's
 25  Inquiry Document 1000911.  It's marked as Exhibit P-513.

44
  1                 It would appear to be an e-mail from Ron
  2  Fox and it's addressed to yourself as well as Kathryn
  3  Hunt.  Do you see that, it's --
  4                 A:   Yes, I do.
  5                 Q:   -- dated September the 6th.
  6                 A:   I do.
  7                 Q:   And time stamped at 7:55 -- 07:55
  8  with high priority.
  9                 A:   Yes, I see that.  I don't recall
 10  seeing that in particular, but that would have been the
 11  substance of the verbal briefing.  So, it may have been
 12  then at eight o'clock in the morning.
 13                 Q:   And did you meet with the Attorney
 14  General on that morning --
 15                 A:   Not that I recall.
 16                 Q:   Were you aware that there was a
 17  Cabinet meeting that morning?
 18                 A:   Well, I believe it was Wednesday, so
 19  there were Cabinet meetings on Wednesday.
 20                 Q:   All right.  Did you meet with the --
 21  with the Deputy Attorney General?
 22                 A:   Not that I recall.
 23                 Q:   Other than -- well, did you meet with
 24  Ron Fox, I should ask you.
 25                 A:   Yes.

45
  1                 Q:   All right.
  2                 A:   I recall that I had a briefing with
  3  him in the morning.
  4                 Q:   And can you recall anything of that
  5  briefing that you can tell us about?
  6                 A:   No.  Other than again, after the
  7  meeting, I had no sense of alarm.
  8                 Q:   And we have had some testimony, Dr.
  9  Todres, that there was a meeting on that morning between
 10  the former Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Taman,
 11  Superintendent Fox, as well as former Attorney General
 12  Harnick.  And that meeting took place between yourself,
 13  Minister Runciman, Minister Harnick, Mr. Taman and Mr.
 14  Fox.
 15                 Do you recall that at all?
 16                 A:   No.
 17                 Q:   Were you aware that there was also an
 18  InterMinisterial Committee that was going to be --
 19                 A:   I believe so.
 20                 Q:   -- occurring later that morning?  All
 21  right.  
 22                 Can I ask you to turn to Tab 30, Dr.
 23  Todres. It's the meeting notes for September the 6th, and
 24  it's marked as Exhibit P-509.
 25                 A:   I see it, thank you.

46
  1                 Q:   Did you ever had -- did you review
  2  these notes, first of all?
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just one (1)
  4  second before you answer the question.
  5                 Yes, Mr. Sandler?
  6                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   This doesn't have to
  7  with an upcoming question, but -- but My Friend just
  8  summarized that there's been some evidence of a meeting
  9  that morning that Superintendent Fox attended.
 10                 I don't recall any evidence to that effect
 11  of the meeting that he described.
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I was
 13  wondering about that, but I -- perhaps you'd be a little
 14  more specific, Mr. Worme, about what you --
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I'm quite confident
 16  that that -- that there --
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 18                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- that the evidence
 19  has not been that the meeting that My Friend described
 20  was attended by -- by Inspector Fox.
 21                 MR. DONALD WORME:   I think Mr. Sandler's
 22  right and I -- I apologize.  I may have misspoke on that,
 23  and perhaps I can ask the Witness whether --
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well --
 25                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- you were aware of a

47
  1  meeting, absent Mr. Fox, with the individuals that I'd
  2  referred to.
  3                 THE WITNESS:   I don't recall that
  4  meeting.
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  6  
  7  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:   
  8                 Q:   Let me just take you back, then, to
  9  the -- to the exhibit that I referred you to earlier.
 10                 You recall receiving a briefing with
 11  respect to the content of those minutes?
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   Did you have any conversations that
 14  morning with Mr. Taman that you can recall or anyone
 15  prior to the -- prior to the Minister's meeting, about
 16  the Premier and his views on the situation?
 17                 A:   No.
 18  
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20  
 21                 Q:   Do you recall what the position of
 22  the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were with
 23  respect to the Ipperwash matter?
 24                 Do you have any recollection as to what
 25  their views were?

48
  1                 A:   My recollection of where we were as
  2  of September 5th in the evening and September 6th in the
  3  morning, was that we would proceed apace, in other words
  4  doing exactly what we were doing; that the police would
  5  be monitoring, that there would be an attempt at
  6  negotiations and that we would be staying the course.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Can I ask you to turn to
  8  Tab 34, Dr. Todres?
  9  
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11  
 12                 Q:   It's Inquiry Document 2001053.  It's
 13  marked as Exhibit P-594.  And you'll see that it's a --
 14                 A:   Yes, I see it.
 15                 Q:   -- Ministry of -- it's an MSGC issue
 16  note.  And you'll also note that it is marked as not
 17  circulated?
 18                 A:   Yes, I see that.
 19                 Q:   Dated September the 6th at 10:30
 20  a.m.?
 21  
 22                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23  
 24                 Q:   And you'll see that it outlines the
 25  OPP's and the Commissioner's authority and discretion to

49
  1  determine what action if any should be taken about the
  2  Park occupation?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   And it emphasizes that quote:
  5                   "The Ministers should not intervene in
  6                   operational decisions made by the OPP
  7                   members when exercising their powers as
  8                   police officers -- as peace officers
  9                   [pardon me]."
 10                 Q:   All right.  Did you see this issue
 11  note at all?
 12                 A:   I don't recall seeing it, but I -- I
 13  recall the substance of it.
 14                 Q:   Do you recall attending then, Dr.
 15  Todres, at some point on that day, and -- and I'll ask
 16  you to tell us when if you recall, attending a meeting at
 17  the Premier's office?
 18                 A:   Yes, I do.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  Can you tell us about that,
 20  the timing first of all?
 21                 A:   I believe that the meeting was
 22  somewhere around eleven o'clock in the morning.  And I
 23  don't believe that the meeting took longer than thirty
 24  (30) or forty (40) minutes.
 25                 Q:   All right.  

50
  1                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  2                 Q:   Can you tell us who was present at
  3  this meeting?
  4                 A:   I recall walking to the meeting with
  5  Ron Fox.  I don't recall Scott Patrick in particular, but
  6  Scott Patrick may have been called.
  7                 Perhaps I might begin by saying I was
  8  summoned to the meeting.  I can't recall who called my
  9  office, and normally people wouldn't call me directly.  I
 10  would have been called to the meeting.
 11                 It was an unusual meeting.  In my tenure
 12  as a deputy for ten (10) -- ten (10) years I've only been
 13  in that meeting room twice, once with Premier Harris and
 14  once with Premier Peterson.  So, it was an unusual
 15  occurrence and it was an unusual occurrence on a
 16  Wednesday which is a Cabinet day.
 17                 So, someone called my office.  I wouldn't
 18  know who called my office.  I was simply told that I had
 19  to be there. 
 20                 And as a Deputy Minister having been
 21  invited to a Premier's office I wouldn't have decided who
 22  I wished to take with me to the meeting.  Someone, and I
 23  don't know who that someone is, would have suggested who
 24  had to attend.  I wouldn't have had the temerity to bring
 25  along a party list to a meeting like that. 

51
  1                 I wasn't clear what the content of the
  2  meeting was, but I could imagine that it might have
  3  something to do with Ipperwash, but I wouldn't have known
  4  what the meeting was about.  I don't believe I was
  5  informed about what the meeting was, in particular.
  6                 So, I recall walking along with Ron, and
  7  perhaps Barbara Taylor, and Scott.  We reached what we
  8  called the dining room and I walked into the room alone
  9  without Mr. Fox, Mr. Patrick, or Ms. Taylor and I'm not
 10  sure about the order in which people arrived.  I don't
 11  have a recall of that.
 12                 But I can tell you that I recall that of
 13  course there were the three (3) Ministers of Natural
 14  Resources, Solicitor General, and Attorney General; their
 15  three (3) respected Deputies, Deputy Vrancart, Deputy
 16  Taman, and myself; there were the respective executive
 17  assistants of the three (3) Ministers and the executive. 
 18  Although there were -- Peter Allen was there I -- I
 19  recall so there might have been some EA's to the -- to
 20  the Deputies.  I didn't bring my -- my executive
 21  assistant was not brought in or not asked to be there.
 22                 And I recall that Debra Hutton was there. 
 23  I believe David Lindsay was there.  I can't recall, in
 24  particular, whether the Secretary of Cabinet Rita Burak
 25  was there.  It would have -- I -- I don't know.  I don't

52
  1  recall her.  It's unusual for a Secretary of Cabinet not
  2  to be present when a principle secretary is present, but
  3  I can't recall seeing her.
  4                 So those were the people present.  Would
  5  you like me to describe what I recall of that meeting?
  6                 Q:   Just before you do that can you tell
  7  us how called the meeting?  Perhaps you've already told
  8  me and --
  9                 A:   I -- I don't know.  I -- I have to
 10  assume -- I mean, again I'm reluctant to speculate.
 11                 Q:   Perhaps you -- perhaps you shouldn't.
 12                 A:   Someone called us, it must have been
 13  from the Premier's office.
 14                 Q:   Would you go ahead then and tell us
 15  what it is that you -- you observed and heard?
 16                 A:   So, we sat in the room, it's a rather
 17  small room and it's circumscribed by space, it's not a
 18  large room.  And at the top of the meeting as I -- as I -
 19  - I understood that the -- the discussion was going to be
 20  Ipperwash.
 21                 And I believe that the Premier would have
 22  so indicated.  He was chairing the meeting.  I felt an
 23  obligation to repeat what for many would have been
 24  obvious, but to repeat the point about what precisely is
 25  the role of the police, what is the role of the Solicitor

53
  1  General and the demarcation line between politician and
  2  operational instructions to police.
  3                 To simply make it clear and put it on the
  4  table that we all knew that this was the policy but to
  5  remind us this was indeed, was the policy and we intended
  6  to observer it at this meeting.
  7                 Q:   And the reason you felt obliged to do
  8  so?
  9                 A:   Well, it's a new Government and I
 10  felt that that was my role at the meeting to -- to make
 11  that perfectly plain.
 12                 The meeting, in fact, was dominated in my
 13  memory by the Deputy Attorney General speaking about
 14  context and then a very, very long discussion, what
 15  seemed to be a very long discussion, about the use of
 16  injunction and the type of injunctions.
 17                 And I think it would be fair to say that I
 18  am neither an expert on injunctions, nor an expert on ex
 19  parte injunctions, but that particular subject was
 20  discussed at great length.
 21                 It was a heated discussion.  There was a
 22  lot of frustration on the part of politicians.  There was
 23  a great deal of sense of urgency about dealing with this
 24  issue as promptly as possible.
 25                 And at the end of the meeting -- and I

54
  1  have no recall of Ron Fox being in attendance at the
  2  meeting.  I do recall however, a significant amount of
  3  time being allocated to a briefing of what actually was
  4  happening on the ground and the discussion of what
  5  tactics and strategies had worked to-date.
  6                 That is to say that our general view from
  7  a bureaucratic point of view what that steady as she
  8  goes, no interventions, the police are to make their own
  9  independent decisions with respect to operations and that
 10  we would be relying on approaches to negotiation.
 11                 My overwhelming sense at the end of the
 12  meeting was that it was the political direction to
 13  proceed with injunction, to proceed with haste, to try to
 14  deal with this issue as quickly as possible, and at the
 15  end of the day I believed that the Deputy Attorney
 16  General was likely given instruc -- was given instruction
 17  to proceed not only with injunction but to certainly
 18  explore, with a great deal of vim and vigour, ex parte
 19  injunction.  And then the meeting was over.
 20                 Q:   Just -- just let me ask you a few
 21  questions about what you've just described.  First of
 22  all, the Deputy Attorney General and that -- that would
 23  be Mr. Taman?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   In his discussion of the various

55
  1  types of injunctions, I -- I gather that's what you were
  2  describing, first of all what did ex parte mean to you at
  3  that point?
  4                 A:   Very little.  And I -- I would
  5  describe my behaviour at the time as desperately trying
  6  to understand what he was talking about.
  7                 Q:   All right.
  8                 A:   It was not an area that I felt I
  9  needed to be expert on.  It was something clearly within
 10  the mandate of the Attorney General and in this the
 11  Deputy Attorney's department.
 12                 Q:   And did you have a sense -- I'm
 13  sorry, did I cut you off?
 14                 Did you have a sense that  -- that he was
 15  advocating a particular position?
 16                 A:   I -- I -- my sense of the meeting was
 17  that he would have preferred not to go the injunction
 18  route and would have preferred to have let the matters
 19  lay as they were.  That was my recollection.
 20                 When asked to describe injunctions, he
 21  did, and my sense was although I couldn't follow all of
 22  the legal discussions, I -- I was led to believe that an
 23  ex parte injunction might be a type of injunction that
 24  would be able to be implemented more quickly than the
 25  other.

56
  1                 But, I -- I would -- I'm speaking as a lay
  2  person trying to recall a conversation.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And you mentioned that
  4  there was some sense of urgency within this meeting.
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And how did that accord with the way
  7  that you understood events from the day previous and even
  8  earlier that morning?
  9                 A:   We felt no -- no sense of urgency.  I
 10  think it would be fair to say that from the -- from a
 11  political point of view, this was a new government that
 12  was keen on presenting itself to the public as being on
 13  top of issues.
 14                 And as time went on, their notion of -- of
 15  immediacy was not in synch with the time that would have
 16  been associated within -- with negotiations.
 17                 And they wanted it done with.  They wanted
 18  to move on.  They had a legislative agenda and they
 19  wanted this dealt with as quickly as possible and they
 20  didn't want to be -- they didn't want it to linger, if I
 21  can put it that way.
 22                 Q:   All right.  Can you describe any
 23  words or phrases that would have taken you to this
 24  understanding?
 25                 A:   Well, there were -- there were -- I

57
  1  did get the sense that they wanted things done.  I mean,
  2  I recall -- the first thing that I recall is that the
  3  Minister of -- of Natural Resources was extremely
  4  agitated and very concerned.
  5                 And in a moment of apparent exasperation,
  6  uttered a phrase that I would prefer not to repeat.
  7                 Q:   I'm going to ask you to repeat it.
  8                 A:   He said, in my recollection, "Get the
  9  [expletive deleted] Indians out of my Park."
 10                 That is the phrase that I recall.
 11                 Q:   He didn't say, "expletive deleted"?
 12                 A:   No, he didn't.  You're asking me to
 13  say that word.
 14                 Q:   I am asking you.
 15                 A:   He said, "Get the fucking Indians out
 16  of my Park" 
 17                 Q:   All right.
 18  
 19                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 20  
 21                 Q:   Did you attribute any such words or
 22  anything like that to any other people within the --
 23  within that meeting?
 24                 A:   No. 
 25                 Q:   Just let me take you back, Dr.

58
  1  Todres.  I think you had testified earlier that you had
  2  walked over to this meeting with Ron Fox?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   You have no recollection of him being
  5  in the meeting?
  6                 A:   None.
  7                 Q:   Of him providing a briefing to -- to
  8  the Premier --
  9                 A:   No.
 10                 Q:   -- and others assembled?
 11                 A:   I actually don't remember him being
 12  there.  Now, well, I'm not going to speculate.  I don't
 13  recall him being there.
 14                 Q:   All right.
 15                 A:   I do remember, however, a
 16  conversation about an update and I do recall a
 17  conversation about what we've -- what -- what was the
 18  recommended path, how ONAS operated, how the
 19  InterMinisterial Committee had always in the past worked
 20  through with negotiation to success.
 21                 And today I might offer -- again, I don't
 22  want to speculate, but I actually don't recall him being
 23  in the room.
 24                 Q:   Do you recall when you arrived at the
 25  meeting?  Was the meeting already underway, had it

59
  1  started?
  2                 A:   No, the meeting was not underway. 
  3  People were just -- I don't know exactly who was there,
  4  but we hadn't started speaking --
  5                 Q:   And that's the question I was going
  6  to ask you --
  7                 A:   -- officially.
  8                 Q:   Do you remember who was present when
  9  you arrived?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   And specifically, I would have asked
 12  you whether or not then-Minister Harnick was present, and
 13  I take it you don't recall?
 14                 A:   I don't recall.
 15  
 16                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 17  
 18                 Q:   Did you hear any comments that would
 19  have indicated to you that there was displeasure with the
 20  way that the OPP had handled the situation?
 21                 A:   No, that's not how I took the
 22  meeting.  I took the meeting as -- as an informational
 23  meeting, again, a great deal of frustration, but I didn't
 24  hear any direct criticism of the OPP.
 25                 Q:   You've indicated a number of people

60
  1  present and you've also indicated now, for a second time,
  2  that there was a great deal of frustration in the room.
  3                 Who do you attribute that frustration to?
  4                 A:   Well, I think the --
  5                 Q:   Or expressing frustration, pardon me?
  6                 A:   I think the Premier was concerned and
  7  I think he would have liked to have had this issue
  8  resolved quickly.  I think that Mr. Hodgson was clearly
  9  very, very upset.  And the political staff, I think,
 10  around there wanted the issue resolved as quickly as
 11  possible.
 12                 Q:   And when you say, "as quickly as
 13  possible", was there anything that you recall that would
 14  give an indication as to what kind of time line that was
 15  referring to?
 16                 A:   I don't remember who said this, but I
 17  remember say -- I mean, I remember walking out of the
 18  room with the impression that we would be -- that Larry,
 19  that the deputy Attorney General would be proceeding with
 20  an ex parte injunction within twenty-four (24) hours.
 21                 Now, my reaction to that was not a literal
 22  one of twenty-four (24) hours because lawyers when
 23  working on injunctions have to work through a variety of
 24  issues.  I took that as an indication of moving speedily.
 25                 Q:   Did you hear the Premier say anything

61
  1  about any timeline?
  2                 A:   I think he may have indicated that he
  3  wanted this matter dealt with quickly as well.
  4                 Q:   And when you say, "quickly," did he
  5  indicate a timeline?
  6                 A:   He may have said or someone said -- I
  7  can't attribute it to him, but someone said within
  8  twenty-four (24) hours.
  9                 Q:   If I can just get a moment,
 10  Commissioner?
 11  
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13  
 14                 Q:   I'm sorry, Dr. Todres.  I just want
 15  to get back to this -- this comment again made by
 16  Minister Hodgson that you've just told us about.  Can you
 17  recall when, within the context of the meeting, when that
 18  would have occurred?
 19                 A:   Well, it wasn't at the beginning of
 20  the meeting and it wasn't at the end of the meeting.  It
 21  was somewhere -- I -- I think it may have been after the
 22  -- the legal explanations and I can recall my -- my
 23  reaction.  I know -- I know --
 24                 Q:   What was your reaction?
 25                 A:   My -- my reaction was that I was -- I

62
  1  found the comments to be shocking and revealing. 
  2  Shocking in the sense that I just would never have
  3  expected a Minister of the Crown to be using that
  4  language, to using the phraseology; it was of deep
  5  concern and that it was offensive. 
  6                 But, what I found particularly revealing
  7  was the phrase 'in my park' because that -- what that
  8  triggered for me was the reaction of a green Minister, a
  9  novice, who was placed in a position of an issue for the
 10  first time in his mandate, and indeed a government in the
 11  first time of its mandate.
 12                 And the sudden realization that, first of
 13  all, for every issue there is not necessarily a quick
 14  response or even a response.  Not all problems can be
 15  fixed.
 16                 And secondly that when a serious issue is
 17  put before a government, when you look at Cabinet
 18  structure, it's not surprising that there are a whole
 19  variety of contextual things that have to be considered. 
 20  Lawyers have to speak about legalities and ONAS has its
 21  own perspective and it isn't a simple snap decision.
 22                 And my sense was that at he -- as he'd
 23  been listening to the briefings and the complexities of
 24  injunctions and what could be done and what couldn't be
 25  done that when he said, "my park", it was revelatory of -

63
  1  - of as I say an unseasoned person who would have liked
  2  to have seen quick reaction and was presented with a very
  3  complex set of factors.  
  4                 So, I believe that, I can't be absolutely
  5  certain, but I believe that remark would have been made
  6  sometime after some of the detailed briefing had
  7  occurred. 
  8                 Q:   Was there any -- did -- did anybody
  9  speak in -- in reaction to that comment?
 10                 A:   No, we just -- it was as though there
 11  was a break and we -- we moved along.  I'm not certain --
 12  I wouldn't have known if everyone heard it.  It was a
 13  very difficult room to hear.  There was an air
 14  conditioner in the back and I recall straining at the
 15  edge of my seat to hear what was actually going on, so I
 16  don't know what others heard.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Did you hear any -- any
 18  exchanges -- well, and perhaps this is -- this is not
 19  entirely fair, but since you've told us you don't recall
 20  Inspector Fox being present, or Mr. Fox, so you wouldn't
 21  recall whether there was any exchanges between him and --
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   -- Minister Hodgson?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   All right.  Aside from what you --

64
  1  you think you might have heard from the Premier, did you
  2  hear him make any remarks with respect to the holocaust?
  3                 A:   No, I did not, and I should indicate
  4  to you that I'm a daughter of holocaust survivors.
  5                 Q:   And that would stick out in your
  6  mind?
  7                 A:   It would definitely have been
  8  retained.
  9                 Q:   All right.  Do you recall the -- the
 10  Premier or anybody being critical of OPP operations
 11  within that meeting?
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   Do you recall how the meeting ended?
 14                 A:   It sort of fizzled out, in the sense
 15  that there was Cabinet and people started moving.  I
 16  don't think we were there for more than an hour.  I don't
 17  know if we were there by -- by Cabinet time, that's a
 18  great deal of time for a meeting with the Premier, and
 19  people started leaving.  And then what I recall is -- is
 20  walking out of the room and then walking back with Ron
 21  Fox to the office.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  Let me just ask you about --
 23  about arriving at the meeting.  You -- you've told us
 24  that you remember walking to the meeting with Ron Fox?
 25                 A:   I do.

65
  1                 Q:   Were you at the Ministry of the
  2  Attorney General's office prior to this Premier dining
  3  room -- Premier's dining room meeting?
  4                 A:   Not that I recall.  I think we were
  5  at our office.  And our office was at Church and Bloor so
  6  I don't know whether we took a car and then walked, but
  7  we were together.
  8                 Q:   All right.  Sorry, excuse me.
  9  
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11  
 12                 Q:   Might it have been, Dr. Todres, that
 13  you were at ONAS offices that morning perhaps?  Is that -
 14  - does that assist you at all?
 15                 A:   Unless -- I don't even recall where
 16  the ONAS offices are.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Going back to the meeting
 18  and at termination of this meeting, you heard a number of
 19  comments and phrases and -- and frustrations as you've
 20  told us, how did you regard those?
 21                 A:   Well, as I indicated earlier, there
 22  were some remarks which were abhorrent and -- and hurtful
 23  and offensive, but I considered the meeting to be a
 24  confidential meeting, not a Cabinet meeting, but a
 25  confidential meeting. 

66
  1                 A lot of discussion about this, that and
  2  the other, which I -- I took to be while florid, not
  3  direction.  The direction I heard from that meeting was
  4  strictly with respect to injunctions.  Lots of people
  5  have opinions about lots of things, that's not government
  6  policy.
  7                 Q:   Is there anything else of
  8  significance that you can tell us about that meeting?
  9                 A:   No.  I don't believe so.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  Did you feel that you had
 11  received instructions as a result of what had gone on
 12  within that meeting?
 13                 A:   No.  No.  I believed that the Deputy
 14  Attorney General had received instructions.
 15                 Q:   Did you see what, if anything he did,
 16  as a result of receipt of those instructions?
 17                 A:   I wouldn't have known particularly
 18  what he would have done immediately following that
 19  meeting.
 20                 Q:   All right.  From that meeting, where
 21  did you go?
 22                 A:   I went back to the office and I
 23  believe that we actually had a meeting.  I -- I'm not
 24  absolutely certain.  I -- I know it's difficult for the
 25  Commission, but we had in retrospect fifty (50) meetings

67
  1  on Ipperwash, so it's very difficult to precisely say
  2  what happened and at what sequence.
  3                 But I seem to have a memory of meeting
  4  with Deputy Vrancart and Deputy Taman in the afternoon of
  5  the 6th to just sort out around the injunctions.  I can't
  6  be absolutely certain but I do have a memory of
  7  discussing the injunctions with them in a room that, in
  8  my memory, seems to have resembled my boardroom, but I'm
  9  not ab -- not 100 percent certain.
 10                 And as the issue of ex parte injunction
 11  was being discussed among the three (3) of us, there were
 12  a team of lawyers and I don't recall their names, who
 13  were instructed to begin to work, and they may have
 14  started, I -- I wouldn't know, but from my perspective
 15  that was not our Ministry responsibility.
 16                 But I seem to recall that we might have
 17  had a little confab, the three (3) of us, without
 18  Ministers on the afternoon of the 6th.
 19                 Q:   I think you'd indicated earlier that
 20  you left the Premier's dining room meeting with Ron Fox?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  Do you have any recollection
 23  that he was invited to leave the meeting early?
 24                 A:   All I know -- all I do recall is that
 25  he didn't walk in to the meeting with me.  So, he didn't

68
  1  walk into the meeting with me.  At some point during the
  2  meeting, someone, I don't -- since I don't recall him
  3  being there it wouldn't have been me that asked, but
  4  somebody must have asked him to come in.
  5                 Q:   Okay.  Would it assist you at all to
  6  know that Ron Fox testified on July the 12th at pages 66
  7  and 69 of the transcript that either you or Minister
  8  Runciman introduced him by name?  No?
  9                 A:   Doesn't help my recall.
 10                 Q:   Going back to your office with Ron
 11  Fox, do you recall any discussion with him at all?
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   And specifically, any concerns that
 14  he might have expressed about the meeting?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   Any language that he might have used,
 17  redneck, anything like that?
 18                 A:   I don't recall that.
 19                 Q:   Did you have any concerns, Dr.
 20  Todres, about -- about that meeting, aside from which
 21  you've already told us of the -- of the language that was
 22  used?
 23                 A:   Well, it's hard to isolate particular
 24  meetings, but -- but the deputy Attorney General and I
 25  spent some time, whether it was that day or on the 7th,

69
  1  asking ourselves the question; Who needs to be at
  2  meetings, when and where, Are there opportunities where
  3  we need to clarify when political staff need to be
  4  present, et cetera.  
  5                 In retrospect today, I might have said
  6  that I would have handled -- as I say, I don't recall Ron
  7  being in the room, but normal practice in Ministerial
  8  briefings and in Cabinet meetings are that when sensitive
  9  subjects are being discussed, for example, in Cabinet I
 10  might be in the anteroom as a deputy Minister waiting to
 11  be called.
 12                 I would only be permitted to walk into
 13  that room for my item.  I might also be prevented from
 14  staying during actual political discussion, so that I
 15  would have only have been there to provide my content and
 16  asked to leave.
 17                 And in hindsight, had I known, or had I
 18  remembered, or whatever the circumstances were around Mr.
 19  Fox being invited, that protocol, should he have even
 20  been invited, should have been -- should have been put
 21  into place.
 22                 So, we had concerns, in general, and we'll
 23  come to that on the 7th, but we had -- we had concerns
 24  about what we needed to do prospectively about all the
 25  players, because there were so many.

70
  1                 Q:   Okay.  And thank you for that. 
  2  Following the meeting, which I think you've indicated
  3  there was nothing of significance that you can recall or
  4  to add at this moment, what was your understanding of
  5  your ongoing role then, with respect to the Ipperwash
  6  file?
  7                 A:   Well, it was again a watching brief. 
  8  The legal beagles would be working on the injunction, and
  9  that would or would not take place.  
 10                 As I understood it there were always
 11  questions of how the judiciary would respond and so on,
 12  and my -- my watching brief -- would brief on the 6th
 13  would have been exactly the same as the 5th, which is
 14  we're maintaining the course of action and then until
 15  otherwise -- until there were other significant changes.
 16                 I left the office on the 6th feeling
 17  exactly as I did on the 5th.
 18                 Q:   And who was the lead Ministry in your
 19  mind, at that moment?
 20                 A:   In this sense, the lead Ministry, if
 21  I can put it this way from the expectation of what major
 22  next step had to occur, was the Attorney General.
 23                 Q:   All right.  And aside -- aside from
 24  that, you understood that there would be some
 25  involvement, perhaps, by the OPP in terms of the

71
  1  injunction?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And did you have any role --
  4                 A:   No.
  5                 Q:   -- insofar as that goes?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   And your recollection is, is that you
  8  left home or left, rather, the office for the day and...
  9                 A:   Just -- exactly, as I would have any
 10  other day, there was no alarm bells at all.
 11                 Q:   Perhaps this is a good moment to take
 12  a break, Commissioner.
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think it's
 14  a good time to take a morning break.
 15                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you.
 16                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry will recess
 17  for fifteen (15) minutes.
 18  
 19  --- Upon recessing at 10:15 a.m.
 20  --- Upon resuming at 10:32 a.m.
 21  
 22                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry is now
 23  resumed. Please be seated.
 24  
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)

72
  1  CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME:
  2                 Q:   Dr. Todres, perhaps before I move on
  3  I -- I'd asked you earlier whether you were aware of any
  4  conversations between Mr. Fox and John Carson.  I think
  5  your answer was no.
  6                 I think I'd asked you whether or not that
  7  raised any concerns with you, and again you simply
  8  indicated that your expectation was that the proper
  9  protocols would be followed.  Do you recall that?
 10                 A:   Yes, I do.
 11                 Q:   And let me just ask you the followup
 12  question; that simply is:  What are those proper
 13  protocols?
 14                 A:   That the field information that would
 15  be in the public domain would be transmitted to me and to
 16  others and that those issues that involved the
 17  aggregation of facts that would lead to tactical or
 18  strategic decisions would not be passed forward, and from
 19  -- from Mr. Fox's perspective, that political decisions
 20  after the fact would be conveyed through our proper
 21  channels; that is through the Minister or through me.
 22                 Q:   And thank you for that.  At Tab 34 of
 23  the -- that book of documents in from you, Dr. Todres, I
 24  had taken you to that earlier, that is Exhibit P-594
 25  which was the MSGS issue note which I've pointed out to

73
  1  you was not circulated, you see at the bottom, staff
  2  contact, the name and phone number, Diane Dougall from
  3  Legal Services Branch?
  4                 A:   Yes, I do.
  5                 Q:   Does that mean anything to you?
  6                 A:   Well, she was the Director of our
  7  Legal Services branch.
  8                 Q:   Okay.  And does that assist you in
  9  terms of who might have prepared this document and
 10  perhaps even at whose insistence such a document might be
 11  prepared?
 12                 A:   I don't recall this in particular,
 13  but given that the -- that we were receiving briefings on
 14  -- on the 5th and 6th, either I or others may have felt
 15  that it was necessary in our briefing books to remind
 16  ourselves of what the -- the policy backdrop was.  
 17                 Q:   All right.  
 18                 A:   And this is what this is.  This is
 19  sort of boilerplate removed -- distilled from a variety
 20  of briefing notes that we've seen; that we would have
 21  seen in the past.
 22                 Q:   And just before the break you had
 23  left off saying that on the end of the 6th you went home,
 24  there were no alarm bells?
 25                 A:   No alarm bells.

74
  1                 Q:   Tell us what happened next.
  2                 A:   At two o'clock in the morning I
  3  received a call from the Secretary of Cabinet, Rita
  4  Burak, indicating that there had been a shooting at -- at
  5  the Park and that I would be expected to deal with the
  6  issue in the morning.
  7                 I was shocked -- shocked, dismayed,
  8  disappointed, worried.  It was my responsibility to phone
  9  the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, and I
 10  of course as -- as any other Deputy Minister, would have
 11  had a phone list of all those that I would have needed to
 12  call on a -- on an emergency basis.
 13                 I called Commissioner O'Grady somewhere
 14  between -- whether it was 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning,
 15  and indicated to him what happened.  He was completely
 16  unaware of it.  He had -- had not been informed at that
 17  moment, of it.
 18                 And I probab -- I don't recall precisely
 19  what the conversation was, but I indicated to him that in
 20  the morning we would need to sort out -- I would need to
 21  sort out with the Minister and so on what our -- what our
 22  next steps would be.
 23                 I don't believe that I called the Minister
 24  or the -- or the Chief of Staff to the Minister.  I -- I
 25  seem to recall that in the conversation that the

75
  1  Secretary of Cabinet would have had with me that we were
  2  observing the usual rules; that is to say that the chief
  3  bureaucrat was speaking to the Deputy, and on the
  4  political side steps would be taken to inform the
  5  political side of -- of this tragedy.
  6                 Q:   In terms of being informed of this
  7  tragedy, what details can you recall you -- you being
  8  provided?
  9                 A:   Somebody was shot outside the Park. 
 10  I wouldn't have gotten anymore detail than that.
 11                 Q:   Whether who it was, or who did the
 12  shooting?
 13                 A:   I don't re -- I don't even know if I
 14  would have that degree of detail.  I don't know if we
 15  would have known that at the time.  But, I knew that
 16  somebody had died.  I'm not sure I knew at that point the
 17  name of the person who had died.
 18                 I -- I may have called -- I can't remember
 19  this in detail.  I may have called Barb Taylor who was my
 20  police liaison because I would have known that we were
 21  now into major issue management.  And given that the
 22  Secretary of Cabinet called me, I would have expected to
 23  have been the lead in sorting out what our next steps
 24  would be.
 25                 So, that was the evening, or the morning -

76
  1  - the early morning of the 6th.  And on the -- I went to
  2  the office probably at 4:00 or 5:00 or 6:00 in the
  3  morning. I was there very, very early --
  4                 Q:   Early morning of the 7th?  
  5                 A:   From the 7th.
  6                 Q:   Yes, thank you.
  7                 A:   And we began to have briefings.  I
  8  believe that we met with -- and now I can't recall
  9  precisely how all of this would have been orchestrated
 10  but clearly the others were informed including the Deputy
 11  Attorney General.
 12                 I recall having a meeting with the Deputy
 13  Attorney General and the Deputy of Natural Resources, and
 14  that led to -- and trying to get the facts, trying to
 15  sort -- sort out who was responsible for what.
 16                 And at that particular time, the three (3)
 17  Deputies, we would have been having discussions about,
 18  now we really have to be clear about who's being involved
 19  in what.  We have to try to remove the political staff
 20  from the IMC.
 21                 We created a headquarters post office  --
 22  post that some people would refer to as a nerve centre. 
 23  It was located in my boardroom, in the boardroom of the
 24  Ministry.
 25                 And it was at that point that we swung

77
  1  into what happened, what do we need to do, what are the
  2  legal actions, what are the communication strategies, how
  3  are we going to deal with this, what protocol has to be
  4  observed with respect to communicating with Native
  5  leaders and so on.
  6                 Q:   If I can just take you back, Dr.
  7  Todres, to the -- to -- to your conversation, or your
  8  telephone call to the -- to the Commissioner, to
  9  Commissioner O'Grady.  Had you discussed with him before
 10  the Ipperwash file at all to your recollection?
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   And that would have been the first
 13  time then?
 14                 A:   I believe so.
 15                 Q:   And I take it that you probably would
 16  have provided him with the same information that --
 17                 A:   I conveyed what actually I --
 18                 Q:   -- that you had?
 19                 A:   -- exactly what I was told.  And we
 20  both understood that there was something he had to do,
 21  there were a series of actions I had to take.
 22                 Q:   You talked about one of the decisions
 23  that the -- I take it it's you and the other Deputy
 24  Ministers?   That's yes?
 25                 A:   Yes, sorry.

78
  1                 Q:   Was to remove the political staff
  2  from IMC?
  3                 A:   Well, I -- what I recall is, you
  4  know, we were -- there was a generic concern and I
  5  suppose this can be elevated to a policy issue.  But,
  6  what -- what is that fine line between getting
  7  information and trying to sort out recommendations and
  8  actions from when -- when in the development of a policy
  9  process you actually inject political staff who have the
 10  right along with the Minsters to shape a decision; that
 11  is the -- that is the system in which we work.
 12                 And so we felt that -- that it was -- it
 13  was a tragedy, it was complicated, there were a lot of
 14  players, that we couldn't just go back to our respective
 15  Ministries and have three (3) communication departments
 16  and three (3) managers and three (3) executive
 17  assistants, the three (3) political executive assistants,
 18  somehow deal with all of this, which in our term -- term
 19  -- and I want to call it issue management, but I just
 20  want to be sensitive to the fact that this is a tragedy
 21  and by my referring to something as issue management, I
 22  am not trivializing what actually happened.
 23                 But, this moved from an operational matter
 24  that was being handled to a very large issue and we felt
 25  that the only way in which we could introduce, not only

79
  1  calm, but clarity with respect to roles and
  2  responsibilities was to reconfigure how it is that we
  3  were going to be working on this.
  4                 And I believe that what we did was we
  5  constructed a group that would have had Deputy Ministers
  6  and EA's to the Deputies and Executive Assistants to the
  7  Ministers, in other words the political arm, with the
  8  Deputies because that was our job.
  9                 Our job was to filter political responses. 
 10  We always felt comfortable and always did and always will
 11  feel comfortable in terms of the liaison role between the
 12  senior elected -- the elected officials and the senior
 13  Deputy Ministers.
 14                 And then to have a working group that was
 15  separated, if I can put it that way, from political staff
 16  that would actually do the work that needed to be done,
 17  whatever that work would be; communications,
 18  negotiations, clarification, briefing notes, et cetera.
 19                 Q:   All right.  
 20  
 21                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 22  
 23                 Q:   Did you have any other meetings that
 24  day that you can recall for us?
 25                 A:   Well, the day is a blur.  I think it

80
  1  was a day of meetings.  I mean, I think the -- the room
  2  was established as a place where people could meet.
  3                 I recall seeing Paul Rhodes and -- who's
  4  the communications fellow from the Premier's office, and
  5  Deborah Hutton being there.  And there would have just
  6  been -- that was the meeting place, if I can put it that
  7  way, and I probably would have had a number of meetings. 
  8  But, it was a day of -- a very emotional and difficult
  9  day.
 10                 Q:   Can I ask you to turn to Tab 37, the
 11  document there, it's marked as Exhibit P-516.  It's
 12  Inquiry Document 1012542.
 13                 A:   Yes, I see it.
 14                 Q:   And we're told that these are the
 15  handwritten notes of Julie Jai, and I think you've
 16  testified earlier that you knew who she was?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   As the Chair of the IMC?
 19                 A:   Yes.  Highly respected Chair of IMC.
 20                 Q:   Right.
 21  
 22                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 23  
 24                 Q:   You see her note at the top of the --
 25  at the -- on the right side of the page under, "Ron Fox,

81
  1  6:20 a.m. Thursday, September '95"?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3  
  4                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  5  
  6                 Q:   See, "Officers were on country road".
  7                 And I'm going to try to read this for you:
  8                   "Encountered some First Nations people. 
  9                   Shots were fired at the officers by
 10                   individuals.  Shots returned.  One (1)
 11                   First Nation person dead, two (2)
 12                   injured."
 13                 Now, I'll just stop there.  Does that
 14  assist you at all in terms of the information that you
 15  might have been provided as to who it was that was shot?
 16                 A:   Well, I can't speak with certainty
 17  about precisely when I know -- know -- knew that Mr.
 18  George was shot, but certainly in the morning the details
 19  became apparent to me; the morning of the 7th.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And if we can go down a little
 21  bit further, just past the phrase, "Deb Hutton"?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   See, "Deputy SG, Elaine and OPP 
 24                   Commissioner coming in.  Will be
 25                   involved in a meeting at 7:00 a.m. with

82
  1                   PO staff."
  2                 Does that assist you at all in terms of
  3  recalling that --
  4                 A:   I don't recall the Commissioner being
  5  there, but it may have been that in the early stages,
  6  that I would have indicated to him at that -- in the
  7  middle of the morning meeting, the two o'clock phone call
  8  I had with him, that he would be coming in.
  9                 I don't recall him being present in the
 10  nerve centre, but he may have been there on the first
 11  day.
 12                 Q:   All right.
 13                 A:   I certainly don't recall him being
 14  there after that.
 15                 Q:   And, "7:00 a.m. meeting with PO
 16                 staff".
 17                 That would be the staff from the Premier's
 18  office?
 19                 A:   That's correct. 
 20                 Q:   All right.  Do you recall having a
 21  meeting with the Premier's office staff?
 22                 A:   I recall having a meeting with the
 23  three (3) Deputies and the Premier's office staff, in the
 24  form of Paul Rhodes and Deb Hutton, and just a whole host
 25  of people; my staff, our communications people.  It was

83
  1  the beginning of what became the Nerve Centre.
  2                 Q:   Thank you.  Do you recall attending a
  3  meeting at 7:30, 8:00 a.m. approximately with Mr. Fox,
  4  Pat -- Mr. Patrick as well as Mr. Taman?
  5                 A:   Well, I don't remember that in
  6  particular, but this was the day of a consistent set of
  7  meetings, so Mr. Taman, the Deputy Attorney General would
  8  -- would have wanted to know what was going on on the
  9  ground.  So it's likely that that was the beginning of a
 10  series of meetings.
 11                 Q:   And can you recall for us any of the
 12  details of any of these meetings that you would have
 13  attended?
 14                 A:   Well, I can't recall the detail, but
 15  -- but the point of the meetings was for us to understand
 16  precisely what we knew of what happened and for the
 17  Government to begin to understand what it needed to do
 18  and for us to be informed about what it is that the OPP
 19  were going to be doing because we were not in a position
 20  and never would have been in a position to instruct the
 21  OPP about next steps, still an operational matter.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And at 5:30 that -- that
 23  same day having a further meeting with Mr. Patrick, Mr.
 24  Fox, and Mr. Vander Voet?  
 25                 A:   Voet?

84
  1                 Q:   Am I saying that correctly?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   Do you recall that meeting?
  4                 A:   No, not in particular, but it would
  5  have just been, as I say, a day of meetings, one (1)
  6  after -- one (1) after the other.
  7                 Q:   I'll ask you to turn to Tab 39.  It's
  8  Inquiry Document 1011845.  It's marked as Exhibit P-659.
  9                 And see -- I'm going to suggest to you
 10  that that is briefing materials and you'll see your name
 11  at the top as being one (1) of the recipients together
 12  with Mr. Taman and Mr. Vrancart?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Do you recognize that package
 15  of materials firstly?
 16                 A:   I don't have a specific recall of
 17  this but this would have been the -- the type of material
 18  that would have been transmitted to us so that all of us
 19  were very clear about the issues before us.
 20                 Q:   And beyond that is there anything
 21  that you can tell us in terms of its -- in terms of its -
 22  - the -- the content and such?
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   At Tab 40, Dr. Todres, is a further
 25  document, it's marked as Exhibit P-596, it's 1011812.  

85
  1                 Do you see it's entitled -- it states:
  2                   "Draft September 7th/95?"
  3                 A:   Yes, I see it.
  4                 Q:   "Minister's Positioning Statements
  5                   re.  Ipperwash Incident."
  6                 Did you have any role, first of all, in
  7  the preparation of this document?
  8                 A:   Well, not in the preparation.  This
  9  would have been the type of thing now that we were into
 10  the -- the issue management phase of a matter before --
 11  before the Government.  This would have been the kind of
 12  material that would have been developed by the
 13  Communications Directors of the respective ministries or
 14  departments.
 15                 And that is to say that, again, to give
 16  backdrop, what's important from a government's
 17  perspective when an issue arises where -- whether it's of
 18  a tragic nature of this kind or indeed any other issue
 19  that -- that befalls it.  The government wishes to be
 20  very clear about who the lead Minister will be to speak
 21  to the issue and what the key messages will be.  So it's
 22  not uncommon for the Premier's office to remind a
 23  Minister, whichever Minister it is, to stay on message.
 24                 Now, in order to stay on message one needs
 25  to know what the message is.  So the respective

86
  1  communications departments would clarify what the three
  2  (3) or four (4) points would be for a Minister to say, 
  3  whether that would be in a scrum or whether that would be
  4  in Question Period, whether that would be in a -- in a
  5  detailed interview on, say, TVO.  
  6                 That communication message would have to
  7  be cleared by the Premier's office, their communications
  8  squad, sometimes the Cabinet Office as well and that is
  9  to ensure that a Minister indeed would stay on message. 
 10  So this was a draft and not -- and not an approved
 11  statement.    
 12                 This may have been the preliminary
 13  materials that would have been developed, that would have
 14  been having to be taken to the other central agencies for
 15  concurrence prior to a Minister being asked a question or
 16  speaking to a point, or in this case the Commissioner.
 17                 Q:   And -- and it's that point that I was
 18  going to ask you about next.
 19                 First of all, it's entirely appropriate
 20  that the Minister of the Solicitor General and
 21  Corrections staff would be preparing a document for the
 22  Minister?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   What about with respect to the
 25  Commissioner?  You see at the bottom of that statement

87
  1  from OPP Commissioner, Tom O'Grady?
  2                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  3                 Q:   Is that something that would
  4  typically happen?  Do you have any comment on the
  5  propriety of that?
  6                 A:   Well, I don't want us to lead to -- I
  7  don't want us to speculate on what the conditions were. 
  8  Normal practice would have been -- and I can't speculate
  9  as to whether normal practice was observed in this case.
 10                 Normal practice would be that the
 11  statement from the Commissioner would be developed by the
 12  communication staff and the Commissioner's office.
 13                 So the fact that this is on paper that is
 14  entitled, MAG/MGS, et cetera, et cetera, we cannot infer
 15  from that who actually wrote that positioning statement.
 16                 Q:   All right.  Thank you.  You were
 17  involved -- can you recall any discussions, Dr. Todres,
 18  about communications and ensuring an accurate flow of
 19  information?
 20                 A:   Well that -- again, normal practice I
 21  can't recall specifically but -- but I and everyone
 22  attached to my office and the Minister's office and so on
 23  would have wanted to ensure that we were pristine about
 24  the facts.  I mean we are talking about the Chief Legal
 25  Officer and the Chief Enforcement Officer on Cabinet, so

88
  1  they would have wanted to be crystal clear about facts.
  2                 And that in and of itself is difficult in
  3  an evolving situation because facts become apparent over
  4  time.  So it would be normal practice for a Minister to
  5  rely on his Ministerial resources.  And those Ministerial
  6  resources resided in both the bureaucracy and his office
  7  or her office.
  8                 And that Minister in the new way of
  9  thinking with respect to the centralization of
 10  communications within the centre that's been occurring in
 11  -- in the Ontario Government for the last ten (10) or
 12  fifteen (15) years, the Minister would come to
 13  understand, too, the key messages would have to be
 14  approved by both the Premier's office and the Cabinet
 15  office.
 16                 And that is standard practice.
 17                 Q:   The reason I ask you about the
 18  communications aspect of it, if you'll turn to Tab 41 --
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   -- it's Inquiry Document 300002, it's 
 21  P-661.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Ipperwash incident crisis
 24  communications procedure and contact list on the cover
 25  sheet.

89
  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And it's dated September the 7th of
  3  1995, timed at 7:33 in the p.m.  If I can ask you to turn
  4  simply to the next page, the goals of the process.  It
  5  talks about the overall goals and -- and the  second one
  6  is eliminate errors via mis-communications through rapid
  7  dissemination of information.  Assist and maintaining and
  8  restoring public order and return to normal operations.
  9                 And I'm interested in what comments you
 10  might have with respect to that particular paragraph, 
 11  eliminating errors via mis-communication.
 12                 A:   I mentioned this -- this yesterday. 
 13  I and -- well all of my Deputy colleagues and the
 14  Directors of Communication and the Directors of the Issue
 15  units were concerned about the normal kind of tension
 16  that occurs.
 17                 So, the normal kind of a tension --
 18  tension that occurs is:  Communication branches are very
 19  mindful of newspaper deadlines and television deadlines
 20  and -- and when it scrums and -- and -- so there's always
 21  the clock where a proactive government wishing to get
 22  information across wants to work speedily and to appear
 23  in control of a situation and so on.
 24                 On the other hand the tension is:  We
 25  don't -- we live in a highly decentralized operation.  In

90
  1  this case even more decentralized than most ministries
  2  because we have an OPP and a Commissioner; these were not
  3  my direct staff.
  4                 So those of us who live through difficult
  5  an tragic situations like this, are well aware of the
  6  fact that it actually takes time in the field to be clear
  7  about what happened.  
  8                 And what can happen as I indicated
  9  yesterday, is if one moves too quickly and that at nine
 10  o'clock one has a certain picture and that is revised at
 11  10:00 and then it's revised at 11:00 and then it's
 12  revised at 12:00, that should there be any particular
 13  communications with the media, with stakeholders, with
 14  affected groups, it can, after the fact, look as though
 15  one were reconstructing the events.
 16                 Or even worse being -- mis-speaking if one
 17  moves too quickly.  So that was the tension point or the
 18  series of stresses that all of us were aware of that we
 19  had to manage.
 20                 And hence, the words that we wanted to --
 21  as written by -- this would have been written by Mr.
 22  Kirk, my Director of Communications, who reported to me
 23  that we want to ensure to the best of it all -- of all
 24  possible.
 25                 And remember that in this case it wasn't

91
  1  just our Ministry, but we had field staff, we had MNR
  2  people, we had a lot of gratuitous supporters who wanted
  3  to help in clarifying the information, that it was
  4  extremely important that we not -- that we seek to
  5  eliminate errors.
  6                 And although we wanted to move quickly,
  7  not to take this notion of rapid dissemination of
  8  information in a sense that would, at the end of the day,
  9  jeopardize either the investigation or just make plain
 10  things that were not actually happening on the ground.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And -- and I -- I know you
 12  indicated that that was prepared by one (1) of your
 13  staff.         Did you have any role in that?
 14                 A:   I don't recall.  I mean I recall -- I
 15  -- I think the -- the way in which the day occurred is
 16  that when -- when Larry and Ron and I if -- if I can
 17  speak in familiar terms, the three (3) Deputies of
 18  Natural Resources and the AG and myself met in the
 19  morning of the 7th.  We realized that we needed to put a
 20  new structure in place.  
 21                 So page 2 refers -- so we would have
 22  instructed something like this to be written.  We wanted
 23  to make plain who the players were.  And on page 2,
 24  although I don't want to lead this, you'll probably take
 25  me to page 2, that we would have instructed Mr. Kirk, on

92
  1  behalf of the team, to write this draft and you'll note
  2  that it took him some time because we're in receipt of it
  3  on -- at 7:30 p.m.
  4                 So there must have been a series of
  5  meetings throughout the day.  I wouldn't have had direct
  6  involvement, I would have reviewed the document with the
  7  three (3) deputies when it was prepared.
  8                 Q:   You'll see among the contacts at the
  9  very last page of that document, Dr. Todres, the
 10  reference to the Federal Solicitor General, then the
 11  Honourable Minister Herb Gray?
 12                 A:   Yes?  Yes, I see it.  Thank you.
 13                 Q:   So they would have been put into the
 14  -- into the loop on this, if I can -- if I can describe
 15  it as such?
 16                 A:   They would have put -- been put on
 17  the loop -- in the loop on this on an as needed basis,
 18  yes.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  And that's not to say that, I
 20  -- perhaps I should simply ask you:  Was there any direct
 21  communication, to your recollection, perhaps even through
 22  your office, with either your Federal counterpart or the
 23  Ministry?
 24                 A:   Not at this -- I don't believe on the
 25  7th, but there -- there was a point in time when -- and

93
  1  now I can't recall.  I'm -- I'm completely mystified by
  2  the dates, but there was a point in time where the
  3  Commissioner of the OPP asked me -- indicated that there
  4  may be a necessity for Federal backup in terms of
  5  machinery, in terms of -- and now I'm missing the right
  6  noun -- in terms of military-type machinery.
  7                 And I said thank you for that request.  He
  8  wanted that to be taken forward.  That would have been
  9  the kind of thing that would have gone through the chain
 10  of command.  And I understood that that would have meant
 11  a formal request from our Minister to Mr. Gray.
 12                 I took the initiative, I believe, to speak
 13  to the then Federal Deputy Solicitor General to inquire
 14  about protocol.  You can be assured that this was the
 15  first time in my life that I would have been asked to
 16  make such a phone call.  
 17                 And I require -- inquired -- I believe his
 18  name was Jean Fournier, I inquired of Deputy Solicitor
 19  General Jean Fournier what the process would be, should
 20  we ever require that.  And I'm -- I'm sorry I can't tell
 21  you the dates now, but it perhaps will become clear later
 22  on.     
 23                 And the -- the response to me was that
 24  this has been asked by other provinces in the past. 
 25  There is a protocol.  There are letters that need to be

94
  1  written from the Provincial Solicitor General to the
  2  Federal Solicitor General.
  3                 And point number 2, I would have had
  4  contact with Deputy Solicitor General Fournier on a
  5  number of other fronts.  I can't speak specifically to
  6  whether this was before or after Ipperwash, but I might
  7  have mentioned this yesterday.  We were concerned about
  8  Aboriginal policing agreements.  
  9                 This was also the season -- it was a very
 10  difficult year, nationally, with respect to Aboriginal
 11  issues.  I don't recall the precise timing Gustafson
 12  Lake, whether it preceded the tragedy at Ipperwash, but
 13  we might have had reason to speak to one another, the
 14  Federal Deputy Solicitor General and I.
 15                 I'm only surprised that the Deputy's name
 16  is on -- is not on this list, but that name would have
 17  been -- it was understandable why Minister Gray's name
 18  would have been on the -- on the sheet.
 19                 Q:   Would you turn to Tab 43, Dr. Todres?
 20  It's Inquiry Document 10 --
 21                 A:   Oh.
 22                 Q:   -- 1558.  It's --
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   -- P-599.
 25                 A:   Right. 

95
  1                 Q:   It's a letter to the Honourable Herb
  2  Grey dated September the 7th, and it comes under the hand
  3  of your Minister.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And it's copied, as you can see, to
  6  the Ontario Provincial Police/TRU?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And you'll note that there's a date
  9  at the bottom of that in term -- under that it's dated
 10  September the 1st of 1995.
 11                 Do you know why that might be, first of
 12  all?
 13                 A:   No idea.
 14                 Q:   All right.  If we can go back to the
 15  content of the letter on the first page, you'll see that
 16  it talks about tactical contingencies and a review that
 17  was going on at that point.
 18                 The comment is made that the Police
 19  Services lacked the necessary equipment.  I'm just going
 20  to quote here:
 21                   "To perform tactical rescues while
 22                   under direct gunfire."
 23                 A:   Yes, I see that.
 24                 Q:   And then there's a request, I think
 25  as you'd suggested earlier, for certain machinery and in

96
  1  this instance, they're talking about the Department of
  2  National Defence armoured personnel carriers.
  3                 It refers specifically to the Grizzly and
  4  the Bison, do you see that?
  5                 A:   Yes, I do.
  6                 Q:   All right.  And then references
  7  Commissioner O'Grady's request.
  8                 A:   Yes, so that's the date then, that is
  9  the conversation that I recall.
 10                 Q:   Okay. 
 11                 A:   And I think the important phrase on
 12  the bottom of the first page is:
 13                   "On an as needed basis."
 14                 So this was an anticipatory request, not -
 15  - not, we need it today, and let's have it immediately.
 16                 Q:   Your role in the preparation of this
 17  document, did...?
 18                 A:   Well, once having -- once having been
 19  apprised -- I don't recall being directly involved in the
 20  -- I wouldn't have been involved in the -- in the actual
 21  construction of a letter from a Minister to a Minister
 22                 But, once it was clear that that was the
 23  direction and the Minister would have -- would have been
 24  briefed by me or by my staff about this, I would have
 25  been prepared to go forward somewhere as between the

97
  1  Minister's office and the Deputy Minister's office,
  2  someone would have been given instruction to write this.
  3                 Q:   Right.
  4                 A:   And for the Minister to sign.
  5                 Q:   And at Tab --
  6                 A:   I can't tell you --
  7                 Q:   I'm sorry.
  8                 A:   -- who that was.
  9                 Q:   And at Tab 45, there's a letter under
 10  the hand of the Solicitor General of Canada directed to
 11  your Minister, the Honourable Robert W. Runciman.
 12                 And it's a response letter.  It's Inquiry
 13  document 1001 --
 14                 A:   Yes, I see it, thank you.
 15                 Q:   -- 558.  It's Exhibit --
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   -- P-599.
 18                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 19                 Q:   I'm sorry.  Exhibit P-931, I'm sorry.
 20  
 21                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 22  
 23                 Q:   I think it simply indicates that he's
 24  passing that letter along to the appropriate Minister,
 25  namely the Honourable David Collenette who was then the

98
  1  Minister of National Defence.
  2                 A:   Yes, I see that.
  3                 Q:   And at Tab 58, Dr. Todres, is a
  4  further letter from Mr. Runciman to Mr. Grey dated
  5  September the 19th of 1995.
  6                 It's Inquiry Document 1001204, Exhibit P-
  7  932.
  8                 A:   Yes, I see it.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  And they continue to discuss
 10  the anticipated, I think as you -- as you've called it,
 11  loan for that type of machinery?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  And just lastly on that -- on
 14  that same line, Dr. Todres, at Tab 61 is a letter from
 15  the Solicitor General of Canada, then the Honourable Herb
 16  Grey to your Minister and that's dated October the 3rd.
 17                 It's Inquiry Document 1001563 and it's
 18  Exhibit P-933.
 19                 A:   Yes, I see it, thank you.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And at that point in time,
 21  you'll see that the Department of National Defence has
 22  been made aware of the potential requirements?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   Yeah.  Do you know whether or not
 25  that request had ever been acted upon?  That is to say,

99
  1  whether or not there was an actual request made for that
  2  machinery?
  3                 A:   I don't recall it being made.
  4                 Q:   All right.  I want to talk just
  5  briefly, Dr. Todres, about the period following September
  6  the 7th, 1995, okay?
  7                 And at Tab 46, you'll see a memo from --
  8  from yourself.  I'm sorry, to yourself.
  9                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 10                 Q:   From a Mr. Burnside?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   That's Inquiry document 1012573,
 13  Exhibit 699.  You'll see it outlines the OPP's authority
 14  with respect to the Military Base under the Criminal
 15  Code, National Defence Act, civil injunctive remedies.
 16                 Do you recall seeing this memo, Dr.
 17  Todres?  Did you request it?
 18                 A:   I don't recall, in particular, seeing
 19  this, but I'm reluctant to speak in case I appear to be
 20  speculating.  So I will take advice from you.  
 21                 But I would have imagined that what would
 22  have happened is that on the 7th there were a series of
 23  things that a number of us had to do and I wanted to be
 24  clear, in writing, the authority of the OPP.  And I might
 25  have asked David Burnside who was one of our senior

100
  1  lawyers in the legal branch to prepare this for me.
  2                 And this might have been the subject of --
  3  of a future meeting with all of the Deputies.  I don't
  4  recall this one in particular.
  5                 Q:   And you told us earlier that after --
  6  after this tragedy, that there were a number of meetings
  7  between the -- the other Deputy Ministers, Mr. Vrancart
  8  and Mr. Taman.
  9                 And that those occured at --
 10                 A:   Many --
 11                 Q:   Those occurred at your office, as I
 12  understand?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  And do you recall when, in
 15  relation to -- to that date, the decision was made, then,
 16  to reduce or eliminate political staff within such
 17  meetings?
 18                 A:   Well, I would have thought that
 19  somewhere around the 8th or the 9th, once we began to
 20  sling into the nerve centre meeting, that there was a
 21  separate support group that would have had a lower level
 22  staff who were working on injunctions or working on legal
 23  issues and whatever other issues emanated.
 24                 So I think it was put into place fairly
 25  quickly.  Or put another way, we didn't have junior staff

101
  1  attending the nerve centre meetings.
  2                 Q:   All right.  At Tab 57, Dr. Todres,
  3  it's Exhibit P-605.
  4  
  5                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  6  
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   All right.  And it would appear that
  9  you're -- you're the author of this, were you?
 10                 A:   No.  This would have been a meeting
 11  that I held and someone would have written minutes for
 12  me.
 13                 Q:   All right.
 14                 A:   I wasn't in the habit of writing
 15  minutes for meetings.
 16                 Q:   If you'll turn to the last -- pardon
 17  me, the second page of that document, item number 9.  It
 18  seems the matter of the -- of Ipperwash was a discussion
 19  point.
 20                 A:   Yes, I see it.
 21                 Q:   And it reads: 
 22                   "E. Todres commended the steering
 23                   committee, MNR, ONAS, MAG, MSGSC for
 24                   their work in managing the ship from
 25                   tactical approach to a more political

102
  1                   one.
  2                   Thank Ron Fox, Barbara Taylor, Kurt
  3                   Smith and the communications branch for
  4                   their continuing work in managing the
  5                   situation on the Ministry of Solicitor
  6                   General and community -- pardon me,
  7                   Correctional Services side.
  8                   The Minister has met with local
  9                   stakeholders.  More support is being
 10                   provided to the community."
 11                 Can you tell us what -- what that refers
 12  to?
 13                 A:   Yes, I -- I think the wording's a bit
 14  clumsy by the writer of the minutes, but what -- what
 15  this is meant to convey is that we were successful in
 16  trying to contain the slash political policy implications
 17  in a different arena from the more junior staff who were
 18  working on issues.
 19                 That's what the -- what the first sentence
 20  is meant to convey.
 21                 In other words, that where you had senior
 22  Deputies working with Ministers and their EA's it would
 23  be perfectly appropriate to have representation from the
 24  Premier's office for them to discuss ideas with us and
 25  that had been put into place.

103
  1                 Q:   All right.
  2                 A:   And the rest has to do with the kind
  3  of significant work that had to do with communications. 
  4  The Minister -- there was a decision, collectively, I
  5  believe, that the Minister would be meeting not only with
  6  local stakeholders, but as I recall, Native leadership.
  7                 And I can't recall the precise nature of
  8  the support provided to the community.  It may have been
  9  on the telephone lines or direct support to deal with
 10  issues, but I recall that we actually did something in
 11  the way of recognizing the community was being inundated
 12  with media requests and so on.
 13                 Q:   And would you explain what is meant
 14  by the shift from tactical approach to a more political
 15  one?
 16                 A:   Well, I thought I made it clear
 17  before but -- but it was meant to convey was that in --
 18  in the IMAC -- in the Inter -- the InterMinisterial
 19  Committee there was a tremendous discussion on detail
 20  that the Deputies felt was very close to bordering on
 21  operational details that needn't be discussed amongst
 22  all.
 23                 So, it was that move, as I say perhaps
 24  clumsily written, but to convey that move from -- get the
 25  politicians and the political staff in a room to talk

104
  1  about what they need to talk about.  
  2                 Get those who were involved in the detail
  3  dealing with what they need to do.  Let's start 
  4  demarcating those lines a little more clearly.
  5                 Q:   Thank you for that.  We know, Dr.
  6  Todres, that there was the revelation made on, or about,
  7  the 12th of September 1995 by Federal officials with
  8  respect to a burial site, potentially, within the -- the
  9  Ipperwash Provincial Park boundaries.
 10                 You were made aware of that?
 11                 A:   Yes, I think so.
 12                 Q:   And did you have any role in --
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   -- receiving that information or 
 15  disseminating?
 16                 A:   No.  First of all what I don't recall
 17  is whether that was still at the stage of a rumour or
 18  something that actually had to be tested out empirically
 19  and for which a great deal of research would have to be
 20  undertaken.
 21                 And for the research to have to been
 22  undertaken there would have been a series of other
 23  players other than ourselves who would have been involved
 24  in that.
 25                 Q:   All right.  At Tab 55, Dr. Todres,

105
  1  there's a document which has been marked here as P-47,
  2  it's Inquiry Document 1010496.  It's a Memorandum of
  3  Understanding that is dated September the 7th of 1995.
  4                 A:   Yes, I see it, thank you.
  5                 Q:   Did you have any role in, first of
  6  all, in negotiating this document?
  7                 A:   No.
  8                 Q:   You were aware of it though?
  9                 A:   I don't recall it at the moment.  I -
 10  - I don't recall being aware of it.  But it was
 11  significant and in the normal course of events, something
 12  of this after the fact would have been communicated not
 13  only to me but to the two (2) other Deputies.
 14                 Q:   And just to be clear I think I may
 15  have said the 7th, but it's dated actually the 17th of
 16  September.
 17                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And do you know whether
 19  or not the Commissioner would have given, or would he be
 20  required to have given any clearance to -- to have such a
 21  document executed?
 22                 A:   I can't speak to the -- to the chain
 23  of command for the OPP.
 24                 Q:   All right.  Is there anything else of
 25  significance, Dr. Todres, that you can tell us about with

106
  1  respect to that period that you would have had a role in?
  2                 A:   No.  Only to say that -- that our
  3  role waned over time.  So, we were considered to be the
  4  lead Ministry in the -- in the -- from the 7th for a
  5  large period of time, where we convened the meetings in
  6  the nerve centre, occurred with us.
  7                 But, then when it began to become a legal
  8  and as we're beginning to look at other issues, it became
  9  apparent to both -- to both the Minister and myself that
 10  we were no longer at the epicenter of the issue and the
 11  nerve centre meetings ceased to occur in our boardroom
 12                 And over time as usually occurs in the
 13  curve of an issue, it became clear with the roles and
 14  responsibilities were and it began to move into another
 15  arena.
 16                 Q:   All right.  Thank you.  If I can just
 17  have a moment, Commissioner.
 18  
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20  
 21                 Q:   I don't have any other questions in -
 22  - in examination-in-chief, Mr. Commissioner.  
 23                 One of the things that I -- that we have
 24  asked virtually every witness, Dr. Todres, is whether,
 25  given your background, your experience, whether you might

107
  1  have anything by way of comments, observations or
  2  recommendations that might assist the Commissioner and
  3  his mandate?
  4                 A:   It's dangerous to ask a policy wonk
  5  whether she has any ideas about policy.  But --
  6                 Q:   I suspected it might be.
  7                 A:   Well, first of all, let me preface my
  8  remarks by saying that I made my living and continue to
  9  make my living as the head of Todres Leadership Council,
 10  actually doing policy work.  
 11                 So, I don't want to trivialize the
 12  questions I'm -- or the -- the thoughts I have because
 13  all of us I think realize that any subjects that I raise
 14  is extremely complex, requires a great deal of thought,
 15  and may be in an area where the academy doesn't offer
 16  much light.  It might offer heat but actually it doesn't
 17  offer a lot of light on a subject.
 18                 If I had to stand back and ask myself what
 19  some of the policy issues that I might be preoccupied
 20  with if I can put it that way, if I were looking at stage
 21  2 I would  -- I would ask myself a number of questions.
 22                 And -- and the first would be:  What
 23  precisely am I wanting to focus on?  And I know that
 24  sounds perhaps even simple or trivial, but there are many
 25  issues here and no policy submission of any kind can be

108
  1  written unless one is precisely clear about what question
  2  it is that one's trying to address.  
  3                 So I'm not sure, not having been part of
  4  all of this, precisely what all of the questions are. 
  5  But, when I look at the matter, if I can put it this way,
  6  of policing oversight, the justice sector, systemic
  7  barriers, Native policing, the state of Aboriginal
  8  issues, I -- I would say that what, from my perspective,
  9  is very important is first of all to have a very broad
 10  view about the justice system before one places the
 11  policing system within the justice system.
 12                 And I -- I say this in reference to my
 13  remarks I made earlier about a Minister -- Ministry of
 14  Justice.  In the course of work that I'm doing right now
 15  on a particular project I found myself, if I'm permitted
 16  a few moments, I found myself in Sioux Lookout.  And I
 17  had meetings with some staff in Sioux Lookout.  
 18                 Sioux Lookout is a place where, when I was
 19  the Deputy of Tourism, was a beautiful but small place
 20  where there was a great deal of fly fishing going on,
 21  absolutely gorgeous.  It's now become a regional hub.  
 22                 Now INAC has decided that they're going to
 23  be building a lot of roads in that region.  And so we can
 24  anticipate a lot of the population moving from north of
 25  the Sioux to the Sioux for a variety of very good

109
  1  reasons. I can't speculate on what they might be;
  2  regional economic development, Aboriginal issues, trying
  3  to sustain an economic base.
  4                 That's an interesting point.  I spent some
  5  time looking at courts and court houses.  Now as it turns
  6  out the court in Sioux Lookout is on a municipal lease. 
  7  I know some of you are saying, Where is she going with
  8  this?
  9                 There is a court in Sioux Lookout who --
 10  which has a municipal lease which will end in five (5)
 11  years.  And the municipality has made it absolutely plain
 12  that the court will not stay there at the end, in other
 13  words, the lease will not be negotiated.
 14                 Unlike the city of Toronto or London or
 15  Sarnia or Western or Kitchener, there are no other leased
 16  buildings that one can immediately turn to.
 17                 The OPP, as I understand it, has been
 18  given a significant number of capital dollars to build a
 19  detachment in Sioux Lookout.  
 20                 So I stand here, at this Commission, and I
 21  say to myself, Well, just a moment here, I can predict --
 22  I'm -- I'm never one to look at crime statistics but I
 23  can imagine that if I were an economatrician and a
 24  statistician I could imagine that if there was an influx
 25  of -- of people moving to Sioux Lookout I could

110
  1  anticipate that -- even in the absence of new law, I
  2  could anticipate that there would be family law concerns,
  3  sexual assault concerns, civil concerns, and criminal
  4  concerns, so greater demand. 
  5                 An OPP detachment is being built, there
  6  doesn't seem to be a plan and I am not the Attorney
  7  General and I am not announcing a new courthouse.  So I
  8  look at this and I say, Well, it would probably be fair
  9  to speculate the number of people coming to Sioux
 10  Lookout.  A high proportion of those people are likely to
 11  be Aboriginal people.
 12                 And if I'm concerned deeply about the --
 13  about the dispensing of judges -- of -- of justice, why
 14  is it that there doesn't seem to be a place where we can
 15  have a forum that actually looks at who's doing what to
 16  whom, how we're building and how we're meeting demand?
 17                 Now, why am I saying this?  Because those
 18  are the issues that disturb me from a policy point of
 19  view.  So when I look at the justice system and all of
 20  the players, I would like to see some policy work setting
 21  out a vision of how it is that the -- that the justice
 22  system in -- in a perfect world would operate.
 23                 It is within that context that I would
 24  then look at the second order question, which is:  How do
 25  we wish to look at policing in Ontario?

111
  1                 Now, that is a very wide question and
  2  obviously well outside, perhaps, the -- the work of this
  3  particular Commission.
  4                 But it is not a simple question to answer
  5  whether or not we need to change the oversight of the OPP
  6  or we need to put in a new structure of hither and yon.
  7                 One of the questions that I would ask
  8  myself on a policy vein is, what was the net outcome of
  9  the most recent amendments to the Police Services Act?
 10                 Or, put another way, what is the role of
 11  the OPP in this province?
 12                 Prior to the amendments to the Police
 13  Services Act, I had a pretty clear understanding of what
 14  the OPP is and given that the OPP is subject to a lot of
 15  discussion in this particular Inquiry, I don't think it's
 16  self-evident today, in 2005, what that Force is actually
 17  responsible for.
 18                 It was to be the hub for complex CIB
 19  investigations.  It was to be an area of expertise not --
 20  notwithstanding the fact that we have some large police
 21  forces in Toronto.
 22                 And so unless I'm clear about what the OPP
 23  is, and what it's relationship is with other municipal
 24  forces where it has agreements, it's not clear to me that
 25  I would want to ask the question and what should we do

112
  1  with respect to oversight, because it's a very
  2  complicated system now and it's a patchwork quilt.
  3                 So, I'd want to look at that and if I
  4  weren't exhausted after looking at those two (2)
  5  particular questions, I would want to spend a great deal
  6  of time then thinking about Aboriginal justice.
  7                 And that in and of itself, is also a very
  8  complicated question.  I -- I as a lay person and not a
  9  lawyer, am deeply concerned and have been for a decade or
 10  more about the state of Aboriginal policing in Ontario.
 11                 The -- the governance structures have to
 12  be re-examined.  I believe that the governance structures
 13  are problematic ipso facto.
 14                 The quality and the state of -- of repair
 15  and the facilities and so on are wholly inadequate and,
 16  again, this is up for societal debate but I would have
 17  thought that in speaking with Aboriginal leadership, they
 18  might take the view that self-government is inextricably
 19  linked to the ability to govern oneself in terms of
 20  enforcement.
 21                 So that subject in of itself, I don't
 22  believe has received a lot of attention.
 23                 We understand that it's
 24  Federal/Provincial.  We need to look at this in terms of
 25  post-Kelowna and very significant indeed.

113
  1                 And again, and if that weren't enough, I
  2  would be deeply concerned about the amendments that were
  3  made in a prior government to the dilution of employment
  4  equity requirements and the Police Services Act, which I
  5  believe were extremely problematic.
  6                 And if I can just opine on that, in each
  7  of these subjects that in another place and another time,
  8  I would love to talk to anyone who would wish to speak to
  9  me about it.
 10                 On the matter of policing, when we speak
 11  of employment equity, we are not speaking about how it
 12  would be a nice, social good to have a female principal
 13  in the school for matters of role modelling and equity
 14  and fairness and equality.
 15                 In the matter of policing, it is
 16  impossible for a police force to be effective in a
 17  diverse community, unless its workforce is representative
 18  of the population.
 19                 So one cannot undertake undercover work in
 20  certain communities, et cetera.
 21                 So the absence, remember in a world where
 22  it's very rule bound, in the absence of full commitment
 23  to employment equity, one doesn't necessarily see
 24  employment equity flourish.
 25                 Now, again as I say, I'm exhausted myself

114
  1  by this list.  But the other thing that I would be very
  2  worried about, and this is just as a -- an old Deputy
  3  who's often seen responses when very complex issues
  4  arise, I have only two (2) thoughts on that.
  5                 And the first is, the normal knee jerk
  6  reaction is to seek structural response.  Oh, there must
  7  be a structure that is fault and if we could only create
  8  a new structure that new structure would somehow meet our
  9  new requirements.
 10                 I have rarely seen that work.  What I have
 11  seen by -- and I suppose it's my philosophical view that
 12  as corny as it may sound, change occurs by touching the
 13  soul of an organization and not the structure of the
 14  organization.
 15                 And what happens in practice, and I've
 16  been involved in countless changes, et cetera, of a
 17  structural nature, years and years and years are spent on
 18  job specifications and pay equity issues that arise from
 19  groups being put together and complicated new
 20  government's arrangements.
 21                 So, I would be very loathed to look at
 22  structure only.  I would say too on the matter of
 23  governments that the Inquiry would be well served by
 24  looking at the experience that the Government of Ontario
 25  has had with statutory arrangements with different arm's

115
  1  length agencies.
  2                 They're very complicated and they don't
  3  work out the way one expects to see them on paper.  So we
  4  have a series of Schedule 1, 2, 3 and 4 agencies.  And
  5  independence is independence usually and I won't get into
  6  the complications of police until there's a problem.  And
  7  when there's a problem one finds that the elbow length is
  8  not quite as long as it was on paper.
  9                 And my last and final concern in terms of
 10  a policy area.  And I'm speaking as someone who ran the
 11  Ontario Women's Directorate and who had four (4) years in
 12  the trenches of dealing with matters respecting systemic
 13  discrimination and have been a, you know, a committed
 14  feminist and a -- and a person committed to human rights
 15  for my whole career.
 16                 And now find myself in the private sector
 17  working on a women's hospital board and -- and watching
 18  how things work and what works and what doesn't work.  My
 19  reaction to matters of a systemic nature are that one has
 20  to move away from rhetoric and generalize propositions
 21  about we will all do this and we need to do this and
 22  here's the laundry list to focus.
 23                 And if I can give a hospital example that
 24  might be relevant to -- to this exercise and again, these
 25  are subjects all of which would require a great deal of

116
  1  thinking.
  2                 When a hospital administrator is invoked
  3  to do something for women's health and that message is
  4  translated to a variety of departments, most people don't
  5  know what that means and they can't understand what it is
  6  that they actually have to do.
  7                 And I'm speaking of the cardiologist re
  8  the OPP or the -- the phys ed department re corrections. 
  9  The only thing that seems to work is when there's very
 10  clear focus on two (2) or three (3) things that need to
 11  be done with as much clarity as possible.
 12                 And what worked for us in the Secretariat
 13  were three (3) conditions and it really didn't matter
 14  what our structure was.  We had a powerful Minister who
 15  happened to have other responsibilities.  We had money
 16  and we had a clear set of set foci. 
 17                 And in this particular case it was pay
 18  equity legislation.  So we were seen to be and perceived
 19  to be powerful and those were the three (3) conditions
 20  that made us work.  And I'd ask you to think about those
 21  in the application to this.
 22                 And I said this was my final point but I
 23  have -- that was apparently my penultimate point.  My
 24  final point is that what worries me about large
 25  prescriptions when we're looking at systemic

117
  1  discrimination is that we actually worked in the negative
  2  some world and not in a positive some world.
  3                 So what happens usually in a government is
  4  that if there's a sizable expenditure given to problem
  5  'A' or a legislative initiative that requires a great
  6  deal of energy, the creation of a new structure, it's
  7  very difficult then to turn back to that government and
  8  say well, that was just the first thing, we have ten (10)
  9  more things and they're all hugely expensive.
 10                 So because we live in a very constrained
 11  environment with a great deal of attention to government
 12  -- to governments and accountabilities for Deputies and
 13  Ministers and so on, I think we need to be very careful
 14  about what the chronology of issues are, what the costs
 15  are and what the foci need to be and what the sequencing
 16  needs to be.
 17                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thank you for that,
 18  Dr. Todres.  
 19                 Perhaps I can ask my colleagues to rise
 20  and --
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 22  very much, Dr. Todres.
 23                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- and give us some
 24  indication about who wants to cross-examine and an
 25  estimation of their time.

118
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  Let's
  2  just wait until everybody gets a chance to stand up and
  3  we'll see where we are and not to try to hear you from
  4  standing in your place rather than everybody walking up.
  5                 Yes -- just get my order and my sequence. 
  6  Mr. Downard...?
  7                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:    Fifteen (15) minutes
  8  or less, sir.
  9                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Fifteen (15) minutes
 10  or less.
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Fifteen (15)
 12  minutes or less.
 13                 And Ms. Horvat...?
 14                 MR. JACQUELINE HORVAT:   Ten (10) minutes.
 15                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Ten (10) minutes as
 16  indicated.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 18  Smith...?
 19                 MR. IAN SMITH:   Ten (10) minutes.
 20                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Ten (10) minutes for
 21  Mr. Smith.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr. Lauwers?
 23                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Two (2) hours.
 24                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Two (2) hours for Mr.
 25  Lauwers.

119
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
  2  Sulman...?
  3                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   Fifteen (15) to
  4  twenty (20) minutes, sir.
  5                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Fifteen (15) to twenty
  6  (20).
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Ms.
  8  Perschy...?
  9                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Fifteen (15) to twenty
 10  (20) minutes.
 11                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Similarly, for Ms.
 12  Perschy.
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 14  Sandler...?
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Forty-five (45)
 16  minutes.
 17                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Forty-five (45).
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Ms.
 19  Clermont...?
 20                 MS. JANET CLERMONT:   Ten (10) minutes.
 21                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Ms. Clermont indicates
 22  ten (10) minutes.
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 24  Klippenstein...?
 25                 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:   Thirty (30)

120
  1  minutes.
  2                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thirty (30) minutes
  3  for Mr. Klippenstein.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
  5  Scullion?  I'm sorry, Mr. Rosenthal first.
  6                 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:   Forty-five (45)
  7  minutes.
  8                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Forty-five (45)
  9  minutes.
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 11  Scullion...?
 12                 MR. KEVIN SCULLION:   Thirty (30) minutes
 13  or less.
 14                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Thirty (30) minutes or
 15  less for Mr. Scullion.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 17  Henderson...?
 18                 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON:   Twenty (20) to
 19  thirty (30) minutes, Commissioner.
 20                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Twenty (20) to thirty
 21  (30).
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr.
 23  Horton...?
 24                 MR. WILLIAM HORTON:   Twenty (20) to
 25  thirty (30) as well, sir.

121
  1                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Twenty (20) to thirty
  2  (30) for the Chiefs of Ontario.
  3                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Two (2) to two and
  4  a half (2 1/2) hours, Your Honour.  
  5                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Two (2) to two and a
  6  half (2 1/2) hours.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Ms.
  8  Twohig...?  Ms. Twohig, will you be having any -- you
  9  won't know until after all the questions have gone, is
 10  that fair to say?
 11                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   That's right, yes.
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think we
 13  should just get started.
 14  
 15                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 16  
 17                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   Good morning,
 18  Commissioner.
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Good
 20  morning.
 21  
 22  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD:   
 23                 Q:   Ms. Todres, my name is Peter Downard,
 24  and I appear for Mike Harris.
 25                 A:   Hmm hmm.

122
  1                 Q:   And I just have a few questions for
  2  you --
  3                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  4                 Q:   -- today.  And first of all, pardon
  5  the language, but it gets a little bad around here
  6  sometimes.
  7                 While you were in the dining room meeting
  8  on September 6th, did you hear the Premier say, "I want
  9  the fucking Indians out of the Park" ?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   Now, I want to ask you a couple of
 12  questions having to do with Ron Fox and his
 13  communications with the incident commander on the scene
 14  at Ipperwash, John Carson, on September 6th.
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   Now, as I understand your evidence,
 17  Mr. Fox as a person who was seconded to the Solicitor
 18  General's office reported to you and you alone, right?
 19                 You have to verbalize --
 20                 A:   Correct. 
 21                 Q:   -- your answer.
 22                 A:   I'm sorry.
 23                 Q:   It's just for the record that you
 24  have to verbalise your answer.
 25                 And so he was outside the OPP chain of

123
  1  command, right?
  2                 A:   Correct. 
  3                 Q:   Right.  And as I understand your
  4  evidence, you said that you expected that in
  5  conversations between Ron Fox and incident commander
  6  Carson during this period of the 5th and 6th, proper
  7  protocols would be followed, right?
  8                 A:   Yes, I did.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  Now, those would be the
 10  protocols applicable to communications between your
 11  Ministry on the one hand and the operational OPP officers
 12  on the other, right?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Now, we've heard evidence in
 15  this Inquiry that after the dining room meeting, Mr. Fox
 16  called incident commander Carson and he said a number of
 17  things, but one thing he said was that the -- the Premier
 18  believes he has the authority to direct the OPP.
 19                 Fox said that to Carson in the call after
 20  the dining room meeting.
 21                 Now, Mr. Harris disputes the accuracy of
 22  that and for the purpose of my question I just want to
 23  set aside the accuracy of that.
 24                 But setting aside whether the statement is
 25  accurate or not, would that communication from Fox to

124
  1  Carson be consistent with the protocol applicable to
  2  communications as between your Ministry on the one hand
  3  and operational OPP on the other?
  4                 A:   Well, let me just step back and
  5  remind myself that I wasn't -- I didn't recall him being
  6  in the room.
  7                 Q:   Oh and indeed --
  8                 A:   Right. 
  9                 Q:   And --
 10                 A:   Right.  And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't
 11  have known that he made the call.  That would -- there
 12  was nothing in that meeting, in my opinion, that would
 13  have required any conversation at all from Mr. Fox to the
 14  incident commander.
 15                 Q:   Okay.  But to take it one step
 16  further, what I'm wondering about is this -- take it from
 17  me that Fox said to Carson after the meeting the Premier
 18  believes he has the authority to direct the OPP.
 19                 Now, I take it you didn't conclude from
 20  the meeting that the Premier believed he had the
 21  authority to direct the OPP, right?
 22                 A:   Correct, I did not.
 23                 Q:   But accepting that Fox said that to
 24  Carson, was that a statement that would be consistent
 25  with the applicable protocols?

125
  1                 A:   I believe it was a -- a lapse of
  2  judgment on Mr. Fox's part.
  3                 Q:   And you said in your evidence that
  4  you did not take from the dining room meeting any
  5  understanding that there were comments there indicating
  6  displeasure with the way the OPP had handled the
  7  situation, right?
  8                 A:   That was my take of the meeting, sir.
  9                 Q:   Right.  All right.  Excepting for me
 10  and setting aside the question of its accuracy or -- or
 11  not, that Fox after the dining room meeting said to
 12  Carson that the Premier had been critical of the way the
 13  OPP had handled the Ipperwash occupation to date would
 14  that have been consistent with the applicable protocol?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are my questions.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 18  very much, Mr. Downard.
 19                 Ms. Horvat...?
 20  
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22  
 23  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT:
 24                 Q:   Good morning, Dr. Todres, my name is
 25  Jacqueline Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick at this

126
  1  Inquiry?
  2                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  3                 Q:   Now, do you recall a meeting taking
  4  place between Mr. Harnick, Mr. Taman, and yourself on the
  5  morning of September 5th?
  6                 A:   No, I do not.
  7                 Q:   Now, Mr. -- Mr. Harnick testified
  8  that he had a firm recollection of a meeting between
  9  yourself and Mr. Taman and he -- that took place on the
 10  morning of September 5th at the Solicitor General's
 11  offices in a large boardroom.
 12                 A:   Did you say the 5th or the 6th?
 13                 Q:   5th.
 14                 A:   I recall the meeting in the latter
 15  part of the afternoon with Mr. Harnick, Mr. Taman,
 16  myself, and possibly the executive assistants.
 17                 Q:   Mr. Harnick also testified that he
 18  did not meet with or speak to Minister Runciman alone or
 19  in a group setting until Cabinet on September 6th. 
 20                  Does that assist your recollection at
 21  all?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   Turning to the dining room meeting --
 24                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 25                 Q:   -- do you recall Minister Harnick

127
  1  making any statements or submissions?
  2                 A:   My recollection is that the Minister
  3  of the Attorney General, the attorneys spoke briefly and
  4  my recollection was that he supported the go slow
  5  approach as -- as we had ascertained on the -- the
  6  afternoon of the 5th; in other words stay the course.
  7                 Q:   Hmm hmm.  Do you recall Mr. Harnick
  8  expressing any preferences or opinion on police
  9  operational matters?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   And if he had is that something that
 12  you would remember?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are all of my
 15  questions.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 17  very much. 
 18                  Mr. Smith...?
 19  
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21  
 22                 MR. IAN SMITH:   Thank you, Commissioner.
 23  
 24  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH:
 25                 Q:   Dr. Todres, my name is Ian Smith and

128
  1  I act for Mr. Runciman.
  2                 I just want to clarify, I understood --
  3  I'm just a little bit confused, but that's not unusual. 
  4                  I understood that you testified that you
  5  had a meeting at some point on September 5th that Mr.
  6  Runciman attended.  I understood from your evidence that
  7  also at that meeting might have been Mr. Taman and Mr.
  8  Harnick and the executive assistants.  
  9                 Do I have that correct?
 10                 A:   That is -- I -- I can't be absolutely
 11  certain but I seem to recall that and Mr. Moran and Ms.
 12  Hunt would have been at that meeting as well.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  And I think that you also
 14  testified in-chief that the general view at that meeting
 15  although Ipperwash was discussed only briefly; is that
 16  right?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   Nevertheless the general view arising
 19  from that meeting was that a slow and steady approach
 20  ought to be taken?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And I take it from what you've said
 23  that Mr. Runciman share in that view?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   And did he at that meeting indicate

129
  1  any criticism of the way the OPP -- the way in which the
  2  OPP had handled the matter to that point?
  3                 A:   No.
  4                 Q:   Did he say that he wanted to in any
  5  way to direct the police on how they ought to deal with
  6  the situation?
  7                 A:   Absolutely not.
  8                 Q:   Did he express any views for example
  9  about the use of force?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   Did he take in fact any kind of
 12  strong view about how the matter ought to be dealt with?
 13                 A:   No, he was a very careful Minister,
 14  very mindful of his responsibilities.
 15                 Q:   And just to close that off I take it
 16  then he didn't do anything at that meeting or say
 17  anything at that meeting that would have gone over the --
 18  the line of I think you called it 'demarcation' between
 19  policy matters and direction on -- on operational
 20  matters?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   Did he show at that meeting any
 23  frustration or anxiety or any sense of urgency? 
 24                 A:   No.  Not to my recollection.
 25                 Q:   And I take it from your evidence on

130
  1  this matter, that the next time you met -- that you were
  2  at a meeting, which Mr. Runciman was also in attendance,
  3  was the meeting in the Premier's dining room the
  4  following day?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And you said in your testimony in-
  7  chief that you started off that meeting by emphasizing
  8  for the group that -- this demarcation that we've been
  9  talking about; is that correct?
 10                 A:   Yes, it is.
 11                 Q:   And isn't it fair to say, though,
 12  that for Mr. Runciman and his Executive Assistant, Ms.
 13  Hunt, that that little reminder or briefing on that point
 14  wasn't really necessary?
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   They were well aware of the
 17  demarcation?
 18                 A:   Well aware.
 19                 Q:   And careful about it.
 20                 A:   Very careful.
 21                 Q:   And I take it, on the basis of that,
 22  that Mr. Runciman didn't disagree with anything you said
 23  at that meeting in respect of that demarcation?
 24                 A:   I actually don't recall him speaking
 25  at all.

131
  1                 Q:   Well that's great because I wanted to
  2  get to that point too.  You said in your evidence in-
  3  chief, a couple of times, things like:  The politicians
  4  wanted it dealt with prompt -- as promptly as possible,
  5  or the politicians were exhibiting frustration, or they
  6  wanted this or they wanted that.
  7                 And I'm going to suggest to you that Mr.
  8  Runciman never said anything that contributed to any of
  9  those impressions that you took from that meeting.
 10                 A:   That's a fair statement.
 11                 Q:   In fact, the evidence we have so far
 12  suggests that Mr. Runciman said either nothing or very
 13  little at this meeting.
 14                 A:   That's correct.
 15                 Q:   And that accords with your
 16  recollection?
 17                 A:   Yes, it does.
 18                 Q:   So to the extent that there was a
 19  sense of urgency or frustration in the room, that didn't
 20  come from Mr. Runciman?
 21                 A:   That's correct.
 22                 Q:   And you also said, at one point in
 23  your evidence in-chief, that you thought also that the
 24  Executive Assistants to the politicians wanted things
 25  dealt with promptly.

132
  1                 And I'm going to suggest to you that
  2  neither did that impression that you formed, come from
  3  Ms. Hunt.
  4                 A:   That's correct.
  5                 Q:   Because neither did she say anything
  6  at that meeting.
  7                 A:   That's correct.
  8                 Q:   And I'm going to suggest to you that,
  9  in fact, Mr. Runciman wasn't frustrated or anxious nor
 10  did he have a sense of urgency about the matter.
 11                 A:   I agree with that statement.
 12                 Q:   And certainly he did nothing at that
 13  meeting that could be taken as an attempt to direct the
 14  police and operational matters.
 15                 A:   That's correct.
 16                 Q:   Did Mr. Runciman -- I -- I take it
 17  since you've testified that he didn't -- you don't
 18  remember him saying anything, I'm going to suggest he
 19  didn't take any strong view on the issue of an
 20  injunction?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Or what kind of injunction ought to
 23  be sought?
 24                 A:   No.  I -- I don't recall him speaking
 25  on that matter at all.

133
  1                 Q:   Or, just to close it off, or how it
  2  ought to be enforced? 
  3                 A:   No, I don't recall any -- I don't
  4  recall him giving any input on that at all.
  5                 Q:   And certainly he didn't say anything
  6  at that meeting that was critical of the way in which the
  7  OPP had handled the matter?
  8                 A:   No.
  9                 Q:   And you said in your evidence in-
 10  chief, at one point, that at this stage, by the -- by the
 11  end of this meeting, you took -- you took it that this
 12  file was not much more than a watching brief for you.  Is
 13  that --
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that's true also for Mr.
 16  Runciman?
 17                 A:   Yes.  It would have been the same for
 18  Mr. Runciman.
 19                 Q:   And that's again because the Attorney
 20  General was the Ministry in charge of getting the
 21  injunction; fair enough?
 22                 A:   Fair enough.
 23                 Q:   And because the -- the Ministry of
 24  the Natural Resources -- of Natural Resources had
 25  responsibility for the Park.

134
  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And with respect to the OPP there was
  3  a demarcation that didn't allow you to participate in
  4  what they were doing.
  5                 A:   Yes, that's fair.
  6                 Q:   And just to finish it off, did --
  7  before September 7, did you have any other meetings with
  8  Mr. Runciman on this topic?
  9                 A:   Other than the meeting that I believe
 10  we had on the 5th, no.  If there was a -- not -- not with
 11  me, not that I recall.
 12                 Q:   And so in -- was there any other
 13  context, any other communication of any kind in which Mr.
 14  Runciman made any direction as to how -- how this matter
 15  ought to be handled?
 16                 A:   No.
 17                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are all my
 18  questions.
 19                 A:   Thank you.
 20                 Q:   Thank you, Commissioner.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you,
 22  Mr. Smith.
 23                 Mr. Lauwers, on behalf of Mr. Hodgson?
 24  
 25                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 

135
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just take a
  2  minute to set yourself up.  You estimated about two (2)
  3  hours.  We're going to break for lunch around 12:00;
  4  would that be all right and then you continue after
  5  lunch?
  6                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Yes, that's fine.
  7  
  8                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  9  
 10                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   I'm discovering a
 11  logistical problem here that I'm at that point in my --
 12  my life when my eyes don't quite do what they're supposed
 13  to do at this range.  So these air bifocals aren't
 14  working any more.  
 15                 Let me just see if I can make my way
 16  through this.
 17  
 18  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
 19                 Q:   Now, Dr. Todres, I represent Chris
 20  Hodgson today.  My role is to test your evidence through
 21  cross-examination, as I think you're aware, particularly
 22  where it may differ from the evidence of other witnesses
 23  and the anticipated evidence of Mr. Hodgson.
 24                 Now, before I get into the substance of
 25  your evidence, I want to talk to you a bit about the

136
  1  vagaries of memory.
  2                 I've reviewed your CV and you and I appear
  3  to be contemporaries.  One of the lessons of life that
  4  I've learned is that memory is fragile, both my own and
  5  the memories of others.
  6                 Is that a lesson you've learned yourself?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And you've had experience, haven't
  9  you, in which a memory of yours about an event turned out
 10  to be quite wrong, am I right?
 11                 A:   I suppose.
 12                 Q:   Okay.  Or at least that things that
 13  you think you're remembering aren't quite what you
 14  remember; isn't that correct?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And certainly memory is incomplete,
 17  isn't it?
 18                 A:   It appears to be.
 19                 Q:   And you said, "I don't recall" a few
 20  times today?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   So you'll agree that not only can
 23  memory be fragile, it can also be somewhat unreliable on
 24  occasion?
 25                 A:   Hmm hmm.

137
  1                 Q:   You agree with that?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   Thank you.  Now, you've described
  4  yourself as -- as a policy wonk.
  5                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  6                 Q:   I kind of think of myself as one as
  7  well, so I appreciate the comments that you made on the
  8  policy side.
  9                 Would it be fair to say that -- that
 10  policy really grabs your attention, not so much --
 11                 A:   Strategy grabs my attention.
 12                 Q:   Strategy grabs your attention.  Not
 13  so much factual detail?
 14                 A:   No, I wouldn't say that, actually.  I
 15  would say that it would be very difficult to get a grasp
 16  of strategy without the ability to discern what is a
 17  relevant fact and what isn't a relevant fact.
 18                 Q:   I -- I think that's probably right,
 19  but the question is, what grabs your attention?  Policy,
 20  strategy or facts?
 21                 You were long on policy here, I thought in
 22  many respects short on detail.  That's my -- my -- the
 23  reason for the question.
 24                 A:   I find it difficult to answer because
 25  it implies -- it implies a trivialization of fact when --

138
  1  when dealing with strategy.
  2                 So that's why I'm -- I'm perplexed.  I
  3  understand the direction of your question, but I'm still
  4  perplexed with respect to how it is I might answer.
  5                 Q:   I understand -- I understand the
  6  concern.  But facts are --
  7                 A:   I can only tell you that my staff who
  8  -- who would -- would review the documents that I vetted
  9  would probably say that I have an obsession with fact
 10  that mightn't have been obvious to someone who calls
 11  herself a policy wonk.
 12                 Q:   But the facts that you're concerned
 13  about are the ones that are the building blocks of the
 14  strategy that you wanted?
 15                 A:   That's correct.
 16                 Q:   Thank you.  Now, Dr. Todres, I just
 17  wanted to ask you a few questions about what you -- what
 18  you did in preparation for giving your evidence here in
 19  the last couple of days.
 20                 Can you tell me what documents you
 21  reviewed, just generally?
 22                 A:   I reviewed the binders that were in--
 23                 Q:   Binders?
 24                 A:   I was given some binders by the
 25  Commission staff with tabulations with variety of

139
  1  materials.
  2                 Q:   I assume one of them is the one that
  3  you have in front of you?
  4                 A:   That's correct. 
  5                 Q:   Well, any other binders?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   Just that one binder?
  8                 A:   No, I think there were actually
  9  Volume I and Volume II.  I can't speak to whether this is
 10  Volume I and Volume II combined, but I was given a set of
 11  materials.
 12                 Q:   Anything else by way of materials?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   Did you speak to others about your
 15  evidence before coming here to testify?
 16                 A:   I was -- I met with my counsel from
 17  the Ministry, the Attorney General and I had meetings
 18  with Commission Counsel.
 19                 Q:   And can you tell me when your first
 20  meeting with Commission Counsel would have been?
 21  
 22                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 23  
 24                 A:   It was around May or June.
 25                 Q:   May or June of this year?

140
  1                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  2                 Q:   And when was your last meeting in
  3  preparation for your giving of evidence with Commission
  4  Counsel?
  5                 A:   The night before last.
  6                 Q:   And did you also meet with Commission
  7  Counsel last week?
  8                 A:   I met with Commission Counsel on --
  9  on Friday, two (2) weeks ago I think.
 10                 Q:   Thank you.  I was a bit puzzled by
 11  Exhibit P-984.
 12  
 13                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14  
 15                 A:   Yes?
 16                 Q:   Which is a document that you prepared
 17  and -- and this is probably my problem because I haven't
 18  been here as often as others have been.
 19                 And I'm -- I'm looking at your diagram and 
 20  I don't see ONAS anywhere on here and I'm -- there's a
 21  point of intersection, I expect, but could you describe
 22  where ONAS fits into this picture?
 23                 A:   Well, this was a description of my
 24  Ministry and our relationship.  It wasn't a description
 25  of my relationship or interaction with any -- MNR is not

141
  1  on this diagram.  ONAS is not on this diagram.  No -- no
  2  other Ministry is on this diagram --
  3                 Q:   So how --
  4                 A:   -- but ours.
  5                 Q:   All right.  So how did Ron Fox and --
  6  and Scott Patrick fit in with the ONAS exercise?
  7                 A:   They were delegated -- well, Mr. Fox
  8  was -- was the representative of the Ministry to the
  9  InterMinisterial Committee.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And the InterMinisterial
 11  Committee was chaired by -- by an ONAS representative?
 12                 A:   By the Director of Legal --
 13                 Q:   Right.
 14                 A:   -- of ONAS.
 15                 Q:   Okay.  Thank you.  Now, during the
 16  events of -- during the events of -- of September 1995
 17  you were Mr. Fox's immediate superior?
 18                 A:   That's correct.
 19                 Q:   And can you tell us when your last
 20  contact with Mr. Fox was?
 21                 A:   Probably the last day that I worked
 22  for the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1997.
 23                 Q:   In 1997?  And have you had any
 24  contact with him directly or indirectly since then?
 25                 A:   I saw him -- I saw him once at a

142
  1  hotel where I was doing a facilitation.  There was a
  2  meeting of the OPP and it was the first time that I'd
  3  ever seen him.  It was probably two (2) years ago or
  4  three (3) years ago in one (1) of our hotels and I said,
  5  Hello, and he said, Hello, to me.
  6                 Q:   And did you discuss with him any of
  7  the issues involved in this Inquiry?
  8                 A:   No, I did not.
  9                 Q:   You expressed yesterday a great deal
 10  of respect and admiration of Mr. Fox?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And that came from your experience
 13  with him?
 14                 A:   Yes, it did.
 15                 Q:   Now during the events of September
 16  '95 you were also Scott Patrick's superior, were you not?
 17                 A:   Scott reported to Ron.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  And can you tell me when your
 19  last contact with Mr. -- Mr. Patrick was?
 20                 A:   The last day of my work at the
 21  Solicitor General.
 22                 Q:   And not since then?
 23                 A:   Not since then.
 24                 Q:   And Ms. Jai, did you have any contact
 25  with her after you departed from --

143
  1                 A:   I actually saw her at Commission
  2  Counsel office in the meeting that we had in July -- or
  3  in May or June; she was being interviewed after me.  And
  4  we had a personal call with respect to her health a month
  5  or two (2) -- she was involved in a serious operation and
  6  we had a discussion about her health a few months before
  7  that in which we restricted our conversations to her
  8  health.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  So did you -- you -- that was
 10  my next question:  Did you have any kind of conversation
 11  with her about the evidence that you were going to give--
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   -- before this Inquiry.
 14                 A:   No.
 15  
 16                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17  
 18                 Q:   And have you had occasion to speak to
 19  any of the other people who are witnesses in this Inquiry
 20  in the last couple of years?
 21                 A:   Well, I would have -- there are
 22  deputy Minister Christmas parties which we call festive
 23  parties.  I may have seen some colleagues.  I -- I've
 24  seen Larry perhaps once or twice in the last ten (10)
 25  years.  It's been a long time.  Have I had conversations

144
  1  about Ipperwash?  No.
  2                 Q:   And the same question about lawyers
  3  or lawyers' assistants for any of the other parties or
  4  witnesses?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   Apart from Commission Counsel and
  7  your own counsel?
  8                 A:   No.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  And, Dr. Todres, have you
 10  watched the Inquiry proceedings from time to time?
 11                 A:   I watched -- I was in the hotel, in
 12  my hotel the other day and discovered that there was a
 13  local channel and I caught a few minutes of Mr. Harnick. 
 14                 And I once saw Larry on -- Larry Taman
 15  that is, on -- on -- for perhaps ten (10) or fifteen (15)
 16  minutes at my home on the webcast.  I made a point of not
 17  wishing to see it, nor did I wish to review the -- the
 18  testimony.  I felt that that would be confusing.  
 19                 Q:   Thank you.  So you began your career
 20  with the public service in about 1980; is that -- is that
 21  correct?
 22                 A:   1976.
 23                 Q:   1976.  And you completed your PhD the
 24  -- I think the following year?
 25                 A:   Just before that, hmm hmm.

145
  1                 Q:   Oh, okay.  And you rose to the rank
  2  of Assistant Deputy Minister in 1986 with the Ontario
  3  Women's Directorate?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And that would have been during the
  6  tenure of the minority Liberal Government that was
  7  elected --
  8                 A:   That's correct.
  9                 Q:   -- in '85?  Right.
 10                 You became Deputy Minister of Human
 11  Resources in 1987, and that would have been after the
 12  Liberals returned, under Mr. Peterson, with majority?
 13                 A:   That's correct.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  And you worked under the Rae
 15  Government from 1990 to 1995 as Deputy Minister for the
 16  Ministry of Culture in its couple of incarnations?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   All right.  Is it -- and you worked
 19  of course as a Deputy Solicitor General from 1995 to
 20  1997.  Is it fair to say that over that time you had
 21  frequent interaction with executive assistants for
 22  Ministers and with other political staff?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And would you agree with me that --
 25  that when an EA shows up at a meeting representing a

146
  1  Minister, he or she is there for two (2) basic reasons,
  2  the first is to get briefed with information that might
  3  be relevant to the Minister, so that the Minister can be
  4  briefed by the EA; is that correct?
  5                 A:   Well I'd like to distinguish between
  6  the types of meetings that EA's attend, which I attempted
  7  to do yesterday.  EA's, in my experience, would attend
  8  meetings with senior staff with ADM's, maybe, and with
  9  deputies.  It would be -- would be rare for EA's to have
 10  meetings with significantly lower staff.
 11                 But where they were meeting with me or
 12  with my immediate reports, it would be to provide
 13  information and to be a conduit in -- in the main.
 14                 Q:   So for you to provide information
 15  through them and for you to get information through them;
 16  is that fair?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  And, in fact, it was useful to
 19  meet with them from time to time because you might get a
 20  sense of how a Minister might view a particular issue on
 21  the way through the policy development process?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And would you agree with me that, in
 24  general terms, executive assistants and Ministers, as a
 25  team, take a consistent approach to issues?

147
  1                 A:   I think that it depends on the
  2  circumstances.
  3                 Q:   But if an EA is offside the Minister
  4  doesn't -- an EA who is offside the Minister doesn't last
  5  very long, does he?
  6                 A:   And conversely a Minister who is
  7  offside doesn't last very long.
  8                 Q:   Offside his EA?
  9                 A:   Yes.  Sometimes the EA is given
 10  instruction and the Minister has difficulty, and then we
 11  have to work through the Premier's office.  So it's a
 12  very reciprocal relationship.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  Now you were around during the
 14  few changes of government?
 15                 A:   Yes, I was.
 16                 Q:   And I imagine as well a few changes
 17  in Ministers?
 18                 A:   Quite a few changes in Ministers.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  And is it fair to say, that in
 20  the early days of a change of that sort, political staff
 21  are learning the ropes?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Especially around relations between
 24  your office and political staff?
 25                 A:   Yes.

148
  1                 Q:   And people are looking for the lines,
  2  the protocols?
  3                 A:   Yes.  And it very much depends on the
  4  strength of the principal secretary and the -- the
  5  caliber of people in their respective offices, and
  6  Cabinet, and the Premier's office.
  7                 Q:   And you described your Ministry as
  8  complex?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And in your Ministry, with the police
 11  portfolio, that perhaps more lines than in an ordinary
 12  line Ministry?
 13                 A:   Well, at least as many lines as in
 14  Health but it's -- it's a very special place.
 15                 Q:   All right.  Now, in terms of the
 16  police side, I believe you said yesterday that
 17  representatives were seconded from the OPP to advise you
 18  because of the breadth and scopes of the -- of the duties
 19  of your Ministry, and that Ron Fox and Scott Patrick were
 20  seconded OPP officers, right?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   And that they were paid by the OPP
 23  and -- but that they took instructions from you alone and
 24  were not considered to be OPP officers in that --
 25                 A:   That's correct.

149
  1                 Q:   That was your evidence?
  2                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And you said in your
  4  evidence as well, as I recall, that you were not aware
  5  that Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick continued to be police
  6  officers while they were seconded to --
  7                 A:   Peace officers.
  8                 Q:   -- peace officers while they were
  9  seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor General until
 10  very recently?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Do you recall that?  And you
 13  described the circumstances under which you learned --
 14  became aware that they -- they, in fact, continued to be
 15  peace officers?
 16                 A:   It was in conversation with my
 17  counsel a number of days ago.
 18                 Q:   And did that change in your awareness
 19  cause any concern to you in the way that you approached
 20  the issues that are in this inquiry?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Did Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick wear
 23  uniforms in the office?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   And I understand that they used

150
  1  ordinary names, like Ron and Mr. Fox, in ordinary work in
  2  the -- in the Ministry, not their OPP ranks?
  3                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  4                 Q:   And Mr. Hodgson will say, in fact,
  5  that he did not know that Mr. Fox was a police officer
  6  when he met him.  And that wouldn't be any surprise to
  7  you, would it?
  8                 A:   Well I think I would have said Mr. --
  9  Mr. Hodgson would not have been aware that Mr. Fox was a
 10  seconded OPP staffer to my office.
 11                 Q:   Mr. Hodgson's evidence would -- will
 12  be that he did not know that Mr. Fox was an OPP officer
 13  at all.  Would that be a surprise to you?
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   Because the -- that's fine, thank
 16  you.  This might be a good time to break, sir.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 18  very much.  This will be a good time to break for lunch.
 19                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry stands
 20  adjourned until 1:15.
 21  
 22  --- Upon recessing at 12:01 p.m.
 23  --- Upon resuming at 1:15 p.m.
 24  
 25                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry is now

151
  1  resumed. Please be seated. 
  2                 MR. DERRY MILLAR:   Commissioner, before
  3  we start this afternoon I just wanted to make an
  4  announcement.
  5                 Given the length of anticipated cross-
  6  examination with respect to Ms. Todres the -- one of the
  7  things we were going to try to do tomorrow was recall Tim
  8  McCabe.  I don't want to ask Mr. McCabe to come back if
  9  we're going to finish him.  And so what we've decided to
 10  do is not call Mr. McCabe tomorrow. 
 11                 What we'll do when we're done with Ms.
 12  Todres is we'll deal with the Gerry (phonetic) King
 13  affidavit -- Ms. Vella will.
 14  
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 16  
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No reaction
 18  so we're okay.  Nobody's jumping up and down.
 19                 I spoke too soon.  No?  You're going to  
 20  speak --
 21                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   I'm going to speak
 22  with Counsel.
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   See if you
 24  can sort it out.
 25  

152
  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2  
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.  Let's
  4  get on with it.  You guys can talk during the recess and
  5  if you still have something you want to say here we'll do
  6  it after the recess.
  7                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Thank you.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr. Lauwers,
  9  can you please, let's get started with our examination.
 10                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Thank you, sir.
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
 12  
 13  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 14                 Q:   Now, Dr. Todres you left the public
 15  service in 1997?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   What was the date of that departure?
 18                 A:   I don't recall.
 19                 Q:   Can you describe briefly the
 20  circumstances of your departure from the public service?
 21                 A:   I had decided that I wanted to
 22  explore a career in the private sector and that given
 23  that the private sector generally has a difficulty in
 24  understanding what it is the Deputy Minister does, I
 25  thought that if I wanted to do this, I should do this

153
  1  when, what I seemed to think of myself then, was
  2  relatively young.
  3                 I indicated that I was going to be seeking
  4  a job elsewhere.  I indicated that to both my Minister
  5  and the Secretary of Cabinet and had a very pleasant
  6  departure, and a lovely party, and some lovely words from
  7  the colleagues that I held dear including the Minister
  8  and moved on.
  9                 Q:   So, the departure was voluntary?
 10                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 11                 Q:   Pardon me?
 12                 A:   Yes, it was.
 13  
 14                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15  
 16                 Q:   The next couple of questions, or a
 17  few questions are being asked in the interest of -- of
 18  ensuring a complete record, Dr. Todres, and for stalling
 19  any future criticism.  In asking these questions I'm not
 20  suggesting any impropriety on anyone's part.
 21                 If I go to the website for Todres
 22  Leadership Council, that is your -- your business?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And on that website there appears an
 25  endorsement from the -- Commissioner Linden of this

154
  1  Inquiry?
  2                 A:   There's an endorsement from His
  3  Honour, Justice Linden, when he was the Chair of the
  4  Legal Aid --
  5                 Q:   As he then was --
  6                 A:   -- Ontario.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  Can you just tell us briefly
  8  what the circumstances of that engagement were?
  9                 A:   Legal Aid Ontario wanted to do some
 10  government work -- governance work under the behest of
 11  both the Chair and the CEO in 2001 and 2002.  And through
 12  the Office of the Chair and the CEO, asked to hire me --
 13  my services, in order to deal with a retreat for Legal
 14  Aid Ontario to sort out roles and relationships in
 15  particular areas that might be thorny and subject to
 16  future strategic discussion for the Board.  And we did
 17  that in the year 2001 and 2002.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  And could you tell us how much
 19  direct contact you had with -- with Justice Linden on
 20  that -- during that time?
 21                 A:   Justice Linden would have indicated
 22  to me what it is that he wished to accomplish as Chair. 
 23  We had a number of meetings and then I would have spent a
 24  fair amount of time with his Chief Executive Officer, Ms.
 25  Angela Longo (phonetic).  

155
  1                 And of course I would have naturally been
  2  in contact with him throughout the conduct of the -- a
  3  retreat which probably was two (2) days or two and a half
  4  (2 1/2) in length.
  5                 Q:   Thank you.  I notice as well that on
  6  your website under the tab that's marked 'Clients' you
  7  have listed the Ontario Native Friendship Centres --
  8                 A:   That's correct.
  9                 Q:   -- as a client.  Can you tell us
 10  something about the nature of your work --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- with the organization and the
 13  organization itself?
 14                 A:   I met Sylvia Amaricle (phonetic) who
 15  is the Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Friendship
 16  Centre in my time, when I was both the Director of Policy
 17  and then subsequently the Assistant Deputy Minister for
 18  Women's Issues.  At that time in 1983, '84, '85, she was
 19  actually the head of the Toronto Indian Friendship
 20  Centre, as I recall, and then became the CEO of the
 21  Provincial Organization.
 22                 She was a women that -- that I have
 23  enormous respect for.  She's very, very smart and very,
 24  very savvy.  In any event, she was on the Board of Legal
 25  Aid Ontario and was part of the deliberations when I was

156
  1  doing government --governance work.
  2                 Some time after that she asked me to
  3  conduct a series of policy workshops for her staff.  I
  4  indicated to her that I didn't normally do individual
  5  workshops, but I do value her relationship very much and
  6  I agreed to do so.  And we did a three (3) day policy
  7  seminar which was meant to help her staff.
  8                 And all of the staff were invited.  There
  9  was something like seventy-five (75) people present where
 10  we spent two and a half (2 1/2), three (3) days, and a
 11  very enjoyable experience for me.
 12                 Q:   Is that organization represented here
 13  at this Inquiry, to your knowledge?
 14                 A:   Not that I'm aware of.
 15                 Q:   Okay.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr. Lauwers,
 17  perhaps you -- maybe you should ask Dr. Todres if she and
 18  I ever discussed Ipperwash, just for the record.
 19                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   I would pleased if
 20  you would answer that question.
 21                 THE WITNESS:   No.
 22                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:  Thank you.  It
 23  wouldn't -- wouldn't frankly have even occurred to me,
 24  sir.
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, I just

157
  1  want to make it clear for the record that we never talked
  2  about Ipperwash.
  3                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   But that's fair. 
  4  Thank you.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
  7                 Q:   Now, it's common knowledge that the
  8  occupiers entered the Park site on Labour Day, September
  9  the 4th.  Can you just -- and -- and I will not be
 10  hopefully repeating much here but I just -- to set the
 11  context, okay, when did you first learn about the
 12  occupation?
 13                 A:   The morning of the 5th.
 14                 Q:   And what did you do upon learning of
 15  it?
 16                 A:   We had a detailed briefing.  And we
 17  would have -- I don't recall whether Kathryn Hunt was in
 18  the room with me.  Had she been in the room with me we
 19  would have gone directly to the Minister, but the
 20  information was conveyed to the Minister.
 21                 Q:   And did that -- that briefing that
 22  you're just referring to now, did it follow or precede
 23  the IMC meeting of that day?
 24                 A:   Well, it was a very early meeting, so
 25  I'm assuming that it preceded it.

158
  1                 Q:   Probably in the morning then.  The
  2  IMC meeting apparently went from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
  3  that day.  Could I ask you to turn up Tab 26 in your --
  4  in the binder that's in front of you?
  5                 And Tab 26 is P -- Exhibit P-509 and it's
  6  the meeting notes of the meeting of September the 5th,
  7  1995.
  8                 And it has the IMC meeting at the ONAS
  9  green boardroom at 595 Bay Street; do you see that?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   I think if you -- are you looking at
 12  the fax sheet?  If you just look --
 13                 A:   I'm looking at the cover sheet, the
 14  fax sheet.
 15                 Q:   Okay.
 16                 A:   Shall I turn it over?
 17                 Q:   Yes, please, yeah.
 18                 A:   Okay.
 19                 Q:   And now am I correct that ONAS'
 20  offices are at about Bay and Dundas?
 21                 A:   I didn't know where their offices
 22  were.  I'm assuming if that's the address, that's where
 23  they were.
 24                 Q:   Okay. 
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   They're in

159
  1  the atrium at Bay and Dundas, we've heard that from other
  2  witnesses.
  3                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   That's my
  4  understanding, yes, thank you.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:  
  7                 Q:   So you're not mentioned as being
  8  present?
  9                 A:   That's correct.
 10                 Q:   And I take it you weren't there.
 11                 A:   That's correct.
 12                 Q:   And you were briefed on this meeting?
 13                 A:   I was briefed the following day, so
 14  I'm assuming that Ron, in his diligence, would have kept
 15  me apprised of what was going on.
 16                 Q:   Now the meeting notes, and
 17  particularly the handwritten notes, have you had a chance
 18  to read these notes --
 19                 A:   I've reviewed them.
 20                 Q:   You went through the binder in
 21  preparation for your evidence?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   I think you said that already.
 24                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 25                 Q:   So you read each page as it came?

160
  1                 A:   I reviewed them; I didn't study them.
  2                 Q:   It's a lot of pages, I know.
  3                 A:   It's a lot of pages.  And the
  4  meetings at which I didn't attend, I didn't spend as much
  5  time on.
  6                 A:   Okay.  So the meeting notes, and I'll
  7  take you to this, if you care, in a few moments, the
  8  meeting notes have MNR representatives including Mr.
  9  Bangs expressing a caution about moving quickly, even to
 10  get an injunction.
 11                 If I could ask you to turn up Tab 28.  Now
 12  at Tab 28, which is Exhibit P-536, these are handwritten
 13  notes and unfortunately they kind of come in two (2)
 14  bundles.
 15                 If you go about half way through the
 16  handwritten notes you'll see the page numbers resume and
 17  the second group, September 5, 1995; do you see that?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So what I'm going to ask
 20  you to do if you would is -- is to go -- these are, we
 21  understand, the handwritten notes of Julie Jai.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Who was chairing that meeting.  So
 24  let me just take you then to page 3 of -- of the -- that
 25  part of the notes.

161
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   The
  2  September 5th meeting --
  3                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   The September 5th
  4  meeting, yes, sir.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
  7                 Q:   And you'll see just down about one-
  8  third (1/3) of the page or a quarter (1/4) of the page,
  9  Peter Allen's name; do you see that there?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And can you tell us who Peter Allen
 12  was?
 13                 A:   I don't recall who Peter Allen is.
 14                 Q:   I see.  If I suggested to you that he
 15  was Ron Vrancart's executive assistant --
 16                 A:   Yes, thank you.
 17                 Q:   -- does that ring a bell?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Thank you.  So what -- what we have
 20  here is -- is Mr. Allen noted as having said:
 21                   "They spoke with their DM.  No attempt
 22                   made so far to speak to them and find
 23                   out what they want."
 24                 I'm assuming that would mean the
 25  occupiers.

162
  1                   "They're just occupying an empty Park. 
  2                   Shouldn't take overly precipitous
  3                   action."
  4                 Do you see that?
  5                 A:   Yes, I do.
  6                 Q:   And then down a little bit further,
  7  and we see "DM" and then there's a note: 
  8                   "Ron Vrancart would like to have --
  9                   would like us to have an injunction
 10                   ready to go but not proceed
 11                   precipitously [underneath that] no
 12                   great inconvenience."
 13                 Did you see that?
 14                 A:   Yes, I did.
 15                 Q:   And going a little further on:
 16                   "Jeff Bangs discussed with [Minister]
 17                   Min, this morning.  If we get an
 18                   injunction, we'll be expected to
 19                   enforce it and will escalate things. 
 20                   Could lead to a confrontation."
 21                 Do you see that?
 22                 A:   Yes, I do.
 23                 Q:   Now, when you were -- just to make
 24  sure I've got this straight.  Were you told about these -
 25  - this sort of sense of approach by MNR to -- to movement

163
  1  on Ipperwash --
  2                 A:   I don't --
  3                 Q:   -- in your briefing?
  4                 A:   -- recall -- I don't recall these
  5  kinds of details.  What I recall is, as I indicated a
  6  number of times, is that the prevailing view of the
  7  bureaucracy, without specifying which particular Ministry
  8  was saying what to whom, was that we would proceed with
  9  caution and negotiation.
 10                 Q:   And this -- these notes here from Mr.
 11  Bangs, among others, simply reinforce that?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And were you told, as well, in your -
 14  - in your briefing by -- was it Mr. Fox who briefed you
 15  on this?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   That Mr. Hodgson wasn't terribly
 18  interested in being the spokesperson for the Government
 19  on this issue with the media?
 20                 A:   That I don't recall.
 21                 Q:   You don't recall that?
 22                 A:   No.
 23  
 24                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 25  

164
  1                 Q:   Let me now turn to events on
  2  September the 6th, the Wednesday.  I understand that
  3  Cabinet usually met on Wednesday?  What time --
  4                 A:   Yes, they did.
  5                 Q:   -- was that meeting?
  6                 A:   I believe it began, usually at 10:00,
  7  sometimes it began at 9:00.
  8                 Q:   Okay.  And did it meet on -- on this
  9  particular day, September the 6th, 1995?
 10                 A:   I understand that it met.
 11                 Q:   I take it you didn't attend?
 12                 A:   Deputies do not attend at Cabinet
 13  meetings.
 14                 Q:   Sometimes they do?
 15                 A:   They rarely -- they never attend
 16  Cabinet meetings except for the Secretary of Cabinet and
 17  a few of the central agency deputies that are asked to
 18  attend subcommittee meetings of Cabinet.
 19                 Q:   All right.  I thought you gave
 20  evidence earlier on that Mr. Taman attended the Cabinet
 21  meeting that day; is that correct?
 22                 A:   I don't believe so.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  I may have misheard that. 
 24  Thank you.  So you -- did your Minister attend?
 25                 A:   Yes.

165
  1                 Q:   Now, was your Minister's office at --
  2  at your offices, is in the same building?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   At Church and Bloor?
  5                 A:   Yes.  Different sections of the
  6  floor.
  7                 Q:   Thank you.  Now, at Tab 30 of -- of
  8  the document book there's -- there's another set of
  9  minutes.  It's Exhibit P-509 which are the meeting notes;
 10  just go towards the back.  Yes, P-509 September the 6th,
 11  1995?
 12                 A:   Yes, I see it.
 13                 Q:   And these are the meeting notes of
 14  the ONAS meeting of -- sorry the IMC meeting of -- of
 15  September the 6th.  
 16                 And you'll see that the -- the meeting is
 17  going from 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 p.m.?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And as I understand it Mr. -- Mr. Fox
 20  was there?
 21                 A:   Yes, it appears so.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  And did you -- and Mr. Fox
 23  reported to you on this -- on this particular meeting?
 24                 A:   As I recall, I was called into the
 25  Premier's meeting at 11:00 so that meeting would have

166
  1  occurred -- dining room meeting would have occurred at
  2  some point while this meeting was still in play.  So I
  3  would not have been briefed on the outcome of this
  4  meeting.
  5                 Q:   Now you say you were called to the
  6  meeting at 11:00?
  7                 A:   I believe the meeting started,
  8  approximately, around 11:00.
  9                 Q:   And you were -- it started at eleven
 10  o'clock?
 11                 A:   Something like that, yes.
 12                 Q:   And how do you know that?
 13                 A:   That's my recollection.
 14                 Q:   Anything particularly stand out about
 15  that --
 16                 A:   It was before lunch.
 17                 Q:   Before lunch?
 18                 A:   It was before lunch.
 19                 Q:   To get to the meeting you had to come
 20  from your office?
 21                 A:   I had to come from my office.
 22                 Q:   And how did you -- how did you get 
 23  to --
 24                 A:   As I indicated earlier I don't recall
 25  whether we drove, but I remember walking, with Mr. Fox

167
  1  and probably with Ms. Taylor, a certain portion of the
  2  underground passageway into the legislature.  So we
  3  likely walked.
  4                 Q:   You walked from Bloor and Dundas?
  5                 A:   Well, I suspect -- my offices were at
  6  Bloor and Church.
  7                 Q:   Bloor and Church, sorry.  Yeah.
  8                 A:   I suspected what --
  9                 Q:   Dundas and -- they're parallel.  I
 10  understand.
 11                 A:   I suspect that what may have happened
 12  in the interest of time is that I may have parked my car
 13  in the Government parking lot and then walked underneath. 
 14  There's an underground access point.  I don't recall that
 15  vividly.
 16                 Q:   All right.  And you then walked to
 17  the -- the dining room?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   With Mr. Fox and --
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   And did Mr. Fox brief you on the --
 22  on the discussion at the IMC meeting?
 23                 A:   I don't remember any briefing so I
 24  walked into that room of the view that our position was
 25  staying the same, which is steady as she goes.

168
  1                 Q:   Okay.  Let me then go to that dining
  2  room meeting.  You were at the meeting.  You say it
  3  started at eleven o'clock.  Is it possible that your time
  4  frame is off and it actually started later?
  5                 A:   It's possible.  I remember 11:00.  I
  6  -- I -- that's all I can say.
  7                 Q:   Could it have been 12:00?
  8                 A:   I don't think it was 12:00 because
  9  there were people that were going to lunch later and the
 10  Ministers were being pulled out of Cabinet and they would
 11  have wanted to be able to return to the other
 12  deliberations that were still going on next door.
 13                 Q:   Your evidence is that Cabinet was
 14  still underway at that time?
 15                 A:   I believe so.  I -- I wouldn't know. 
 16  I can't speculate.
 17                 Q:   Thank you.
 18                 A:   It is common practice, if I can say,
 19  that given the exigencies of the day and given the
 20  location of the dining room office, that there are times
 21  when a number of people in Cabinet have to leave to have
 22  what they call off -- what's the expression, sidebar
 23  meetings.
 24                 Q:   But you're not able to tell us today
 25  whether the Cabinet meeting proceeded in the absence of

169
  1  the Premier and the other ministers that --
  2                 A:   No, I'm not.
  3                 Q:   -- were with you in the dining room?
  4                 A:   No, I'm not.
  5                 Q:   Okay.  Now just tell me, when -- when
  6  did -- where did you go after the meeting was over?
  7                 A:   I returned to my office.
  8                 Q:   And how did you get there?
  9                 A:   The same way I came.  So if I -- I
 10  must have walked a certain point.  I was -- likely would
 11  have driven to my office, I don't recall that. 
 12                 Q:   Okay.  And do you have any sense of -
 13  - of how long the whole exercise would have been from the
 14  time you left the office to the time you returned?
 15                 A:   Well, I remember that the -- the
 16  meeting was not unduly long and I was estimating that it
 17  was something like forty-five (45) to fifty (50) minutes
 18  and it might have taken ten (10) minutes to get there and
 19  ten (10) minutes to get back.
 20  
 21                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 22  
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And you have the meeting at
 24  forty-five (45) to fifty (50) minutes or so?
 25                 A:   Yes.

170
  1                 Q:   Would you quarrel with an estimate
  2  that has it more like fifteen (15) to twenty (20)
  3  minutes?
  4                 A:   Quarrel is a strong word.  Perhaps,
  5  perhaps it was that.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  I wonder if you could put up
  7  the diagram?  
  8  
  9                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 10  
 11                 Q:   This is -- what we have on the
 12  screen, Dr. Todres, is Exhibit P-968 which is a drawing
 13  of the Premier's office, as you can see in the right hand
 14  corner of it, the dining room next to it and then the --
 15  I take it the council chamber at the top of the page to
 16  the right would be normally where the Cabinet meets?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Is that correct?
 19                 A:   That's correct.
 20                 Q:   So just to understand exactly what
 21  happened here, you -- you came to the meeting and where
 22  did you go when you got to the -- this particular area,
 23  looking at that --
 24                 A:   I sat beside Larry on -- on this
 25  side, as I believe is indicated on that chart.

171
  1                 Q:   Yeah, let me just back you up for a
  2  second, because you're in the room already and I haven't
  3  got you past the reception --
  4                 A:   Oh, I'm sorry.
  5                 Q:   -- yet.
  6                 A:   Okay, oh, I'm in reception.
  7                 Q:   Yeah.
  8                 A:   Okay.  So I'm move -- I -- I indicate
  9  why -- that I've been called to the meeting.  And I
 10  walked in and I left my staff outside the meeting; I took
 11  this to be a meeting of the Deputies and Ministers, so I
 12  walked in alone.
 13                 Q:   So, you walked through the reception
 14  doors, through the hallway and into the room?
 15                 A:   That's correct. 
 16                 Q:   All right.  And you left your staff
 17  out in the reception area?
 18                 A:   Correct. 
 19                 Q:   So I'm just clear, you did not go
 20  through the Cabinet room to get to this particular room,
 21  right?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  So Mr. Runciman, I take it,
 24  was -- was he in the room at the time you arrived?
 25                 A:   I can't recall who was in the room. 

172
  1  It was only within a matter of minutes that everyone
  2  assembled, so I can't recall the precise chronology of
  3  who took what seat, when.
  4                 Q:   Was there anybody in the room when
  5  you -- when you --
  6                 A:   I don't recall.
  7                 Q:   -- walked in?
  8                 A:   I don't believe it was empty, but I
  9  can't speak to who was there.
 10                 Q:   Now, I believe your evidence earlier
 11  on was that you had no recollection of Mr. Fox and Mr.
 12  Patrick being in the room?
 13                 A:   Correct. 
 14                 Q:   Okay.  So in terms of -- of the
 15  seating arrangement in the room --
 16                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 17                 Q:   -- and I'm conscious that I haven't
 18  got everybody placed here.  This is Ms. Hutton's diagram
 19  which Mr. Hodgson says is not accurate from his
 20  recollection.
 21                 Let me tell you what I -- what he says he
 22  thinks happened, and just to check it out with how it
 23  accords with your recollection.
 24                 Mr. Hodgson will say that in terms of
 25  seating, you and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the

173
  1  table -- yes?
  2  
  3                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  4  
  5                 Q:   My Friend makes a -- makes a good
  6  point and I should just simply ask you, at least at the
  7  outset, what -- where you think people were in the room
  8  that you can recall to the best of your --
  9                 A:   Excellent.
 10                 Q:   And --
 11                 A:   Well --
 12                 Q:   -- you can ignore the -- the --
 13                 A:   Okay, so --
 14                 Q:   -- line there, if you would.
 15                 A:   Let's begin with, as I say, what
 16  normal protocol is.  Normal protocol would be that
 17  Ministers and Deputies and perhaps, if there was
 18  sufficient room, political staff would be sitting at the
 19  table, and others, if I can put it this way, without
 20  seeming unduly elitist, lower level staff would be
 21  sitting on chairs around the table.
 22                 My recollection is that Larry and I sat
 23  roughly where it is indicated and that we were sitting
 24  opposite Ministers Hodgson and Minister Harnick.
 25                 I recall the Premier actually sitting at

174
  1  the other table, at the other end of the table, not --
  2  not --
  3                 Q:   I'm sorry, can -- can you back up for
  4  a second, I --
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   -- I didn't catch that again.  I wish
  7  we had a diagram we could actually draw this on.
  8                 A:   Would it be helpful if I pointed --
  9                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, there
 10  is --
 11                 THE WITNESS:   Would you mind if I
 12  pointed?
 13  
 14  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
 15                 Q:   Yeah, that would be a great idea.
 16                 A:   Okay, so my recollection is the two
 17  (2) of us sat here because I remember turning to my right
 18  to listen to Larry -- to the Deputy Attorney General as
 19  he was speaking.
 20                 I recall Minister Harnick and Minister
 21  Hodgson sitting here.  My recollection is that the
 22  Premier sat at this end and I believe that Deb Hutton was
 23  here -- I can't remember exactly who sat in what seat at
 24  this end.
 25                 There may have been staff behind us. 

175
  1  There were -- I can't recall where Ron Vrancart sat and
  2  so on.  But there were chairs around the table and there
  3  was a very noisy air conditioner in some corner.  I think
  4  it might have been around here.
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   There's an
  6  AC marked where I think Ms. Hutton placed it.
  7                 THE WITNESS:   Oh, there it was.  Such as
  8  I indicated, it was quite difficult to hear in that room. 
  9  And I don't recall the seating arrangements of anyone
 10  else.
 11                 So as we were poised to listen to people,
 12  I was not paying attention to people who were sitting
 13  behind me or around me, I was paying attention to the
 14  people who were at the table.
 15                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Commissioner, I have
 16  a blank drawing here, it might be helpful if the Witness
 17  could fill it in.
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine.
 19                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Thank you.
 20  
 21  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 22                 Q:   You're going to have to draw the
 23  table on as well.
 24                 A:   Okay.  So just a moment.
 25  

176
  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2  
  3                 Q:   Just in terms of the location of
  4  Premier Harris, are you saying that he was by the air
  5  conditioner?
  6                 A:   That was my -- that's my
  7  recollection, yes.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think Mr.
  9  Millar's had the same thought.  He went out to get you a
 10  blank one.
 11                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Pardon me, sir?
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think Mr.
 13  Millar went out to get a blank one, right?
 14                 THE WITNESS:   Shall I pass this forward
 15  to you?
 16  
 17  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 18                 Q:   Yes, please.  I'd like to -- I guess
 19  we can't project it quite that quickly, can we?  You
 20  don't have Mr. Runciman on this diagram?
 21                 A:   No.  I don't recall where he sat.
 22                 Q:   And you also -- but you believe he
 23  was in the room?
 24                 A:   Oh yes.
 25                 Q:   And you don't have Mr. Vrancart.

177
  1                 A:   No, I don't recall where he sat
  2  either.
  3                 Q:   But you -- you know he was in the
  4  room?
  5                 A:   But he was at the table.
  6                 Q:   He was at the table?  
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   You don't recall where he was?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   All right.  And just to be clear on
 11  this, now that we've got your evidence.  What Mr. Hodgson
 12  will say is that in terms of the seating that -- that you
 13  and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the table as Mr.
 14  Taman and Mr. Harnick.
 15                 And that would be to the right of the --
 16  the Premier where -- wherever the Premier was at the head
 17  of the table.  And he will say that -- that he sat on the
 18  other side of the table with Mr. Runciman to his left and
 19  Mr. Vrancart to his right.
 20                 That's a bit difficult, perhaps, to
 21  visualize, but.
 22                 A:   So are you -- just for me to --
 23                 Q:   Sure.
 24                 A:   -- to get a sense.  Are you saying
 25  that he would not have said that he was on this side of

178
  1  the table? 
  2                 Q:   He would -- he would -- yeah, he
  3  would -- he would say that he was across the table from
  4  you.
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   But that Mr. Harnick wasn't -- wasn't
  7  on the same side.
  8  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner, I
  9  have an objection.
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Mr. Lauwers. 
 11                 Yes, Mr. Falconer...?
 12                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner,
 13  it's not really a criticism it's just that putting
 14  anticipated evidence to a witness.  If it's not put
 15  precisely, occasions in unfairness, both not only for the
 16  Witness but for all of the parties because we assume a
 17  piece of evidence once it's put in this fashion to the
 18  Witness.
 19                 But, because -- it's true and -- and
 20  counsel's undertaking that his client's going to say it. 
 21  But the problem here is it's murky so then we don't
 22  actually know where we -- we sit and it's not counsel's
 23  fault other than if he can specify where his client said
 24  Harris sat and then when he says when he sat to Harris'
 25  right we know what he's talking about.

179
  1                 And if he can't give that level of
  2  specificity, so we know what he's undertaking to call,
  3  then with respect, it ought not to be referred to.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  I
  5  think that would be helpful if you can be -- if you can
  6  be precise what you expect Mr. Hodgson will say, that
  7  would be helpful.  If you can't then it --
  8                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   I actually -- I
  9  actually did exactly that, sir.
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Did you? 
 11  Okay.
 12                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   I went through which
 13  side of the table in relation to Mr. --
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   What you're
 15  saying then is --
 16                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   I'll do it again. 
 17  I'll do it again.
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's what
 19  Mr. Hodgson is expected to say when he's testifying.
 20                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Mr. Hodgson, as I
 21  said, will say that, in terms of seating, that the
 22  Witness and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the table as
 23  Mr. Taman and Mr. Harnick, to the right of the Premier's
 24  position at the head of the table.  And that, in fact,
 25  the Premier sat with his back to the door.

180
  1                 He will say that he sat on the other -- he
  2  will say -- Mr. Hodgson will say that he sat on the other
  3  side of the table with Mr. Runciman to his left, Mr.
  4  Vrancart to his right, and Mr. Bangs behind him; that's
  5  essentially it.
  6                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine.
  7  
  8  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:    
  9                 Q:   Does that help you at all in terms of
 10  your recollection?
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   Okay.  
 13  
 14                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15  
 16                 Q:   I'm trying to figure out whether I
 17  need to see you more than I need to see the paper or this
 18  thing or not.
 19                 No, I -- I just remember when I was a
 20  young lawyer people were always doing this all the time
 21  and it was very irritating which is why have -- I have
 22  outgrown my -- my...
 23  
 24                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 25  

181
  1                 Q:   Oh boy, I'm afraid -- all right, so
  2  now, Dr. Todres, in your evidence you attribute a remark
  3  to Mr. Hodgson which is very similar to a remark that Mr.
  4  Harnick attributed to the Premier.  You're --
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   -- aware of that?  Now, and your
  7  evidence up til now is that Mr. Fox -- you don't remember
  8  Mr. Fox being at the room -- in the room at the time that
  9  Mr. Hodgson was alleged to have made this remark?
 10                 A:   I don't recall Mr. Fox being in the
 11  room at all.
 12                 Q:   All right.  So -- and I believe your
 13  evidence this morning was that this remark was not made
 14  at the beginning of the meeting and it wasn't made at the
 15  end of the meeting.
 16                 A:   It was at --
 17                 Q:   It was somewhere in the middle?
 18                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 19                 Q:   Okay.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   So, in his evidence Mr. Harnick says
 22  that the Premier made the remark as Mr. Harnick was
 23  entering the room at the beginning of the meeting.  Are
 24  you aware of that evidence?
 25                 A:   I'm aware of that evidence.

182
  1                 Q:   And how are you aware of it?
  2                 A:   It was reported in the newspaper.
  3                 Q:   And you read the newspaper?
  4                 A:   And I read the newspaper.
  5                 Q:   Did you read the -- the evidence
  6  itself?
  7                 A:   No, I haven't read the evidence
  8  itself. And I may have seen him briefly on television in
  9  my hotel  room at the Forest -- I was surprised, that
 10  there was a television station.  I don't recall whether
 11  he was speaking to that point in particular, but I saw
 12  him briefly.
 13                 Q:   You don't recall whether the evidence
 14  you saw was him speaking to that point, specifically?
 15                 A:   I saw him on the -- on Monday
 16  afternoon briefly, so I -- I don't know precisely when he
 17  gave that evidence, but I heard him briefly on Monday
 18  afternoon.  You will know when he gave that evidence.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So, let me just -- let me
 20  just give you what my client will say about -- about
 21  this.  
 22                 He will say that first of all he never
 23  made the remark that you attribute to him at that meeting
 24  or at any other meeting.  He will also say that he did
 25  not hear Mr. Harris make that remark.  And finally he

183
  1  will say that when he arrived in the room Mr. Harnick was
  2  already there.
  3                 Now, Dr. Todres, when did you first
  4  disclose your memory of this remark to Counsel for the
  5  Inquiry?
  6                 A:   At my first meeting with Counsel in
  7  May or when I met with -- with Commission Counsel.
  8                 Q:   You were -- you were interviewed in
  9  depth by Counsel for the Inquiry in May of 2005?
 10                 A:   Well, I -- I can't recall when we
 11  met, but there was -- I'm -- I'm trying to think if it
 12  was before I went on a trip.  It was the first meeting;
 13  it was a two (2) hour meeting.  I don't remember the
 14  precise date.  I believe that was when I disclosed it.
 15  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner,
 16  I'm  -- I'm registering an objection only from this point
 17  of view.
 18                 I understand why My Learned Friend is
 19  asking the questions he's asking and I would ordinarily
 20  be supportive that that's properly a matter of
 21  credibility questioning, and that we're entitled to do
 22  it.  
 23                 But, I fully expect if I ask other
 24  witnesses about exchanges or what they told Commission
 25  Counsel that I'm going to be told that this is not an

184
  1  area that we're going to traditionally allow counsel to
  2  go into.  And I'm worried that we're going to create two
  3  (2) sets of rules.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We have to
  5  be consistent, Mr. Falconer.
  6                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   That's right.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You're
  8  absolutely right.  I think we need to establish how we're
  9  going to deal with these meetings with Counsel.
 10                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Because I'm not
 11  objecting to My Friend doing it as long as I'm free to do
 12  it with police officers or with anybody else that -- that
 13  comes before you.  So, it --
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You're
 15  absolutely right.  We have to be consistent.  Let's just
 16  stop for a minute and make sure that we're going to be.
 17  
 18                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 19  
 20                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    Mr. Commissioner,
 21  can we have a short adjournment?
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think we
 23  should have because I want to make sure that we're
 24  consistent on this.
 25                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry will recess.

185
  1  
  2  --- Upon recessing at 1:49 p.m.
  3  --- Upon resuming at 2:02 p.m.
  4  
  5                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry is now
  6  resumed, please be seated.
  7  
  8                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  9  
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes...?
 11                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   Mr. Commissioner, I'd
 12  just like to clarify for the record that when my client
 13  met with Commission Counsel in May, it was a very brief
 14  meeting at which the discussion centred around Dr.
 15  Todres' background and role in the Ministry, and we did
 16  not have a discussion about anything that occurred in the
 17  dining room.
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Right.
 19                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   The first time she had
 20  an opportunity to inform Commission Counsel was on
 21  November 18th of this year, in preparation for giving
 22  testimony this week.
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 24  very much, Ms. Twohig.
 25                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Perhaps I might simply

186
  1  add --
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  3                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- Mr. Commissioner,
  4  that we do have a practice here that -- that -- and we
  5  will not be permitting cross-examination on preparatory
  6  work or the outlines of anticipated statements that are
  7  prepared for that and shared with the parties.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We're not
  9  going to depart from our practice or procedures, so --
 10                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Correct.
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- you can
 12  rest assured.  
 13                 Okay, Mr. Lauwers, let's continue.
 14  
 15  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
 16                 Q:   Dr. Todres, then when did you -- by
 17  the way, do you adopt the answer that your counsel just
 18  gave?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   Thank you.  So you mis-remembered
 21  earlier?
 22                 A:   I had to reconsider what I said
 23  during the pause.
 24                 Q:   Thank you.  When did you actually
 25  first remember this remark?

187
  1                 A:   I never forgot it.
  2                 Q:   You never forgot it?
  3                 A:   I never forgot it.
  4  
  5                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  6  
  7                 Q:   And so your first disclosure of this
  8  was in November of this -- this year to Commission
  9  Counsel?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Thank you.
 12  
 13                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 14  
 15                 Q:   Are you surprised by the fact that
 16  Mr. Harnick's disclosure of that comment which he
 17  attributed to Premier Harris was all over the Toronto
 18  Star?
 19  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Objection, Mr.
 20  Commissioner.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm not sure
 22  what the relevance of that question was --
 23                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   I don't --
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- or the
 25  significance but --

188
  1                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   I don't think I'm
  2  going to be allowed to cross-examine witnesses on the
  3  coverage of the Toronto Star decides to give this --
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  I'm
  5  not sure how it's relevant or how it's helpful.  Perhaps
  6  you would explain that, Mr. Lauwers?
  7                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Well, I --
  8                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Not that I
  9  necessarily would want to, Mr. Commissioner.
 10                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Let's get these guys
 11  over here and put them in the box.
 12                 The question really, Mr. Commissioner, is
 13  -- is about her recognition of the -- of the political
 14  weight of the comment, so that was the lead into that
 15  question.
 16                 So I think it's not so much about what the
 17  Toronto Star says or doesn't say, I don't really care
 18  about that, but about the fact that a comment of that
 19  sort would get significant coverage --
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Coverage.
 21                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Yes.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Perhaps if
 23  you asked the question in that way it might not be
 24  objectionable, you're not asking about the coverage.
 25                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Right.

189
  1  
  2  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
  3                 Q:   You knew, Dr. Todres, that the
  4  comment would be publicly controversial, didn't you?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And you knew that at the time that it
  7  was made?
  8                 A:   I assumed that I was in a room, are
  9  you referring to when the remark was actually made in the
 10  dining room?
 11                 Q:   Right.
 12                 A:   I assumed that we were in a
 13  confidential room and that it would not be reported on.
 14                 Q:   I'm sure I don't understand what --
 15  how that response --
 16                 A:   Well, perhaps I didn't understand
 17  your question.  Perhaps you could repeat it?
 18                 Q:   Yes, but I don't think I can remember
 19  it.  An occupational hazard.
 20                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Vagaries --
 21                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Vagaries of memory
 22  indeed, thank you, quote myself.
 23  
 24                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 25  

190
  1  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:   
  2                 Q:   I have some trouble with your
  3  evidence on this particular point, Ms. Todres, not just
  4  because it came to our attention so late.  Your evidence
  5  was that the room went silent at the time that the
  6  comment was made, that there was a pause; do you recall
  7  that?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And that would indicate would it not,
 10  that others must have heard the remark?
 11                 A:   I can't speak to what others did or
 12  didn't do or how they perceived it or how they
 13  understood.  I perceived a silence and then we moved
 14  right along into the substantive conversation.
 15                 Q:   So, are you're saying that there was
 16  -- there's no causal link between the sounds and the
 17  remark, in your mind?
 18                 A:   I don't know.
 19                 Q:   All right.  Thank you.  So, do you
 20  know Ron Vrancart?
 21                 A:   Yes, I do.
 22                 Q:   He was Deputy Minister of Natural
 23  Resources?
 24                 A:   That's correct.
 25                 Q:   And he was a Deputy Minister like

191
  1  yourself?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   And you knew him to be an honest and
  4  faithful civil servant?
  5                 A:   Yes, I do.  Yes, I did and I do.
  6                 Q:   You respect him?
  7                 A:   Yes, I do.
  8                 Q:   And Mr. Vrancart's evidence was that
  9  he did not recall Mr. Hodgson speaking in the dining room
 10  meeting at all.  Mr. Vrancart's evidence was that he did
 11  not hear anything untoward said at the meeting.  
 12                 You would agree with me that there's no
 13  reason for Mr. Vrancart not to tell the truth at this
 14  Inquiry?
 15  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Objection, Mr.
 16  Coroner.  -- I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner.  A lot of
 17  proceedings.  Another occupational hazard.
 18                 If I can just -- none of us are going to
 19  be allowed either in a coroner's inquest or this Inquiry,
 20  none of us are going to be allowed to ask one witness
 21  whether another witness is lying.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 23                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   And whether another
 24  witness has motive for lying.  And -- and all of us are
 25  kept firmly within that rule.  There's other ways to ask

192
  1  questions related to that.
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think
  3  that's fair, Mr. Falconer.
  4                 And Ms. Twohig, do you want to add to
  5  that?
  6                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   Yes, I did.  I thought
  7  that -- thank you.  My Friend, Mr. Falconer's objection
  8  suggested that perhaps Mr. Vrancart was lying, and I
  9  respectfully submit that there may be other reasons why
 10  he gave the evidence he gave.
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right. 
 12  So, that's why I'm saying there's other ways to ask the
 13  question. Perhaps, you can ask in one of those ways.
 14  
 15  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 16                 Q:   You'll agree with -- with me that
 17  there is a difference between you and Mr. Vrancart on the
 18  evidence on this issue?
 19                 A:   Yes, I do.
 20                 Q:   Thank you.  Mr. Taman was the
 21  Attorney General -- Deputy Attorney General at the time?
 22                 A:   Yes, he was.
 23                 Q:   And I believe you said earlier that
 24  he did most of the talking during the meeting?
 25                 A:   Yes.

193
  1                 Q:   And do you have the same high regard
  2  for Mr. Taman as you've expressed for Mr. Vrancart?
  3                 A:   Yes, I do.
  4                 Q:   Now, Mr. -- this -- this suggestion
  5  of yours, this allegation of yours could not be put to
  6  Mr. Taman when he was in the box, but he made no
  7  reference in his evidence to -- at the meeting about any
  8  such remark.  
  9                 Would you agree with me that it would be
 10  odd that Mr. Taman would not, in the context of this
 11  Inquiry, quote that remark if he heard it?
 12  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Objection again,
 13  Mr. Commissioner.  The same objection.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   The fact is
 15  he didn't comment on it.  
 16                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Right.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's about
 18  all we can get.  I think that's fine.  The rest is for
 19  you to make in argument.
 20                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:   Thank you, sir.
 21  
 22  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 23                 Q:   Mr. Fox -- you don't recall Mr. Fox
 24  being at the meeting?
 25                 A:   Correct.

194
  1                 Q:   Mr. Fox says he was.
  2                 A:   Yes, I understand he did.
  3                 Q:   And shortly after the meeting I
  4  understand he went off to call Inspector Carson at the
  5  command post?
  6                 A:   I was not aware of that at the time.
  7                 Q:   Have you become aware of it since?
  8                 A:   I become aware of it through the
  9  media coverage of the Inquiry.
 10                 Q:   Have you read the -- the evidence
 11  that's been covered by the media?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   On that particular conversation?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Now, in that exchange, you recognized
 16  that Mr. Fox is clearly critical of Mr. -- of the Premier
 17  and Mr. Hodgson?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And as I understand it there's --
 20  it's  common ground, Dr. Todres, that Mr. Fox and Mr.
 21  Hodgson had an exchange on September the 6th.  And there
 22  is some common ground about the content of that exchange
 23  including some direct quotes.  I'd ask you to accept
 24  that.
 25                 A:   I -- I'll take your word for it.

195
  1                 Q:   Okay.  I note however that in his
  2  discussion with this Inspector Carson, Mr. Fox did not
  3  mention the remark that you say that Mr. Hodsgon made.
  4                 You didn't see it quoted did you?
  5                 A:   I didn't see it quoted, no.
  6                 Q:   All right.  And Mr. Patrick also
  7  testified --
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   -- and he says was in the room.
 10                 A:   Well, all I can say is that you'll
 11  recall that when I walked into the room they were not --
 12  they were not in the room.  So, there was some portion of
 13  the meeting I -- as I say, I don't recall them being
 14  there but there was some -- there seemed to be evidence
 15  from others.  And I don't wish to comment on other
 16  people's evidence.
 17                 They did -- were not there at the
 18  beginning of the meeting and for some portion of the
 19  meeting to my recollection.
 20                 Q:   So Mr. Bangs was in the meeting?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   And he will say that he did not
 23  recall Mr. Hodgson speaking at all.
 24                 A:   I accept that fact.
 25                 Q:   He did -- he did say that.  Ms.

196
  1  Hutton was present; she says that she did not recall Mr.
  2  Hodgson saying anything at all.  Mr. Hodgson --
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just a
  4  minute. 
  5                 Yes, Ms. Twohig...?
  6  OBJ            MS. KIM TWOHIG:    My objection is simply
  7  that questions are not being put to the Witness and she's
  8  being given other evidence and if there's a question
  9  coming that's fine, but --
 10                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    It's next.
 11                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:    Okay.
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Is she
 13  confirming your statements?  I haven't been looking at
 14  her.  Is there something going on the record after each
 15  one of your statements?
 16                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    Well, I -- no, I'm
 17  simply reciting the evidence to her --
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And --
 19                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    -- of all of the
 20  Witnesses that were in the room who did not testify to
 21  hearing Mr. Hodgson --
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 23                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    -- make this remark.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And then
 25  what are you going to do?

197
  1                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    And then I'm going
  2  to ask her the following questions.
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay. 
  4  That's fine.  That's fine.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
  7                 Q:   Despite all of this evidence --
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  9  
 10  CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS:
 11                 Q:   -- is it your evidence today that you
 12  heard Mr. Hodgson make -- make this remark?
 13                 A:   Yes, it is.
 14                 Q:   Don't you find it odd, Dr. Todres,
 15  that Mr. Hodgson would make virtually the same remark
 16  that the Premier made according to Mr. Harnick?
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, I
 18  guess if there's some objections we should hear them.
 19  OBJ            MS. KIM TWOHIG:    Well, I object to this
 20  question on the basis is, she's being asked to comment on
 21  her own evidence.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  I
 23  think that you have her evidence and that's sufficient.  
 24                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    Do you -- 
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And I think

198
  1  the rest is for you to make in argument.
  2  
  3  CONTINUED BY MR. LAUWERS:
  4                 Q:   Do you think that it's possible, Dr.
  5  Todres, that your memory is playing tricks on you?
  6                 A:   Not on this point.
  7                 Q:   Not on this point?
  8                 A:   Not about this quotation.
  9  
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11  
 12                 Q:   Now, during the meeting do you have
 13  any recollection of Mr. Hodgson advocating the use of
 14  violence?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   Did Mr. Hodgson say anything that you
 17  saw as directing the OPP?
 18                 A:   No.
 19                 Q:   Did Mr. Hodgson take a position on
 20  how the OPP should carry out its responsibilities?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Was there anyone in the room who was
 23  there as a formal representative of the OPP in any event?
 24                 A:   I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
 25                 Q:   Was there anyone in the room who was

199
  1  there as a formal representative of the OPP?
  2                 A:   No.
  3                 Q:   Now, it's common ground as I said
  4  earlier that there was an exchange between Mr. Hodgson
  5  and Mr. Fox at a meeting on September the 6th.  Earlier
  6  you said in your evidence that you were not aware of a
  7  conversation between Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Fox.  Do you
  8  stand by that evidence?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10  
 11                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12  
 13                 MR. PETER LAUWERS:    Those are all my
 14  questions.  Thank you.
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you,
 16  Mr. Lauwers.  I don't think you have any questions, Mr.
 17  Sulman, did you?  Or, you did?  I don't recall.
 18                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   About fifteen (15)
 19  to twenty (20) minutes, Commissioner.
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay. 
 21  That's fine.
 22  
 23                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24  
 25                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   I'm going to be an

200
  1  assistant here for a moment.
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, just
  3  take your time.  I know it's not the most ideal situation
  4  in the world for counsel.
  5  
  6  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:
  7                 Q:   Good afternoon, Dr. Todres.  My
  8  name's Doug Sulman and I represent Marcel Beaubien who
  9  was the MPP for this area at the relevant times to 1995.
 10                 And the first area I'd like to discuss
 11  with you is the two (2) letters that Mr. Worme discussed
 12  with you this morning?  You recall that?
 13                 A:   Yes, I do?
 14                 Q:   And as I understand what occurred was
 15  to -- to put it in brief, Mr. Beaubien sent a letter
 16  dated July 13th/95, yes?  You're nodding, I just --
 17                 A:   I -- I would have to check the tab --
 18                 Q:   Okay.
 19                 A:   -- for the specific date, but I
 20  recall that there were two (2) letters.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  And I -- as I recall your
 22  evidence this morning is that you didn't see the July
 23  31st letter in 1995, correct?
 24                 A:   It would have been normal practice
 25  for a deputy not to see a specific letter, particularly

201
  1  one that wasn't addressed to her Minister.
  2                 Q:   And so your answer is you didn't see
  3  it in 1995, correct?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   And you -- you personally took no
  6  action with regard to the letter that was courtesy copied
  7  to your Minister, correct?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   And as I understood the evidence,
 10  that letter was simply filed with no action taken by
 11  anyone else in the Ministry --
 12                 A:   As I understand it --
 13                 Q:   -- at that time.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Okay.  And then there was the August
 16  14th letter that Mr. Beaubien sent to Minister Harnick,
 17  and again courtesy copied to the Solicitor General,
 18  correct?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And again you personally didn't see
 21  the letter in 1995?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   And likewise, it was filed with no
 24  further action taken, correct?
 25                 A:   Correct.

202
  1                 Q:   Yes?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   I'm sorry.  Now having indicated
  4  that, to Mr. Worme, that you and your Ministry had no
  5  further role in these letters whatsoever, other than
  6  simply filing them as I understand it, correct?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   You went on to opine with regard to
  9  the role of a backbench MPP; you recall that this
 10  morning?
 11                 A:   Yes, I do.
 12                 Q:   And particularly the role of a
 13  backbench MPP in what was a perceived, at least, to be a
 14  crisis situation in his constituency, right?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   As I recall, and I listened intently
 17  to your extensive educational background and your
 18  experience --
 19                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 20                 Q:   -- you have no expertise -- you don't
 21  purport to have any expertise in the role of a backbench
 22  MPP, correct?
 23                 A:   Not other than what I've read in the
 24  political science literature.
 25                 Q:   I'm sorry, I didn't -- other than

203
  1  what you've read in political science literature?
  2                 A:   Yeah.
  3                 Q:   Have I got -- okay.  Fair enough. 
  4  And as I understand your experience in the Provincial
  5  Government, it has been at Queen's Park in Toronto?
  6                 A:   Correct. 
  7                 Q:   And it has not been in a constituency
  8  office in rural Ontario?
  9                 A:   It would never have been in a
 10  constituency office.
 11                 Q:   Exactly.
 12                 A:   That would have been a political job.
 13                 Q:   Exactly.  And so your base of
 14  knowledge comes from your experience and your education
 15  at Queen's Park?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   Correct.  Okay.  I'd like to switch
 18  to another topic.  I was interested, if we can go back to
 19  -- and you can recall Tuesday by now, but on Tuesday you
 20  were providing some clarification, as I would describe
 21  it, regarding a better defining operational versus policy
 22  matters?
 23                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 24                 Q:   You recall that?
 25                 A:   Yes, I do.

204
  1                 Q:   Okay.  And in that you were speaking
  2  of the role of the Minister in that regard, correct?
  3                 A:   Correct. 
  4                 Q:   And that is an area that you have
  5  expertise --
  6                 A:   I hope so.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  And as I understood the
  8  evidence yesterday, you had said that operational matters
  9  related more to tactics as opposed to policy, which was,
 10  as I understood your evidence, more at a -- at a higher
 11  level?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Have I understood it correctly?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Okay.
 16                 A:   More providing a framework within
 17  which operational decisions might be made.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  I'd like to put to you a
 19  couple of examples and you can -- you can maybe help me
 20  with them, because we've been talking about these terms,
 21  but we've never got to the point where we've got to some
 22  definition, okay?
 23                 If a politician were to report to a senior
 24  police official that he was receiving concerns and
 25  complaints from citizens that the citizens were concerned

205
  1  about lawlessness and whether the law would be enforced,
  2  I want you to contrast that with that same politician
  3  say, I'm receiving concerns -- complaints from citizens,
  4  they're concerned about lawlessness and I want you to
  5  take the following actions.
  6                 Clearly, the last would be operational?
  7                 A:   Hmm hmm.  And the first would be
  8  informative.
  9                 Q:   Right.  And there wouldn't be
 10  anything wrong in being informative?
 11                 A:   I don't believe so.
 12                 Q:   Thank you.  The last would fall sort
 13  of in that tactical area -- area too wouldn't it not?
 14                 A:   Yes, and it's appears to be
 15  instruction.
 16                 Q:   Sure.  And that's wrong?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   And another shorter example is a
 19  politician saying, It's our view or our policy the law --
 20  the law must be upheld to be respected.
 21                 And I contrast that with, In upholding the
 22  law you should show force, you should search cars, you
 23  should call out the TRU team?
 24                 The last, clearly you agree with me, is
 25  operational?

206
  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And the former is not.
  3                 A:   Exhortative.
  4                 Q:   Your vocabulary impresses me.
  5  Exhortative.
  6                 A:   I studied Latin.
  7                 Q:   So, did I.
  8                 A:   Maybe my memory's good on Latin.
  9                 Q:   Maybe we can just converse in Latin
 10  for a while.
 11                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   It's in Greek.
 12                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   It's been Greek to
 13  me for a while.
 14  
 15  CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   
 16                 Q:   But, let's go back to exhortative. 
 17  That is informational or setting out with policies; is it
 18  not?
 19                 A:   I agree.
 20                 Q:   Thank you.  You indicated that, and I
 21  hope I'm using the right terms, but you indicated that
 22  there were guidelines which were -- I think you also
 23  maybe said it was a line of demarcation, I think.
 24                 But there were guidelines which were to
 25  the effect that it was a line between operational and

207
  1  tactical matters.  And your Minister, Minister Runciman,
  2  was very good in understanding that and he didn't cross
  3  the operational versus policy line during your tenure
  4  with him?
  5                 A:   That's correct.
  6                 Q:   Okay.   And if I recall the evidence,
  7  Mr. Runciman was, in part, aware of this line because of
  8  his expertise as the opposition critic; is that right?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And did you also brief him with
 11  regard to that line of demarcation?
 12                 A:   On the first days, in the early days,
 13  he would have had extensive briefings, well I attended
 14  them, and that would have been one of the first topics
 15  that we would have covered, and his lawyers would have
 16  been there.
 17                 And he was also a seasoned politician.
 18                 Q:   Right.  And for that reason, your
 19  briefing, seasoned politician and opposition critic, he
 20  was well aware of that line of demarcation?
 21                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 22                 Q:   Not everyone in government -- elected
 23  government would be?
 24                 A:   I agree with that.
 25                 Q:   Okay.  But part of the reason that

208
  1  the Minister is to behave in this manner is because the
  2  Ontario Provincial Police ultimately report to him?
  3                 A:   I'm not sure I'm following your
  4  reasoning.  Try that one again on me, please.
  5                 Q:   Well, it's important -- let me put it
  6  this way.  The Minister is a person in authority.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   With regard to the Ontario Provincial
  9  Police --
 10                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 11                 Q:   Correct?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And it's particularly important that
 14  that person in authority, the Minister, the Solicitor
 15  General, that he not cross that line of demarcation?
 16                 A:   Yes, given the nature of his job.
 17                 Q:   Exactly.
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And it's particularly important that
 20  he have that briefing and that information so he
 21  understands that line of demarcation, correct?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And would that same line --
 24  guideline or line of demarcation apply to the Minister's
 25  parliamentary assistant, for instance?

209
  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And who was that at the time?
  3  
  4                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  5  
  6                 A:   I don't recall.
  7                 Q:   Do you recall briefing the
  8  parliamentary assistant; on this same issue, of course?
  9                 A:   Well it would have been part of this
 10  -- of the briefing of the -- of the parliamentary --
 11                 Q:   You --
 12                 A:   -- assistant.  I should just say as
 13  an aside, that whilst Premiers, when faced with a
 14  difficult decision of making Ministerial appointments,
 15  relish the thought of including as many people as
 16  possible as parliamentary assistants, once assigned to
 17  the Minister it depends very much on the Minister as to
 18  what role they will take and they would be rarely
 19  involved in anything operational.
 20                 Some of them are not even included.  And
 21  now I'm trying -- I can actually see the face of the
 22  parliamentary assistant.
 23                 But often they are given teaching -- not
 24  teaching, speaking assignments --
 25                 Q:   Hmm hmm.

210
  1                 A:   -- and would be rarely given anything
  2  of substantive --
  3                 Q:   Sure.
  4                 A:   -- assignment to do.
  5                 Q:   I understand that.  But one of the
  6  reasons that it's important that the parliamentary
  7  assistant to the Solicitor General understand that line
  8  of demarcation, that line of demarcation or guideline, is
  9  because he would also be perceived as a person in
 10  authority in the Ministry?
 11                 A:   I agree with that.
 12                 Q:   Whether it's actual authority or not,
 13  he's perceived as --
 14                 A:   Yes, I agree with that.
 15                 Q:   Correct?  Okay, so in 1995 were there
 16  any statutory encodifications of this line of demarcation
 17  or operational guideline?
 18                 A:   No.  Not beyond what we've seen in
 19  the briefing notes.
 20                 Q:   And -- but we haven't seen any
 21  statutory encodification of any --
 22                 A:   Exactly.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  Let's turn away from a person
 24  in authority like the Minister and turn to a lowly back
 25  bench MPP.

211
  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Who is neither a Minister nor a
  3  parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, okay? 
  4  Are you aware of any statute or regulation that would
  5  prohibit a back bench MPP from speaking to a police
  6  official on a matter of general community interest?
  7                 A:   No.
  8                 Q:   Okay.  Are you any -- let's go to the
  9  other level.  Are you aware of any statutory
 10  encodification or line or demarcation that would prohibit
 11  a -- an MPP from speaking to a police official, even if
 12  it was on a matter of general community interest?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   Okay. 
 15                 A:   I think it would always depend on
 16  what the nature of the -- it would expanding on the
 17  content that that politician would be conveying.
 18                 Q:   Right.  Well --
 19                 A:   And the manner in which he would be
 20  conveying it.
 21                 Q:   But, even if he was convey -- even if
 22  we took the worst case scenario, where he was -- it
 23  crossed the line --
 24                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 25                 Q:   -- is there any statutory prohibition

212
  1  or regulation that would indicate him -- to him in
  2  advance that that's prohibited?
  3                 A:   No, but I -- no, there isn't a
  4  statutory -- to answer that question directly, I don't
  5  believe there is.
  6                 Q:   No.  But, let's go to the other level
  7  back where he's -- he's giving information.  We know that
  8  there's no statutory prohibition to that, correct?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And what I'm also interested
 11  in is your Mini -- or you personally, I guess, briefed
 12  the Minister.  
 13                 Did your Ministry brief or set up a -- an
 14  orientation session, an orientation time for new MPP's
 15  that would explain to them what was expected, although
 16  not statutory codification or regulation or even any
 17  written rules, was there any orientation period that
 18  would explain to new MPP's the relationship between
 19  politician and police by your Ministry?
 20                 A:   No, the expectation would have been
 21  and normal would have been, when a new government came in
 22  power, that it would have a detailed orientation program
 23  for all of its caucus.  And over the years, I wouldn't
 24  have seen those binders, but that would have been the
 25  responsibility of the political arm of government.

213
  1                 Q:   Rather than the Ministry?
  2                 A:   Absolutely.
  3                 Q:   Okay.  But, even if they did that
  4  they wouldn't be able to point out a statute or a
  5  regulation or a rule that says you're not supposed to do
  6  this?
  7                 A:   They wouldn't be able to point --
  8  they would only be able to point to practice a normative
  9  -- a normative piece.
 10                 Q:   Well, let me turn to Ron Fox just for
 11  a moment.  You were asked questions by Mr. Worme about
 12  your professional relationship with Mr. Fox.  You recall
 13  all that.  And you've been asked other questions and I'm
 14  not going to repeat all that.
 15                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 16                 Q:   But you described to My Friend Mr.
 17  Downard that Mr. Fox -- Mr. Fox, in speaking to Super --
 18  I guess, Inspector Carson at the time, with regard to
 19  what had occurred in the dining room meeting, had a lapse
 20  in judgment?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Did I quote you fairly.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And do you -- to be frank, and I know
 25  you're not comfortable with some of the language that's

214
  1  been used by -- by some people, some intemperate language
  2  if I might put it that way, right, but I'm -- I'm going
  3  to have to put it to you.
  4                 And that is, to be very frank, what --
  5  what Inspector Fox said was, he came out of, what you
  6  described as a confidential meeting.  I think those were
  7  your words, right?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And he called Inspector Carson.  And
 10  what Inspector Fox did was call the Premier of the
 11  Province of Ontario, elected by the people of Ontario and
 12  at least one (1) of his ministers, I -- I don't think he
 13  was referring to Minister Runciman, but he called the
 14  Premier and one (1) of his Ministers and advisors in,
 15  quotation marks, "fucking barrel suckers". 
 16                 And I suggest to you that that's what you
 17  meant by a lapse of judgment, using those intemperate
 18  words?
 19                 A:   Actually, I thought the lapse of
 20  judgment was the phone call itself.
 21                 Q:   I thought so.  But, the words, I take
 22  it, would also be --
 23                 A:   Would be --
 24                 Q:   -- in your view a lapse of judgment?
 25                 A:   Unquestionably.

215
  1                 Q:   Okay.  And it didn't seem to me that
  2  that's good professional judgment.  Did you have the same
  3  opinion?
  4                 A:   It was a lapse of judgment.
  5                 Q:   Okay.  Thank you.  And when Mr.
  6  Hodgson used those same types of what I describe as foul
  7  language or intemperate words wouldn't it be fair --
  8  equally fair to say that his use of that language was a
  9  lapse in judgment?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Thank you.  Lastly, I just -- just
 12  want to go back a bit to the September 6th meeting?
 13                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 14                 Q:   Now, as I understand, you -- you
 15  describe this one as the meeting; it was a confidential
 16  meeting, not a Cabinet meeting, but nonetheless
 17  confidential.  And it's expected although I suppose
 18  there's no rule of Cabinet confidentiality or oath taken
 19  once you're out of the Cabinet meetings, but it's
 20  expected of the participants that they will keep that
 21  confidential?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And the language that was used
 24  in there by Mr. Hodgson, that you heard, that you've
 25  testified that you've heard, it's -- it was given with an

216
  1  air of frustration?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And it was language, that I'd
  4  suggest, is probably more appropriate to a bar room than
  5  a board room, right?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   I object.  Unless I
  8  misunderstood, did My Friend just elicit evidence or
  9  suggest that the language used by Mr. Hodgson was more
 10  appropriate to a bar room?
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 12                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Well I object. 
 13  That's offensive.  The thought that the usage of the
 14  words 'fucking Indians' is appropriate for a bar room as
 15  opposed to a boardroom is offensive.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, it  
 17  is --
 18                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   And I -- I on
 19  behalf of my clients have to put on the record that I
 20  find that proposition or that suggestion that that term
 21  anywhere is appropriate, is -- is simply inappropriate
 22  and improper with respect to My Friend.
 23                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   Let's go -- let's --
 24  let's go back a bit.
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   What Mr. --

217
  1                 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   The word -- the use
  2  of the adjective in front of the word 'Indians' was more
  3  appropriate to a bar room than a boardroom.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think
  5  that's what Mr. Falconer -- just before you answer it.
  6                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   That was exactly --
  7  that's exactly the very same  --
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's what
  9  Mr. Falconer's objecting to.  The use of the words is not
 10  appropriate anywhere in Mr. Falconer's view.  I think
 11  that's what you're saying.
 12                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   That is exactly
 13  what I'm saying.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And so I
 15  don't think that that's a --
 16  
 17  CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:   
 18                 Q:   Let's say it's not approp -- fine,
 19  Your Honour.  It's intemperate language, correct?
 20                 A:   And offensive, yes.
 21                 Q:   It's foul language, correct?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And there was a sense of
 24  frustration out of the person who used that language,
 25  correct?

218
  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And at the same -- in the same
  3  meeting there were opinions being expressed around the
  4  table.
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And people were uttering things that
  7  may not have been smart, correct?
  8                 You may not have viewed them as smart?
  9                 A:   Let -- let me respond by saying that
 10  I have been, over the years -- I have listened to many
 11  conversations, some of them have been appropriate, some
 12  of them have been inappropriate, but they're not policy
 13  direction.  They're discussion.
 14                 Q:   Exactly. 
 15                 A:   Some of them -- some are more
 16  temperate than others.  I won't comment on whether the
 17  comments were smart or not.
 18                 Q:   Exact -- well fair enough.  The point
 19  is that they were -- they're -- in a democracy, people
 20  aren't obligated to be bright, they're not obligated to
 21  be polite, they're not obligated to be smart.  These were
 22  just discussions, correct?
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   And --
 25                 A:   Some of it was discussion with the --

219
  1  with the exception that I made that, that I believe that
  2  there was a direction in particular with respect to
  3  injunction.
  4                 Q:   Exactly.  And no mater how disgusting
  5  or offensive we may find anything that was said in there,
  6  at the end of the meeting there were no directions to the
  7  Minister -- the Solicitor General's Ministry, correct?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   There were no directions on any
 10  action to be taken by the Ontario Provincial Police,
 11  correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And at the end of the day whether we
 14  liked the pejorative words that were used, whether we
 15  liked the thoughts that were expressed, at the end of the
 16  day the only direction that came out of that meeting
 17  despite the intemperate, colourful, inappropriate,
 18  headline grabbing kind of language the only direction to
 19  the bureaucracy was to seek an injunction, right?
 20                 A:   That's correct.  
 21                 Q:   Thank you.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you,
 23  Mr. Sulman.
 24                 Ms. Perschy...?  Ms. Perschy, on behalf of
 25  Deb Hutton.

220
  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2  
  3  
  4                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Good afternoon,
  5  Commissioner.
  6  
  7  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
  8                 Q:   Good afternoon, Dr. Todres.
  9                 A:   Good afternoon.
 10                 Q:   I'm just going to take you back to
 11  some of the testimony that you gave previously.  I'm not
 12  sure it's going to be quite as exciting as some of what
 13  was referred to previously.
 14                 If the Witness -- I -- I provided you with
 15  Document Number 1011557; it's also Exhibit P-303.
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   Commissioner, I don't have an extra
 18  copy for you and perhaps we could provide you with a
 19  copy. 
 20  
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22   
 23                 THE WITNESS:   The briefing note from the
 24  Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat?
 25                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Yes.

221
  1                 THE WITNESS:   Yes, thank you.
  2                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Dated -- dated July
  3  10th.
  4                 THE WITNESS:   Yes.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
  7                 Q:   In your examination-in-chief you were
  8  taken to the appendix guidelines for the Interministerial
  9  Committee, which I believe is at Tab 20 of your
 10  materials.
 11                 You don't -- you don't need to pull it up.
 12                 A:   Okay.
 13                 Q:   And I believe that you testified that
 14  you were generally aware of the guidelines, if not the
 15  document itself, and I'm referring to the appendix.
 16                 And what I wanted to do is just take you
 17  to this document which I believe is actually -- the
 18  appendix is actually an appendix to this particular
 19  document.
 20                 And this is the document entitled,
 21  "Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat: Briefing Note for
 22  the Honourable Charles Harnick, Minister responsible for
 23  Native Affairs."
 24                 And it's dated July 10th, 1995.
 25                 Have you seen this document before?

222
  1                 A:   I've seen it in preparation for this
  2  -- for this --
  3                 Q:   For the Inquiry, but not --
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   -- before that?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   Whether or not you had actually seen
  8  the document, I note that this briefing note states that
  9  the issue is:
 10                   "How to ensure that adequate processes
 11                   are in place so that Aboriginal
 12                   emergencies, including blockades and
 13                   other forms of direct action can be
 14                   prevented or if not prevented, resolved
 15                   as quickly and safely as possible."
 16                 And my question to you is simply, even if
 17  you hadn't seen the briefing note, did you understand --
 18  did you know that in the event of a blockade or some
 19  other direct action occurred, that the Government's goal
 20  was to resolve it or end it as quickly and safely as
 21  possible?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And if I could just turn you to the
 24  second page of this document, it refers to some of the
 25  general principals guiding the response to emergencies.

223
  1                 And they're listed as:
  2                   "The prevention of violence, property
  3                   damage or personal injury, a timely
  4                   lifting of the blockade through
  5                   negotiations, and third, a review of
  6                   Aboriginal grievances and issues and
  7                   the establishment of processes to
  8                   address them.
  9                   However, no substantive negotiation is
 10                   to occur until after the blockade is
 11                   lifted."
 12                 So was it your understanding that there
 13  would be no substantive negotiations until the blockade
 14  or other direct action had ended?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And you testified about your
 17  understanding of the OPP approach to -- to blockades and
 18  you'd made some reference to negotiation.  And we've
 19  heard evidence that, in the OPP's approach, negotiation
 20  means discussions aimed at, sort of, trying to maintain
 21  the peace and not substantive negotiation.
 22                 Did you understand this distinction --
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   -- and the use of the word?
 25                 A:   Yes.  Now, we've heard evidence that

224
  1  prior to the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, the
  2  OPP had advised the local MNR representatives that the
  3  OPP regarded any such occupation as a policing matter.
  4                 Were you aware of that?
  5  
  6                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
  7  
  8                 A:   I can't -- I can't say specifically,
  9  but I would have been aware from July on of -- of
 10  Ipperwash.  And if that would have been contained, I
 11  would have been -- I would have been aware of that.
 12                 Q:   And we've heard evidence that prior
 13  to the occupation, and prior to the IMC meeting of
 14  September 5th, 1995, certainly, the -- the local MNR
 15  representatives understood, from the OPP, that in the
 16  event of an occupation the OPP wanted MNR to seek an
 17  injunction.
 18                 Were you aware of that?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   I take it that you would have
 21  understood that an injunction would be something that
 22  Government would need to decide upon and to apply for.
 23                 A:   Yes.  And I remember being briefed on
 24  in a -- in general, not -- not as the ADAG, not as the
 25  assistant -- not as the Deputy Minister of the Attorney

225
  1  General, but that there were a series of complicated
  2  steps required to actually affect an injunction.
  3                 Q:   And we've heard evidence that, prior
  4  to the Interministerial Committee meeting of September
  5  5th 1995, the local MNR representatives understood from
  6  the OPP that from the OPP's perspective an injunction was
  7  a priority item and that the OPP expected MNR to obtain
  8  it rapidly.
  9                 And is that something you were aware of?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  Now, you testified about your
 12  experiences with Interministerial Committee Meetings in
 13  general and with political staff.  
 14                 And I take it that you would expect
 15  political staff, like anyone else, to ask questions at
 16  such meetings, if there's something that they didn't
 17  understand or if they needed more information?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And if political staff were asked to
 20  share the views of their Minister at a meeting, you would
 21  expect that they would do so, right?
 22                 A:   Well, you know, it depends on -- in
 23  the abstract that the answer is yes.  In the particular,
 24  it depends on what the issue is and whether the Minister
 25  actually has the authority to have an opinion on a

226
  1  particular subject and may be something that actually had
  2  to be cleared by the Government, by -- by a committee. 
  3  So my answer is conditional.
  4                 Q:   To the points that you just raised?
  5                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  6                 Q:   Fair enough.  And I believe while
  7  you've had some experiences with Interministerial
  8  Committee Meetings in general, you'd never personally
  9  attended meetings of the IMC on Aboriginal Emergencies?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   And I take it from that previous
 12  answer that you didn't attend the Interministerial
 13  Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies on either September
 14  5th or 6th?
 15                 A:   That's correct.
 16                 Q:   So any knowledge that you may have in
 17  regard to those meetings is based on what others would
 18  have told you?
 19                 A:   That's correct.
 20                 Q:   And specifically with respect to such
 21  meetings, I take it that your knowledge would have been
 22  based on information that you received from Ron Fox?
 23                 A:   From Ron Fox, I may have had -- I may
 24  have had conversations with the Deputy Attorney General
 25  insofar as he was responsible for ONAS.

227
  1                 Q:   Okay.
  2                 A:   And his general view of matters.
  3                 Q:   Fair enough.  We've heard evidence
  4  that the consensus of the Interministerial Committee on
  5  September the 5th, was that the goal was to end the
  6  occupation, and that that meeting ended on the basis that
  7  there would be a further review by the lawyers of the
  8  possible legal options to reach that goal.
  9                 And was -- was that your understanding? 
 10  Did you know that?
 11                 A:   Yes, so I interpreted that to mean
 12  that we were still steady as she goes and we were
 13  awaiting some legal analysis.  So in my mind we were
 14  still not at the stage of doing anything on the subject
 15  of injunction.
 16                 Q:   And with respect to the meeting
 17  September 6, I take it that -- I'm not sure that you
 18  recall if you'd been briefed with respect to the meeting
 19  on September 6th, but from your attendance at the dining
 20  room meeting I take it you knew that the recommendation
 21  of the Interministerial Committee was to seek an
 22  injunction?
 23                 A:   Actually, the way the timing worked
 24  for me, I think as I indicated earlier, perhaps I wasn't
 25  clear enough, I believe that the dining room occurred at

228
  1  precisely the same time as the Interministerial
  2  Committee.  So I wouldn't have been aware, at that point
  3  in time, that the conclusion of the -- the
  4  Interministerial Committee was, in fact, to look at and
  5  explore the -- the injunction options.
  6                 Q:   Did you find out, subsequently, that
  7  the recommendation of the Committee was, in fact, to seek
  8  an injunction?
  9                 A:   I don't recall that.  What I -- it
 10  was moot.
 11                 Q:   Fair enough.  Because it was a
 12  recommending body and you didn't --
 13                 A:   Yes, exactly. 
 14                 Q:   -- meeting?
 15                 A:   Exactly.
 16                 Q:   You testified about the protocols
 17  regarding communications between the Ministry of the
 18  Solicitor General on the one (1) hand, and the OPP on the
 19  other.
 20                 And I wanted to focus on communications
 21  flowing from the Government, the  Ministry of the
 22  Solicitor General, to the OPP.
 23                 And if I understood your evidence, you
 24  indicated, certainly, that political decisions, after the
 25  fact, would be conveyed through the proper channels; that

229
  1  was your understanding of the protocol?
  2                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  3                 Q:   If you could just say yes for the
  4  record.
  5                 A:   Yes, I'm sorry.  Yes.
  6                 Q:   That's all right.  So I take it that
  7  it would not be consistent with your understanding of the
  8  protocol for there to be communications from the Ministry
  9  of the Solicitor General to the OPP regarding political
 10  views or discussions, prior to any government decision
 11  having been made?
 12                 A:   That's correct.
 13                 Q:   And would you, in fact, expect that
 14  when there are discussions regarding possible government
 15  policy and specifically references to governments' legal
 16  rights and/or political considerations, that those sorts
 17  of discussions would be confidential?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And as a civil servant, I take it
 20  that you would have sworn an oath of confidentiality of
 21  some kind?
 22                 A:   At the appointment, every time I was
 23  appointed as a Deputy I would have had a separate
 24  swearing in ceremony.
 25                 Q:   And could you explain, what was your

230
  1  understanding of that oath?
  2  OBJ            MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Mr. Commissioner, I
  3  have an objection.  On past witnesses, when a line of
  4  questioning was directed at making an allegation against
  5  a witness, or against an individual involved in the
  6  proceedings, Counsel studiously rose and said, Well was
  7  that put to the Witness.
  8                 In this case, was the allegation put to
  9  the person who you're talking about?
 10                 In this case, the direction that My Friend
 11  is headed, with respect, relates to the question of the
 12  oath of confidentiality and potentially allegations
 13  against Officer Fox, unless I misunderstand where she's
 14  headed.
 15                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I'm not going --
 16                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   If she says she's
 17  not going there, then I --
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
 19                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   -- my objection's
 20  withdrawn.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
 22                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   My question was solely
 23  related to the issue of this Witness' expectations.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine. 
 25                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   So there was a

231
  1  misunderstanding.
  2  
  3  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   
  4                 Q:   So if you could just explain what was
  5  your understanding of the oath?
  6                 A:   The oath of confidentiality.  The
  7  oath of fidelity to the -- to the office, commitment --
  8                 Q:   Okay.  And I believe you testified
  9  that with respect to the dining room meeting, for
 10  example, you regarded the discussions that took place
 11  there as confidential?
 12                 A:   Yes, I did.
 13  
 14                      (BRIEF PAUSE) 
 15  
 16                 Q:   And I believe you testified that you
 17  didn't know that Ron Fox was communicating with Inspector
 18  Carson --
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I thought
 20  you said you were --
 21                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I --
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, I
 23  understood you said you were not going there and it seems
 24  to be -- 
 25                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Sorry --

232
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- that's
  2  exactly where you're going.
  3                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   No, I'm not.  It has
  4  to do with the issue of expectations, Commissioner.
  5                 I'm not going beyond --
  6                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Well, with great
  7  respect, saying the words, "I'm not going there," but
  8  going there anyway is --
  9                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I'm not going there.
 10                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   -- is somewhat
 11  problematic.  My Friend just asked the last two (2)
 12  questions and targeted Officer Fox.  And My Friend ought
 13  to be fair about it.
 14                 I understand it may be arguable whether
 15  she can ask this question or not but she ought to, with
 16  great respect to her, she ought to be quite straight
 17  about it.
 18                 She's headed straight for Officer Fox. 
 19  And if she had put this to officer Fox or suggested to
 20  him that he breached his oath of confidentiality, then of
 21  course she'd be entitled to do this.
 22                 My problem is, this line of questioning,
 23  and I don't think I have to sit and wait for her to ask
 24  the magic question --
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You don't

233
  1  have to sit at all, Mr. Falconer.
  2                 Mr. Sandler, I think you are Counsel who
  3  represents Mr. Fox's interests --
  4                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   This is what's quite
  5  interesting about the --
  6                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  7                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- the exercise.  How
  8  often -- how often do you see Mr. Falconer and I agreeing
  9  on a point?
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   On the same
 11  wavelength in this one.
 12                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   When -- when My Friend
 13  asked questions of this Witness about -- about the oath
 14  of office and so on, I could see that it has a systemic
 15  interest, ultimately, in what recommendations you might
 16  make and the like.
 17                 But -- but I was waiting until the time
 18  when Mr. Fox's name was mentioned, and it having been
 19  mentioned I point up to the Commissioner that he was
 20  never challenged or asked for an explanation --
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 22                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- on why -- A) what
 23  oath he took, B) whether or not the oath applied to this
 24  meeting and if not, why not.
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.

234
  1                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And why he did or did
  2  not feel that he was breaching any duty of
  3  confidentiality in doing so.  He certainly acknowledged
  4  that he was venting and in hindsight he ought not to have
  5  said some of the things that he said in the telephone
  6  conversation.
  7                 So, that being the case, for My Friend to
  8  say I'm framing it as expectations but in the context of
  9  Ron Fox, is, in effect, to do that which Mr. Falconer has
 10  pointed up.  So I -- I have to agree --
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 12                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- with Mr. Falconer. 
 13  It hurts me, but I have to agree --
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm --
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- with Mr. Falconer.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, I
 17  think that the objection is well taken --
 18                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Yeah.
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- Ms.
 20  Perschy.
 21                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   No, I appreciate that,
 22  Commissioner, and it was my intention to deal with this
 23  on the base of -- expectations, and if I can just explain
 24  why.
 25                 I had asked Ron Fox when -- when he was

235
  1  under oath and he did -- he did indicate that he was
  2  venting and it was inappropriate.  And I took to heart
  3  your -- your request that we not repeat when we cross-
  4  examine.  
  5                 I had asked him about whether or not he
  6  had indicated to Ms. Hutton that he intended to
  7  communicate to Inspector Carson, and he indicated that he
  8  hadn't.
  9                 And then I had asked him some further
 10  questions in that light.  And I'm just following that
 11  issue of expectations from the perspective of this
 12  individual who was, in fact, his report what her
 13  expectations would have been in terms of communications--
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I --
 15                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   -- it's not designed
 16  to get at the issue of --
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No, I think
 18  you've gone as --
 19                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   -- oath and
 20  confidentiality.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think
 22  you've gone as far as you should go on this point, Ms.
 23  Perschy.  I'd like you to move ahead.
 24                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   And I'm not
 25  responding, because you've already indicated --

236
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  2                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   -- your ruling. 
  3  But this constant reference to, He indicated he was
  4  venting, and not quoting any of the other evidence of
  5  Officer Fox to the point that, Everything I said in the
  6  telephone conversation was accurate, though I shouldn't
  7  have used the profanity, and he indicated there were
  8  legitimate reasons he was speaking to Officer Carson.
  9                 So, to be fair to the evidence it's now
 10  been cast of as well, the whole mistake was a telephone
 11  call -- the whole telephone call was a mistake according
 12  to Fox and he was venting; that is simply an inaccurate
 13  statement of the evidence.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   It hasn't
 15  been put in that way and I'm not taking it that way.
 16                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   All right.  Well, let
 17  me try to deal with it on the basis simply of the
 18  protocol.
 19  
 20  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 21                 Q:   I asked you to take a look at Exhibit
 22  P-444(a) and in particular Tab 16. 
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Tab 16?
 24                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Tab 16, yes.  It's --
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   My Tab 16 is

237
  1  Exhibit 588.
  2                 MR. DONALD WORME:    It's in the yellow
  3  folder, Commissioner.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Oh, I'm
  5  sorry.
  6                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Sir, Exhibit  P-
  7  444(a).  It's a transcript of a telephone call between
  8  John Carson and Ron Fox on September 5th.
  9  
 10  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 11                 Q:   And I provided it to you at the lunch
 12  break.  I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to review
 13  it?
 14                 A:   I -- I spent a few moments reading
 15  it.  I didn't go line by line.
 16                 Q:   Sure.  
 17  
 18                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 19  
 20                 Q:   You weren't present at the meeting on
 21  September 5th that Ron Fox is referring to, so I'm not
 22  asking you to comment on the -- the accuracy or
 23  inaccuracy of any of the impressions that it conveyed.
 24                 But, in light of your testimony, with
 25  respect to the issue of protocol, I'm wondering if you

238
  1  could advise what portions of this -- of this transcript,
  2  some of the comments that are made, that you would have
  3  expected Ron Fox to communicate to Inspector Carson if
  4  any.
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Before you
  6  answer that question, I'm not sure if this is an
  7  improvement over the way you were going at it before.
  8                 Yes, Mr. Sandler...?
  9                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I have what I would
 10  like to think is a helpful suggestion.  I -- I find that
 11  in -- in the last few days, and without isolating
 12  specific questions, we spend a lot of time debating
 13  questions that may in the technical sense be said to be
 14  questions to be put to the Witnesses, but they really
 15  have to do with argument.
 16                 There's -- there's such a wealth of
 17  evidence that, Your Honour, has available to you at the
 18  end of the piece in order to make some kinds of
 19  determinations in this regard and --
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 21                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I --
 22                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- I just find that --
 23  that this is really argument in -- in the guise of -- of
 24  questioning of the Witnesses.  And especially so, when
 25  we're dealing with the Interministerial Meeting, because

239
  1  how is this Witness supposed to articulate which portions
  2  of that telephone conversation she would expect Ron Fox
  3  to communicate, not having been at the meeting, not
  4  having discussed that aspect with Ron Fox, and not
  5  knowing what has come out of the Interministerial Meeting
  6  that he's mandated to -- to pass on? 
  7                 She acknowledged in a general sense that -
  8  - that he is entitled to be speaking to the incident
  9  commander about things that fall within his mandate and
 10  inform the Interministerial Committee Meeting.  How is
 11  she to know, with great respect, and it's not a
 12  reflection on -- on the Witness, how is she to know with
 13  great respect what comes out of the Interministerial
 14  Committee Meeting that entitles him to speak or not speak
 15  about this issue?  
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm having a
 17  very difficult time understanding the significance of
 18  this evidence in the context of this Witness, but --
 19                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Well --
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- Ms.
 21  Perschy, perhaps you'd explain it.
 22                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   The difficulty is --
 23  is this.  There's been some evidence as to what Ron Fox's
 24  expectations were and what his assumptions were, and
 25  there's been reference to the evidence from the OPP's

240
  1  perspective as to what can or should be communicated.
  2                 And this Witness has testified that Ron
  3  Fox reported to her.  She's indicated -- she's provided
  4  us with some evidence with respect to the protocol
  5  regarding communications from the Government to the OPP,
  6  and I'm simply trying through this Witness to flush out a
  7  little bit, from the perspective of the protocol, what
  8  that actually means in substance.
  9                 Because, regardless of what may have
 10  occurred at these meetings, she may well -- be able to
 11  assist us in understanding whether or not certain
 12  communications would have fallen within that protocol or
 13  not.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm having a
 15  difficult time seeing the connection, seeing the
 16  relevance, seeing how it might be helpful.  I am having a
 17  difficult time with this.  So I am not sure that I want
 18  you to pursue this any further.  I don't see where it's
 19  going.
 20                 Does somebody else have something you want
 21  to say? 
 22                 MR. PETER DOWNWARD:   Sir, I -- I'm not
 23  taking a position on the specific question, but on the
 24  position of principle.  The Witness was the superior of
 25  Mr. Fox.

241
  1                 She had a thorough knowledge of what the
  2  appropriate protocol was for communications as between
  3  the Ministry and the Operational OPP and I think it is
  4  therefore appropriate for -- given that she's led -- led
  5  evidence as to her view as -- as to -- in the abstract,
  6  what is appropriate, she's entitled to give review as to
  7  whether, given this example, or -- or the other example,
  8  that was consistent with the protocol or not.
  9                 Now, so -- I -- I -- and I'm simply saying
 10  that I would not want to -- anyway, in my view, in
 11  principle, that's an appropriate position, but I don't
 12  take any position on these particular questions one way
 13  or the other.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, Mr.
 15  Henderson? 
 16                 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON:   Commissioner,
 17  it's --
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.  It
 19  looks like we are having -- I'm not too sure --
 20                 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON:   It's clear we're
 21  not going to be finished with Dr. Todres this month, but
 22  we hope to be this year.
 23                 My -- my submission on this goes to the --
 24  to the overall relevance of it.  Dr. Todres, of course,
 25  has a good deal of information to provide you in terms of

242
  1  the protocols and how protocols may assist, particularly
  2  in the Part II Section of your Mandate.
  3                 I don't know how it helps Part I at all,
  4  or even Part II, to use this as a -- as a case history
  5  and go through word by word and say well, I might expect
  6  someone to say this, and I might not expect someone to
  7  say that, or I think the other thing is improper.
  8                 I -- I just don't see how that assists you
  9  at all, and it just takes up an -- with respect, an awful
 10  lot of time apart from the objections.
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, I
 12  think what Mr. Sandler's saying, I think, is that it's
 13  proper to do that in Argument.
 14                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   This really is a
 15  matter of argument, and, you know, it -- it might have
 16  been more acceptable arguably, if -- if the exercise had
 17  been done in a very similar way with Ron Fox.  If Ron Fox
 18  -- if one went through the conversation and said, well
 19  this part, how do you justify speaking to Inspector
 20  Carson, but -- and so on and so forth.
 21                 But, you know, to do it through the back
 22  door, and -- and I don't say that in a pejorative way,
 23  but to do it at this point through this Witness when this
 24  Witness really had no involvement in the Interministerial
 25  Committee Meeting and didn't know what his mandate was

243
  1  flowing from the Interministerial Committee Meeting,
  2  isn't that helpful.  That's all I'm saying.
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And as I
  4  take it, has never seen this transcript to this
  5  conversation before.  You've read something about it in
  6  the media, but this is the first time you're seeing the
  7  actual transcript of what was said and so on.
  8                 Yes...? 
  9                 MR. PETER DOWNWARD:   My only comment,
 10  sir, is that I specifically put it to Mr. Fox that the
 11  Incident Commander didn't need to know a good deal of the
 12  things he said to him, and I --
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And he
 14  agreed.
 15                 MR. PETER DOWNWARD:   You're right.  And I
 16  -- and I put to him that certain statements are
 17  appropriate.  So, that's my only comment.
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  I want
 19  to move on.  I am not anxious to have this develop.
 20                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Sir, if I may just be
 21  given an opportunity to respond.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  
 23                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   This issue was raised
 24  with Inspector Fox.  And my only concern is, here we have
 25  the Witness who, as I understand it, is in fact the

244
  1  buffer, so to speak, between -- between Government and
  2  the OPP, and -- and the question of what her expectations
  3  would be, what her understanding of the protocol is --
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  
  5                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   -- you know, could
  6  stand to be flushed out by looking at the actual facts
  7  and getting an understanding from her as to how she would
  8  view the protocol in these circumstances, would in fact
  9  be very helpful to you.
 10                 And I think the issue has been raised with
 11  -- with Ron Fox, both in terms of the -- the -- his
 12  feelings with respect to what he was communicating and
 13  why, and the appropriateness of that.  That issue was
 14  raised, not by me but by other Counsel.
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.  I am
 16  not sure that it -- would you like to say something on
 17  this, Mr. Worme? 
 18                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Only that I heard My
 19  Friend, Ms. Perschy's explanation as to why she ventures
 20  into this particular area of questioning, and I'm sorry,
 21  I simply don't understand it and I don't see the
 22  relevance.
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, if she
 24  were asking a specific question, it might be relevant,
 25  but the way it was asked, it doesn't strike me as being

245
  1  relevant or helpful.
  2  
  3  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   
  4                 Q:   Well, why don't I phrase it this way,
  5  Dr. Todres.
  6                 You indicated that you regarded the
  7  discussions that took place at the Dining Room as
  8  confidential? 
  9                 A:   That's correct. 
 10  
 11                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12  
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No.
 14                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   That goes back to
 15  my objection.  I've actually stayed sitting down.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  But,
 17  that question has been asked in a --
 18                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I'm sorry -- I'm just
 19  -- I'm going back --
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine. 
 21  That question has been --
 22                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   -- I haven't asked a
 23  new question yet.
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   But, you are
 25  going to an area that is just full, full of problems, and

246
  1  I do not want you to create more problems, with very
  2  little help that's going to be given to us in that is
  3  Inquiry; very little assistance.
  4                 So, that's why I'm not anxious to have
  5  this gone over.  But, if you ask a particular question
  6  and -- and it's relevant then maybe we can go forward.
  7                 What question do you want to ask about
  8  this?
  9                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I was just about to go
 10  there.
 11  
 12  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 13                 Q:   And you also testified a moment ago
 14  about the protocol regarding communications flowing from
 15  government to the OPP and my question to you is:  
 16                 Would you expect, in light of that
 17  protocol, for there to be, prior to there being a final
 18  decision by the Government, would you expect there to be
 19  any communications flowing from the Government through
 20  the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   For what
 22  it's worth, Ms. -- I'm sorry, were you finished?  I
 23  thought you were finished.  I didn't mean to interrupt
 24  you.
 25                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   No.  No.

247
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You'd better
  2  finish then.
  3                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:    Sorry, I lost my -- I
  4  lost my --
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm sorry. 
  6  I didn't mean to interrupt you.  I thought you were
  7  finished.
  8                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   No, that's quite all
  9  right.
 10  
 11  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 12                 Q:   In light of a protocol that you
 13  previously described, I take it that from your
 14  perspective it would be inconsistent with that protocol
 15  for there to be communications from the Government to the
 16  OPP prior to there being any decision by the Government--
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No.  I'm
 18  sorry.  Are you finished yet?
 19                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   No.  
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.
 21                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Almost.  Was just
 22  about to finish a thought.
 23  
 24  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 25                 Q:   Prior to there being a final decision

248
  1  of the Government with respect to any discussions
  2  regarding that decision --
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Right.
  4                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   -- or leading up to
  5  that decision.  It's just with respect to communications
  6  prior.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Are you
  8  finished now?
  9                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I am finished now.
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right. 
 11  Now, I'm going to approach this from a different
 12  perspective.
 13                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Yes.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I believe
 15  that question has already been asked, and I believe that
 16  question has already been answered; that's my view of
 17  that particular matter.
 18                 I've heard Dr. Todres respond, in
 19  principle, to that particular sentiment.  Now, whether it
 20  was exactly in those words or it wasn't --
 21                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Okay.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   -- but I
 23  believe that that question has been asked and answered.
 24                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I wasn't sure if it
 25  had been asked this generally.  

249
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  2                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   I thought it had been
  3  restricted to the dining room.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, it --
  5                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   But if it has I can
  6  move on.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   It wasn't
  8  asked in the same way as you did, but the sentiment has
  9  been asked and answered, so I'd like you to move on.
 10                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   Okay.  I will -- I
 11  will heed your -- your request.  And you'll be relieved
 12  to know I'm almost done.
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm sorry,
 14  may I ask you how much longer you're going to be because
 15  we --
 16                 MS. ANNA PERSCHY:   About two (2) minutes.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Oh, well,
 18  that's fine.
 19  
 20  CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:
 21                 Q:   You testified that you had no
 22  concerns regarding the Ipperwash situation on September
 23  5th and 6th.  I think you mentioned, you referred to it
 24  as a watching brief.
 25                 And I take it that you didn't speak with

250
  1  Ms. Hutton regarding the Interministerial Committee
  2  Meetings on September 5th or 6th?  You didn't -- you
  3  didn't speak to her in regards to those meetings?
  4                 A:   No.
  5                 Q:   I'm done, Commissioner.  Thank you
  6  very much, Dr. Todres.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
  8  very much, Ms. Perschy.
  9                 We're going to take a break now.
 10                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry will recess
 11  for fifteen (15) minutes. 
 12  
 13  --- Upon recessing at 3:05 p.m.
 14  --- Upon resuming at 3:37 p.m.
 15  
 16                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Inquiry is now
 17  resumed. Please be seated.
 18                 MR. DONALD WORME:   Commissioner, just
 19  before Mr. Sandler commences with his cross-examination--
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
 21                 MR. DONALD WORME:   -- Mr. Lauwers had a
 22  document marked by -- by the Witness and I'd asked him
 23  whether or not he intended to make this an exhibit.  I
 24  see that his chair is empty, and so I will go ahead and
 25  ask that this be made the next exhibit then.

251
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  2                 THE REGISTRAR:   P-985, Your Honour.
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   P-985.
  4  
  5  --- EXHIBIT NO. P-985:     Diagram of floor plan of
  6                             Premier's Boardroom, Council
  7                             Chamber, EA's office,
  8                             reception, hallway and
  9                             washroom: marked by witness,
 10                             Dr. Elaine Todres, Nov.
 11                             30/'05.
 12    
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, Mr.
 14  Sandler?
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Good afternoon, again.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Good
 17  afternoon again.
 18                 THE WITNESS:   Good afternoon.
 19  
 20  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
 21                 Q:   As you know, I am counsel to the OPP
 22  and some of it's senior commissioned officers including
 23  Ron Fox.  And as you also know I'm not Julian Falconer,
 24  just to make that clear.
 25                 I'm going to ask you a little bit --

252
  1                 MR. JULIAN FALCONER:   Wishful thinking,
  2  Mr. Commissioner.
  3  
  4  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
  5                 Q:  In your dealings with Ron Fox you
  6  found that he exhibited a high degree of sensitivity to
  7  First Nation's issues.
  8                 A:   Yes, I did.
  9                 Q:   He had considerable knowledge and
 10  expertise in the area as well, did he not?
 11                 A:   Yes, he did.
 12                 Q:   I'm going to suggest that in your
 13  dealings with him, you found that he had impeccable
 14  judgment, didn't he?
 15                 A:   Yes, he did.
 16                 Q:   And he was calm under pressure?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   And there were considerable pressures
 19  associated with his position within the Ministry, were
 20  there not?
 21                 A:   On a daily basis.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And not easily prone to
 23  losing his cool, right?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   As a matter of fact you saw no

253
  1  evidence of that, did you?
  2                 A:   No.
  3                 Q:   And I'm also going to suggest that
  4  when he reported to you on factual matters, whether
  5  verbally or in writing, all indications to you were that
  6  his reports were factual and not prone to exaggeration or
  7  hyperbole; am I right?
  8                 A:   Yes.  
  9                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I too am going to ask
 10  you about the dining room meeting, I'm afraid to say. 
 11  Not to challenge what you've said about -- about Minister
 12  Hodgson's comments, but to see whether I can assist in
 13  refreshing your memory about some of the events.
 14                 And -- and I don't intend to discuss with
 15  you the vagaries of memory but we must acknowledge, at
 16  the outset, three (3) factors that I take it you'd agree
 17  with me are operative here.
 18                 The first is that you are being asked,
 19  unfortunately, to recollect the events of a meeting that
 20  took place ten (10) years ago; am I right?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And you recognize the limitations
 23  that that imposes upon you?
 24                 A:   Yes, I do.
 25                 Q:   And similarly you do that without the

254
  1  benefit of any notes which you took or anyone under your
  2  direction took during that meeting; am I right?
  3                 A:   That's correct.
  4                 Q:   Secondly, and you've acknowledged
  5  this, that due to the circumstances of the room itself it
  6  was sometimes difficult to hear some of the players; am I
  7  right?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   So you wouldn't say to the
 10  Commissioner that you can validate that everything that
 11  was said in that room was indeed overheard by you; am I
 12  right?
 13                 A:   That's correct.
 14                 Q:   And the third is that we've had some
 15  evidence, in the course of this Inquiry, that
 16  participants came in and out of the room at different
 17  times, and indeed there was some evidence that the
 18  Premier left the room before all of the discussion had
 19  ended.
 20                 Do you know whether or not that was the
 21  case?  Do you recall one way or the other?
 22                 A:   Well what I do recall, and I
 23  mentioned when -- when asked by someone during cross,
 24  that the meeting fizzled, and for me that meant that the
 25  Premier left, others stayed.  And whether they considered

255
  1  that still being the meeting, I wouldn't know.
  2                 Q:   So whether we characterize it as 'the
  3  meeting' or simply the opportunity for others to pursue
  4  conversation, what I'm going to suggest to you is that
  5  another feature that might explain an inability to
  6  describe conversations that others have described, is
  7  that these were one on one conversations to which you
  8  weren't a party.
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  Now against that background, I
 11  would like to ask you about some comments that some of
 12  the Witnesses here have attributed to the Premier.  And
 13  I'm going to ask whether or not what they have to say
 14  refreshes your memory.  
 15                 And it's all geared to that purpose.  So
 16  if at the end of the piece you tell me that it doesn't
 17  assist in refreshing your memory, that's fine and I'll
 18  move on.
 19                 We heard from Ron Fox in two (2) different
 20  ways.  He testified here at the Inquiry and we also heard
 21  what he described had transpired at the meeting through a
 22  conversation shortly thereafter with Inspector Carson. 
 23  All right?  So I'm going to ask you about that.
 24                 Secondly, we've heard from Larry Taman,
 25  third we heard from David Moran.  And those are the three

256
  1  (3) people who I'm going to discuss with you.
  2                 Ron Fox testified that the Premier was
  3  displeased that the matter had gone on as long as it had. 
  4  That the Premier wanted the Park vacated and expressed
  5  frustration at the continued presence of occupiers in the
  6  Park.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just before
  8  you go on, you do not want her comment on each one of
  9  these statements, you want it at the end to see if it
 10  refreshes her memory in general? 
 11                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   That's right.  
 12                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.  
 13                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And this -- as you
 14  will recall what I did with the former Attorney General
 15  is
 16  I put all of these, and then I said, I don't want to
 17  parse words or sentences --
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.  
 19                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- I want to ask about
 20  concepts.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right. 
 22  Let's see where you're going. 
 23  
 24  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
 25                 Q:   And Ron Fox also said that the

257
  1  Premier expressed his opinion that the OPP made mistakes
  2  and they should have done something right at the time,
  3  implying right at the time that the occupiers first came
  4  into the Park.
  5                 Then Larry Taman testified, and he said
  6  that, in a dialogue with the Premier, that the Premier
  7  expressed the sentiment that he would have thought that
  8  the police would have the First Nation citizens out of
  9  the Park by this time.  That Mr. Taman told him he didn't
 10  think this was necessarily so, it could be better
 11  policing practice to wait.
 12                 That the Premier expressed the sentiment
 13  that other police forces could have done a better job, in
 14  effect.  That Mr. Taman agreed that the sense of what the
 15  Premier said was that the OPP had made mistakes and that
 16  they should have done something right at the time.
 17                 That the Premier expressed the sentiment
 18  that if this were any other country or any other setting,
 19  the police would have acted more quickly.
 20                 David Moran, who was, as you know, the
 21  Executive Assistant to the Attorney General --
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just a
 23  minute, Mr. Sandler, you are getting an objection before
 24  you finish the question, because it is kind of a long
 25  question.  

258
  1                 Yes, Mr. Downard...? 
  2                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   It's -- it's a very
  3  long question and it's interesting that My Friend's
  4  picking only what certain witnesses say, but if he's
  5  going to describe what the Witness said of what the
  6  Premier said, I would have thought that, for example, in
  7  the case of Mr. Taman, he should include what Mr. Taman
  8  said a number of times as -- as to what the -- the
  9  Premier said about -- at -- but before the Premier left
 10  the meeting.
 11                 It seems to me that just to be fair to the
 12  Witness he's -- I don't understand why he would -- he
 13  would not be fairly describing Mr. Taman's evidence as a
 14  whole at this point.
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, he has
 16  not finished yet, but let us just --
 17                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I am only focussing on
 18  a couple of things that the Premier is alleged to have
 19  said, and -- and that's why.  I'm not going to ask about
 20  everything that the Premier said at the meeting.  
 21                 My Friend and I are at idem that, for
 22  example, that at the end of the meeting the decision was
 23  made to seek the injunction, so why would I be putting
 24  that evidence to -- to the Witness? 
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right. 

259
  1  
  2  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
  3                 Q:   Mr. Moran said that the substance of
  4  the Premier's comments was that he was disappointed that
  5  the OPP had allowed the situation to get this far, that
  6  the tone of the meeting was tense, the Premier felt
  7  strongly about the issue.
  8                 Now what I'm going to suggest to you and
  9  I'm not terribly interested in the precise words that are
 10  being used by the parties as opposed to the sentiments,
 11  all right? 
 12                 And what I am going to suggest to you is
 13  that a couple of sentiments were being articulated by the
 14  Premier at that meeting.  The first sentiment was that he
 15  was frustrated at the fact that the occupiers were still
 16  in the Park.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Again, yes
 18  Mr. Downward...? 
 19                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   I -- I thought these
 20  -- these quotes were being put to the Witness to ask
 21  whether they refresh her memory or not.
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.  That
 23  is the way you put it, Mr. Sandler.
 24                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   And -- well and --
 25  well, I haven't heard that question.

260
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I haven't
  2  either.  
  3                 Do you want to ask the question, Mr.
  4  Sandler?  You said you were going to put those matters,
  5  and then you were going to ask the Witness whether it
  6  assisted in refreshing her memory.  Now you put the
  7  matters but you have not asked the question.
  8                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   All right.  
  9  
 10  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
 11                 Q:   What I put those matters to you for,
 12  was to see whether they will assist in refreshing your
 13  memory in responding to two (2) very specific points that
 14  I want to raise with you.
 15                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   No, no.  No, no.  No,
 16  no, no.  I don't understand why we just can't have an
 17  answer to the -- the question that My Friend said he was
 18  going to ask, which is whether hearing these selections
 19  from the evidence refreshes her memory of the events.
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Of the
 21  meeting or -- 
 22                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   My Friend can't
 23  dictate the exact wording of my questions; there's
 24  nothing -- these are the exact same questions that I put,
 25  without objection, to the former Attorney General, and --

261
  1  and there's nothing objectionable about them.
  2                 My Friend may not like where the
  3  questioning is going, but it's perfectly proper
  4  questioning, with great respect.
  5                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well, I am
  6  waiting to hear the question, so maybe it is time for the
  7  question.
  8  
  9  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
 10                 Q:   The question is this:  The sentiment,
 11  one of the sentiments that was being communicated by the
 12  Premier, at the meeting, was a level of frustration at
 13  the fact that the occupiers were still in the Park.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Stop.  It is
 15  a full stop.  Now that is the first part of it.  That is
 16  a fair question, isn't it, Mr. Downard?
 17                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   It -- it's -- well,
 18  it's -- I'm not sure the way it's framed whether the
 19  Witness is going to understand that as saying, Would you
 20  agree with me that that's what the other witnesses are
 21  saying or is that your recollection --
 22                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Well --
 23                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   -- of what was going
 24  on?  That's -- that's the distinction.  I'm just
 25  concerned that the way the question is framed with the

262
  1  long preamble can be misleading.  It can be a suggestion
  2  to the Witness that all the -- these other people are
  3  saying it, so that must be so, right, and isn't this what
  4  they're saying, when the legitimate basis for questioning
  5  is what does she recall about the time?
  6                 And if it's on that basis, I have no
  7  objection.
  8                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I -- I want to point
  9  out that this is also the form of questions, I say,
 10  respectfully, that Mr. Downard used in -- in cross-
 11  examining the former Attorney General by putting portions
 12  of what witnesses had to say about what was said and not
 13  said at the dining room meeting.  
 14                 There's nothing improper in that question,
 15  I submit.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I didn't
 17  think there was, but it's a difficult question to answer,
 18  but the Witness is able to decide whether or not she can
 19  answer it.  If she can she will, if she can't she won't.
 20                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Well, if you'd like me
 21  to make it even crystal clearer, then I will.
 22  
 23  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
 24                 Q:   I'm not going to ask you to confirm
 25  or deny whether I've accurately captured what the other

263
  1  people had to say.  I've given it to you so that you
  2  would have the context of what some others have said
  3  about the very points that I'm asking you about, all
  4  right?
  5                 And if it assists you in answering the
  6  question fine; if it doesn't assist you then ignore  
  7  what --
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right.
  9                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- the others have
 10  said, all right?
 11                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And the
 12  question again is...?
 13  
 14  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
 15                 Q:   So the question is -- sounds like a -
 16  - a talk show -- and the question is:  The sentiment of
 17  what the Premier was communicating was a level of
 18  frustration at the fact that the occupiers were still in
 19  the Park?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Yes.  I thought you'd find it an easy
 22  question to answer.  And -- and secondly, whether one
 23  characterizes it as -- as explicit criticism of the OPP
 24  or -- or not, and I -- I don't want to get into a kind of
 25  a linguistic battle, the sentiment that was being

264
  1  expressed by the Premier was a level of dissatisfaction
  2  over the performance by the OPP that it allowed that to
  3  happen, namely the occupiers occupying the Park; fair
  4  enough?
  5                 A:   As I indicated when I spoke earlier
  6  on this subject, that's not how I took it.  I took it as
  7  frustration with the current situation without
  8  attribution with respect to who might or might not be
  9  responsible for the length.  It was a tricky issue.  It
 10  was frustrating for all of those that it was persisting.
 11                 Q:   So going back to the comments that I
 12  read out to you, are you in a position to dispute Ron
 13  Fox's testimony that the Premier articulated his opinion
 14  that the OPP made mistakes and should have done something
 15  right at the time of the occupation?  
 16                 Do you dispute it or you just don't
 17  recollect it?
 18                 A:   I don't recollect that kind of
 19  detail, no.
 20                 Q:   All right.  And when Mr. Taman says
 21  that -- that in his dialogue with the Premier the Premier
 22  expressed the view that he would have thought that the
 23  police would have the First Nations citizens out of the
 24  Park by this time, do you dispute that that took place or
 25  simply you don't recollect --

265
  1                 A:   What I --
  2                 Q:   -- whether or not that took place?
  3                 A:   What I do recall, and I believe I
  4  mentioned this earlier, was that I -- I thought it was
  5  Larry; I thought it was the Deputy Attorney General who
  6  spent a considerable amount of time, not only with the
  7  Premier, with the other ministers, indicating not so much
  8  what was happening necessarily at the Park, but what
  9  processes have worked to-date insofar as his role as the
 10  Deputy of ONAS is concerned:  patience, discussion, these
 11  things take time.
 12                 Q:   So the answer to my question I -- I'm
 13  going to suggest is that you don't recollect this feature
 14  of what Mr. Taman describes, but you're not prepared to
 15  deny that it may have taken place?
 16                 A:   That's right.
 17                 Q:   And similarly, when Mr. Moran
 18  testified that the substance of the Premier's comment
 19  were that he was disappointed that the OPP had allowed
 20  the situation to get this far, I take it that the answer
 21  is the same; that you're not prepared to dispute that
 22  that comment or sentiment was expressed by the Premier,
 23  you don't recollect it yourself?
 24                 A:   That's correct.
 25                 Q:   Fair enough.  Now, had the Premier

266
  1  expressed dissatisfaction over the OPP's performance to-
  2  date, or had he criticized the OPP for its performance
  3  to-date from a systemic perspective, would that have
  4  concerned you?
  5                 A:   Well it's a hypothetical -- it's a
  6  hypothetical.  I didn't take that to have occurred.
  7                 Q:   I understand that.  I'm --
  8                 A:   And had there been a sit -- you're
  9  asking me to comment on what would my opinion be if a
 10  Minister of -- if the Premier would have expressed
 11  dissatisfaction with the work of a force?
 12                 Q:   Right.
 13                 A:   Well let me answer it this way:  That
 14  if my Minister and I were in a room where a conversation
 15  like that would have occurred, I would have expected to
 16  have a conversation with my Minister with respect to what
 17  the consequences were of that kind of an utterance in a -
 18  - in an informal setting.
 19                 Q:   What I'm going to suggest to you is
 20  this, and again, it will ultimately be up to the
 21  Commissioner to make findings of fact about what was said
 22  or what wasn't said at the dining room meeting.
 23                 But assuming for the purposes of my
 24  questions -- and here I'm drawing upon your experience. 
 25  Assuming for the purposes of the questions that a Premier

267
  1  expressed criticism or dissatisfaction about the
  2  performance of the OPP in a meeting that wasn't confined
  3  to his political staff or indeed to his Ministers or
  4  indeed to his Deputy Ministers, if you were advising the
  5  Government in those circumstances you might suggest that
  6  it's ill advised to express that kind of criticism in
  7  such a forum.
  8                 Am I right?
  9                 A:   I might say that.
 10                 Q:   All right.  And the reason that you
 11  might say it is the reason why many of us, even though we
 12  disagree on the facts here, seem to have come together on
 13  one aspect, and that is because there's a concern, in the
 14  very least, about perceptions that can be created when
 15  criticism of the OPP has been followed by controversial
 16  action on the part of the OPP; am I right?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Fair enough.  Now I want to turn to -
 19  - to Minister Hodgson for a moment and we've heard your
 20  recollection as to what Minister Hodgson had to say in
 21  the meeting.
 22                 And -- and I have several questions
 23  arising out of that.  The first is this:  That Scott
 24  Patrick, and I know it's abundantly clear to you at this
 25  point, that if there's anything that's probably

268
  1  uncontroversial here, it's that Ron Fox and Scott Patrick
  2  were present for some or all of the meeting --
  3                 A:   Some of the meeting.
  4                 Q:   -- in the dining room.
  5                 A:   Hmm hmm.
  6                 Q:   And I -- and I should tell you just,
  7  again, to see whether it refreshes your memory, that Ron
  8  Fox's testimony was that -- that he was not present at
  9  the outset of the meeting, that he was -- he was paged
 10  indeed by you and joined the meeting thereafter.
 11                 Could that be the case?
 12                 A:   It's not my recollection.
 13                 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:   Commissioner, 
 14  I --
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes, Mr.
 16  Klippenstein...?
 17                 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:   Just a
 18  correction.  I know My Friend didn't mean to -- to not
 19  get this point exactly right, but I've checked the
 20  transcript on the conversation about paging and the words
 21  Mr. Fox used was:
 22                   "Paged to meet with the Deputy."  
 23                 And -- and I have it here.  And I don't --
 24  it's similar to saying being paged by the Deputy but I
 25  don't think that was the word that was used.

269
  1                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Fair enough.  I'm
  2  grateful to My Friend.
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you.
  4  
  5  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
  6                 Q:   So Ron Fox's recollection is that he
  7  received a page emanating either from or on your behalf,
  8  and that resulted in his attendance at the Legislature. 
  9  And Mr. Klippenstein's going to tell me that's still not
 10  accurate.
 11                 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:   I just -- I
 12  just want to be clear that it appear that that -- it
 13  doesn't necessarily follow that it was on the Deputy's
 14  behalf.  It could have been someone else.
 15                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Fair enough.
 16                 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:   And -- and to
 17  be honest, the Premier's office or somebody, but it -- I
 18  just suggest we be careful about implying things into
 19  those words that might not be there.
 20                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right.
 21                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I think I've got it
 22  accurate but I --
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   All right.
 24                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Commissioner, if you
 25  take Mr. Klippenstein's caution, I'm -- I'll incorporate

270
  1  it into the --
  2                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Yes.
  3                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   -- into the question.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You should.
  5  
  6  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
  7                 Q   Ron Fox said he was paged, it had
  8  something to do with you.  And we've also heard a
  9  telephone conversation between Ron Fox and Mark Wright
 10  where you actually hear the page going off at 12:06 while
 11  Ron Fox is on the phone to Mark Wright.  Okay?  
 12                 Does that assist you, in any way, in your
 13  memory as --
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   -- to how it was that Ron Fox was
 16  brought to that dinner meeting?
 17                 A:   No, it doesn't.
 18                 Q:   It was all for naught.  So, I was
 19  going to ask you, then about Minister Hodgson's comments
 20  because Scott Patrick testified that during the meeting,
 21  Minister Hodgson indicated that he, being Minister
 22  Hodgson, was the property owner; it was his Park and he
 23  wanted it back.
 24                 And that he was angry when he spoke about
 25  the issue.

271
  1                 Now, I'm going to suggest to you that that
  2  indeed conforms to the substance of what you recollect
  3  was being expressed by Minister Hodgson in the comment
  4  that you described, am I right?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  So Minister Hodgson, and
  7  you've said that one of the things that struck you at the
  8  time was that he -- he personalized the issue by
  9  referring to it as "my Park", right?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And what I'm going to suggest to you
 12  is that apart from your concerns about how the language
 13  could be seen to demonstrate insensitivity and
 14  inappropriateness about first Nations issues, the way in
 15  which the comments were articulated by Minister Hodgson
 16  would have concerned you for another reason.
 17                  And that is that to the listener it could
 18  have communicated the message that Minister Hodgson at
 19  least, if not the Government, didn't care about First
 20  Nations issues; right?
 21                 A:   Well, there were two (2) concerns
 22  arising from having heard that phrase, I think I may have
 23  tried to communicate earlier today.
 24                 The first was, as you indicated, a
 25  possible interpretation about lack of sensitivity to

272
  1  First Nations issues.
  2                 The second, when I mentioned that I found
  3  that the remark was both difficult to listen to and
  4  revealing, it was revealing in the sense that the Park
  5  was not his Park, and it showed to me a Minister who was
  6  new at his portfolio and frustrated by the analysis that
  7  was being provided about just how difficult it was with
  8  all of the extenuating circumstances, to move forward.
  9                 Q:   And I don't want you to get into
 10  Minister Hodgson's head, and I'm not asking that
 11  question, and I'm -- I'm just interested in it and I'll
 12  put the cards right on the table, because one of the
 13  issues that has come up here is that Ron Fox came away
 14  from that meeting and engaged in a telephone call with
 15  Inspector Carson as you've heard, and he described
 16  various comments that he attributed to Minister Hodgson
 17  in a dialogue that he had.
 18                  And you've heard counsel for Mr. Hodgson
 19  say that there was indeed a dialogue between the two (2)
 20  and some commonality and some differences in
 21  recollection.
 22                 But what I'm suggesting to you is that
 23  from your perspective, you could see how the comments
 24  could be taken to evidence a redneck government or a
 25  government that didn't seem to care about First Nations

273
  1  issues.
  2                 Is that fair?
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just before
  4  you answer, Dr. Todres, we have some objections.
  5                 MS. ERIN TULLY:   Well, I just have an
  6  objection because I was under the impression that -- that
  7  the evidence was that she didn't recollect a conversation
  8  between Fox and Hodgson.
  9                 So I'm not sure if we can then ask for her
 10  opinion on whether or not a conversation that she didn't
 11  hear occurred, would leave a certain impression.
 12                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   No, I'm not asking
 13  about -- I'm not asking her anything about the
 14  conversation she didn't hear, just the comments that she
 15  did hear.
 16                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay.
 17                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   If that assists, My
 18  Friend.
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   And Ms.
 20  Twohig, what is your observation?
 21                 MS. KIM TWOHIG:   My observation is that
 22  I'm not sure it's fair to her to ask her to comment on
 23  another person's characterization of what he heard.
 24                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And I don't want that.
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Okay, so

274
  1  with that understood --
  2                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   That -- that's --
  3                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   What is your
  4  question?
  5                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   That's not what I'm
  6  asking.
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   You're
  8  asking what?
  9  
 10  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
 11                 Q:   I'm not asking you to characterize
 12  the Government as a redneck government and I know that's
 13  not the characterization that -- that you would make, and
 14  it's not the characterization that I'm urging upon you.
 15                 I'm just suggesting that from -- from your
 16  mental state, you could see how that kind of a comment
 17  could be taken to evidence what would be called a redneck
 18  government or an attitude that shows a lack of concern
 19  about First Nations.       
 20                 Isn't that fair?
 21                 A:   My -- my response to that is:  I was
 22  deeply concerned about the comment because I appreciated
 23  that if quoted elsewhere without the context within which
 24  it was discussed and the general frustration around
 25  timing that it could be misinterpreted.

275
  1                 Q:   And when you take the comment, and
  2  you take the over-simplistic approach to the issue, and
  3  you take the language that was used to make the comment,
  4  and you take the anger associated with the making of the
  5  comment, and you take the personalizing associated with
  6  the making of the comment, all of those would contribute
  7  to a real concern as to what the listener would perceive
  8  the Government's attitude to First Nations was; fair
  9  enough?
 10                 A:   Well, I say that but, you know, on
 11  the other hand I might agree with you, but on the other
 12  hand I've been in rooms where many things have been
 13  discussed and where I might reach interpretations.  There
 14  were no decisions that were reached.  And so in the
 15  context of being in a confidential environment whether I
 16  thought they were "A" or "B", it would have been a
 17  thought that would have remained with me.
 18                 Q:   No, I understand that aspect of what
 19  you've said.
 20                 A:   Yeah.
 21                 Q:   And I think I've got -- I've got your
 22  answer.
 23                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine.
 24                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And -- and I
 25  understand what you have to say.

276
  1  
  2  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:
  3                 Q:   Now, you've indicated that at the
  4  outset of the meeting or early on in the meeting you
  5  articulated for the assembly the fact that there's this
  6  demarcation between the police function and the
  7  Government function and -- and one should remain mindful
  8  and vigilant of the distinction.  
  9                 And whether you use those terms or not, I
 10  guarantee your vocabulary was much better than mine based
 11  upon the evidence here today, that was the sentiment.  Am
 12  I right?
 13                 A:   Yes, correct.
 14                 Q:   And we've heard from Larry Taman that
 15  he said, he articulated the very same thing --
 16                 A:   He --
 17                 Q:   -- in the meeting?
 18                 A:   He may very well have.
 19                 Q:   All right.  And we've also seen an
 20  issue note -- you remember the one that -- that was
 21  uncirculated, that was generated by Ms. Dougall within
 22  Legal Services Branch that also said, in essence, the
 23  very same thing?  All right?
 24                 A:   Hmm hmm.  Yes.
 25                 Q:   And so here you've got you expressing

277
  1  it, an issue note purport -- prepared that articulates
  2  that, you've got Mr. Taman possibly having said the same
  3  thing in the meeting.  
  4                 And against that backdrop I want to ask
  5  you about something else that -- that Larry Taman said
  6  because -- he said that -- that he was being told by his
  7  staff that some parts of the political side of government
  8  were adamant that there should be strong action taken
  9  quickly to get the First Nations people out of the Park.
 10                 On the political side people were anxious
 11  that there be aggressive action to get the First Nations
 12  out of the Park; that he was approached by people within
 13  the Civil Service who felt that the political staffers
 14  were crossing the line and imposing their views or
 15  creating some pressures to act.
 16                 And, were you getting the same sense?  In
 17  other words, were people reporting to you from within the
 18  -- I was going to use the terms, "bowels," but I don't
 19  like that -- from -- from within government that -- that
 20  there was this kind of percolating strong view that
 21  aggressive action should be taken from the political
 22  side?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   Yes.  And Mr. Taman indicated that he
 25  told the Premier in the dining room meeting that the

278
  1  occupiers would not be gotten out of the Park within
  2  twenty-four (24) hours because the police aren't going to
  3  do it -- aren't going to do it in that way.  It's not
  4  going to be accomplished in that way.
  5                 And -- and is that a sentiment that is
  6  consistent with your recollection of what Mr. Taman would
  7  have communicated to the Premier and to the meeting?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  So when we put all of
 10  this together and we see your cautionary note at the
 11  beginning, possibly Mr. Taman's cautionary note during
 12  the meeting, the issue note that was prepared, the
 13  percolating up of some aggressiveness, I -- I don't want
 14  to overstate it -- some -- some strong views that
 15  aggressive action should be taken to get the First
 16  Nations out of the Park, all of this might explain why
 17  you felt it important to make that point during the
 18  meeting to a new Government in the circumstances.
 19                 Am I right? 
 20                 A:   Yes.  
 21                 Q:   Okay.  Now, moving to the other side
 22  of the equation, you dealt with the OPP through
 23  Commissioner O'Grady and through some of its Senior
 24  Officers who you would have met with in the course of
 25  your responsibilities.  Am I right? 

279
  1                 A:   I would have made contact with the
  2  Deputy Commissioners; it would have been unlikely that I
  3  would have met anyone below that rank.
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.  And what I'm going to
  5  suggest to you is that, and I'm just interested in -- in
  6  the opinions that you formed as a result of your
  7  relationship with the people you actually dealt with.
  8                 A:   Hmm hmm.  
  9                 Q:   I am not going to ask you to comment
 10  on anyone who you didn't dealt with.
 11                 A:   Hmm hmm.  Hmm hmm.  
 12                 Q:   But I am going to suggest to you that
 13  several things came to you as a Deputy Solicitor General
 14  and Deputy Minister of Corrections, and that was, first
 15  of all, that in the higher echelons of the OPP there was
 16  a tremendous commitment to Aboriginal policing; was there
 17  not? 
 18                 A:   Yes.  
 19                 Q:   And -- and it was something that --
 20  that you remember to this day because it -- it was --
 21  it's something to be said in favour of the OPP that it
 22  was in the forefront, as you saw it, an Aboriginal
 23  policing issue? 
 24                 A:   Yes.  And I -- I have vivid recall, I
 25  don't -- I'm not sure I discussed it when I was in -- in

280
  1  examination-in-chief, but I remember very, very detailed
  2  discussions with Commissioner O'Grady, for example, about
  3  his intent to establish Aboriginal circles with
  4  Aboriginal Chiefs, to look at methods of working
  5  together, exploring opportunities, learning from one
  6  another, understanding what one had to do on a number of
  7  circumstances.  
  8                 And I can no longer recall whether that
  9  was before or after my discussions with him, you know,
 10  after -- after September.
 11                 I don't know if it was before September
 12  5th or after September 7th, but, he was deeply committed
 13  and I was very impressed with the knowledge base in terms
 14  of ritual history, anthropology, practise, sweat lodges,
 15  the degree of detail that the senior staff had and the
 16  commitment that they had, that is true.
 17                 Q:   So, and thank you for that.  So you
 18  saw not only a commitment to Aboriginal policing, but --
 19  but you saw a commitment from the Commissioner to put in
 20  the forefront of the issues that were near and dear to
 21  the OPP, Aboriginal policing and self policing -- 
 22                 A:   Yes I did.
 23                 Q:   -- by the Aboriginal community; am I
 24  right? 
 25                 A:   Yes I did.

281
  1                 Q:   And -- and indeed, somewhat
  2  innovative and in the forefront in North America? 
  3                 A:   Yes.  
  4                 Q:   Now, and you also saw it in another
  5  way, of course, and you did articulate this in
  6  examination-in-chief, and that is, the kinds of people
  7  who were being sent to you to act as your seconded
  8  advisors on Aboriginal issues.  Am I right? 
  9                 A:   Yes.  I was very impressed with their
 10  values, their philosophical commitment and their dogged
 11  determination to try to make a difference.
 12                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I am going to switch
 13  topics, if I may, and I want to ask you a little bit
 14  about -- about some of the -- some of the systemic issues
 15  that have come out of the distinction between operational
 16  and non-operational matters.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Just before
 18  you do that, Mr. Sandler, can you give me an estimate of
 19  how much longer you may be? 
 20                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Fifteen (15) minutes.
 21                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine. 
 22  That's fine.  Let's carry on.
 23                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I'm --
 24                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No, I want
 25  to finish your Examination and if possible, Ms.

282
  1  Clermont's as well.
  2                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Oh, you will.  I
  3  promise you I will be finished.
  4                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine.
  5                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Even if we go to 8:00
  6  p.m.  No, I'm just --
  7                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   No, no, no,
  8  no, no, no. 
  9                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   At 4:30, I promise.
 10                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We have a
 11  party to go to tonight, all of us.
 12                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Fine.
 13                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   That's fine.
 14                 THE WITNESS:   Not me.
 15                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Carry on.
 16  
 17  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
 18                 Q:   Let's talk about operational versus
 19  operational.  It has figured prominently at this Inquiry.
 20                 A:   Hmm hmm.  
 21                 Q:   All right.  And you have been asked
 22  some questions about it already, and some people have --
 23  have attempted to try to acquire some precision as to
 24  where the line is to be drawn.
 25                 Let's see if we can agree upon a few

283
  1  things.  The -- the first is that Mr. Taman told us, and
  2  I'm going to ask you whether you agree, that there may
  3  not be a bright line between operational and non
  4  operational matters in all cases.  Am I right?
  5                 A:   Well, I think that -- that the
  6  codification, when one actually moves to detailed
  7  codification, one would find that it would be very
  8  difficult to make as plain as possible what the
  9  distinction was that would satisfy someone in practice on
 10  a day to day basis.
 11                 But having said that, in other areas of
 12  Government, Deputy Ministers and their ADM's and so on
 13  are constantly dealing with a division that might be
 14  responsible for operational policy versus the central
 15  direction that one has, you know, in my -- in my central
 16  division with respect to policy.
 17                 So I'd like to -- I agree with that
 18  sentiment but I would say that if brainy people were put
 19  together there would be able to a set of constructs that
 20  would -- would help us to find, perhaps with anecdote and
 21  description, some way of trying to differentiate between
 22  operation and policy.
 23                 Q:   I'm with you, and -- and where I was
 24  going to go was, I was going to see whether we could
 25  start the construct this afternoon.  Because what I'm

284
  1  going to suggest is that -- that we can't pretend to
  2  identify every factual situation that falls on one side
  3  of the line or the other.
  4                 But we can establish some parameters.  And
  5  I'm going to suggest to you that several factors that
  6  would figure into a determination as to whether something
  7  is operational or not, okay?
  8                 A:   Okay.
  9                 Q:   The first, I'm going to suggest, is
 10  whether or not the information, that's the subject of
 11  this characterization, is historical information versus
 12  information of events yet to come.  And I think you
 13  understand what I mean by --
 14                 A:   Yeah.
 15                 Q:   -- by that distinction.  So that --
 16  so that if information is being shared on historical
 17  events that have taken place, it's more likely, not
 18  determinative, but it's more likely not to be
 19  operational, than information that's being shared about
 20  what the OPP plans to do in the very near future.
 21                 Am I right?
 22                 A:   Yeah.  I think in abstract that's a
 23  good proposition.  I think there might be some cases on a
 24  contentious issue where the very issue at dispute is a
 25  historical matter.

285
  1                 Q:   Fair enough.  And I'm just looking at
  2  the kinds of factors that we can --  
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   -- that would figure prominently --
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   -- in the construct, all right?
  7                 A:   Yeah.
  8                 Q:   Second of all, the extent to which
  9  the facts are -- are known, are either publicly or in
 10  circles outside of police operations.  Am I right?
 11                 A:   To the extent to which in the public
 12  domain.
 13                 Q:   Yes.  And I didn't use the term,
 14  "public domain," because I noted that you said that in
 15  examination-in-chief.  And I'm going to suggest that the
 16  distinction isn't simply between matters that are in the
 17  public domain as opposed to matters that have gone -- may
 18  not be in the full public domain but have gone beyond
 19  police operational circles.
 20                 A:   Yeah.
 21                 Q:   All right?
 22                 A:   Yeah I take your point.
 23                 Q:   -- so you'd agree with me?
 24                 A:   Yeah.  I would.
 25                 Q:   Third and if one is developing a

286
  1  construct of the factors that one would look to in
  2  determining whether or not something is operational or
  3  not, one would look at the level of detail, of course,
  4  that's being provided.  And you've said that in your
  5  examination-in-chief.
  6                 So, you'll have to say yes or no --
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   -- because --
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   All right.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   You don't have to say yes to my
 13  questions but you have to say something.  So these are
 14  the --
 15                 A:   It's not normally a problem for me.
 16                 Q:   So when one is looking systemically
 17  of how to deal with this very difficult issue of opera --
 18  of  operational information and when and what kind of
 19  information should be shared, then in the very least we
 20  can develop a series of factors that should figure
 21  prominently in that -- in that evaluation.
 22                 Am I right so far?
 23                 A:   Yeah.
 24                 Q:   Okay.  Now when one applies that to
 25  Ipperwash, Ipperwash is a -- is a little different

287
  1  construct than a conventional criminal investigation
  2  where the -- where I suggest to you that the lines are --
  3  are easier to draw.  Am I right?
  4                 A:   Hmm hmm.  Yes.
  5                 Q:   So -- so for example, here, in -- in
  6  managing or dealing with the Ipperwash situation, there
  7  was a role for the police to play, operationally of
  8  course, in the interest of public safety, for all
  9  concerned, including the occupiers, right?  
 10                 And on occupa -- and on those kinds of
 11  operational decisions, no instruction or direction is to
 12  be obtained from government, right?
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   So -- so what we see here for example
 15  is that we've heard evidence or the Commissioner has
 16  heard evidence that -- that Inspector Carson was brought
 17  to Incident Command on the evening of September the 6th
 18  and a decision was made at that time.
 19                  And again rightly or wrongly I'm
 20  indifferent for the purposes of these questions, a
 21  decision was made to mobilize the Crowd Management Unit,
 22  the Tactical Response Unit, and a decision was made to
 23  send the OPP down the road towards the Park to push the
 24  occupiers back into the Park.  All right?
 25                 Now, those are the kinds of decisions that

288
  1  clearly fall on the operational side and government
  2  should have nothing to do with, am I right?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And those are also the kinds of
  5  matters that shouldn't even be communicated in the ideal
  6  world to government in advance of them taking place?
  7                 A:   Yes, and I believe I made that clear.
  8                 Q:   Right, for fear of the perception if
  9  not the reality the Government has had something to do
 10  with those decisions.  Am I right?
 11                 A:   I agree.
 12                 Q:   So not only did it not -- would it
 13  not surprise you, you would have expected that those
 14  decisions were not communicated by anyone operational at
 15  the OPP to anyone at government prior to them occurring,
 16  right?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Now, so we know you've given evidence
 19  that as far as you're concerned no instructions or
 20  directions were given to the OPP on operational matters.
 21                 And now let's talk a little bit about the
 22  sharing of information.  So this is apart from the issue
 23  of instructions or directions. 
 24                  You've articulated in your examination-
 25  in-chief those circumstances under which the OPP is

289
  1  expected to share information with the Deputy Solicitor
  2  General and through a filter to the Solicitor General
  3  even on operational matters, right?
  4                 And again when one is evaluating the kind
  5  of information that should be shared, even operational
  6  information, one would look to the same kinds of factors,
  7  the level of detail that's necessary to put you in the
  8  know. 
  9                  One would also look at whether or not one
 10  is describing events that have already taken place as
 11  opposed to events that are yet to take place.  Am I
 12  right?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Now, here's the difficult one. 
 15  The difficult one here is that -- is that because
 16  government played -- had to play some role in the
 17  Ipperwash situation in the sense that there were
 18  political decisions, not partisan but political decisions
 19  to be made, or policy decisions to be made about whether
 20  to seek an injunction, the kind of injunction to seek,
 21  whether a third party negotiator should be sent in, all
 22  of the kinds of things that the IMC was mandated to
 23  consider and make recommendations on. 
 24                 You with me so far?
 25                 A:   Yes.

290
  1                 Q:   All right.  So because there's that
  2  dual role then one recognizes as you did at examination-
  3  in-chief or in some cross-examination that there has to
  4  be some sharing of operational information to ensure that
  5  informed policy decisions are being made within
  6  government. 
  7                  Am I right?
  8                 A:   Yes, subject to not in any way
  9  endangering the life or the safety of anyone and not
 10  endangering the strategic -- the implementation of any
 11  operational decisions that are within the purview of the
 12  OPP.
 13                 Q:   Good.  So that if we were
 14  constructing the factors that when one looks to in
 15  discussing the sharing of operational information, one
 16  (1) of the factors that one would look to is the extent
 17  to which the sharing of information might imperil either
 18  public safety or the safety of officers.  
 19                 Am I right?
 20                 A:   Hmm hmm.
 21                 Q:   Okay.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Good.  If we had more time we could
 24  create the whole policy right here.
 25                 A:   But I'm a consultant.

291
  1                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm just
  2  sitting here paying attention.  This is great stuff.
  3  
  4  CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:   
  5                 Q:   All right.  So when we deal with the
  6  Interministerial Committee Meeting you recognized that
  7  enough historical information as to what's happening on
  8  the ground has to be communicated to the Interministerial
  9  Meeting for example to determine whether or not an
 10  injunction should be sought and if so what form of
 11  injunction?
 12                 A:   Clearly.
 13                 Q:   Clearly.  And similarly and as you've
 14  heard I don't want to get into the conversations between
 15  Inspector Carson and -- and Ron Fox and ask you to parse
 16  the conversations in any way.
 17                 But when you suggested that -- that it was
 18  a lapse in judgment on Ron Fox's part to communicate to
 19  John Carson what had happened in the dining room
 20  discussion, I take it you weren't intending to suggest,
 21  in any way, that it was inappropriate for Inspector Fox
 22  to be communicating to the incident commander what the
 23  status of the injunction was from the Government's
 24  perspective; what the timing was; whether the OPP was
 25  going to be required to lead evidence at the Motion; who

292
  1  might be available to give that evidence.
  2                 The kinds of information that would have
  3  to be communicated to and with the Incident Commander in
  4  order that that policy could be implemented?
  5                 Am I right?
  6                 A:   So here's where I take slight issue
  7  with what you said and it may --
  8                 Q:   Okay.
  9                 A:   -- be a quibble and it will be
 10  something that the Commissioner will have to think
 11  through.
 12                 Q:   Quibble away.
 13                 A:   So, being an expert quibbler, just as
 14  I would expect there not to be the kind of information
 15  that would be transmitted from the OPP, through whatever
 16  methodology, that would in any way circumvent safety or
 17  endanger, and so on.
 18                 As we've just discussed earlier, there was
 19  no need, in my mind, to convey to an incident commander,
 20  that a group of people were instructed to look at legal
 21  options, even though there was a -- a direction toward ex
 22  parte, we weren't there yet; that wasn't the moment in
 23  time, in my opinion, to have made that, that would have
 24  been prior to the work that was done by --
 25                 Q:   And I --

293
  1                 A:   -- the lawyers.
  2                 Q:   -- I understand that.
  3                 A:   And I'm not quibbling with whether or
  4  not Mr. Fox would want to, in -- in whatever
  5  circumstance, have conversations with Mr. Carson.  I
  6  think I made that clear.
  7                 Q:   Right.
  8                 A:   With incident commander Carson.
  9                 Q:   Right.  So again, so I didn't hear
 10  that as quibbling with the proposition that it was
 11  entirely appropriate for someone from the Ministry of the
 12  Solicitor General to be communicating to the Incident
 13  Commander where we're at with the injunction, and to the
 14  extent necessary to enable the incident commander to do
 15  his or her job.  Am I right?
 16                 A:   Well, I guess my quibble was, and I
 17  guess I'll still stand on my quibble and then we can
 18  quibble about whether it's a quibble, but I didn't think
 19  that the issue was mature enough that it would have
 20  required a conversation with -- with the Incident
 21  Commander at that point in time.
 22                 The lawyers, from my understanding, were
 23  still sorting out what it is that they had to do and
 24  whether or not they could actually affect an injunction.
 25                 So it was still in my mind, hypothetical. 

294
  1  But, again, that's my quibble.
  2                 Q:   Again, I mean, we've had some
  3  evidence that Ron Fox made the call because it was
  4  necessary in part to -- 
  5                 A:   Right.
  6                 Q:   -- to align Inspector Carson with Tim
  7  McCabe who -- who'd be calling and so on --
  8                 A:   Yeah, and I can --
  9                 Q:   -- and so forth.
 10                 A:   -- I can understand that.
 11                 Q:   All right.  So -- I mean in the ideal
 12  world, where one has the benefit of reflection and time
 13  and so on to engage in these parsing exercises.  But one
 14  recognizes that's not how the real world operates, right?
 15                 A:   Right.
 16                 Q:   And -- and in that connection, what
 17  I'm going to suggest to you is that, based upon your
 18  interactions with -- and again I'll confine it to the
 19  Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners with whom you
 20  dealt, you had confidence, from what you saw, that they
 21  possessed real independence and judgment, that even if
 22  the opinions of politicians would come to their attention
 23  they would continue to act in the best interests of the
 24  public?
 25                 A:   That is absolutely true.

295
  1                 Q:   So you didn't have any concern about
  2  that at all?
  3                 A:   No, I did not.
  4                 Q:   And again, I mean, one of the issues
  5  that we've debated here is that what should an incident
  6  commander do when -- when this kind of information comes
  7  into his possession?
  8                 Should he tell the people in his command
  9  about it, with or without a disclaimer that that's --
 10  that's what he thinks, but we're going to stay the
 11  course?
 12                 Should he simply filter it out so that the
 13  people within his command don't know?
 14                 And -- and that may be dependant, I'm
 15  going to suggest to you, on -- on the incident
 16  commander's confidence that the information will or won't
 17  make its way to these people in any event, right?
 18                 Again, you have to actually say something.
 19                 A:   Well, I -- I think that, if I can
 20  follow the line of operational, that would be an
 21  operational set of protocols that the OPP would have to
 22  establish.
 23                 Q:   Fair enough.
 24                 A:   And I would have expected to have in
 25  place.

296
  1                 Q:   Okay.  Excuse me for a moment.
  2  
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4  
  5                 Q:   The last thing I wanted to ask you
  6  about is this, that in the context of perceptions about
  7  government influence over OPP operations, we've heard a
  8  variety of suggestions put to a variety of witnesses
  9  about the involvement of seconded OPP officers within the
 10  Ministry of the Solicitor General.
 11                 And -- and one (1) of the suggestions
 12  that's been put and as I say we've had a variety
 13  including a liaison officer that interposed between the
 14  incident commander and somebody within the Ministry.
 15                  But one (1) of the suggestions has been
 16  no seconded OPP officer should ever serve within the
 17  Ministry of the Solicitor General whether within or
 18  within the Interministerial Committee. 
 19                  And I'd be interested in your comments as
 20  to whether that's throwing the baby out with the
 21  bathwater?
 22                 A:   Well, as I've been sitting here this
 23  afternoon I was thinking what features of that job would
 24  be attractive to retain someone to become the Deputy
 25  Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of Corrections?

297
  1                 And I -- as I indicated to you -- or as I
  2  indicated to the Commission I -- I really don't know how
  3  a  Deputy Minister with the breadth of responsibilities
  4  and the difficulty of the job, it is a very tough place
  5  to be on a day-to-day basis, I don't know how that deputy
  6  could -- could function without that seconded -- without
  7  those seconded officers.  And so I find that suggestion
  8  untenable and I would support it.
  9                 Q:   I mean ultimately one can educate,
 10  one can create guidelines, one can train, but at the end
 11  of the day one has to rely upon the independence and
 12  personal judgment and integrity of the players involved,
 13  am I right?
 14                 A:   That's correct, no matter what
 15  structures are put into place.
 16                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are all the
 17  questions I have.
 18                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you,
 19  Mr. Sandler. 
 20                  Do we want to hear from Ms. Clermont to
 21  finish the day?  Ms. Clermont, do you want to finish?
 22                 MS. JANET CLERMONT:   I'm in your hands.
 23                 MR. DONALD WORME:   I'm sorry,
 24  Commissioner?
 25                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I think

298
  1  we'll hear from Ms. Clermont.  She's next and that will
  2  be the end of our day.
  3  
  4                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  5  
  6                 MS. JANET CLERMONT:   Good afternoon,
  7  Commissioner.
  8                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Good
  9  afternoon.
 10  
 11  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT:
 12                 Q:   Good afternoon, Dr. Todres.  My name
 13  is Janet Clermont and I represent the Municipality of
 14  Lambton Shores --
 15                 A:   Oh.
 16                 Q:   -- where the incident occurred.  And
 17  I just have a very few questions for you.
 18                 And my -- my interest -- my interest is
 19  focussed on -- on how communications changed as of
 20  September 7th, 1995, and in particular with external
 21  stakeholders such as the Municipality.
 22                 And it might be helpful if -- if you turn
 23  to Tab 41 which is the Crisis Communications Procedure
 24  Contact  List.
 25                 And I'm -- I'm wondering if you can tell

299
  1  me how information was communicated to the Municipality
  2  under -- under this new structure that was set out and
  3  there is reference to the Municipality on the sixth page
  4  in.
  5                 Number 7 mentions municipal authorities,
  6  how the appropriate division will maintain contact with
  7  all of the agencies or individuals required to obtain up-
  8  to-date information.
  9                 And I'm wondering if that assists you in
 10  determining how that structure was set up?
 11                 A:   No, it doesn't, but I -- I recall
 12  that -- and I -- I can't remember now which particular --
 13  where this was referenced in some of the materials, but
 14  we were very concerned and this was a government you'll
 15  recall that was very concerned about maintaining strong,
 16  effective relationships with its municipalities.
 17                 It was a sector and a -- and a set of
 18  stakeholders that was very near and dear to the
 19  Government.
 20                 But I remember that there were some
 21  dollars that were actually attached or there -- there
 22  were some new initiatives that we were actually putting
 23  on the ground in that very municipality, but the details
 24  escape me right now. 
 25                 I don't know whether it was help lines or

300
  1  the provision of -- of communication support, but I -- I
  2  can recall that there was a sincere effort to try to
  3  support the municipality because we appreciated the
  4  pressures that were -- the sentiment that existed there,
  5  but I can't give you anymore detail than that.  I'm
  6  sorry.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Can you give me a
  8  timeframe?  Was that after September 7th?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And that was part of this --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- communications --
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   -- strategy?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  All right.
 17                 And -- and do you recall what the
 18  structure for information flow was to and from the
 19  municipality?  Do you have a --
 20                 A:   No, I don't.  I wish I did but -- but
 21  again in -- in if I can re -- if I can go to normal usage
 22  or how --
 23                 Q:   Sure.
 24                 A:   -- how we would normally operate.  We
 25  would normally operate and you'll note that on the list

301
  1  of liaison, we have the -- the Minister's office from
  2  Municipal Affairs and Housing.
  3                 So in normal circumstances and I don't
  4  want to suggest one way or another whether Ipperwash is
  5  normal, but we would have relied on our counterparts, our
  6  experts in -- in Municipal Affairs who had contacts and
  7  regional offices.
  8                 But I'm not sure if that was the case
  9  here.
 10                 Q:   Okay.
 11                 A:   We had a lot of political staff who
 12  were very knowledgeable about municipalities.  I'm sorry.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  Maybe -- maybe I can assist --
 14  assist your recollection.  If you turn to Tab 70 -- oh
 15  I'm sorry, Tab 60 and that is -- that would be Document
 16  2000477.
 17                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   I'm sorry --
 18  Tab 60 did you say?
 19                 MS. JANET CLERMONT:  Yes. 
 20  
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22  
 23  CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT:
 24                 Q:   And just a few pages in.  This is
 25  dated September 20th, 1995, a letter from Yan Lazar and

302
  1  you see that it's a memorandum to yourself as -- as well
  2  Ron Vrancart and Larry Taman.
  3                 A:   Right.
  4                 Q:   And if you go a few pages in -- the
  5  sixth page -- seventh page in actually.  The page number
  6  at the top is 4.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And towards the bottom it mentions
  9  stakeholder management and it states that:
 10                   " The Solicitor General will continue
 11                   to be responsible for the local
 12                   community who would receive information
 13                   through a fax sheet and through an OPP
 14                   community liaison person." 
 15                 And -- and does that help with assisting
 16  on how that structure worked?  Or can you recall?
 17                 A:  I can't recall but -- but what I do
 18  recall -- it -- it -- and it just doesn't seem to be born
 19  out in this note.  I -- I thought there was something
 20  larger than this that -- that we did.  I can't remember
 21  whether it was actually providing direct support or
 22  working directly with some people in the municipality.
 23                 But that doesn't seem to be referenced
 24  here.  So I'm -- I'm afraid that that's all I can recall
 25                 Q:   And I take it then that you didn't

303
  1  have any direct contact with the municipality --
  2                 A:   No.
  3                 Q:   -- that you could remember?
  4                  And do you recall if there was any
  5  discussions surrounding the content of information that
  6  would be provided to the municipality?  
  7                 Was -- were there any restrictions?
  8                 A:   Well I think it would have been
  9  subject to the nor -- we wouldn't have talked about
 10  policing issues.  And I -- I would have -- no I can't --
 11  I can't help you with anymore detail on that.
 12                 Q:   Okay.  All right.  Thank you.  Those
 13  are my questions.
 14                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   Thank you
 15  very much.  Thank you very much. 
 16  
 17                   (WITNESS RETIRES)
 18  
 19                 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN:   We will
 20  adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow morning at nine
 21  o'clock and hope everybody is able to make it tonight. 
 22  Thank you very much.
 23                 THE REGISTRAR:   This Public Inquiry is
 24  adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December the 1st at
 25  9:00 a.m.

304
  1  
  2  --- Upon adjourning at 4:37 p.m.
  3   
  4  
  5  Certified Correct,
  6  
  7  
  8  
  9  
 10  _________________
 11  Carol Geehan, Ms.
 12  
 13   
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25