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 March 3rd, 2005 25

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

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

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

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Exhibits 6 4 5 THOMAS MICHAEL BRESSETTE, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 66 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Brian Eyolfson 75 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Susan Freeborn 89 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 95 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Frederick 145 12 Cross-Examination by Ms. Karen Jones 162 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 222 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Al O'Marra 259 15 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 268 16 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 286 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-254 Document Number 2001343 July 22/94 4 letter from Staff Sergeant K. Bouwman 5 OPP to the Superintendent OPP Chatham 6 Re: Policing - Kettle Point Reserve. 162 7 P-255 Hansard, June 18/92, Minutes of 8 Proceedings and evidence of the 9 Standing Committee on Aboriginal affairs. 169 10 P-256 Document Number 7000412 July 12/95 11 OPP Maple Situation Report Number 12 012 Re: Native Elements from W.D. 13 Smith, Capt. Tac. Comd. Camp Ipperwash 244 14 P-257 Document Number 2001217 May 27/93 15 letter to OPP Superintendent from S.J. 16 McDonald No. 4813 Sergeant, Liaison 17 Officer for E.B. Beacock No. 2156 18 Acting Staff Sergeant. 249 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:02 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning, everybody. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I just wanted to, 15 before Mr. Ross does his cross-examination, advise 16 everyone of the witness lineup as we expect it to take 17 place next week. The first witness will be Ms. Liz 18 Stevens. That's Liz Thunder. 19 The second witness we anticipate will be 20 Mr. Chico Ralf and we will hopefully have material out to 21 everyone either later today or tomorrow morning. 22 The next witness will be Mr. Bob Watts, he 23 will be here on Tuesday, then, Mr. Bruce Elijah who, I 24 think, can only be here on Wednesday and then Mr. Bob 25 Antone can only be here on Thursday and we had some other

1 witnesses. We propose for next week Layton Elijah and 2 Mr. Ben Pouget. 3 But given our timing problems with some of 4 these witnesses, we -- we don't think that -- we're not 5 going to call Mr. Pouget, nor Mr. Elijah unless there's a 6 problem with Mr. Chico Ralph, but we'll let everybody 7 know, but that's -- it's Liz Thunder or Liz Stevens, 8 Chico Ralph, Bob Watts, Bruce Elijah, Bob Antone. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Millar. I think Mr. Ross is the next party to 11 examine Chief Bressette. Good morning, Mr. Ross. 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Good morning, Mr. 13 Commissioner. 14 15 THOMAS MICHAEL BRESSETTE, Resumed: 16 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 18 Q: Good morning, Chief Bressette. 19 A: Good morning, Mr. Ross. 20 Q: Chief Bressette, is it fair to say 21 that the evidence, the testimony that you've given at 22 this Inquiry is based on your personal knowledge and 23 information gathered while you were involved in Band 24 politics? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Now, from your knowledge of the 2 circumstances and the relationship between the residents, 3 the people who resided at Stoney Point IR-43 and Kettle 4 Point IR-44, would it be correct to say that from your 5 knowledge, as gathered while in politics, prior to the 6 taking in 1942 of the lands, both communities existed in 7 an environmental accommodation built on the Anishnaabek 8 principle of consensus? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And I take it, sir, that left to its 11 own accord and without intervention of the Federal 12 Government as far as taking of your lands were concerned, 13 you could find no reason to believe that this spirit of 14 cooperation and some manageable co-existence, that would 15 have gone on? 16 A: If I had a crystal ball I could 17 answer you -- 18 Q: Well, -- 19 A: -- clearly, but you're -- you're 20 suggesting something I -- I -- I don't know. 21 Q: Fine. That's your answer. And we've 22 been shown a document -- sorry, a document was put before 23 Ron George, which is entered as Exhibit 226 and it 24 appears to be a Department of Mines and Resources, Indian 25 Affairs Branch reporting on an election back in 1940.

1 And it appeared to show that the residents 2 of Stoney Point elected their own councillor and the 3 residents of Kettle Point elected their own councillor 4 and both communities elected the Chief. 5 You've got the document before you now? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Yes. And is this consistent with 8 your understanding of the politics of the two (2) 9 communities back in 1940? 10 A: Is it what? My understanding? 11 Q: Yes, of the politics. 12 A: It's the way things were, I guess, 13 directed by the Department of Indian Affairs. 14 Q: That's good enough, thank you. And, 15 so at that time, it's clear to say that you had two (2) 16 separate communities on two (2) land bases and a 17 political system which did not clearly provide for 18 domination of anyone over the other. 19 Is that a fair statement? 20 A: I don't know if anybody had 21 domination over anybody. 22 Q: Thank you very much. I mean, your 23 answers are so far very great, keep going. 24 Now, in 1942 it appears as though 25 representations were made to the -- to Canada by the

1 Department of National Defence that they wanted to take 2 the lands at IR-43 for an advance training -- an advance 3 military training centre. 4 Is this your understanding? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Would you agree with me that an 7 advance military training centre is far removed from what 8 became Club Fed? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And far removed from the summer use 11 as a marriage patch? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And very far removed from six (6) 14 weeks' operational training of cadets? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: So that if the representation to 17 Canada was for an advanced military training centre, 18 would you agree then, that when there was no need for an 19 advanced military training centre at that location, the 20 lands should have been returned? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And even if Canada continued the 23 pretence that there is a need for those lands, so long as 24 they were not being used for advanced military training, 25 they should have been returned?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: A situation which came to fruition at 3 the latest in 1945? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: The war was over, the lands should 6 have been returned? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And if, in fact, they were not being 9 used for the purposes that were represented to Canada to 10 obtain them in the first place, they should have been 11 returned? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Would you agree with me, sir, and I'm 14 not asking you to crystal ball, this is an Inquiry, it is 15 not a trail. So just give me your best answer, please. 16 Would you agree that if the lands were 17 returned in 1945, the problems that existed would be a 18 lot more manageable than they are today? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And would you agree with me that 21 between 1945 and 1986, and I take that date because 22 that's the date that you were -- you went on Council, 23 that many things happened as far as the two (2) 24 communities which were now forced to live on the Kettle 25 Point lands. But there was -- but there were persistent

13
  1  requests for the -- for the return of the lands over
  2  those years?
  3                 A:   Yes. 
  4                 Q:   As a matter of fact, these things
  5  could have been wrapped up to say they were actually
  6  demands by both people of Kettle Point and Stoney Point
  7  for the return of the lands?
  8                 A:   All I know is in the old Council
  9  minutes there's several references to requesting that the
 10  government return the land.
 11                 Q:   And that position had never been
 12  departed from?
 13                 A:   No.  
 14                 Q:   And, sir, between 1986 and 1990 you
 15  were a councillor for the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony
 16  Point?
 17                 A:   Yes. 
 18                 Q:   And I take it that during those four
 19  (4) years, part of your efforts was still directed to the
 20  return of the lands?
 21                 A:   Yes. 
 22                 Q:   And is it fair to say that during
 23  that time, the most that you got out of Canada was lip
 24  service and empty promises?
 25                 A:   At that time, yes.

14
  1                 Q:   That there was never any serious or
  2  it never appeared to be a serious attempt to sit down and
  3  address the problem?
  4                 A:   Yes. 
  5                 Q:   And during that time, the situation
  6  on Kettle Point IR 44 was getting worse, you were getting
  7  more overcrowding and more problems which could be traced
  8  back to the wrongful -- sorry, back to the taking of the
  9  land in 1942?
 10                 A:   Yes. 
 11                 Q:   And the failure to return them?
 12                 A:   Yes. 
 13                 Q:   And I take it, sir, that, in 1990 you
 14  were elected Chief for the first time?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And your term was from 1990 to 1992?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   And during that time, sir, there
 19  appeared to be a movement, a two (2) pronged movement. 
 20  One (1) of them was for the return of the land and the
 21  other one a suggestion that there were two (2) Bands as
 22  opposed to one (1) Band?
 23                 A:   I know some people felt that way, but
 24  pre-dating my -- my tenure in -- in -- in political
 25  officer there was a group of people who approached

1 Council and I believe they were funded to set up a 2 locatees committee. And those -- two (2) of those people 3 were still sitting on the Council -- three (3) of them 4 were on the council when I was on the Council. 5 Q: And who were those three (3)? 6 A: Angeline Shawkence, Melva George and 7 Robert George. 8 Q: And these three (3) -- 9 A: They were all -- they were all on the 10 Council when I was elected to the Council. 11 Q: And by 1991, December 1991, you were 12 aware that there were presentations before the Standing 13 Committee on Aboriginal Affairs? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that the people who appeared as 16 witnesses were Robert George, otherwise known as "Nobby" 17 George? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Maynard T. George, otherwise known as 20 Maynard T. George, and -- and Ron George, otherwise known 21 as "Spike"? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Yeah. And these people made a 24 presentation to the Standing Committee and have you had 25 an opportunity to review the Hansard Document which was

1 created as a result of that presentation? 2 A: No. 3 Q: You've never read it? 4 A: No. 5 Q: I see. Well, I'm going to tell you, 6 what -- the position it was advancing was that the lands 7 should be returned and I guess that's consistent with the 8 general position of the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony 9 Point? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And there was also a suggestion 12 before and the -- the committee that there were two (2) 13 Bands as -- two (2) different Bands as opposed to just 14 one (1) Band. 15 And I take it that if that was represented 16 to the Committee, you do not agree that there were two 17 (2) Bands? 18 A: We made a representation to the 19 Committee with people who were born at Stoney Point in 20 1992. 21 Q: 1992? I'm going to get to that. 22 What I'm trying to do -- I may -- I'm trying to keep it 23 chronological. 24 A: You know, all I can tell you from the 25 way your -- your questions appear to be going, there were

1 people who believed there were two (2) Bands and there 2 are people who believe there are two (2) communities. 3 And they had one (1) Chief and -- and that's pretty much 4 the way it is today. And, you know, it's just an 5 opinion. 6 If I go outside today and say, Gees, it's 7 a nice day and you go outside and you're feeling bad and 8 you go, What a horrible day, that's an opinion that we 9 both have. It's different and it alters the way that we 10 think. 11 Q: Absolutely. 12 A: So, you know, that's -- that's all I 13 can tell you about your -- your -- your, I guess dealing 14 with one (1) or two (2) Bands in the context of which I - 15 - I've sort of heard it from both sides. I've lived it 16 in the community, it's the same there. 17 Q: Well, -- 18 A: And if you want me to change the 19 community's mind, I urge you to go and try and change 20 their mind, because it's a hard thing to do. 21 Q: I don't propose to go down that road 22 at all, and just to -- to get you to remove that 23 defensive wall, Chief, I don't propose to get into the 24 one (1) Band, two (2) Band thing. 25 All I want is to just come down to the

1 series of facts, okay? 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: So I'll go back, and I'll say that in 4 December of 1991, there was this presentation in Ottawa, 5 suggesting A) the lands should be returned. And I guess 6 everybody's on all fours on that. 7 And there was also the suggestion that 8 there were two (2) Bands, rather than (1) Band, and the 9 jury is still out on that. So far, so good. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yes. But I would take it then, that 12 your Council would have disagreed with any proposition of 13 the locatees committee that there were two (2) Bands? 14 A: We were -- we never were instructed 15 to take a position. We -- our position was we were to 16 represent all interests therein. Until all interests are 17 consulted and agree upon a process it remains internal 18 and that's where the decision will come from. It won't 19 come from me and the Council. It'll come from our 20 people. 21 Q: Okay, very good. And this "all 22 interests", would that -- is that still the direction of 23 your -- of your Council that you want to look after all 24 interests? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And the situation that we have today, 2 where there's a definite identifiable group living off IR 3 44 and on what was IR 43, you all -- you want to 4 represent those interests, also? 5 A: Well, that's what we're supposed to 6 do. 7 Q: Okay, fine, and as far as that is 8 concerned, I take it that there is accommodation, there 9 is a facility to accommodate the defined and determined 10 interests of those people currently occupying the camp, 11 if they can just organize themselves? 12 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner...? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 14 Henderson has -- I don't know. 15 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I think we're 16 getting to is there a modern facility or how is this 17 being dealt with today. I don't understand My Friend to 18 be putting this in any historical context. 19 I'm sorry. My Friend has asked a question 20 that sounds very much to me as though he is asking 21 whether or not there is a facility today in the context 22 of claims negotiations which I think would violate two 23 (2) canons in respect of what the Commission is doing and 24 why it's doing it. 25 He's asking is there a facility to

1 accommodate an existing interest of people who are living 2 in the Camp and their interests in the course of 3 negotiations. I don't understand that to be in any 4 historical context. 5 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I think -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Ross...? 8 Are you asking it in a historical context 9 or at the present time? 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'm asking it, Mr. 11 Commissioner, in response to the words of the Witness. I 12 asked -- he was the one who spoke about protecting all 13 interests. 14 I wrote it down, all interests. And 15 rather than continuing in my line, this is an opportunity 16 for me to understand a little more clearly about all 17 interests and in spite of Mr. Henderson's position, I 18 propose, subject only to your ruling to pursue all 19 interests, Mr. Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 21 Do you have any observation, Mr. Millar? Well, it looks 22 like others may -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps my -- I 24 got to tell you, I didn't understand Mr. Ross' question. 25 So --but I think he can fairly ask the Witness what the

1 Witness meant by "all interests". 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, and it 3 looks like we're going to have some other observations. 4 Yes, Mr. Rosenthal...? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, I 6 would think you should make it clear that it doesn't have 7 to be just a historical interest. 8 Of course, you're going to be making 9 recommendations about the future. You're not just a 10 historian compiling history. 11 You are going to made recommendations to 12 try to avoid a similar situation in future. And what's 13 going on now is -- now and the future is after now and 14 your report will hopefully help people to guide 15 themselves in the future. So we can't be tied to just 16 history. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Mr. 18 Henderson, you get the last word, it looks like. 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I would like to 20 think that's true, sir. Mr. Millar suggested that if Mr. 21 Ross is merely asking what did you mean by "all 22 interests", I have no objection to that question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 24 start from there. 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: He didn't ask

1 that question. He asked, how are we fitting these 2 interests and how are they being accommodated, clearly in 3 the context of claims negotiations. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, -- 5 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Now, if My 6 Friends want to persist in this line, despite repeated 7 objections, despite repeated statements by yourself, sir, 8 that we are not dealing with claims negotiations in this 9 forum -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're -- 11 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- then perhaps 12 we should take some time and consider the mandate and let 13 people bring their motions and get it all clarified 14 because, frankly, I don't have any difficulty 15 understanding it and I know the Chief doesn't have any 16 difficulty understanding it. 17 And we are not going to sit here and 18 answer questions that speculate on how the claims ought 19 to be handled or how various interests ought to be 20 accommodated. 21 So, I don't mean to make that sound like 22 the last word in the sense of an ultimatum, but at some 23 point the line has to be drawn. If the Commission wants 24 to inquire into claims, then let's have a discussion 25 about that, let people bring their motions and you can

1 make a ruling. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 3 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I am not -- I am 4 not going to sit quietly, you know, for this -- for the 5 question that Mr. Ross asked or any future question that 6 suggests here's how interests ought to be defined, 7 accommodated, or anything else. 8 There is a negotiation process going on, 9 it has nothing to do with this Inquiry, it's not within 10 the mandate of this Inquiry. And it's not going to be 11 debated in this Inquiry as long as, you know, we take a 12 break now and then so I can have a cigarette and gather 13 my breath. 14 The -- you know, the fact is, if we're 15 going to keep going down that road, then, you know, 16 clearly we have a more serious problem. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And I -- I know 19 you take the point, sir, and I don't want to belabour it, 20 but, you know -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is a 22 difficult point. Obviously, we do not want to get into 23 the substance of the claims negotiations. I don't think 24 anybody has any question about that. 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Oh, I think some

1 people do -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm -- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't think that -- 4 perhaps -- I think Mr. Henderson is being a little 5 oversensitive. And I think that the -- the -- I don't -- 6 I think that Mr. Ross should be asked -- allowed to ask 7 his question -- the follow-up question all interest, and 8 then we should see. 9 Mr. Ross knows as well as we all do, the - 10 - the parameters of -- of -- of a provincially appointed 11 Public Inquiry and I do not think that Mr. Ross is 12 attempting or will attempt to get into the claims 13 negotiation process. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And if he does, then I 16 will object as well, but I don't think that, from what he 17 said, was his intention. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 19 I thought and I think that's where we'll go and we'll see 20 what happens. And Mr. Henderson, you've never been shy 21 about standing up when you think it's appropriate and 22 that's what we'll have to do and if it becomes a regular 23 pattern, we may have to deal with it on a more systemic 24 basis. 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, sir.

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 Mr. Ross? Do you want to continue? And you understand 3 as well as any of us that we're not going into the 4 substance of the claims negotiation process. It's not 5 within the mandate -- 6 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Frankly, Mr. 7 Commissioner, I don't care about the claims negotiation 8 process. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 10 fine. 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: There's nothing I need 12 on that. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you're 14 reassuring Mr. Henderson that he has nothing to worry 15 about? 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, he -- he can 17 worry if he wants to, I mean, I have enough problems 18 reassuring my dear wife Joanne that she doesn't have 19 anything to worry about. 20 And as far as Mr. Millar is concerned, I 21 don't propose to adopt his question. He can ask what 22 question he wants. I will stay within the parameters. I 23 am not going to try to go through the back door to get 24 something I can't get from the front door. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --

1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And that said, I will 2 continue. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's 4 continue. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 7 Q: I was referring, Chief, to the 8 position taken by the locatees committee back in 1991. 9 And you advised me that the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony 10 were looking after all interests as far as the return of 11 the lands and your membership is concerned. 12 Is that correct so far? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Now, as far as -- we can't 15 hide our head in the sands. Do you recognize that there 16 is a number of people whose names appear on your band 17 list who are residing at Aazhoodena? 18 A: I don't know who's residing there. 19 I've never been given a list of who's residing there. 20 Q: But that wasn't my question. I said, 21 are you aware that there are a number of people whose 22 names appear on your band list who are residing at 23 Aazhoodena? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. And these people have to -- to

1 a very large extent, excluded themselves from the day-to- 2 day activities of the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point. 3 Am I correct with that? 4 A: I -- I don't really think so. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I -- I -- they still come to the 7 community. They use whatever they -- they want to there. 8 There's gas stations there, we have service -- grocery 9 store and those type of businesses. They're -- they're 10 in the community. Nobody locks a gate there and says you 11 can't come in or -- or, you know, we won't let you in or 12 that kind of tactic, that is not used. 13 But when we try to have people who have 14 interests on Stoney Point try to go there, they're told 15 they can't go there. So, I mean, we don't do that and 16 it's practising the opposite when you -- when there's 17 tries --attempts to go on the other land. 18 So all interests are not being 19 accommodated right now. And not -- it's not by us. It's 20 someone else who's withholding people who have every 21 right, and a very historical right to go on that land, 22 from entering that land. 23 Q: The problem with not just answering 24 the question as asked, Chief, and it provokes other 25 questions. For instance, if people come from Muncey to

1 buy gas down at Kettle Point, you don't stop them either? 2 A: Well, they don't -- they don't come 3 there -- they do come down there and buy gas, we don't 4 stop them. It's -- people who own those businesses are 5 doing it for the public. 6 Q: So that as far as these people who 7 are now resident at Aazhoodena is concerned, is it fair 8 to say that they spend most of their time away from IR 9 44? 10 A: I don't know. Some work down there, 11 some -- some work in the community. So I don't know what 12 percentage you're talking about. 13 Q: That's fine, Chief. You're the 14 Chief. Anyway, what we've got is the presentation by the 15 locatees Committee to -- the Standing Committee on 16 Aboriginal Affairs in December of 1991. 17 And then in 1992, in June, you appeared 18 before the same Standing Committee? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, what would have provoked you to 21 appear before that Standing Committee? 22 A: In an attempt to look after all the 23 interests because there were people who weren't aware of 24 the previous presentation that was made. And we have to 25 speak for their interests as well because it didn't, I

1 guess, address all those interest. 2 There was no consultation in the community 3 advising there was going to be a presentation and that 4 they'd be speaking on behalf of all the interests. 5 Q: I see. So I take it then that you 6 must have had a briefing of what was presented before the 7 Standing Committee in 1991? 8 A: I think what we basically understood 9 was a presentation was made. And as far as, I guess, our 10 dealings with Mr. Maynard T. George and the kind of 11 information he was disseminating wasn't very accurate in 12 terms of dealing with all interests. So there had to be 13 some kind of response put forward as to the perspective 14 of other people, and that's what was done. 15 Q: Were you aware that before the 16 Standing Committee the involvement of Maynard George was 17 minimal, that the presentations were made really by 18 Robert "Nobby" George and by Ron "Spike" George? 19 A: I still think Maynard probably was 20 the one that pulled together the information and made the 21 suggestion, Let's go there. 22 Q: I see. So he was the -- the brain 23 behind the operation? 24 A: Well, he appeared to try to portray 25 himself as such. And I -- I don't know, that's his own -

1 - his own undertakings, where he was telling people he 2 was going to Ottawa, meeting with ministers and -- and 3 other things. 4 And I made sure -- and when I followed up 5 with some of these ministers, they said they never met 6 with him. But he came to the community and claimed he 7 was meeting with them. 8 So there was some questionable approaches 9 that he made that we had to respond to. 10 Q: I see. And those questionable 11 approaches that he made, you responded to them with your 12 submission before the Standing Committee in June of 1992? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: And I take it that there was -- and 15 this was all during your second term as Chief? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Yeah. And in May of 1993, that's 18 when some members moved to occupy the range up on IR 43? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Yeah. And this met with disapproval 21 of yourself and your Council? 22 A: Well, it wasn't a right thing to do 23 at the time. Given the fact that we were trying to open 24 the doors for negotiation and the information we were 25 receiving if people occupy, we cannot negotiate, we -- we

1 couldn't sanction anything. 2 Q: I understand that. But does this 3 mean that you approved -- your Council approved or 4 disapproved? 5 A: Well, it means that we reluctantly 6 had to disapprove. And we had a huge debate about that 7 internal, like all Councils do. Some people felt we 8 should and some felt we shouldn't. At the end of the 9 day, it was basically agreed if we wanted to proceed, and 10 try to address everyone's interests, we would have to 11 open up a dialogue with the government. 12 So we then said, well, if we sanction and 13 approve this there's unexploded ordinance, somebody gets 14 hurt, somebody gets killed by this -- this act, we're 15 going to be held liable. And we'll be the ones that the 16 government will be pointing a finger at, at the end of 17 the day. 18 So we could not approve anything like 19 that. 20 Q: But these unexploded ordinances that 21 you are speaking about, they didn't appear to affect the 22 cadets. 23 A: The cadets were supervised down 24 there. 25 Q: They didn't appear to affect the

1 people who were using it as a marriage patch. 2 A: There was a section cut off and only 3 that small, little section where the -- they stayed near 4 the Ipperwash Provincial Park, but these were on the 5 ranges. 6 Q: And -- 7 A: I don't know what was used on those 8 ranges. 9 Q: Well, the thing is, you see, this is 10 the problem when the question is not specifically 11 answered, Chief. You're taken into different areas that 12 I've got to follow you. 13 A: I -- 14 Q: You were the one who indicated that 15 you went to the unexploded audiences -- ordinances, but I 16 will leave that alone. 17 A: There's signs all over the outside 18 edge, warning of that and I think still today people are 19 carrying out a due diligence obligation on behalf of the 20 Federal Government, making sure nobody goes onto the 21 property and they're being paid to do that. 22 So, you know, somebody's still carrying 23 out the DND's mandate. 24 Q: May or may not be so, but I'm not 25 going to follow that line. So, anyway, you -- you are --

1 your Council reluctantly disapproved of the occupation of 2 the range? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, there's evidence that the 5 occupation of the range was a political act of a number 6 of people intended to put pressure on the Government of 7 Canada to come to the table. 8 Did you see this as a political act? 9 A: I think the way it was looked, is 10 people were taking an approach that where they went and 11 what happened could have caused somebody some harm. 12 Q: Absolutely, I've got no difficulty 13 with that. But what I want is, do you agree that it was, 14 wise or unwise, it was a political act? 15 A: I guess any form of protest is a 16 political act, isn't it? 17 Q: But even apart from your guess, is it 18 that you just don't want to agree that it was a political 19 act? 20 A: No, I'm not saying that. That's what 21 a political act is, standing -- stand up in protest. 22 It's a political act. 23 Q: Okay. So -- and this political act 24 was not approved by your Council? 25 A: For the reasons I stated, yes.

1 Q: That is true. Were you aware that 2 one (1) of your councillors, Gerald George, was among the 3 occupiers? 4 A: Yes, he told us he was there. 5 Q: And -- 6 A: And when -- when Gerald was first 7 elected, it was basically to deal with Stoney Point 8 issues. I think you pointed out earlier on some people 9 were elected and they took a position. That's what they 10 were speaking for. I think when Ron was elected he made 11 it clear to us that's what he was elected for. 12 Q: Now, my understanding that that 13 occupation was around the 6th of May, 1993? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I would like you to look at 16 Inquiry Document Number 1011054. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll find 21 where it is, Chief Bressette, just a minute. It's either 22 in the binder or we'll put it on the screen. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Under Tab 8. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 3 is it in the black binder? 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Under what 6 tab? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Tab 8. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 10 Q: Have you got that document? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: I take it you've had an opportunity 13 to read that document in preparation for your 14 examinations? 15 A: I'm reading it right now. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, there's this guy, Terry 21 Humberstone, and he's indicating that he's going to meet 22 with tomorrow, which would be the 4th of June, 1993. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And it was with respect to the 25 Ipperwash matters.

1 A: The Provincial Park. 2 Q: Yeah. And then -- but at this time, 3 the range was occupied? 4 A: Well, he's talking -- this guy's from 5 the Ministry of Natural Resources, not DND. 6 Q: That might -- that might very well be 7 so, but he was meeting with you. There was some who 8 suggest he was going to be meeting with you on the 4th? 9 A: To determine the official Ministry 10 position, which is the Provincial Government. It's not 11 Federal or it would be Department. 12 Q: And the -- the letter speaks for 13 itself. Now, I ask you to look at Inquiry Document 14 9000002. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Apparently it's in that blue folder. 19 That is it. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: It's on the screen, so you can just 24 find the appropriate document. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It was the

1 first document in that folder, but it looks like you may 2 have mixed up the order a bit. It was the first 3 document. 4 THE WITNESS: Graham Swan -- probably at 5 the bottom. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 12 Q: You've got the document? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Now, the first -- this seems to be a 15 communication from Graham Swan. Did you know who Graham 16 Swan was? 17 A: Deputy Minister of -- 18 Q: Indian Affairs, yeah. To Roger 19 Gagnon. Did you know who Roger Gagnon was? 20 A: No, not really. 21 Q: I'd suggest to you he was an 22 Assistant Deputy Minister. 23 A: If you say so. 24 Q: And to Bill Vanierson. Did you know 25 Bill -- who Bill Vanierson was?

1 A: No. 2 Q: I'd suggest to you that he headed up 3 Lands and Trust Services. 4 A: If you say so, I don't know. 5 Q: And with a copy to Audrey Doerr. Did 6 you know who Audrey Doerr was? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: She was the Regional Director. 9 A: At one (1) time. 10 Q: At one (1) -- at that time. And to 11 Doug Forbes. And Doug Forbes was, at that time, in the 12 Region, am I correct? 13 A: Associate. 14 Q: Yeah. And what I want to -- what I 15 want to -- to focus on, Chief, is here is a situation 16 which has been brewing and bubbling from 1942 with one 17 (1) date, 1945 return the lands. 1991, a position before 18 the Standing Committee. 1992, a second position before 19 the Standing Committee. 1993, occupation of the lands. 20 And within thirty (30) days, there is 21 Graham Swan writing -- the Deputy Minister of DND has 22 written to Tom Bressette indicating his department 23 willingness to begin negotiations. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: Would you agree with me that the

1 occupation of the range was most probably the triggering 2 factor in the beginning of these negotiations? 3 A: I think the triggering factor was 4 going on all along since the lands were taken. 5 Q: And just by coincidence it came 6 together around the time of -- the occupation? 7 A: Well, there -- there was discussions 8 about a Court Proceedings and several things going on, I 9 guess, and whatever mind-set people want to take it, they 10 can say that. I -- I sort of look at it like when I had 11 the dialogue with Mr. Chretien about returning those 12 lands and his commitment to do so and shutting that down. 13 That all coincided roughly around the same 14 time. So, if you feel it went that way because of that 15 or if somebody else feels it went that way because of 16 those political meetings, I guess that's up for -- up for 17 someone's debate. 18 Q: I don't propose to turn it into a 19 debate, Chief. I just wanted to establish something 20 matter of fact. So one (1) fact we know is that there 21 was the occupation of the range and the other fact is 22 that within thirty (30) days of the operation of the 23 range there are efforts to begin negotiations. 24 Those two (2) are facts which we can't 25 argue it now; agree with me?

40
  1                 A:   Well, I think when Bonni Bressette
  2  was Chief, she told them, We're going to ask you to
  3  return that land and we're not going to take no for an
  4  answer.  We tried to work with you and that fell apart. 
  5  So you can be sure we're going to proceed and pursue the
  6  return of these lands.
  7                 And I think that was something that
  8  triggered their understanding that the Band was quite
  9  frustrated at rejection of DND when they tried to work a
 10  cooperative arrangement out with them.  And it was put on
 11  the record at that time that was our position, and it's
 12  remained our position every since she made that statement
 13  to them.
 14                 Q:   Yes.  But with -- with that long
 15  answer there are just two (2) facts.  One (1) of them is
 16  May the 6th there's an occupation, June the 4th they're
 17  going to begin negotiations, in spite of the background. 
 18  You accept those two (2) as facts?
 19                 A:   I -- I stated before, if that's the
 20  opinion, that's a big debate that has to go on.  And I'm
 21  not going to answer --
 22                 Q:   I would leave that --
 23                 A:   -- provide you with an answer.
 24                 Q:   I would leave that to the
 25  Commissioner.  It goes on further, speaking about you,

1 Tom Bressette, it says: 2 "He seems to feel that if the Band is 3 to split" -- if the Band is to split -- 4 "he wants the Georges as far away as 5 possible." 6 I'm going to forget the latter part of 7 that sentence. So, at that time, the prospect of a Band 8 split was -- had been under discussion; am I correct? 9 A: I think I dealt with this twice 10 already, and -- and I'm still going to say the same 11 thing. When I brought this back to the community, the 12 only one who was interested and said, I'm interested, was 13 Maynard T. George. 14 And -- and the discussion with Mr. -- Mr. 15 Graham Swan, it was the same thing, that Maynard T. 16 George wants to move up there, maybe you should let him 17 go if he wants to split from the Band. 18 Q: Thank you very much. And I take it 19 that in 1994 there was an election for Chief and Council 20 for the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, that predated the Corbiere 23 Decision by approximately six (6) years. Is it correct 24 that only people who were ordinarily resident on IR 44 25 would then have been allowed to vote?

1 A: If that's what the Indian Act says, 2 that's what the Indian Act says. I think you -- you know 3 what the Indian Act says about voting elections. 4 Q: Chief, I'm not here to give evidence. 5 And what I know or don't know doesn't really matter. I 6 will step back a bit then. There was an election in 7 1992? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: When Ron George was elected to 10 Council? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And there was a challenge because he 13 was not ordinarily resident at Kettle Point? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And the challenge was successful? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I'm suggesting to you, sir, that 18 the same thing applied with the election of 1994. Now, 19 you were the Chief, you can either tell me yes or no? 20 A: If Corbiere wasn't in place, the only 21 people who really can answer that question with certainty 22 is the Department of Indian Affairs. I went by the 23 guidelines that were set down and we were told by the 24 Department of Indian Affairs. And that's been the case 25 ever since they made the Indian Act.

1 That's the only thing I'm trying to make 2 you understand. I don't make the rules. They're the 3 ones that set those rules. If they don't agree, and 4 people are elected they're removed, such as what happened 5 to Ron George. 6 We didn't agree with what happened with 7 Ron George but, you know, the Minister of Indian Affairs 8 made that ruling. We never removed Ron, it was the 9 Minister of Indian Affairs. 10 Q: That might very well be so, Chief 11 Bressette, but I'm suggesting to you that as Chief, you 12 would have known who would be entitled to vote in your 13 Band elections. 14 Am I wrong with that? 15 A: I told you, there's Indian voting 16 regulations that we're supposed to follow, and if we 17 don't -- and why does it seem like I'm not answering your 18 question when I say that? 19 Q: Mr. George, sorry, Chief -- Chief 20 Bressette, with the election of 1994, members of your 21 Band who resided at other reserves, they would not be 22 able to vote, would they? 23 A: According to the Indian Act, that's 24 what the rules are. They have to be ordinarily resident. 25 Q: I will take that as a no, they would

1 not. And the same would have applied to those 2 individuals who were ordinarily resident at Aazhoodena? 3 A: Well, if the Minister ruled that, 4 that's the Minister's ruling. 5 Q: Fine, I will take that as another no, 6 they were not allowed to vote. 7 So these people, through their own acts, 8 if they were -- disenfranchised, they could not vote in 9 the elections down at Kettle Point? 10 A: I go back to the Indian voting 11 regulations and maybe you should get a copy of them and 12 read them and it would answer your question solidly. 13 I'm sorry to have to respond this way, but 14 you know, I don't make these rules, I just have to live 15 by them and that's been the case of every Chief since 16 they made the Indian Act. 17 Q: And I take it it would be fair to say 18 that between May of 1993 when the -- the lands were 19 occupied up to around August of 1995, before the move 20 from the range into the barracks, were you trying to keep 21 informed as to what was happening at Aazhoodena? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: I'm not -- I can't remember that, if

1 I was. 2 Q: Okay, fine. But sometime in the 3 summer of 1995, you had a substantial Band meeting at 4 which Carl George, as he then was, made certain 5 presentations. Do you recall that, Exhibit 43? The 6 general Band meeting of... 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: August 21st. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: ...August 1st, 1995. 9 THE WITNESS: I remember when Carl -- 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 12 Q: Under Tab 29. 13 A: I remember when Carl came to the Band 14 meeting, yes. 15 Q: Yes. So by that time, isn't it -- 16 was -- wasn't it fairly clear that whatever was the 17 leadership structure at Aazhoodena it was beginning to 18 fall apart? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: I would assume. 23 Q: So and around -- 24 A: That's all I can do, is assume. 25 Q: -- that time, by the way, there's

1 this individual, I think his name was French, Ron French? 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: Did you know Mr. French? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Did you know him quite well? 6 A: I knew him to be a councillor at the 7 Chippewas of the Thames First Nation near London, 8 Ontario. 9 Q: I think you're mixing up with Larry 10 French. 11 A: Oh? Ron French, yes, he worked -- I 12 didn't know him quite well. He just worked for the 13 Department of Indian Affairs and he came on one (1) or 14 two (2) occasions to the community. 15 But it's not like him and I were buddies 16 or anything. 17 Q: So, anyway, Mr. Ron French, he came 18 on really more than one (1) occasion to the community, am 19 I correct? 20 A: Probably more than once, yes. 21 Q: And -- 22 A: I believe he worked for Mr. Irwin, if 23 I'm not mistaken. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

1 Q: Mr. Commissioner, there is a document 2 that is being photocopied, and my apologies. 3 Chief Bressette, a document is being 4 photocopied and it's going to be presented to you. And 5 what it suggests is that Ron French attended at Kettle 6 Point on or about August 16, 1995. 7 And he had attended a meeting and you were 8 present along with councillors Steve Wolfe, Norm Shawnoo, 9 Gerald George, Bonni Bressette, and Bernard George. And 10 your negotiator/researcher Victor Gulevitch was also 11 present. 12 Do you remember that meeting? 13 A: Not -- not like it's yesterday or 14 anything. 15 Q: But -- whether -- but do you remember 16 it? 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps, Commissioner, 18 if I might, we're photocopying these minutes. It's at 19 least -- almost ten (10) years ago, perhaps we can -- 20 once we get the minutes and Chief Bressette could take a 21 look at the minutes and then -- or this e-mail and 22 perhaps it might assist. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's do 24 that. I see they're coming in now. Just take a minute 25 and read this over, Chief Bressette.

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this an 4 Inquiry document? 5 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: It was a part of 6 Document Number -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 90002. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Two (2). 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's part of 10 that? 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: There's a bundle of 12 documents put in under that number. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 THE WITNESS: I read this and I believe 18 this occurred after this Band meeting, if I'm not 19 mistaken. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 22 Q: That is true. That is true. The 23 Band meeting was -- 24 A: And -- 25 Q: -- I think, on the 1st of August.

1 A: And these obviously were Mr. French's 2 observations. 3 Q: Yes. I agree with that too. As a 4 matter of fact, I've not even asked the question yet. 5 Now, the point I want to draw to your attention here, 6 Chief, is that you've got an occupation on May the 3rd 7 and within thirty (30) days DND are ready to start 8 negotiations. 9 This situation is ramped up and at the end 10 of July the occupation moves from the range to the 11 barracks. And the fact is, following that occupation Mr. 12 Ron French, the Minister's assistant, shows up, and 13 without going into the details, he apparently meets with 14 DND. 15 At least, he represents a DND position, an 16 Indian Affairs' position, the Kettle Point Council and 17 community members' position, the position of the 18 occupants, this reference to the media, and then he comes 19 down and he says at the end: 20 "I feel this situation should be dealt 21 with as two (2) separate issues as 22 follows: 1) Negotiations with DND must 23 proceed as soon as possible. 24 Frustration is high with the community 25 members, Chief and Council and the

1 occupants. This issue could escalate 2 if movement is not perceived in the 3 near future." 4 Would you agree that that's a fair 5 characterization of the situation as it existed in the 6 middle of August, 1995? 7 A: Sadly it's the same situation that 8 exists today. 9 Q: You know, I am so sorry you raised 10 that because that was going to be my wrap-up. 11 A: No, that's fine. 12 Q: Anyway, so -- so you agree with it 13 then? 14 A: Well, you know, these negotiations 15 have been started and they still carry on today. The 16 same tactics are being used. So, and -- and we're still 17 dealing with the government. 18 And, I don't know, maybe you have the 19 solution for everybody. But I think, you know, we're 20 getting into negotiation areas. When I go in that 21 direction, I don't want to. 22 Q: Chief, I do not want to take you into 23 negotiation areas. 24 A: I'm just saying the situation is the 25 same today --

1 Q: Yeah. 2 A: -- you're raising. 3 Q: Yeah, but you see, Chief, if had just 4 answered my question with a "yes" or a "no", we would be 5 moving on. You see, what I'm saying to you is, this -- 6 this -- this position, as represented in this document 7 from D. Hill to Audrey Doerr and to Forbes as posted that 8 day, with respect to the meeting -- the meeting, it says 9 the Government is saying they've got two (2) separate 10 issues, one (1) of them, negotiations must proceed. 11 Do you agree with that, that -- that was a 12 proper characterization in 1995, August? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And the other one is: 15 "The wedge within the community must be 16 addressed -- must be addressed. If 17 some movement were to occur, then the 18 Chief and council would be in a better 19 position to address the dissidents." 20 Whatever wedge there was and the reason 21 for the wedge, I don't want to get into, but there were 22 two (2) issues, number 1, negotiations and number 2, any 23 -- any difference between the two (2) groups. 24 A: So, you want me to say yes or no? 25 Q: I accept that as your answer.

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 2 put the statement, Mr. Ross, you didn't ask a question, 3 so the question -- I think you should ask it and get an 4 answer. 5 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: The records would 6 show, Mr. Commissioner, that I asked him about the 7 situation back in 1995. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 9 want you to go over all of that, just on this very last 10 question you said there were two (2) points. You read 11 them and you left it at that. He didn't offer an answer 12 because I don't think you asked a question. 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Fine. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The two -- 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Chief -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the two 17 (2) items that you read, the two (2) points. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 20 Q: Chief Bressette, I understand that 21 you agree with the first point -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 25 Q: -- that negotiations must proceed as

1 soon as possible? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And there's a second point that was 4 made in this document that the wedge within the community 5 must be addressed. 6 Would you agree that that was also a 7 situation which existed in 1995? 8 A: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 12 Q: Now, the next big item is that we had 13 a police killing on September the 6th, 1995 and within a 14 week of that, September the 13th, an MOU was signed. 15 The Minister, himself, appeared in the 16 community; correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So, as we look at the three (3) major 19 moves: Number 1, occupy the range, DND is going to be 20 ready to start negotiations. Number 2, move to the 21 barracks. The Minister's representative shows up and 22 identifies and properly defines the problems. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Number 3, somebody is killed and the 25 Minister shows up. Did you -- I recall seeing him in his

1 buckskin jacket with the tassels, but he shows up and 2 within one (1) week, you've got an MOU signed -- the 13th 3 of September, 1995? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Yeah. And as far as the MOU is 6 concerned, your evidence yesterday was that you felt that 7 it was really forced upon you, you didn't have time to 8 really think it through? 9 A: Well, yes, we were -- we -- it missed 10 our statement of principles that we had -- had drafted as 11 a result of those band meetings and it was really a, I 12 guess, a very stressful, very volatile situation that 13 existed at the time and I -- I thought I made it quite 14 clear yesterday I -- I -- my own personal feeling. That 15 was my own personal feeling that we shouldn't have done 16 it at that time because of the situation that we were in. 17 Q: Very, very good. So, as far as -- as 18 far as the -- the political situation as between the two 19 (2) communities something which started going awry back 20 around 1942/1945, is now crystalized as the two (2) 21 problems -- the two (2) issues that we just addressed? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And during that time the actions of 24 some of the members, who appear on your Band list, has 25 created a sense of division, a problem within the

1 community to be addressed; the wedge? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Yeah. And I take it that this bad 4 situation further escalated when people moved into the 5 Park? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Yeah. And there was some reference, 8 you made reference from time to time about the OPP asking 9 you what to do and you indicating to them it was not 10 within your jurisdiction? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Would you agree with me that at that 13 time the jurisdiction, the land -- the lands on which 14 your jurisdiction applied would have been the Kettle 15 Point Reserve? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Yeah. With a hope that some day the 18 Stoney Point lands will be returned? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: But at that point the Stoney Point 21 lands, until now, have not yet been properly returned? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: But you took a position that the 24 occupation of the Park was wrong? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And you made it clear to the OPP that 2 you thought the occupation of the Park was wrong? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So on Monday the Park is occupied and 5 from the evidence so far is appears as though it was not 6 a real surprise, but in your view it was wrong. 7 Did you take it back to Council? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And was it the general view of 10 Council that the occupation of the Park was wrong? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So that in your conversations with 13 the OPP where you cited -- where you indicated that they 14 should not use kid gloves and they should get those 15 people out of the Park, that was your position and the 16 position of your Council? 17 A: Well, I made a statement about that 18 and -- and I tried to clarify that in -- you know, you 19 can read what I said. 20 Q: But, if you don't mind, sir, I would 21 like to ask you some questions. 22 A: I'll repeat the same thing if you 23 want me to. I'll say what I said yesterday. 24 Q: Fine. Well, we -- we know what's on 25 your statement.

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. And what I want to show you, 3 sir, is, here are you, you are the Chief, and you've got 4 your Council. The occupation happens on a Monday. The 5 police killing is Wednesday night. 6 And between Monday and Wednesday you're in 7 conversation with the OPP from time to time and 8 expressing the position that these people should be out 9 of the Park? 10 A: This occupation didn't just start 11 then. It was an ongoing process -- 12 Q: Absolutely. 13 A: -- that Maynard initiated. And I 14 think the reason for making this statement, I tried to 15 make clear. But I don't -- I know you just want me to 16 say yes or no, so I'm not sure how to deal with it. 17 Q: Well, that's all right. We've got 18 your statement. But I'm saying that the crux of it is 19 that you felt that something should be done to get these 20 people out of the Park. You did not say out of the 21 barracks or off the range -- 22 A: No. 23 Q: -- out of the Park. Correct? 24 A: Well, that's where the concern was 25 all boiling up to, and it wasn't just my concern.

1 Q: But this was communicated by you to 2 the OPP? 3 A: Well, what -- what was occurring, if 4 you want -- if you want an explanation -- 5 Q: No, I don't want an explanation, 6 Chief. If you don't mind, I would just like an answer. 7 A: Well, I'm trying to give you an 8 answer but you just want me to say yes or no. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 10 asked the question, you have to give him a chance to 11 answer it the way he wants to answer it. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's correct. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 16 Q: So, Chief, on the 4th of September, 17 1995, you were in contact with the OPP -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- about the occupation of the Park; 20 correct? 21 A: Yes. And -- 22 Q: And you -- 23 A: -- I'm going to answer you because 24 you want -- you're asking a specific question. I was 25 tired of being called continuously by the OPP over this

1 matter, asking me what to do, what's the situation, 2 bothering me repeatedly. They should have went to court 3 and resolved the matter instead of keep -- having it come 4 back and come back. 5 That's what I was -- that's -- that's the 6 frustration I was beginning to feel by receiving all of 7 these -- these comments and I -- I didn't want to be 8 involved in it and I told him, It's your jurisdiction. 9 Why bring it to me? 10 But, I didn't like to be bothered or 11 called early in the morning and put this right to my face 12 and right off the bat it was always, you know, We need to 13 know what's happening. 14 And I told him repeatedly I was not in 15 connection with the people there. I was not speaking for 16 them, they wouldn't talk to me. How -- how much more 17 clear could I make it. It was becoming frustrating that, 18 you know, everybody seems to be trying to download all 19 these events onto me when I kept telling them I had 20 nothing to do with it. I didn't support it. 21 Q: Thank you. But I think you would 22 agree with me that in all probability, whatever responses 23 you gave to the OPP on Monday the 4th, Tuesday the 5th or 24 Wednesday the 6th, would have been passed up the line to 25 senior people?

1 A: You know, I've -- I've tried to 2 characterize this the way it's -- it was becoming 3 frustrating the way they kept calling me and nobody's 4 even checking to see how many other calls they were 5 getting from the other people around, all the other 6 concerned mayors and people in the area, it's all -- you 7 guys are always trying to focus this just on me and say, 8 It's your fault. Well, I don't accept that. 9 Q: Frankly, I think they were trying to 10 use you, but that's off the record, I hope. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Unfortunately 12 nothing's off the record. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 15 Q: In any event, Chief, it seems clear 16 that the position which you took was that the OPP should 17 move to get the people out of the Park. 18 A: Again, how many other people took 19 that position and why is -- why is -- 20 Q: I going to get -- I'm going to get to 21 some others, I promise you. 22 A: No, no, no. Why -- why is just me? 23 Q: Because -- 24 A: I need to know that because you seem 25 to focus that it was my direction, I had something to do

1 and there were a lot more people calling the OPP and 2 government about this matter. Don't just say it was only 3 me. I don't know how many of my band members called them 4 or anything. 5 Q: Okay. Well, would it be fair, then, 6 to say that you, along with many other people, advocated 7 getting the Occupants out of the Park? 8 A: You know, here you are again, you're 9 another legal person trying to say, You should have done 10 something, again. Why didn't they go to the courts and 11 deal with this matter and this wouldn't have happened? 12 Q: I hear you and you see, I will tell 13 you, Chief, the difficulty I'm having is, as I review the 14 transcripts and as I listen to the telephone calls 15 between yourself and the OPP, it appears clear to me that 16 in speaking to the OPP, they would conclude they had your 17 support to do whatever was necessary to get the people 18 out of the Park. That's what I'm going to suggest to you 19 from the listening to the tapes. 20 A: Again, repeatedly -- 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: With respect, 22 sir -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Henderson? 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That question is

1 not fair. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Not a fair 3 question? 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: The phrase, 5 "whatever is necessary"? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Come on. The 8 Chief has testified yesterday and again yesterday and 9 he's being asked again this morning, what he thought the 10 OPP should have done -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- and what level 13 of control he thought he had over a situation which 14 neither he nor council created. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: He certainly did 17 not say to anyone -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- do whatever. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's -- 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And to -- to 22 phrase it in those terms I think is unfair to the Witness 23 and I think it's unfair to you, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 25 that's absolutely correct. He didn't say, do whatever --

1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: No intention to be 2 either unfair to you or the Witness. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 4 understand. 5 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And further, what the 6 Chief said is on tape -- you heard it -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: -- and it's 9 transcribed. You can read it. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And you can draw your 12 own conclusions. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fair. 14 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: So, any -- so, 15 there'll be no -- no upside to me trying to be unfair 16 when there's an unimpeachable record. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 19 Q: Anyway, Chief, we've got your 20 position on tape so that, would it be fair to say that 21 now, in the year 2005, the situation with respect to the 22 -- the wedge, the friction between different groups, who 23 appear on your Band list, is something which could have 24 been addressed back in 1991, if the government had moved 25 to try to, (a) crystallize and identify the problems as

1 they did in 1995, and move to its solution? 2 A: They could have been crystallized in 3 1945. 4 Q: Thank you. And as far as -- okay 5 fine, they could have been crystallized. 6 Now, Chief, what I was trying -- the 7 reason why I wanted to get to be clear on your position 8 with respect to the occupants, which we will have to read 9 from the transcript, is because it appears to me that 10 your position was the same as Mike Harris, Get them out 11 of the Park. 12 Now you didn't use the language that he 13 did, but wasn't it the same? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That he is 15 alleged to have said, yes. 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Is alleged to have 17 said. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 19 an important distinction. 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Absolutely. 21 THE WITNESS: The other day, I tried to 22 make it clear and its on the record, like you say, there 23 was an occupation of our Band administration buildings. 24 We got a Court injunction and we moved people off and it 25 didn't involve violence.

1 So why do you keep trying to paint me as 2 someone who wanted violence? I don't understand you. 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you very much, 4 Chief. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 6 very much, Mr. Ross. 7 I think this would be a good point to take 8 a morning break. 9 The next person is Mr. Horton. You'd made 10 an estimate of ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes. Is that 11 still accurate? 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: It should be. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't we 14 take a break and then come back with you. Thank you very 15 much. 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 17 for fifteen (15) minutes. 18 19 --- Upon recessing at 10:21 a.m. 20 --- Upon resuming at 10:35 a.m. 21 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 23 resumed. Please be seated. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Horton...?

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 2 Q: Chief Bressette, as you know, I'm 3 Bill Horton and I represent the Chiefs of Ontario. All 4 my questions are going to relate to Exhibit 249, if you 5 have that in front of you, sir? The -- the transcripts 6 of the tape recordings. 7 Exhibit -- I'm sorry, I should have 8 arranged this before the break. The registrar is going 9 to assist you with that. 10 A: Thank you. 11 Q: And the topic of all my questions is 12 your communications with the OPP and with Inspector 13 Carson in particular. 14 Now, the tapes start with a telephone 15 conversation where Inspector Carson called you around 16 8:10 a.m. on the morning of September 5; do you see that? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I assume that you were not 19 expecting this call, in the sense that it hadn't been 20 pre-arranged that he would call? 21 A: No, I wasn't. 22 Q: And if I take you down just about two 23 thirds (2/3) of the way down the page, where Inspector 24 Carson is talking to you about the people occupying the 25 Park, and the last three (3) lines there he says to you:

1 "As far as we are concerned, it is my 2 understanding there is no land claim 3 issue with Ipperwash Park; is that fair 4 to say from the Band's point of view?" 5 And then you reply: 6 "Well, not -- not right now, no." 7 Do you see that in the transcript? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Did you have any advance notice that 10 you would be asked about the position of the Band with 11 respect to any land claim on the Park? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And at the time of this telephone 14 conversation, sir, did you know that the call was being 15 tape-recorded? 16 A: No. I -- I was told by the OPP that 17 they wanted to make sure things didn't get out of hand 18 and if they felt things needed to be made known publicly, 19 I should feel free to call them because there would never 20 be any -- any discussion about that. 21 And, I mean, that's basically what I was 22 told, that they just wanted to make sure we didn't bump 23 heads unnecessarily over issues where bad information was 24 flowing. And they -- they wanted clear communication so 25 that if we were supporting something, maybe it could be

1 worked out before it got into confrontations. 2 Q: So it was your understanding you were 3 encouraged to talk to the OPP on the basis that it would 4 be confidential; is that what you're saying? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And you didn't understand 7 that any of these particular conversations were being 8 tape-recorded at the time? 9 A: No. 10 Q: All right. Now then, if I take you 11 to page 2, sir, the last long quote from Inspector 12 Carson, where it starts: 13 "Well, we're trying to address that 14 now." 15 And then we just go down about five (5) 16 lines -- four (4) lines, and he says: 17 "But at this point we are going to -- 18 MNR is going to go before the Court to 19 get an injunction and we'll deal with 20 it that way." 21 And that's what led to your understanding 22 that it was going to be dealt with through a Court 23 process first? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And then, dropping down a little bit

1 on the page, he says: 2 "What I would like to avoid, if I can, 3 is some sense that we're going to be 4 heavy-handed." 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And he goes on to say: 7 "We're going to try and control the 8 access to the Park in the short term 9 and they're going to have the 10 opportunity to leave, but they are 11 going to be dealt with as trespassers." 12 Did that leave you with the understanding 13 that the situation was not going to be escalated by the 14 OPP through the use of violent measures except through an 15 orderly process initiated with the Court? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And one (1) of the parts I skipped in 18 this quote, Inspector Carson said to you: 19 "So is there any chance that you could 20 call your councillors together and kind 21 of brief them on that from basically 22 what I've told you?" 23 Were you being encouraged by Inspector 24 Carson to tell other people that this was the approach 25 the OPP was going to take?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did you do that? 3 A: I believe I did. 4 Q: All right. And between the time that 5 Inspector Carson told you that this was the approach that 6 was going to be taken and the time that you heard about 7 the -- the TRU marching on the Park in the middle of the 8 night with heavy weapons, had you been advised by the OPP 9 or Inspector Carson that the approach had changed? 10 A: No. 11 Q: And if I can take you to page 4 of 12 those notes, and this is in the same conversation, the 13 second quote from Inspector Carson where he says: 14 "Well, we had the same information." 15 Here, he's talking about the fact that the 16 OPP had also known that the Park was going to be occupied 17 some time earlier and he goes on to say: 18 "So, it's really not a major surprise, 19 quite frankly, unfortunately, anyway, 20 we'll try to deal with it the best we 21 can." 22 And then he says: 23 "And like I say, I like to keep the 24 communication open." 25 Do you -- do you see where he said that?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And do you recall him saying that to 3 you? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And by him saying that, did you 6 understand that he was assuring you that he would keep 7 you in the loop with respect to what the OPP was doing? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And did you understand that he was 10 doing that because he knew how important it was to you as 11 a leader of the community not to be blind sided -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: -- by extreme action that the OPP 14 might take? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And in the end of the day, were you 17 blind sided by the action that the OPP took? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And we have seen many references to 20 the very serious and uncomfortable position that that 21 puts you in as a leader of the community; is that 22 correct? 23 A: Yes, it is. 24 Q: Now, I want to take you to page 8 of 25 these transcript notes. This is actually a conversation

1 between you and Inspector Carson that took place at 2 apparently 12:40 a.m. and I would assume that's on the 3 morning of September the 7th, although this is not what 4 the note says. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It is -- well, if I 6 could just clarify that again. It -- it -- the -- 7 September 7th is -- it starts September 6th because 8 that's when the logger tape starts at 1950 hours -- 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Okay. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and then it -- I 11 mean it -- and then it -- it is at 12:40 the next day and 12 I should have made it clear when we did the transcript. 13 It is on September 7th. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 16 Q: All right. And then this is 17 apparently the first conversation you had with Mr. Carson 18 directly after the shooting death of Dudley George; is 19 that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I'll -- I'll take you down near 22 the bottom of the page where Inspector Carson says to 23 you: 24 "It's not a problem, Tom, it will be 25 handled. It's not a problem, okay?"

1 And then you say: 2 "Well, why isn't this being done in the 3 daylight, John?" 4 And he says to you: 5 "Tom, I don't think this is the time to 6 debate this." 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that he did 10 not, in fact, offer you an explanation as to why it was 11 not being done in the daylight? 12 A: That's right, he never told me 13 anything why he undertook a night time operation. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: The other problem was that it -- they 16 didn't even go to court yet and he said they were going 17 to court to get a court injunction. 18 Q: Right. So, in fact, the situation 19 you were left in is that you had understood and you had 20 communicated to others that there was going to be a court 21 process before the matter was escalated and exactly the 22 opposite happened. 23 It escalated as a result of the police 24 action before they went to court; is that correct? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And -- and that's where we see a lot 2 of references in these tapes to your saying that you were 3 put in a very difficult position? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And coming back to the quote I just 6 read where you asked him to explain why it was not being 7 done in the daylight and he replies: 8 "Tom, I don't think this is the time to 9 debate this." 10 Now, Chief Bressette, now that you know 11 that these conversations were being recorded at the 12 time -- 13 A: Yes? 14 Q: -- something that you did not know at 15 the time -- and Mr. Carson clearly did know at the time 16 that these conversations were taking place -- how do you 17 feel about that? 18 A: Well, I feel like, you know, somebody 19 violated my -- my trust in -- in the process that they 20 were going to be dealing with our people so nobody would 21 get hurt. And, you know, they -- they created a 22 situation, to me, that I -- I really don't have a lot of 23 trust in -- in communications with the police anymore. 24 Q: Thank you very much, sir. Those are 25 my questions.

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 2 very much. 3 I think Mr. Eyolfson...? 4 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: Good morning, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: 10 Q: Good morning, Chief Bressette. 11 A: Good morning. 12 Q: My name is Brian Eyolfson. I'm one 13 of the lawyers for Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, 14 and I have a few questions for you this morning. Just to 15 let you know where I'm going, I just have a couple of 16 questions to follow up on your evidence in-chief about 17 the media -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- and then I have a few questions 20 about policing issues. 21 On more than one (1) occasion in your 22 evidence in-chief you commented on media coverage? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And at one point you stated to the 25 effect that the news media began to fuel or cause

1 dissension in the community? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And could you clarify what you meant 4 by that? 5 A: Well, it's like they were trying to 6 escalate a problem internally within our community to -- 7 to use a snippet of a discussion with myself during an 8 interview and make it look like we were saying bad things 9 about other people. 10 And -- and out of a whole conversation 11 they basically take a -- a couple of sentences or they'll 12 highlight something that they feel is a comment and that 13 comment basically doesn't cover the -- the interview 14 process in general. It takes it away to try to 15 sensationalise a matter and create questions in people's 16 minds and speculate on what was actually being discussed. 17 Q: Okay. And you feel that this led to 18 dissension within your community, the Aboriginal 19 community? 20 A: Yes. And in -- in a Band meeting it 21 was pointed out to me that -- and all the people in 22 attendance there to be careful of what they read in the 23 media. And that's when it first came to light that, you 24 know, and to the community that the media was somehow 25 taking only snippets of a statement and putting it in the

1 paper and not even dealing with -- with the questions 2 that they were asking. 3 But I don't know whether it's the people 4 who write the story or the editor who -- and -- and I 5 guess my feeling was it was an attempt to try and 6 sensationalise or generate a -- a feeling that there was 7 something going to happen so the readers would continue 8 to follow their -- their paper. 9 Q: Okay. And in your view did the media 10 coverage also cause any dissension between the Native and 11 non-Native communities? 12 A: I believe so. 13 Q: And do you -- do you have any 14 concerns about the way the Aboriginal community and its 15 members in particular are portrayed by the media? 16 A: Well, yes. 17 Q: Could you provide some examples of 18 your concerns? 19 A: Well, if somebody -- and -- and I've 20 heard this regularly and repeatedly over radio stations 21 at times, that if a Native person gets charged with 22 something, it's like every ten (10) or -- ten (10) 23 minutes or fifteen (15) minutes, whatever the intervals, 24 they go to a news break and it always mentions this. 25 And you hear it, like, three (3) days on

1 end. And when it happens to non-Natives you don't hear 2 their name being mentioned repeatedly, that they're a 3 member of some First Nation community. 4 And, you know, it just seems to be when 5 it's our people. And -- and I guess when you look at the 6 -- the coverage over what -- what they would allege to be 7 non-accountability in dealing with our finances, one (1) 8 Band gets found, you know, that they're in debt so much. 9 And it sort of tries to give the impression that we're 10 all mismanaged badly and that we don't account to our 11 people the way monies are spent or anything. 12 And it -- it just fuels that kind of thing 13 and creates problems internally, where you'll have people 14 saying, I want a forensic audit. And anybody knows who 15 looks at the cost of those things, they escalate around 16 three (3) to four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to 17 complete an audit, when there may not even be anything 18 wrong with the Band expenses. It's resources that are 19 wasted. 20 And, you know, the damage control that 21 people have to do with these bad news stories to try and 22 get people to understand the truth is -- it's quite time 23 consuming, because the way that the paper reports on 24 things that -- types of -- generalize that we're all in 25 the same kind of bad predicament.

1 And I believe that also leads to the 2 feeling that we can't be trusted. It's unsafe to go into 3 our communities after dark, and don't ever go out to a 4 native community in the evening hours and that kind of 5 mentality starts to flirt with people's minds in a non- 6 native community. 7 So, you know, this has far reaching 8 effects the way it's presented. 9 Q: Okay, thank you. Now you've 10 indicated that Inspector Carson from the OPP called you 11 quite regularly, I believe -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- prior to the events on September 14 6th, 1995, and I'm just wondering if you can clarify when 15 this was? I mean, we know from the transcripts -- 16 A: I -- I wish I had the dates. I can 17 only go by with what's been presented, because he stopped 18 by the office. He would come by the office and stop and 19 say, can I speak to you for a minute and -- and ask me 20 things, and I never had any answers for the kind of 21 issues he did, because like, I got frustrated a while 22 back because I was always being asked questions by them 23 as if I had knowledge and I didn't have knowledge about 24 what they were dealing with. 25 Q: Okay, just to clarify in terms of

1 timing, I understand and it's clear from the transcript 2 Mr. Horton just referred to, that you did have 3 conversations during the time people were occupying the 4 Park, but can you indicate whether or not you also had 5 conversations in the weeks leading up to the occupation? 6 For example, in August of 1995, with 7 representatives of the OPP such as Inspector Carson? 8 A: All through 1990, when the range was 9 occupied, there were periodic calls from them and when 10 they moved into the base. But when they went into the 11 base, they said they weren't concerned with that, because 12 that was in the federal jurisdiction and it was being 13 dealt with through the government and there was no 14 concern coming from the federal government about that. 15 It was, I guess, specially got escalated 16 when -- when it involved the Ipperwash Park, because they 17 assumed that to be provincial jurisdiction and that's 18 something that they were supposed to be, I guess, 19 responsible for. 20 Q: Okay, and just to clarify as well, in 21 terms of what you were asked. I believe you asked -- 22 there were questions that you had difficulty answering, 23 and could you just provide examples of what sorts of 24 things you were asked about? 25 A: Well, did they have weapons, did you

1 see this, did you see that? I never seen any of those 2 things and I made it quite clear, I didn't go down there 3 regular and are you aware of any communication about 4 going into the Park, this and that. 5 I didn't know about anything like that and 6 I tried to make that very clear. 7 Q: Okay. Did they ask you any questions 8 such as -- concerning who may have been in -- in the 9 area, in the Park or? 10 A: Well they asked me all kind of 11 questions and I -- like I told them, like I'm telling 12 you, I didn't know the answers, so it was just -- I just 13 got annoyed about it. 14 It seemed like it was always coming to me 15 to respond and I had never had any knowledge of anything 16 that was going on and I was always being asked as if 17 someone was running in telling me every so often. 18 Q: So, is it fair to say they were 19 primarily seeking information from you about -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay. Now, on the night of September 22 6th, 1995, you spoke about being stopped by the police on 23 more than one (1) occasion. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: At one point you mentioned seeing red

1 dots or lights -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- on you? Yes? What did you think 4 those were at the time? 5 A: I knew what they were. 6 Q: And what were they? 7 A: They were gun sights. 8 Q: Okay. And you also spoke about 9 having a gun or guns pointed at you on more than one 10 occasion that night. 11 A: Shotgun. 12 Q: Okay. And were you surprised by 13 that, having the gun or guns pointed at you? 14 A: I certainly was. I didn't expect to 15 be stopped on the road and run into that kind of thing. 16 Q: And did you have concerns for your 17 safety? And I wonder if you had concerns in particular, 18 as an aboriginal person, that night? 19 A: I had more concern for Gerald who was 20 driving the vehicle I was in at the time. I had military 21 training and part of that is guns are pointed at you when 22 they -- when they simulate combat activity when they 23 capture people, how to disarm someone, all of those types 24 of things. 25 I -- I was privy to training to dealing

1 with that, riot controls and, you know, I knew what they 2 were doing and I knew if a sudden move came, somebody was 3 liable to -- to pull a trigger, especially if your hands 4 are supposed to be and you went to reach down, you never 5 know what could happen in that situation. I mean, that - 6 - that's what -- what I was more afraid of. 7 Q: Okay. Now, you also mentioned that 8 there were four (4) OPP officers who were members of -- 9 from your community? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yes, okay. And you indicated that 12 they weren't used in -- in terms of the events leading up 13 to the night of September 6th, 1995? 14 A: Well, that's right. I felt that, you 15 know, if they needed to deal with people it probably 16 would have been more appropriate if our own people dealt 17 with our people than people from outside the area because 18 they would -- they would know the people they were 19 talking to and probably could deal with the situation 20 because they wouldn't have the -- the fear that someone 21 was going to shoot them or whatever, whatever those 22 police officers had in their minds that night. 23 I don't know, but I know our people know 24 our people and I don't think that would have happened. 25 Q: Okay. And, in addition at the time,

1 there were also Kettle and Stoney Point First Nations 2 police officers; correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. And they were also not 5 involved in the events leading up to the night of 6 September 6th, 1995? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: And do you believe that they could 9 have assisted in some way as well? 10 A: I believe they -- I believe they 11 could have, but I don't think they were ever told 12 anything about what went on and I guess I objected 13 because they -- they didn't try to bring them on the 14 scene until after they had done what they did and then 15 they tried to bring them and I don't know whether that 16 was cosmetics, trying to portray that police -- native 17 police officers -- were involved. 18 But it was extremely frustrating for them 19 to order our police onto the road when -- when they 20 totally ignored them and everything that was going on. 21 They were never kept apprised of what was happening. 22 Q: Okay. And I take it from your 23 evidence that you never received any request to have the 24 Kettle and Stoney Point First Nations police officers 25 assist in any way, prior to the confrontation on the

1 night of September 6th? 2 A: No. 3 Q: And when you were speaking about the 4 Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation police not being 5 involved, you indicated yesterday that you didn't think 6 your people were trusted; is that correct? 7 A: Well, that's -- that's kind of what I 8 felt. There was the division that occurred. Probably 9 they wouldn't have wanted our police officers there, I -- 10 I don't know. They never asked for them. 11 Q: Okay. And I believe you indicated 12 that you still don't feel you are trusted? 13 A: That's right. That's what this whole 14 circumstance has brought about. 15 Q: And, why is it, do you think, that 16 the First Nations police officers weren't trusted? 17 A: Well, within the ranks of the -- the 18 OPP, they weren't OPP, and I guess they probably felt 19 they would tip off or leak information. I don't know, 20 but it -- it's pretty clear that by not involving them in 21 their meetings about what they were going to do or even 22 discussing this process to acquire a court injunction, 23 whatever they were going to do they weren't told about 24 any of that business. 25 Q: Okay, thank you. And, after

1 September 6, 1995, were there or have there been, any 2 other incidents or events that, in your view, have also 3 had a negative effect on the relationship between members 4 of your community and the police? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 6 I'm not sure what the relevance of that is at this point. 7 Ms. Tuck-Jackson, perhaps I should let 8 you -- 9 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, Mr. 10 Commissioner, you've actually anticipated my objection -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, okay, 12 that's fine. 13 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: -- is that it 14 falls beyond the scope of -- of your mandate, in my 15 respectful view. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 17 so. 18 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: I'll just move on to 23 my next question. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have 25 another question? You indicated you had two (2) areas.

1 I thought you had exhausted them. No? 2 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: I still have a few 3 questions related to policing. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With respect 5 to -- 6 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: Yeah. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: 9 Q: Now, Chief Bressette, I take it from 10 your evidence yesterday that you believe it is important 11 to have First Nations people involved in the policing of 12 First Nations people? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. You also stated yesterday to 15 the effect that, Our efforts to sensitize people have 16 virtually gone ignored. Can you explain a little bit 17 about what you meant by that statement? 18 A: Well, we try to have information 19 sessions and, you know, we -- we always send press 20 releases out when good things happen in our community, 21 but no one hardly ever see that appear in the news media. 22 I mean, we try to demonstrate that people 23 have accomplished something and we want to demonstrate 24 our ability to do projects such as when we brought the 25 school into the community, that was not done.

1 We -- we've done several things I guess in 2 terms of trying to educate people and running -- I guess, 3 attempted to do cultural and historical presentations, 4 and nobody shows up to those. So, you know, those aren't 5 covered by the media when we try to do that. 6 So that's -- tells the tale itself. 7 Q: Okay. Now, I just have one (1) more 8 final question. I understand that the policing at Kettle 9 Point changed around 1997, when a police agreement was 10 made involving Anishnaabek Police Services? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. And did you view it as change 13 as an improvement from the previous policing arrangements 14 that existed? 15 A: Well, why we done that, the 16 Anishnaabek Police is a separate entity. It's a regional 17 police force that, you know, if we have problems in -- in 18 any particular one of the communities that belong to 19 that, a large number of Anishnaabek police officers will 20 come in. 21 As opposed to non-Native OPP or RCMP 22 officers, that basically know the culture and history of 23 the people they deal with. And it's apt to defer away 24 from any violent confrontations, that things might be 25 resolved in a more cohesive manner for the communities

1 that utilise the Anishnaabek Police Services. 2 Q: Thank you very much, Chief Bressette. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 4 very much, Mr. Eyolfson. The next person as indicated is 5 Ms. Freebo