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 23rd, 2005 25


1 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) (np) 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 ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 22 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) (np) 24 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 25 Michelle Pong ) (np)


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 ) (np) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan ) (np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) (np) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) 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


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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 97 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Jonathan George 129 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 143 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 221 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 400 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 417 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-971 Document Number 3000550. Typed version 4 of Eileen Hipfner's notes, Sept. 06/95. 63 5 P-972 Document Number 1000666. Toronto Globe 6 and Mail article, Natives Occupy 7 Provincial Park, Sept. 06/95. 82 8 P-973 Hansard Debates - Excerpts, September 9 '95 - December '96 354 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon resuming at 9:03 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. Good morning, Mr. Rosenthal. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ready to go. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 12 13 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Resumes 14 15 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Good morning, Ms. Hutton. 17 A: Good morning. 18 Q: I'd just like to begin by asking you 19 about something that is referred to and among other 20 places, perhaps in the notes of Ms. Julie Jai on 21 September 6th. And you can find those notes at your Tab 22 13. They're Exhibit P-536 to these proceedings. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: Inquiry Document Number 1012579, 25 among others I believe. And I'm interested in page 6 of


1 the September 6th notes. Perhaps that could be 2 displayed. Thank you. 3 A: I'm sorry -- 4 Q: Page 6, it's displayed up there if 5 it's convenient for you to look up there. 6 A: Yeah. I have -- page 6 of September 7 6? 8 Q: Yes. It's your Tab 13. 9 A: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: September 11 6th is the first set of notes in the tab. 12 THE WITNESS: That's what confused me, 13 I'm sorry. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: Now, we're on the same page I gather; 19 is that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Now there's an interchange that's 22 shown there. It says: 23 "Deb feels MNR as property owner can 24 ask OPP to remove people." 25 And would that be in accordance with your


1 memory as to the kind of thing you would have said at 2 that point? 3 A: I believe it was discussed that day, 4 yes. 5 Q: Yes. And then the next attribution 6 is to Scott and we've learned that that's Scott Hutchison 7 who was a lawyer, and he -- he's attributed to say, and 8 we understand that he did -- he testified he said words 9 to the effect of: 10 "You can ask them to remove them, you 11 can't insist or demand that they be 12 removed." 13 And do you recall somebody saying 14 something to that effect? 15 A: I don't recall that, but it certainly 16 would be consistent with my understanding of the 17 situation. 18 Q: Yes. And then according to the notes 19 you appear to respond or -- or indicate shortly afterward 20 with a question: 21 "Has MNR asked OPP to remove them?" 22 And then to state: 23 "They could be formally requested to do 24 so, but how and when they'd do it is up 25 to them. Could have that as a


1 communication message." 2 Now, is that in accordance with what you 3 would have said, approximately, at that juncture? 4 A: It's certainly consistent with my 5 understanding of where we were at that point in time, 6 yes. 7 Q: Yes. Now, by a communication message 8 you meant something that would be put out by government 9 people to the media? 10 A: Correct. Generally to the public but 11 usually through the media. I don't think -- 12 Q: To the public and through the media? 13 A: Yes, I don't think we were discussing 14 the tactic, but I think it's safe to assume that media 15 would at least be one of those venues -- vehicles. 16 Q: Okay. And then underneath that it 17 says MNR has formally asked that they remove them. I 18 believe you told us yesterday that that was your 19 understanding; that they had made that request indeed; is 20 that correct? 21 A: I don't recall that we got an answer 22 back. I think someone was going to check and there was a 23 sense that we'd make sure it had been done at least. I 24 don't recall having the answer back at that stage. 25 Q: Yes, I -- I believe that -- that may


1 have been added afterward to these notes -- 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: -- indicating -- but do -- 4 A: That would be consistent that in -- 5 Q: -- but I believe you told us 6 yesterday that you got an understanding at some point -- 7 A: Right. 8 Q: -- that in fact what you wanted MNR 9 to do had been done; they had made that formal request of 10 the OPP? 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: Is that correct? 13 A: I believe that's correct, yes. 14 Q: Yes. Now -- 15 A: Could -- could I just add to that? 16 In fairness, I think my question was more: Has it 17 already happened? 18 Q: Yes. No, I appreciate that was your 19 question. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: And then perhaps, undoubtedly, later 22 on you learned that in fact it had? 23 A: Right. I just don't know whether it 24 happened before I asked the question or after. 25 Q: Yes. Now, you told us that you don't


1 remember much or perhaps anything of specific 2 conversations with Premier Harris over this time 3 interval, but do you recall whether or not Premier Harris 4 agreed with that specific suggestion of making it a 5 communication message that the MNR has formally asked 6 that the OPP remove the people from the Park? 7 A: I don't, but developing 8 communications messages that I believe to be reflective 9 of where the Government's position was something that I 10 could do independently and was part of my set of 11 responsibilities. 12 Q: Now, you would have assumed would you 13 not that among others OPP officers would have learned of 14 that message from the media? 15 A: It's an assumption that I don't 16 believe I would have made at the time. I would have been 17 thinking about general public communications. 18 Q: You were thinking about the general 19 public communications? 20 A: Correct. I don't dispute that OPP 21 members are part of the public, but -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- you're -- you're ascribing a level 24 of detail that I wouldn't have had in my mind at the 25 time.


1 Q: But you were aware, surely that it's 2 very likely that OPP officers would find out about that 3 message once it became a communication message, right? 4 A: Correct and -- and more specifically, 5 given the content, obviously I was assuming if they had 6 not been that they would be asked to remove the occupiers 7 and -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: -- that how and when they did it 10 would be up to them. 11 Q: Now, would it not have been your view 12 at the time that putting out a communication message that 13 the OPP has been requested to remove the people from the 14 Park would put some pressure on the OPP to do exactly 15 that; to remove the people from the Park? 16 A: I would not say pressure at all, no. 17 Q: You wouldn't assume that that would 18 exert some pressure on the OPP to do that? 19 A: You're using the term 'pressure' and 20 I just don't agree with it. 21 Q: Well, what term would you use? 22 A: That we had requested. 23 Q: Yes, but putting it -- 24 A: Exactly what we said. 25 Q: Putting it out in the public would


1 you not have assumed that that would have meant that 2 people in the community, for example, would have been 3 asking the OPP, Why don't you remove those people? The 4 government has told you to do it. 5 A: I think that there would be an 6 expectation -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- on the part of the public. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: I think that's reasonable. 11 Q: Yes. So, you're putting out this 12 communication message would have created an expectation 13 on the part of the public that the OPP would indeed 14 remove them, right? 15 A: I believe that's accurate. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: At the same time recall, we're also 18 seeking an injunction to support the goal of ending the 19 occupation. So, I think putting those two (2) things in 20 context is helpful. 21 Q: Yes. But the communication message 22 was not; the OPP will remove them after an injunction 23 and. It was just that the OPP has been requested to 24 remove them, right? 25 A: After an injunction would speak to


1 timeframe so that would not have been our message, no. 2 Q: Now, would you agree that you at the 3 time regarded this situation as a test of how the 4 Government would respond to any group which took illegal 5 action to pressure the Government to further its own 6 goals? 7 A: Yes. This, as I believe we've 8 discussed previously, was the first action I will say, 9 outside of the bounds of, sort of, the normal democratic 10 processes that we're used to in government to convince 11 any government, but our government in this case, to do 12 something or to think a particular way. 13 And as such, given my responsibilities to 14 keep the broader government perspective in mind, I was 15 concerned that if we had no response to this situation 16 and by that I mean an illegal activity as you've 17 described it that in of itself was a response that would 18 say to the general public, this is a good way to get the 19 Government to do something. 20 That to me was a broader public safety 21 concern. The idea that you're sending a signal that you 22 condone this type of behaviour may in fact be seen as, 23 for some, who wanted to see it that way, encouragement; 24 that this was the way to act. 25 Q: And so from that perspective this


1 became fortuitous for -- for your government. Namely, it 2 was an opportunity to put a message out not only to 3 Aboriginal people but the whole people in Ontario that 4 they had better not do occupations of this type if they 5 wanted to catch the attention of this particular 6 government, right? 7 A: To say that this fortuitous is -- is 8 completely and utterly wrong from my perspective. 9 Q: Well, in any event you wanted to 10 convey that message. 11 A: We were faced with an issue that we 12 needed to deal with. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: And in the face of that issue, yes, 15 that is the message that I thought was important for the 16 greater public safety in the long term to communicate. 17 Q: And that's part of what one might 18 call a law and order sort of attitude of the Harris 19 government; is that fair to say? 20 A: No. I -- I think it is a prudent 21 handling of an issue that could well have broader 22 implications for the public in the course of our 23 government's mandate. 24 Q: Okay. Now, it is correct is it not 25 that Premier Harris had the view that Aboriginal people


1 had been given too many indulgences over the years, that 2 they -- they should be treated the same not given any 3 special indul --indulgences? 4 A: I don't know why you would indicate 5 that. 6 Q: You don't have any indication of his 7 having that view? 8 A: No. 9 Q: I see. Did he feel that Aboriginal 10 people had been mistreated over the years generally, 11 given too little indulgences? 12 A: I think as we discussed a couple of 13 days ago, the Government, at the time the party, as we 14 were looking to seek government had some concerns around 15 some very specific provincial policy areas. We 16 discussed, I think on Monday, the -- the role of all 17 communities, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal for example, 18 in the land claim process. 19 So, we did have some concerns with regard 20 to Aboriginal affairs that I think we laid out clearly in 21 those -- in those documents. 22 Q: Now, you told us that, for the 23 reasons that you've enunciated, the Government, at least 24 Premier Harris and you as his spokesperson, did not want 25 to treat this as an Aboriginal issue.


1 A: This specific situation we saw as 2 very specific to the ownership of the Park and therefore 3 to the illegal occupation. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: And -- and I was Mr. Harris' 6 Executive Assistant. I think I have, as I said earlier, 7 a different -- different connation about spokesperson in 8 my mind, so I didn't consider myself his spokesperson. 9 We had media representatives who acted as his 10 spokespeople. 11 Q: But on that point you're confident 12 that Premier Harris shed your view that this was not an 13 Aboriginal issue given the circumstances, correct? 14 A: In this specific circumstance, you're 15 right, yes. 16 Q: Yeah, in the specific circumstance of 17 this incident -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- this was not to be treated as an 20 Aboriginal issue but just as an issue of people illegally 21 occupying the Park? 22 A: I believe that's fair, yes. 23 Q: And you understood that to be Premier 24 Harris' view, as well as your own? 25 A: I did, yes.


1 Q: Now, you also understood that the 2 Interministerial Committee was a Committee that was to 3 meet especially when there were Aboriginal issues 4 involved; isn't that fair? 5 A: I knew that the Committee was meeting 6 around this issue. I believed it was a standing 7 committee as you say for this type of issue. I -- I just 8 wouldn't want to go further in implying that I knew a 9 greater detail about the structure and the guidelines as 10 we've discussed in the last couple of days. 11 Q: But, given the fact that in your view 12 this was not an Aboriginal issue I would put it you a 13 conclusion of that -- from that would be that the 14 Interministerial Committee should not play any role in 15 this matter? 16 A: As I said earlier, on Monday evening 17 I knew very little about the specifics of this situation. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: The Committee was meeting someone 20 else's judgment that this was the appropriate place to 21 have the discussions, and I went to learn about the 22 issue. I think it would be irresponsible and -- and a 23 waste of time, given my conclusion on Tuesday however, to 24 say, We need to change the format because this only deals 25 with Aboriginal issues. I mean, that just wouldn't make


1 sense to me. 2 Q: Well, did you not, by the end of the 3 September 6th meeting, determine that these meetings, 4 meaning meetings of the Interministerial Committee, 5 should not occur in this fashion any longer? 6 A: No. As of September 6th we had come 7 to a conclusion, save and except getting confirmation of 8 that from the Ministers and the Premier, about the course 9 that government would take; in other words seeking the 10 injunction. It was my view that, and I think others 11 because I don't believe we set up another meeting, it 12 would be my view that -- that we had come to the end of 13 the formal process for a daily meeting on this. 14 We -- we had a course of action. The fact 15 that we were seeking an injunction would now be in the 16 hands of the lawyers and my expectation would be the next 17 time a group of individuals would get together would be 18 on an as-needed basis. It -- it wasn't more complicated 19 than that. 20 Q: And in fact you made the statement to 21 Mr. Bangs, did you not, that these meetings are not going 22 to occur in this fashion any longer? 23 A: I don't believe I did. 24 Q: Well, Mr. Bangs did testify under 25 oath at these proceedings. And on November 3rd of 2005,


1 at page 231, he had talked about this earlier as well, go 2 to page 231, there's a question: 3 "Now, you told us that either at the 4 end or towards the end or just after 5 the end I gather of the September 6th 6 meeting Ms. Hutton said words to the 7 effect of that these meetings are not 8 going to occur in this fashion any 9 longer, right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And it appeared to you that she 12 had just, sort of, made up her mind on 13 that as she sat through that second 14 meeting? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And in fact that then happened; 17 those meetings didn't occur in that 18 fashion subsequently. Isn't that 19 right? 20 A: That's correct." 21 That was Mr. Bangs' evidence. I gather 22 you don't recall that discussion with him? 23 A: No, I don't. As I said it was my 24 expectation that we would not need to meet the next day 25 because we had landed on a course of action.


1 I said earlier that -- that the way that 2 my experience was in government at least, I can't speak 3 for other governments, we managed issues, was that we 4 came together on a more ad hoc basis. 5 And once we had had these two (2) meeting 6 and we, as I said, had chosen a course of action I don't 7 believe anyone at that table would have assumed that we 8 would needed -- would have needed to come together the 9 following morning on this specific issue. 10 Q: Now, we don't -- I don't have the 11 cite here, but I recall there's at least one (1) other 12 witness who said that she heard you say words to the 13 effect: 14 "These meetings are a waste of time." 15 Do you deny having said anything like 16 that, Ms. Hutton? 17 A: I do not believe I said that; it 18 would not be something I would normally say. 19 Q: I see. Now, with respect to Mr. 20 Harris, do I gather from your evidence that you cannot 21 recall any specific statements that Mr. Harris made to 22 you, or in front of you, with respect to Ipperwash on any 23 of September 4, 5, or 6? 24 A: That is correct. I spoke with Mr. 25 Harris, with minor exceptions, every single day that I


1 worked for him and sometimes that included vacations, 2 both his and mine; not only every day but numerous, 3 numerous times. 4 While this was a significant issue for us 5 during that period of time, it would be, by no means, the 6 only issue that I was dealing with him on. 7 I can't recall the specifics, but I would 8 feel confident in suggesting that even when we discussed 9 this important issue, there were probably many other 10 things involved in those conversations as well. It was 11 just the general routine of government, not only in the 12 early days but quite frankly throughout my five (5) times 13 in government -- five (5) years in government. 14 Q: Now, did you check you recollections 15 of your interactions with former Premier Harris 16 concerning Ipperwash in preparation for your testimony 17 today? 18 A: Yes. In fact, as I said, some time 19 throughout the early to mid part of 1996, as this entire 20 timeframe became a media issue, so probably about eight 21 (8) or nine (9) months after September 1995, I did make 22 an effort at that time recall specifically the -- the 23 conversations and -- and meetings of the 4th, 5th and 24 6th. 25 I do, obviously, have better recollection


1 of generalities than any specifics. And I think that's 2 simply indicative of the number of meetings and as I 3 said, the fact that while this was important, it was only 4 one (1) of the things even at that time I would have been 5 dealing with. 6 Q: And in the course of that 7 reconstruction in 1996, you spoke to then-Premier Harris 8 about his recollections; is that what you're telling us? 9 A: No, that isn't what I said. As I 10 said, I -- I attempted to do my best to recall what 11 meetings I had been involved in and what conversations I 12 had been involved in. 13 Certainly the notes, at the time, that 14 existed aided some of my recollection. While they 15 weren't my notes, they -- they did assist me in recalling 16 general discussions. I can speak more about things that 17 were in my mind at the time than -- than what 18 conversations occurred. 19 With regard to the 5th and 6th as well, I 20 -- I had not as I said met most of the individuals in the 21 room. 22 Q: Sorry. I -- I don't want to cut you 23 off but -- 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: -- I'm reluctant -- I'm concerned


1 about time as you -- as you understand. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: I'm under some time pressure. I 4 would request that you answer my question and not go off 5 into other areas. She was not answering my question, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 WITNESS: I'm sorry I was trying to -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you have 10 the time you need, Mr. Rosenthal. That's fine. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: This Witness is trying 12 to answer the question -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 14 think the Witness needs an opportunity to finish an 15 answer. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- how can he possibly 17 know what her response is if she hasn't finished? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I will let 19 her go on as long as possible. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: But, I want to remind you my question 23 was, did you speak to Mr. Harris about his recollections 24 and try to reconstruct your recollection. 25 A: And I said no.


1 Q: You said no? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she 5 said more than no, but you -- 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I think this Witness 7 should be given the opportunity to complete whatever it 8 was she was trying to say -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ordinarily 10 that would be so. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- in response to Mr. 12 Rosenthal's previous question. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: I'm -- I'm happy to let you say 16 whatever you wish to say, Ms. Hutton. Please continue. 17 A: I -- I was just trying to give some 18 context for my ability to recall. And I was simply going 19 to sat that I tend to have a better, I think, 20 recollection if -- of conversations that the people said, 21 obviously, immediately after. It was several months 22 after when I began to look back and recall. 23 Q: Now, did you speak to Premier Harris 24 in recent months about your and his recollections of 25 Ipperwash matters?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Did you speak to Mr. Harris' lawyer 3 in recent months about your and Mr. Harris' 4 recollections? 5 A: Mr. Downard and I met last week. 6 Q: I see. And did you tell Mr. Downard 7 that you didn't remember anything specifically that 8 Premier Harris said? 9 A: I answered the handful of questions 10 Mr. Downard asked me. I don't recall if that was one of 11 them. 12 Q: Now, if you could please turn to your 13 Tab 14. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With your 18 indulgence, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Tab 14 of the notes of Ms. Hipfner of 25 September 5th, they're Inquiry Document 1011739, and


1 they're Exhibit P-510. And I should like to look at page 2 4, if I may. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: Now, there is some indication there 5 of some comments by Mr. Bangs and some comments by you. 6 First I should like to see if yo agree that those capture 7 something that undoubtedly was said, although it's 8 undoubtedly not an exact quote of anything. So -- 9 A: What -- what part specifically are 10 you asking me to look at? 11 Q: I'm sorry? 12 A: What part specifically? 13 Q: Yes, I'm -- 14 A: Oh, I'm sorry. 15 Q: -- I'm just telling you what I'm 16 going to do and -- 17 A: Okay, sorry. 18 Q: -- now we're going to do it. So I 19 want to start with the entry: 20 "Bangs: We can afford to wait. If 21 get injunction, will be expected to 22 move in. Don't want to escalate 23 situation. Plus, always potential 24 Mohawk warriors to move in. Let's 25 avoid that. Public safety doesn't seem


1 to be an issue at the moment. 2 [something about urgency] and therefor 3 chances of successfully getting an 4 injunction." 5 And then you are indicated as responding: 6 "Premier is hawkish on this issue. 7 Will set tone how we deal with these 8 issues over the next four (4) years." 9 To which Mr. Bangs is reported as 10 replying: 11 "SPR..." 12 That's the statement of political 13 relationship, you understand? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: "...is the big umbrella issue." 16 And which you are reported as replying: 17 "Clear cut issue. [and something] 18 ownership property." 19 And then parenthetically, Ms. Hipfner 20 wrote something about how this may be the time/place to 21 move decisively. 22 Now, you've told us that you don't recall 23 whether or not you said the words, "Premier is hawkish on 24 this issue" -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: -- or words to that effect. Now what 2 about the words that are attributed to you right after 3 that: 4 "Will set tone how we deal with these 5 issues over the next four (4) years." 6 You would have said something to that 7 effect; is that not correct? 8 A: I think that's at least consistent 9 with -- with what I've shared today, yes. 10 Q: Yes. And similar to what you told me 11 earlier on this morning? 12 A: Right. Right. The only thing that 13 strikes me as not consistent with my recollection in that 14 exchange, the specific words aside, would be the Mohawk 15 warriors point. I just don't recall that specific point. 16 Q: I see. 17 A: But the sentiments otherwise, I 18 think, are very consistent with my recollection. 19 Q: So -- and you do recall Mr. Bangs 20 indicating that it didn't -- he didn't want to move 21 quickly, basically, right? 22 A: No, as I said much earlier in the 23 Inquiry, I don't recall specific sentences or sentiments 24 attributed to any specific individual. His comment is 25 consistent with the position that was being discussed at


1 the time. 2 I just don't recall that it was Mr. Bangs 3 versus any other participant. 4 Q: So, you know that somebody was taking 5 a similar, we might say, go-slow position, but you don't 6 recall whether it was Mr. Bangs or someone else? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Or Mr. Bangs and other people in 9 addition to Mr. Bangs? 10 A: Correct, I think I've reflected that. 11 Q: Now, Mr. Bangs did testify that he 12 recalled such an interchange and he regarded it as a 13 discussion between you and him of different positions to 14 take. 15 So, you wouldn't dispute that? 16 A: There was a discussion that included 17 different positions, I certainly wouldn't dispute that, 18 no. 19 Q: Now, Mr. Bangs also went on to 20 indicate that he had put forward the position of, let's 21 just wait a day or two (2), and see what's going on, get 22 more information and so on. 23 Do you recall that general notion being 24 discussed at these meetings as well? 25 A: Yes, I've said that already.


1 Q: And you forcefully argued against 2 that position? 3 A: Again, I would not suggest that my 4 position was forceful at all. 5 Q: I see. You timidly argued against 6 that position, would you say? 7 A: I spoke to that position in the 8 manner that I normally speak to issues that I think are 9 important. It was a conversation, a discussion. 10 As I said earlier, I don't recall any 11 particular confrontational or -- or specific dynamic in 12 either the 5th or the 6th with the exception of the fact 13 that I did feel that consistently the individuals on the 14 ground and on the phone, in the case of the meeting, held 15 a different position than some at the dining room -- 16 sorry, at the Interministerial Committee table meeting. 17 Q: And as you spoke, although you don't 18 recall now specific conversation with Premier Harris, you 19 were confident that you were accurately reelecting his 20 views as you spoke? 21 A: I would not done so -- would not have 22 done so if I didn't believe it was accurate, yes. 23 Q: Thank you. If you didn't believe it 24 was an accurate reflection of his views? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Because you understood that people 2 would take -- 3 A: When I was expressing his views. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: As I've stated, there are times I'm 6 sure throughout the meeting when I was simply doing my 7 job and the things that were my responsibility that would 8 not necessarily have formed the basis of any conversation 9 I'd had with Mr. Harris. 10 Q: But, when you expressed a definite 11 view you were confident that that was reflecting the 12 Premier's views? 13 A: Yes, I was very careful that if I 14 expressed a view on behalf of Mr. Harris that I -- that 15 that was, in fact, his view. 16 Q: Now, Mr. Taman testified at these 17 proceedings and he indicated that one of the notions that 18 was being discussed about going slow was to -- because it 19 was a safer position in some people's view, and it was a 20 safety issue and -- 21 A: I don't recall Mr. Taman at these 22 meetings though. 23 Q: Sorry, may -- may I just put 24 something to you and -- 25 A: Sorry.


1 Q: -- ask you to respond? 2 And he indicated that one of the reasons 3 that he advised going slowly was because the poss -- of 4 the possibility that if one goes quickly in a situation 5 like this that can increase the danger of someone getting 6 hurt. 7 And he told us that in one sense or 8 another that was in the air at the dining room meeting as 9 well; that notion was one of the notions that was in the 10 air? 11 Now, the first question is: Do you recall 12 that; that there were those who advocated the idea that 13 one should go slowly in order to decrease the danger of 14 someone getting hurt? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 16 you answer, yes, Ms. -- 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was wondering if Mr. 18 Rosenthal could just be clear as to which meeting he's 19 speaking about? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 21 think he said the dining room. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just wasn't quite 23 sure. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 25 said --


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Is it in reference -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 4 said -- 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I wasn't sure, which 6 is why I'm rising. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It -- it was 8 specifically going to Mr. Taman referred to in the dining 9 room meeting, but I -- I was asking a more general 10 question -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I'm sorry if 13 I didn't make that clear and I'm happy to make it clear. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Do you recall in the -- in the course 17 of these discussions some people, perhaps you don't 18 recall Mr. Taman specifically or anyone else 19 specifically, but you recall the idea being advanced that 20 to go quickly increases the danger of someone being hurt 21 and that's one (1) reason to go slowly? 22 A: I was only in one (1) meeting with 23 Mr. Taman and that was the dining room meeting. 24 Q: Sorry, could the microphone be a 25 little bit closer? I'm having a little -- I'm very bad


1 at hearing and I'm having trouble hearing Ms. Hutton. 2 Thank you. 3 A: I was only in one (1) meeting with 4 Mr. Taman and I do not recall him advocating a go-slow 5 approach at that meeting. I, as of about 9:30 Wednesday 6 morning September the 6th, was aware that Mr. -- Minister 7 Hodgson was supportive of an injunction, so I would be 8 very surprised if his deputy would speak to anything 9 other than that in -- in -- given the timeframe of this. 10 Q: So, are you disputing what Mr. Bangs 11 says he said and what the notes say Mr. Bangs said at 12 this meeting on September 6th? 13 A: I'm sorry, I didn't think you were 14 asking about Mr. Taman expressing -- 15 Q: No, let me specify the question. 16 A: Okay, please. I'm sorry. 17 Q: My question was: Anybody -- Mr. 18 Taman or anybody? 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And you may not recall who and 21 whether it was more than one (1) person, but do you not 22 recall that some people were saying, in the course of 23 these events, that to move quickly increases the danger 24 of someone getting hurt and that's a reason to go slowly? 25 A: Okay. I --


1 Q: Do you not recall that being 2 discussed? 3 A: Yes, yes. On September the 5th at 4 the Interministerial Meeting, as I've indicated several 5 times, there were those and more than one (1) I would 6 absolutely say, who believed that doing nothing was the 7 appropriate approach. I do not recall specifically 8 anyone saying going slow is -- is, to you use your words, 9 going to be a safer approach where people don't get hurt. 10 Q: I see. Now, in particular then, 11 going to the particular now, Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Taman 12 indicates that that was somehow at least in the air, he 13 didn't recall, I don't think, specifics as to how it was 14 said in the dining room meeting. 15 You don't have that recollection? 16 A: I don't. And further, as I said, I 17 would be very surprised because it was not my experience 18 that deputies would take a different position than their 19 minister once the minister had made a decision. 20 Q: I see. And you indi -- that -- you 21 indicated therefore that you would be surprised if Mr. 22 Bangs had taken a different position of what you 23 understood Mr. Hodgson's position to be; that's what you 24 told us a few minutes ago, right? 25 A: No.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 2 I didn't get that answer a few minutes ago. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I think it's a little 4 confusing because I don't know what the timing is of 5 this -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Perhaps, I 7 misunderstood. I'll move on if I may. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: So, you -- you're telling us that now 12 when I reference Mr. Taman specifically -- 13 A: All right. 14 Q: -- you're saying you would be 15 surprised if someone in his position took a different 16 position from his minister, right? 17 A: After the Minister had made a 18 decision which I understood had occurred as of 9:30 on 19 September the 6th. 20 Q: And which Minister had made that 21 decision, you understand? 22 A: Minister -- Minister Harnick had made 23 that decision. It was communicated to us at the 24 Interministerial Committee meeting and Mr. Taman as Mr. 25 Harnick's Deputy -- I'm simply saying that once a


1 decision has been taken, it was never my experience that 2 deputies would speak against the decision their minister 3 had taken -- 4 Q: And -- 5 A: -- distinct from when they were in 6 the process of making that decision, but certainly not 7 after. 8 Q: And the decision that you are 9 referring to was the decision to seek an injunction? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: Now, would you agree that the go- 12 slow/go-fast discussion could still continue after there 13 was a decision to seek an injunction, and in particular 14 there was a discussion as to how fast to seek an 15 injunction, right? 16 A: I think that is accurate, yes. 17 Q: Yes. So, even if there was a 18 decision to seek an injunction, there's no reason to 19 disbelieve Mr. Taman's evidence that he was -- that he 20 was in the dining room meeting advising going slowly 21 because the possibility that if one goes quickly in a 22 situation like this, that can increase the danger of 23 someone getting hurt. 24 A: If -- if that was Mr. Taman's 25 position with regard to the two (2) types of injunction,


1 I wouldn't dispute that that would be the type of 2 conversation that was had in the dining room. 3 As you asked me the question earlier, I 4 understood you to be speaking about the overall go-slow 5 approach as discussed at the September 5th meeting which 6 involved no injunction whatsoever. 7 Q: Well, just to make it clear, I wasn't 8 asking you about any specific aspect of it. I was asking 9 you, in general, about the notion that going slowly with 10 or without an injunction was in some people's view the 11 appropriate way to lessen the danger of someone getting 12 hurt. 13 Now, did -- did you not understand that I 14 was asking you that question before? 15 A: I understood you asked me a series of 16 questions and I'll try to recapture what I was trying to 17 say. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which 19 question are you answering now? Let's make sure that 20 we're on the same wavelength now. 21 What question is it that you want her to 22 answer now? 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: Well, if you didn't answer this


1 question and I would like an answer to the question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think she 3 has but if there's a question that hasn't been answered 4 that you need answered -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- perhaps 7 you should ask her. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 9 thought it had been answered, but then from her recent 10 answer, she might have indicated she was answering a 11 different question. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 13 anything that you need to say in response? 14 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. I -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then let's 16 move on. 17 THE WITNESS: -- I do want to be as clear 18 as I -- as I can. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: So, the question I had intended to ask 23 and I would ask you to answer -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- was, whether you were aware that


1 one (1) or several people in the course of these meetings 2 and discussions was taking the position that for safety's 3 sake of the people, to lessen the danger that someone 4 would get hurt, it was better to go slow rather than go 5 fast in this situation? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 7 broadening it out. I think the question's been answered. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, I thought it 9 was the same question. That's the only reason I'm 10 rising. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 12 think the question has been asked and answered. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Well, okay. 14 If the Witness didn't feel she answered that question 15 then I want her to. But, it's a -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she said 17 she had. 18 THE WITNESS: I -- I'm good. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 20 we'll move on. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You did answer that 22 question? I thought you did. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 we're moving on, Mr. Rosenthal. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think we are too.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: And we're moving onto -- did you 4 discuss that aspect with Premier Harris? 5 A: Specifically, the aspect that going 6 slow was a position that would be in the interest of 7 public safety. Is that -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: Okay. As I said a few minutes ago, 10 at the September 5th meeting the discussion around going 11 slow was not directly linked to the -- to the idea that 12 people could get hurt if we didn't go slow. So no, I 13 would not have discussed that with Mr. Harris, the 14 specific point about people getting hurt. It was not a 15 position, as I recall it, being on the table. 16 Q: So, you never in the course of these 17 several days discussed with Mr. Harris the question of 18 which would be safer for people, going slowly or going 19 fast? 20 A: It was my position, I believe shared 21 by Mr. Harris, for the reasons I've tried to outline 22 today and -- and previously that, in fact, moving to 23 find a solution to this more quickly was, in fact, the 24 safer and more prudent course in the specific situation, 25 and as well for the broader public safety perspective,


1 keeping in mind that we did not want to say to others, 2 This is the type of behaviour that you should engage in 3 to force the Government to do something. 4 Q: And that was the position as you 5 understood Premier Harris' view and your view, right at 6 the very beginning; is that correct -- on September 4? 7 A: As I think I tried to explain, I 8 think yesterday, I had a preliminary point of view based 9 on the limited facts I had on Monday evening heading into 10 the Tuesday meeting. 11 Throughout the course of our extensive 12 briefing Tuesday morning I felt comfortable that those 13 preliminary thoughts that I shared with Mr. Harris were, 14 in fact, the route to go, even though I knew that Mr. 15 Harris had not yet been briefed on the facts that I had 16 been briefed on Tuesday morning. I just want to be clear 17 about the timeframe it is. It was an evolution. 18 Q: And then to whatever extent people 19 raised the concern that going quickly might increase 20 danger over the next couple of days -- 21 A: I -- I just said that didn't occur. 22 You haven't asked -- 23 Q: You -- do you -- are -- are you 24 saying that Mr. Taman incorrectly informed us under 25 oath --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she's -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- that he said -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't take you 5 as saying that, but perhaps you are saying that. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can't go 7 from where she was to where you're going. I mean, 8 she's -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She interrupted my 10 question -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and she didn't 13 hear the question. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: But, did -- are you telling us that 17 you dispute Mr. Taman's evidence, for example, that one 18 (1) of the reasons he advised going slowly was because of 19 the possibility if one goes quickly in a situation like 20 this that can increase the danger of someone getting 21 hurt? 22 A: Mr. Taman did not make that comment 23 to my recollection in my presence. If he made it to 24 others outside of the dining room meeting, because I was 25 only in one (1) meeting with him, I can't speak to that.


1 Q: Okay. Can I just ask you the 2 following? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Whether or not anyone made comments 5 to that effect, over the days September 4, 5, and 6, it 6 is your evidence is it not that you did not bring those 7 concerns that these people expressed to the attention of 8 Premier Harris? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 10 would be fairer to say "those views", because she didn't 11 have those thoughts. She said she didn't hear them. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Those -- those 13 people -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Those views. 15 Well -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: They're not her 17 concerns, those views. Yes. No, I'm happy to amend. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She hadn't 19 heard them. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: You did not bring those views of 23 senior people like Larry Taman and others -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- if they did


1 express them -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she's -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to the attention 4 of Mr. Harris? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She didn't 6 hear them. So -- she said she didn't hear them. 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: That -- that's my 8 point. She testified that she didn't hear them. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, if she 10 didn't hear them it would be hard. I mean, you mean on 11 her own? 12 She didn't hear those views. You asked 13 her if she heard them and she said she did not recall -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- those 16 views being expressed. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, I'll have to 18 check the transcript, Mr. Commissioner. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: But, are you telling us definitively 22 that you were not aware of anybody expressing the view in 23 the course of this matter that going slowly would be a 24 safer route for people than going fast? 25 A: Right.


1 Q: Did you tell us that? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. 3 That's not what she said. And -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- your 6 question's not a fair one because that is not what she 7 said. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't think she 9 said that, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she 11 didn't so then -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No. So, therefore 13 if she did not say that, sir, then my question is: You 14 were aware were you not that some people were expressing 15 that view and did you bring that to the attention of 16 Premier Harris? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 18 not sure. I think, we've been around and around this, 19 but I don't want to interrupt your cross-examination, but 20 I do think we've been around and around this. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you have 23 a specific question that hasn't already been asked then 24 you can ask it. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I'm not sure


1 on the answers to the questions I just alluded to, and I 2 should like to ask them very simply and ask for very 3 simple answers. 4 And I think the problem, Mr. Commissioner, 5 is that I'm not getting direct answers -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- but may -- may - 8 - the transcript will make it easier to understand this, 9 but may I just ask a simple question and request a simple 10 answer? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just would like Mr. 13 Rosenthal to ask his questions without editorial 14 comment -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 16 fine. 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- of the nature we've 18 just had. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 20 need -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: That's not 22 appropriate. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 24 need the comment. I mean -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's just 2 see if we get the question straight and one that hasn't 3 already been asked and one that hasn't already been 4 answered. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you can 7 do that, then let's move on. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: Just to be very clear, were you 11 aware, during the period September 4, 5, 6, that any 12 persons involved in discussions had taken the position 13 that in their view it was safer to go slowly rather than 14 go quickly with respect to this occupation? 15 A: I can only speak to what I heard 16 people express, not what they may have expressed to 17 others. In that regard, as distinct from Mr. Taman, on 18 the September 5th Interministerial Committee meeting 19 absolutely people expressed the view that go-slow was the 20 more cautious approach. 21 I did not hear anyone say, as you asked me 22 originally in your question, that if we don't go slow 23 people will get hurt. 24 Those are two (2) different thoughts in my 25 view. I did not hear the latter.


1 Q: Okay. So, you recall people saying - 2 - advocating the cautious approach? 3 A: Advocating their view of the cautious 4 approach. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: I had a different view of which 7 approach was more cautious. 8 Q: And did you not get the understanding 9 that the people that advocated caution did so, at least 10 in part, because they thought it was safer? 11 A: I can't speak to what their rationale 12 was. I think it is a legitimately held view to say go 13 slow is cautious. 14 I think it is an equally legitimately held 15 view to say that sending a signal that this type of 16 behaviour is not condoned, is a broader, cautious 17 approach. 18 Q: Yes. I'm not trying to debate the 19 merits of any view. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: And I'm not trying to ask you to get 22 into anybody else's head. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: I asked you specifically, did you not 25 get the understanding, did you not obtain the


1 understanding, that at least some of the people who were 2 advocating a cautious approach were doing so because they 3 felt -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said no. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it was a -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't mean 7 to interrupt you, but she's answered that question, I'm 8 sure of that. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, which way; yes 10 or no? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She did not 12 have that -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: You did not have that understanding, 16 okay? I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm pretty 18 sure that that question's been answered. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think she had 20 revised my earlier -- she's parsing my questions very 21 finely. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's not. 23 She's answering one way and you're asking another way. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And there's


1 a disconnect and I'm not sure there's ever going to be a 2 better connect and we can't stand here all day, have you 3 ask the questions and her answer them in a different way 4 until we get them together. 5 We've got questions, we've got answers, we 6 have to move on. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 8 Mr. Commissioner, this is a very important point. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 10 covered it as well as you can cover it, Mr. Rosenthal. 11 You've asked these questions back and forth. 12 I don't think there's any question that 13 you've asked that she hasn't answered. It's just that 14 the answers aren't exactly responsive, perhaps to -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- as how 17 you would like them to be. Whether they are or not, 18 remains to be seen. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 21 answering the questions as best she can and how that 22 works out, we'll have to assess it later on. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, indeed, sir. 24 But I may respectfully remind you of how we got to this 25 particular juncture?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I hope not. 2 I don't really need you to. What I would -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what I 5 would like you to do is ask questions of this witness 6 that are relevant, that are appropriate, that haven't 7 already been asked and keep moving forward. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, sir, 9 I believe I've been doing so. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 11 have been, but -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And the answers, 13 though, have not been responsive. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the 15 answers have been -- she's been answering the questions. 16 They're not the answers, perhaps, that you would like or 17 expect, but they are answers and how we analyse them is 18 for us to do later. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. And she 20 recently told me, just the latest -- that she did recall 21 people expressing caution, but she didn't -- not about 22 getting hurt, and I was exploring that answer. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, some 24 time ago she made a distinction between going slow and 25 caution --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And she's 3 made that distinction a number of times; some people 4 thought going slow was more cautious and some people, her 5 in particular, thought that moving quickly was more 6 cautious. 7 So, there's a difference and that is clear 8 on the record and what more you can get out of this, I 9 don't know. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I was going 11 to try to if I -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 13 you've gotten as much as you can. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I will, of course, 15 accept your ruling and -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- move on, sir. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Now, do you recall Kathryn Hunt? 21 A: Yes, I know Ms. Hunt. 22 Q: She was one of the people that you 23 knew prior to these events? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And you knew her fairly well?


1 A: I worked with her for three (3) or 2 four (4) years; three (3) years maybe. 3 Q: Now, she told us that she attended 4 the meetings of September 5 and 6. 5 A: I recall that. 6 Q: And she told us that she thought you 7 had Chaired those meetings. 8 A: I disagree with that assessment. 9 Q: Yes, you didn't Chair the meetings, 10 did you? 11 A: I did not. 12 Q: But you gave her the impression that 13 you had. 14 A: I can't speak to her impression, I 15 can only tell you what I believe I did at those meetings. 16 Q: Yes. No, she spoke to her impression 17 under oath in these proceedings, and I'm just telling you 18 as a fact that's what she said. Now -- now -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: That's not a question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 21 Ms. Perschy...? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: That's not a question. 23 It's just a statement. I mean, what's the point of Mr. 24 Rosenthal -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's


1 setting up a question. I presume he's going to ask a 2 question now. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I am indeed. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Is there a question? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You put some 6 evidence to her -- 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Okay. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And the -- the 9 Witness said she can't speak to her impression, I was 10 saying -- I'm not asking her to speak to her impression. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 12 quoting -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Ms. Hunt did speak 14 to the impression. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 16 What's your question, Mr. Rosenthal? 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Now, she -- she stated that her 20 perception was that you were chairing and asking a number 21 of questions and so on, and then other witnesses to the 22 proceedings have characterized your demeanor as 23 imperious, haughty and quite aggressive. 24 Now, can you explain to us what about your 25 behaviour might have led persons to reach those


1 conclusions? 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: How -- how on earth 3 can this Witness try to explain other people's 4 perceptions of her? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could 6 ask -- 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I mean, I'm not saying 8 there aren't any questions he can't ask but I don't see 9 how she can possibly answer that question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 11 not sure. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think she should 13 be given an opportunity to try. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 15 think so. Carry on. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, I -- I'll 17 break it down if I must. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Other people 19 have given us their impressions and we have them. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Now, you told us that you didn't have 23 an understanding prior to September 4, I gather, of the 24 workings of the Interministerial Committee in any 25 specific sense; is that fair?


1 A: That's correct and -- and I would say 2 further, also on the 5th and the 6th. 3 Q: And even on the 5th and 6th you 4 didn't have that understanding? 5 A: Not to the detail that I have been 6 presented with through the course of this process. 7 Q: Yes. And in particular, you were not 8 aware that one of the possible functions of such a 9 committee would be to appoint a facilitator/negotiator to 10 deal with the short term situation of an occupation or a 11 blockade; is that correct? 12 A: That's correct. I was not aware that 13 that was in the background of this Committee nor was it 14 raised at the meetings. 15 Q: But, your lack of knowledge about the 16 workings of the Committee did not, apparently, inhibit in 17 taking a strong role at these meetings; is that fair? 18 A: This was a meeting which -- I 19 attended meetings on regular, numerous occasions to 20 discuss an issue that the Government was facing. I agree 21 it was somewhat unusual that there was a formality and 22 structure to this Committee. 23 It was not, as I said I think a couple of 24 days ago, outside of perhaps Cabinet and some of the 25 policy committees of cabinet, it was not my experience in


1 government to have a standing committee with such a 2 formal structure. 3 So, it would not have been my expectation 4 heading into the meeting that it was anything other than 5 the normal forum in which we often got together to 6 discuss issues. 7 The only surprise in it for me when I 8 first got there, as I said earlier, was simply the size. 9 Q: I'm following your instruction not to 10 interrupt the Witness no matter how irrelevant, in my 11 view, her answer may be. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And also not 13 making editorial comment which you've just done. So, you 14 need to both. Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, I have to 16 explain my subsequent questions as well. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 18 can ask the questions the way you like and she can answer 19 them the way she answers them. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Now, we have evidence from several 23 sources that in the course of the dining room meeting, 24 Mr. Harris was critical of what the police -- the OPP had 25 done up to that point.


1 Now, to try and jog your recollection 2 we've had evidence from Mr. Taman, for example, that at 3 the dining room meeting the Premier said words to the 4 effect, that if this were in any other country or any 5 other setting, that the police would have acted more 6 quickly. 7 Now, do you recall, jogged by that, 8 evidence of Mr. Taman under oath, the Premier saying 9 words to that effect? 10 A: Under oath I will say I do not. 11 Q: And you don't even recall the idea 12 that the police were critical -- sorry, that Mr. Harris 13 was somehow critical of the police in the course of the 14 dining room meeting? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Thank you. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: If you could turn to Tab 24, please. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, Tab 24 is a typed version, and I 25 believe it's accurate. I certainly find it easier to


1 follow than the handwritten versions of the notes of Ms. 2 Hipfner of September 6th Interministerial Committee 3 meeting. 4 I'm not sure, I believe this has been made 5 an exhibit, but I'm not sure if it has -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 7 that it has been. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: and if so what the 9 exhibit -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 11 recall it. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I don't think it has 13 been. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It would be 15 a lot easier if we used the typed notes all the time, but 16 I don't remember this being made an exhibit. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. I would 18 suggest that it should be, because I'm going to ask a 19 question about it. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-971. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: P-971. Thank you. 22 And it's Inquiry Document 3000550. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-971: Document Number 3000550. 25 Typed version of Eileen


1 Hipfner's notes, Sept. 06/95. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, at the beginning of -- towards 5 the beginning of those notes is the heading, Media, and 6 then attributed to Mr. Bangs -- the second bullet point 7 attributed to him is "it's out in the media". 8 And then what I wish to ask you about is 9 the words attributed to you: 10 "Unfortunate that press quoted Babbitt 11 as saying, 'no effort being used', but 12 was not a direct quote." 13 Now, I -- we've had some evidence and 14 there may be more, that there was an Officer Babbitt who 15 was a press person, and I don't recall his exact title, 16 for the OPP. 17 And this is, evidently, your response to 18 something that you read in the press; is that correct? 19 A: I don't know. I -- I just don't 20 know. It appears that way, yes -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: -- but I don't recall. 23 Q: And if Mr. Babbitt had said words to 24 the effect that there was no effort being used to remove 25 the occupiers at that point, you would have found that


1 unfortunate as indicated here; is that correct? 2 A: Well, I don't know, and I don't know 3 that that is what he said from these notes. 4 Q: You don't recall now very much about 5 anything from these meetings right? 6 A: I've done my best -- 7 Q: But, I'm asking you -- 8 A: -- to recall and to provide this 9 Commission with what I do recall. 10 Q: Yes. So, I'm asking you, though -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- if Mr. Babbitt -- to try so we can 13 put together other evidence and perhaps understand the 14 facts, if Mr. Babbitt had been quoted in the press, or if 15 words had been attributed to Mr. Babbitt in the press, 16 that there was no effort being removed -- being expended 17 to remove the occupiers at that time, it would be 18 reasonable that you would have responded, unfortunate 19 that he was quoted to that effect? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you got 21 a couple of-- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just don't know how 23 she can -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She can -- 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- answer that


1 question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 3 don't know how she can answer it either, but -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, she can 5 answer it yes or no or she -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She doesn't 7 recall. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- can say it's 9 impossible. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She doesn't 11 recall this quote. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 13 Commissioner, she has not recalled many, many things in 14 the course of her testimony. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 We have to deal with -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, we have to 18 deal with -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what she 20 can and can't recall. You can't -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We have to deal 22 with that, but that is not a sufficient answer, Mr. 23 Commissioner. If -- and may I finish my submission, 24 please. 25 If, for example, I had a quote attributed


1 to her, Deb Hutton says Mr. Harris is a redneck and we 2 shouldn't listen to him -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- she would say, I 5 could not have said that. Not only she doesn't recall, 6 she would have said, I could not have said that. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And that would be 9 of assistance to us. We would know that that note was 10 wrong. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now, I'm exploring 13 -- I understand she doesn't remember this remark, and 14 that's -- that's correct, but I'm asking her, 15 appropriately in my submission, sir -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- if there was 18 such a thing in the press -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 20 don't need -- yes, go ahead. I'm sorry. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Is it possible she 22 would have responded like this, and she could say -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- she's not sure, 25 she could say --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- yes, she could 3 say no, she could say, no way, I never would have taken 4 that position. She could have said -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She could say yes, 7 that would be consistent with my view, and so on. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 9 need the note for that. If Babbitt had made a quote like 10 this -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, that's exactly 12 what I asked her. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I want 14 to hear from Ms. Jones. 15 MS. KAREN JONES: Mr. Commissioner, in 16 terms of the first part of the hypothetical, if Mr. 17 Babbitt had said, I believe that in the documents before 18 the Commission in the document database are the 19 communications put out by the OPP -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MS. KAREN JONES: -- around that time, 22 and perhaps if Mr. Rosenthal wanted to refer to specific 23 documents it would be of assistance rather than coming -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It would 25 be --


1 MS. KAREN JONES: -- up with a 2 hypothetical on top of a hypothetical. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that 4 would be a more appropriate way to do it if you could. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I can and I 6 shall. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, there is, in 9 the database and -- and perhaps, Mr. Millar, you've been 10 so wonderful in this respect, could you do it one (1) 11 more time? This is not the last time I'm going to ask 12 you. 13 The -- Inquiry Document Number 1000666 14 which is a Globe and Mail article of September 6th, 1995, 15 entitled, Natives Occupy Provincial Park. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 1000666? 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 1000666. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1000666. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, I don't have 24 printed versions of this, but there will be one on the 25 screen if Mr. Millar is his usual reliable self.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I hope so. 2 Let's keep our fingers crossed. And that would be, when 3 it comes up... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We're all on the 8 same page her, Mr. Commissioner. And Mr. Millar will -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, when 10 it comes up -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- put it up on the 12 screen for us. There it is. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you see 14 it from your angle, Ms. Hutton? 15 THE WITNESS: I'm going to try. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, in fairness I 17 should give you an opportunity to just read it, please. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just so I 23 understand it, Mr. Rosenthal, this is an article that was 24 in the Globe and Mail on September the 6th; is that 25 right?


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: According to the -- 2 the handwritten top which is just cut off there -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it says: 5 "G&M [which I assume is Globe and Mail] 6 September 6th/95." 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 That's fine. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: Now -- now ,you know the context and 16 I appreciate you don't remember that specific article 17 these many years later? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: But, it does appear to be consistent 20 with the quotation attributed to you by Ms. Hipfner. In 21 particular, there is, in the fifth paragraph, a quote 22 from Sergeant Babbitt, and then -- about a court 23 injunction, and then in the sixth paragraph not directly 24 quoted from him is the statement: 25 "In the meantime no effort is being


1 made to remove the Natives, he said." 2 And now going back to what Ms. Hipfner 3 attributes to you: 4 "Unfortunate the press quoted Babbitt 5 as saying, no effort being used, but 6 was not a direct quote." 7 Now, would you agree that we can be fairly 8 certain that you were responding to this article? 9 A: It certainly would appear that way, 10 yes. 11 Q: Yes. And would you agree then that 12 this is what you might well have said in response to that 13 article? 14 A: I certainly couldn't dispute it. 15 You're right. 16 Q: Thank you. And in particular, I 17 gather you would have felt it was unfortunate Sergeant 18 Babbitt saying, No effort was being used. Sorry, could 19 you leave it on for one (1) more second because I want to 20 -- I want to see exactly what it says too. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Sorry. In particular, you would have 25 found it unfortunate that Sergeant Babbitt apparently


1 said: 2 "No effort is being made to remove the 3 Natives." 4 Because that would be contrary to the 5 communications message that the Government has asked the 6 OPP to remove the people from the Park, right? 7 A: No. This is the morning, as I 8 understand it from you, of September the 6th. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: And our discussion, I recall, around 11 the have we asked that -- that discussion I think you're 12 alluding to occurred after this article was in press, so. 13 Q: Yes. But it was -- 14 A: So you -- this would be reflective or 15 this article should have been reflected -- reflective of 16 the communications message as we agreed to on the 17 Tuesday. 18 Q: I see. Well, did you agree on 19 Tuesday with the message, No effort would be used to 20 remove them? That wasn't part of it, was it? 21 A: Right. Which I can only assume is 22 why I was concerned about this article. 23 Q: You hadn't agreed on that 24 communication message? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And that's why you were concerned 2 because that message was being put out, in spite of the 3 lack of agreement about it? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: Is that correct? 6 A: No. There's a whole -- first of all, 7 Mr. Babbitt was not a government spokesperson, as I 8 recall. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Today, not -- not trying to give you 11 any suggestion, because I don't recall my comment, but as 12 I look at this article today, my first concern, quite 13 frankly, is that we have an OPP spokesperson speaking 14 about the Government's efforts. 15 That would have been my first concern, 16 because I think it confuses the issue. 17 Q: And now that concern -- 18 A: But I say that today looking at it 19 fresh, as -- 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: -- opposed to -- 22 Q: Well that might be of assistance as 23 well, and so -- but when you say that, you're referring 24 to the part that is in quotes, which speaks about the 25 Government, right?


1 A: Correct. And because of that, I can 2 only assume, and I do not have recollection as I've said, 3 that I was concerned that the further comment seemed to 4 support the idea that, even though it says the Government 5 is seeking an injunction, that that is somehow not an 6 action that -- that, I think -- this concerns me that 7 we're confusing the fact that the Government is doing 8 nothing and it's seeking an injunction may, in fact, not 9 be seen as an effort to remove the occupiers. 10 Q: But the second paragraph of the two 11 (2) we're discussing says, "In the meantime, no effort is 12 being made to remove the Natives," he said. 13 And "in the meantime" in conjunction with 14 the previous paragraph apparently means, while we're 15 waiting for the injunction, does it? 16 A: Right. And -- and given that the 17 public through this article has no context for the time 18 frame of the -- of the injunction, I am concerned that 19 someone, while I know he is not a government 20 spokesperson, appears to be suggesting that nothing is 21 going to happen from the Government's perspective. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: As you know, on Tuesday, I had some 24 concerns about the lengthy injunction. This article, to 25 me, leaves the impression that nothing is going to be


1 happening for a period of time on the Government's 2 behalf. 3 But that is -- that is my perception 4 today, reading the article. 5 Q: Yes. And as you pointed out, later 6 in the very meeting at which, towards the beginning, you 7 expressed this concern, there arose the idea, suggested 8 by you, that a communication message should be that the 9 OPP has been asked to remove them, right? 10 A: I believe I did, as we've discussed. 11 I'm not sure that I at the time, nor you today could make 12 the link between this article and that comment, if that's 13 what you're suggesting. 14 Q: No, no. I -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- yes. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: But this article was referred to, 19 evidently, towards the beginning of the meeting and you 20 expressed your concern about it, right? 21 A: It appears that way. 22 Q: And then at -- much further on in the 23 meeting, you expressed the idea that it would be a quite 24 different communication message from the message that is, 25 in the meantime, paragraph of this article.


1 A: Mr. Babbitt was not a government 2 spokesperson. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: My focus and my concern would have 5 been on government communications messages. 6 Q: Yes. But it was quite different from 7 the implications of this message, right? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's the 9 end, you know. We have her evidence now and that's all 10 we have. Now, let's move on. She's answered the 11 questions and I think she's answered them as well as -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- can be 14 answered. Let's move on. They may not be the answers -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And the -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we like. 17 Let's move on. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Commissioner, 19 but I shall move on, of course. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: Now, we have evidence from Ms. Jai


1 that the Interministerial Committee meetings would begin 2 with a sort of a go-around where people would say who 3 they are and who they represent and so on. 4 Do you recall those meetings beginning in 5 that way? 6 A: I recall the 5th. I don't recall 7 that happening on the 6th. Many of the people on the 5th 8 were also there on the 6th, so. 9 Q: I see. Okay, now, well we also do 10 have evidence, specifically -- Ms. Jai indicated that 11 would have been the practice at all those meetings, but 12 we also have evidence from Scott Hutchinson who only 13 attended the second of those meetings, and he indicated 14 that there was a go-around in introductions at that 15 meeting. 16 And that that's when he learned that Ron 17 Fox was a police officer or at least a liaison person 18 with the OPP. Now do you recall -- you -- you told us 19 you don't recall Ron Fox specifically being at that 20 meeting. Is that correct or...? 21 A: No. I said I don't know Ron Fox. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: I don't dispute he was at the 24 meeting. I would have heard him be introduced. I just 25 didn't know him before. And I think that's probably why


1 I don't have a recollection of his specific comments, 2 like many others. 3 Q: Yes. But did -- did you not get the 4 understanding that somebody at that meeting, at least, 5 was a liaison person with the OPP? 6 A: No. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can I ask 8 you, Mr. Rosenthal, how much longer you think you might 9 be? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm just checking, 11 sir. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 13 checking again? We often have -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I have your 15 indulgence? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Pardon me? 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I'm checking 18 over my notes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, that's 20 fine, that's fine. I want to take a break and I want you 21 to finish before we do. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I would guess about 2 another half hour or so, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, your 4 original estimate was up to ninety (90) minutes. And 5 you've now used ninety (90) minutes, so another half hour 6 would be quite extensive. 7 Would you take a break now or would you 8 consider how much longer you have, if we take a break 9 now? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I shall try to pare 11 it down, sir. But with great respect, sir, much of the 12 morning was taken up with answers that I did not want -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I 14 understand -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to the 16 questions. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: These are 18 estimates. That's understandable but -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And answers that 20 were not responsive to the questions in my view. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 22 Rosenthal, I understand that these are estimates. 23 They're not hard lines but -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- your


1 estimate was ninety (90) minutes and -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that's as 4 long as you've used now. So we will now take a break and 5 I ask you to please try to conclude your examination as 6 quickly as you can. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 8 for fifteen (15) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 10:12 a.m. 11 --- Upon resuming at 10:30 a.m. 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 14 resumed. Please be seated. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Rosenthal. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. All 18 right, before I continue questioning, Ms. Esmonde has 19 reminded me that I didn't make the Globe and Mail article 20 that was referred to an exhibit and I should do so. I 21 don't have any hard copy of it but someone better poised 22 than I to make such, could presumably do it. 23 It's Inquiry Document 1000666 and it's the 24 Globe and Mail article of September 6th, 1995 headed, 25 "Natives Occupy Provincial Park." And I would request


1 that that be made the next exhibit. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-972, Your Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 972. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-972: Document Number 1000666. 6 Toronto Globe and Mail 7 article, Natives Occupy 8 Provincial Park, Sept. 06/95. 9 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 13 Q: Now you told us yesterday, Ms. 14 Hutton, words to the effect that at the end of the 15 Tuesday meeting, the September 5th meeting, you were not 16 sure that the injunction was the most appropriate route 17 at that point. 18 You became convinced of that at the end of 19 the next meeting, right? 20 A: That's correct. I think we were 21 certainly leaning towards that option given the options 22 that were on the table. 23 Q: And the other options on the table 24 included, in particular, that the OPP charge people with 25 criminal offences or trespass, in order to remove them


1 from the Park, correct? 2 A: No. I didn't consider that a 3 government option. I considered that to be the 4 likelihood of what would happen if we were to do nothing. 5 The other option as I expressed it on the 6 table was, Let's just sit and wait and see what happens. 7 Q: I see. So you're telling us that at 8 the end of the Tuesday meeting, you weren't sure if it 9 was better to apply for an injunction or to wait and see 10 and give -- give the situation more time to develop? 11 A: Given that those were the only two 12 (2) options, I was not yet convinced that we had a good 13 course of action on the table yet. 14 As I said earlier, the injunction, when it 15 had initially been raised as an option, had a timeframe 16 of roughly two (2) weeks attached to it; that did concern 17 me. And that was why I think others were going to go 18 away and make sure that we had all of the options on the 19 table, following the Tuesday meeting. 20 I was satisfied that our communications 21 message on Tuesday would stand as our action, if you 22 will, for that day. 23 Q: But you -- you were already sure, in 24 your mind, and sure that the Premier agreed with you, 25 that wait and see was not an option that you wanted to


1 accept, you wanted some other option, injunction or 2 something else; is that fair? 3 A: I certainly was leaning that way, 4 yes. I -- I was concerned, as I've stated several times, 5 that that was not the most prudent and cautious approach. 6 Q: Now, if you could please turn, again, 7 to Tab 24 of your binder -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- which has the typewritten version 10 of the notes of Eileen Hipfner, which has now been made 11 Exhibit P-971 and is Inquiry Document 3000550. 12 And if you could turn then to the last 13 page of those notes you'll see, attributed to you, the 14 words: 15 "My difficulty is not wanting to give 16 political direction to the OPP." 17 Now, I should like to read to you some of 18 what Ms. Hipfner testified -- Ms. Hipfner, the author of 19 these notes, testified about how she came to write that 20 and what she understood. 21 A: I'm sorry, this is the 6th, correct? 22 Q: Sorry? 23 A: This is the 6th? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: All right. 3 Q: And reading then from Ms. Hipfner's 4 testimony of September 19, 2005. I won't read every 5 word; I'm going to read some excerpts beginning at page 6 146 of the testimony. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: And Ms. Hipfner testifies, beginning 11 at line 10 of page 146 for those who are following it. 12 And I appreciate you don't have a copy, but I would ask 13 you to listen to -- to me and I'm going to ask you to 14 respond to this. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: She said: 17 "There are four (4) things that I 18 remember about that discussion." 19 They do not include how lengthy the 20 discussion was, and so on. And then she says, beginning 21 at line 21: 22 "The thing that I recall primarily is 23 that Ms. Hutton didn't -- I don't 24 recall Ms. Hutton making any sort of 25 contribution verbally to the


1 discussions [she's talking about a 2 certain point]. That was what was 3 happening. She was indicating through 4 body language that she was resistant to 5 the messages she was hearing. She 6 certainly heard my remark about Oka 7 which was not, you know, a casual 8 discussion of an academic nature. 9 I mean I felt compelled to make a 10 remark about Oka because it did not 11 seem that Ms. Hutton -- did not seem to 12 me that Ms. Hutton was accepting the 13 information that she was being given. 14 What I recall very clearly is that she, 15 her arms folded -- it was sort of that 16 -- what I can only describe as a scowl 17 on her face. And that is as people 18 were making these remarks to her about 19 -- directed at the issue of the OPP or 20 being -- being in a position to always 21 exercise their own discretion about 22 operational matters, what I recall is 23 that she would sort of turn her head 24 from the speaker and roll her eyes. 25 And I know this, I remember this


1 because of course I wasn't writing 2 anything. I was watching Ms. Hutton as 3 she was doing this. 4 So what I recall about the meeting is 5 that -- I don't remember the length of 6 the meeting, I remember that at some 7 portion there were some heated comments 8 made, directed at Ms. Hutton who seemed 9 to be resisting them with her body. 10 And I wasn't making notes because I 11 think I was caught up in the 12 conversation. 13 And then, subsequently, Ms. Hutton made 14 this remark that I've recorded on page 15 7 [that was page 7 of her handwritten 16 version of these notes]. It says, 'you 17 know, my difficulty is not wanting to 18 give political direction to the OPP.' 19 Well, of course that's not a difficulty 20 at all. She didn't want to give 21 political direction to the OPP and she 22 had just been told that, of course, she 23 couldn't give political direction to 24 the OPP. 25 So normally, of course, when somebody


1 realizes they can't do something that 2 they don't want to do anyway, they 3 don't describe that as a difficulty. 4 They may describe that as being as a 5 relief, frankly. 6 That -- that I don't want to do it and 7 I guess what it turns out, I can't do 8 it anyway. But it was the delivery of 9 this comment, rather than the issue 10 around her describing this, is -- is a 11 difficulty that has stayed with me now 12 for ten (10) years. 13 And what I remember about it is the 14 ironic delivery of it with respect to 15 sort of a, you know, my difficulty, she 16 said, is not -- don't want to give 17 political direction to the OPP is 18 recognizing that she didn't really mean 19 that her difficulty was not in wanting 20 to give political direction to the OPP. 21 Her difficulty was that she couldn't 22 give political direction to the OPP. 23 And this follows the discussion that 24 I've just described to you where I was 25 one person, I don't remember who else


1 was involved in it, was trying to make 2 the point to her that you can't give 3 political direction to the OPP." 4 Now, she continues a little further. 5 I would put it to you that you, at that 6 time, were resistant to the idea being put forward that 7 the Government could not give political direction to the 8 OPP. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes Ms. -- 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'd just ask that he 11 continue reading the entire quote. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 13 don't want to read the whole transcript. I assume if 14 he's not reading enough somebody will tell us. I -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, I appreciate that, 16 but I think he just left out the final two (2) paragraphs 17 for the purposes of completion. I thought just might go 18 to the end of that -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Final two 20 (2) paragraphs -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- particular -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for 23 completion -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm pleased -- I'm 25 pleased --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 2 obviously. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, please 4 appreciate, I'm trying to be expeditious. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're using 6 up your time. I understand. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Don't -- don't 8 count this part. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, carry 10 on. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 13 Q: Now, let's see. I'm going to try to 14 find... 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: I -- well, I -- I'll pick it up. I'm 19 not sure exactly where I -- I'll probably overlap a bit. 20 I will overlap a bit with what I said before, but I'm 21 picking up on page 149 now, at line 2. 22 "Her difficulty was that she couldn't 23 give political direction to the OPP. 24 And this follows the discussion that 25 I've just described to you where I was


1 one person, I don't remember who else 2 was involved in it, was trying to make 3 the point to her that you can't give 4 political direction to the OPP. 5 It's not something that anybody who's 6 not a police officer can do, this being 7 met with the degree of resistance, you 8 know, reflected in her body language. 9 And then finally the acknowledgement by 10 Ms. Hutton, somewhat grudging, but the 11 acknowledgement finally that in fact 12 she recognized that she couldn't give 13 political direction to the OPP. 14 And she did two (2) things that I 15 recall. She characterized it as a 16 difficulty, as I recorded it, and she 17 also, you know, I'm not -- the other 18 thing that I remember is this sort of a 19 self-reference, you know, the self- 20 reference in this -- in this remark 21 about [and then question]. 22 Q: The my? 23 A: Yeah. My difficulty is not 24 wanting to give political direction to 25 the OPP."


1 That's all in the transcript that I 2 excerpted here. Do you want me to continue? I'll go 3 back. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: Now, would you not agree that you had 9 great difficulty in accepting the notion that the 10 Government could not give direction to the OPP, under the 11 circumstance? 12 A: I want to be very clear on two (2) 13 things. 14 I don't have any recollection of anyone 15 saying to me, You cannot give direction to the OPP. That 16 is, I believe, because at no time did I ever suggest or 17 say anything to suggest that I would have given direction 18 to the OPP or that I believed I could have. 19 There was no doubt, at any point in time, 20 in my mind that that was something our government could 21 or should do. 22 Q: But yet, you arranged that there be a 23 communication message that the Government asked the OPP 24 to remove people from the Park. 25 And did you not regard that as giving


1 political direction to the OPP? 2 A: I did not. I regarded that as a 3 statement within the correct and appropriate bounds for 4 the Government, as landowner in this specific situation, 5 and how and when would be fully within the discretion of 6 the OPP. 7 At no time has anyone indicated to me, 8 either at that meeting or subsequently, that that type of 9 communication, in the context of this very specific 10 situation, crossed the line whatsoever between what 11 government can do and what the OPP can do. 12 Q: Now, would it be within your 13 understanding of the required separation in government 14 and police for a member of the Provincial Parliament to 15 inform the incident commander of the incident, Inspector 16 John Carson, at the time, on the evening of September 17 6th, words to the effect that if the police can't handle 18 this matter, it might be necessary to bring in the 19 military? 20 A: I have no knowledge of that, I'm 21 sorry. 22 Q: No, I didn't ask you if you have 23 knowledge of that. 24 A: Right. 25 Q: I asked you, given your understanding


1 of the required need to separate government and police, 2 would that cross the line, in your view, for an MPP to 3 inform the incident commander words to the effect that if 4 the police can't handle this, it might be necessary to 5 bring in the military. 6 A: If there was any direction to the OPP 7 in that sentiment, I would regard that as inappropriate. 8 The way you've described it to me, it suggests it was a 9 flip comment, not a direction to the OPP; that is 10 strictly my perception given the limited information 11 you've given me. 12 Q: And what about if a member of the 13 Provincial Parliament informed the incident commander 14 that he thought that the people should be out of the 15 Park? 16 A: I don't hear anything in that remark 17 that differs from our government's position. 18 Q: No. 19 A: So, I consider that appropriate. 20 Q: And that is entirely consistent with 21 the message that you wanted put out. 22 A: It is. I feel more appropriate if 23 that was strictly a public message. I can't speak to how 24 it was delivered or -- or to the specifics of this. 25 The message, in and of itself, was our


1 government's message, that we were comfortable 2 communicating publicly. 3 Q: And you were comfortable that that be 4 communicated to the police as well? 5 A: I think we've gone over the fact that 6 I can't -- I can't distinguish the police from the 7 public, but I think you are putting too much stock in the 8 fact that in communicating to the public we somehow 9 believed that we were specifically speaking to the OPP. 10 Q: Well, you wanted to communicate to 11 the public because you wanted the public to know that you 12 were acting consistently with your platform as to how one 13 would deal with situations like this; is that fair? 14 A: This has nothing to do with the 15 Common Sense Revolution if that's what you're suggesting. 16 Q: Well -- 17 A: Sorry, by platform I -- I thought 18 that's what you meant. 19 Q: You -- you wanted the public to know 20 that you were acting decisively in this matter; is that 21 fair? 22 A: In this specific matter, yes. And as 23 I explained, I believe to this day that that was the more 24 prudent and -- and cautious approach. 25 Q: And you recognized that informing the


1 public of that would include in particular, informing the 2 police of that? 3 A: I've answered that, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 5 already said that. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The police 8 are part of the public. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And you'll be happy 10 to know, I'm done. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you very much. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, I think 14 the next examiner if Mr. Scullion. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Ms. 16 Hutton. 17 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 23 okay? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, Mr. 25 Commissioner, I'm slow on my feet, yes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: These 2 facilities aren't the best, we know that, so you don't 3 have to apologize. 4 Yes, sir. Mr. Scullion...? 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good morning, Mr. 6 Commissioner. Good morning, Ms. Hutton. 7 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 10 Q: My name is Kevin Scullion. I 11 represent the residents of Aazhoodena. You may know -- 12 also know as the Stoney Point Group. 13 A: Thank you. 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: You haven't asked me 15 about my timelines yet. Perhaps I -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No because-- 17 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- should -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- indicate that I 20 had started -- I indicated thirty (30) to forty-five 21 (45) minutes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I'm probably going 24 to be closer to the higher end, although I'll try to 25 expedite things. Mr. Rosenthal covered some of the areas


1 that I was going to touch and I'll try to be a little 2 more general in areas and see how -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 4 Mr. Scullion. 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- how it goes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 8 Q: I raise that at the outset because my 9 first question relates to 'hawkish' and I understand that 10 the term has been -- or the discussion has been addressed 11 a number of times. 12 I just wanted to take you to Tab 39 of 13 your book of documents. And it's Inquiry Document 14 3000390. I don't think we've made it an exhibit yet. 15 But, this appears to be answers to undertakings provided 16 by counsel in the course of a civil action. 17 Do you have that in front of you? 18 A: I do, yes. 19 Q: Okay. If I can turn you to page 8 in 20 that tab? 21 Do you have that before you? 22 A: I do, thank you. 23 Q: And answer 7, I see that in the 24 course of undertakings you were asked with regards to the 25 term 'hawkish'.


1 Do you recall answering this particular 2 undertaking? 3 A: Well, I recall answering the 4 undertakings. 5 Q: It was prepared with your assistance. 6 A: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. 7 Q: Okay. And I note that the answer to 8 this undertaking seems to put the term 'hawkish' in 9 context. It's not an admission that it was used, but if 10 I could read your answer -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: "It indicates that assuming the term, 13 'hawkish' was used and the contextual 14 remarks made in the meeting were 15 intended to convey the meaning that how 16 the Government responded to the 17 occupation of the Park would be viewed 18 as a test of the Government in terms of 19 its future relations with the Native 20 community and that a prompt response 21 would be required." 22 That's accurate, correct? 23 A: That is what I said at the time, yes. 24 Q: Right. And that was accurate at the 25 time it was prepared?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: That's how you felt and that's how 3 those comments were made in the context of the IMC 4 meetings? 5 A: At that time my recollection, yes, 6 absolutely. 7 Q: Right. And that hasn't changed to 8 date has it? 9 A: No, I think I've expanded on it 10 slightly today. 11 Q: Right. 12 A: I would not upon reflection have 13 attributed those comments specifically to our 14 relationship with the Native community. I think I had a 15 broader perspective at the time that this went beyond 16 strictly Native activity, but as I've said earlier 17 broadly speaking a legal activity designed to force the 18 Government to do something. 19 Q: Right. And -- and I hear your answer 20 today. I suggest that it was in fact directed at the 21 Native community; that you were using our clients as an 22 example at the time of how your government was going to 23 deal with this type of activity? 24 A: Well, we didn't go out and seek this 25 issue. I mean it was -- it was the issue that was


1 presented to us first in our government's mandate. So I 2 -- I disagree with what you've just said. 3 Q: I appreciate that, but I also suggest 4 that by the end of the first IMC meeting on September 5th 5 you took this as an -- as an opportunity to make an 6 example out of our clients and that you ran into 7 opposition in the IMC meetings from a series of civil 8 servants and other political staff because that was 9 different from the approach that was used in the past and 10 different from the approach being used on the ground at 11 the time by the OPP and MNR? 12 A: There's a lot in that statement most 13 of which I disagree with. 14 Q: That's fine, then let's go back a 15 little bit. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 17 to break it down a little bit? 18 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: No. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No? 20 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: That's just -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 Okay. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: We'll get to it in 24 detail. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 2 Q: You indicated that going into these 3 meetings you knew a little bit about the situation, 4 correct? 5 A: That's correct, brief information. 6 Q: All right. You were aware that there 7 was a long history to the situation? 8 A: I think I was aware at the time that 9 there was I would say some history. I don't know how -- 10 whether I'd use the term, "long," but some history as it 11 related to Camp Ipperwash and the Federal Government. 12 Q: Anywhere from two (2) to sixty (60) 13 years would be the long history dealing with Camp 14 Ipperwash. 15 A: Yeah, I -- I just don't recall having 16 a specific time frame in my mind. That's all I was 17 suggesting. 18 Q: All right. You were aware that there 19 was conflict between the group that was occupying Camp 20 Ipperwash and the Provincial Park and the local First 21 Nation? 22 A: Before the 5th? No, I would not say 23 that. 24 Q: Okay. You were aware from government 25 briefings that occurred prior to September 4th that the


1 concept of the issues of occupations and blockades rarely 2 come without some sort of advance warning? 3 A: I don't know that I could say I knew 4 that at the time, no. 5 Q: Were you aware that the blockade or 6 an occupation was oftentimes the result of frustrations 7 felt by members of the First Nation community? 8 A: As a general comment I would say 9 that's accurate, yes. 10 Q: And that the advance warning that 11 oftentimes comes prior to such blockade or occupation 12 gives the Government an opportunity to try to prevent 13 such an occupation or blockade. 14 Is that fair? 15 A: Again as I said a few minutes ago I - 16 - I don't know that I thought in terms of the advanced 17 warning piece. 18 Q: All right. The issue of Serpent 19 Mounds came up in the course of the September 5th 20 meeting. 21 Do you remember that term? 22 A: Serpent Mounds? 23 Q: Serpent Mounds? 24 A: I recall the Serpent Mounds issue. I 25 don't think I specifically recall it being raised in the


1 meeting, but I don't dispute that it was. 2 Q: If I can turn you to Tab 13 of your 3 book of documents. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: And just for the record, this is P- 8 536, Mr. Commissioner, these are notes of Ms. Julie Jai. 9 If I can turn you to page 4 of the 10 September 5, '95 -- 11 A: And that's the second one, right? 12 Q: -- notes. It's the second group of 13 notes. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: They're simply out of order. 16 A: Okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: "What is the OPP sense"? 21 Q: At page 4 it starts with "What is OPP 22 sense?" 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Go down a couple of lines. It says, 25 and the note says:


1 "Premier asked why this Committee 2 didn't meet to discuss Serpent Mounds. 3 How was that decision made." 4 And it's followed by: 5 "Premier's hawkish on the issue. Feels 6 we're being tested on the issue." 7 Those are comments, I believe, are 8 attributed to you. 9 A: I -- I don't know that but possible. 10 Q: Now, we've heard from witnesses in 11 the course of the Inquiry regarding the Serpent Mounds 12 issue and this was an occupation that took place on 13 Labour Day weekend. 14 Do you -- are you aware of that? 15 A: I'm just taking a moment, because I 16 want to be clear on what I would have known on September 17 the 5th. 18 Q: And that's what I'm asking. I'd like 19 to know -- 20 A: Yeah, I know that -- 21 Q: -- what you knew -- 22 A: -- but I just want to be clear. I'm 23 trying to recall what I did know and I'm not sure -- I'm 24 not sure I have a good recollection of what I knew at the 25 time.


1 Q: Well, we've heard from witnesses that 2 this occupation was peaceful; that it ended by 6:00 p.m. 3 on the Labour day Monday and that it involved the MNR 4 closing the Park and preventing members of the public 5 from using that Park for the weekend. 6 Does that refresh your memory at all as to 7 what you might have known on September 5th? 8 A: Yeah, it -- my -- my challenge here 9 is what I know now versus what I knew then and I'm just 10 trying to make sure that I don't indicate something that 11 I know now that I didn't know then so. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: That's my struggle. 14 Q: Well let's -- let's go to the basics, 15 then. 16 I presume you were not personally involved 17 in dealing with the Serpent Mounds issue? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And that the Premier's office was not 20 involved in dealing with the Serpent Mounds issue? 21 A: To the best of my knowledge, that's 22 correct. 23 Q: Okay. We've also heard that Mr. 24 Hodgson, the Minister of Natural Resources, agreed to 25 meet with the Hiawatha Chief after the fact, after the


1 blockade. 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: Were you aware of that at the time? 4 A: I don't recall if I was aware at the 5 time. 6 Q: Okay. You wouldn't have been 7 involved in that decision by Mr. Hodgson to meet with the 8 Chief afterwards? 9 A: I don't know. I don't know when the 10 decision was taken, so. 11 Q: You can't tell me yes or no then? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Okay. We've also heard with regards 14 to Nawash, the Chippewas of Nawash. 15 Do you recall or are you aware of 16 anything to do with the Chippewas of Nawash at the time? 17 A: Not off the top of my head, but I -- 18 perhaps you could assist me. I just don't recall off the 19 top of my head. 20 Q: Involved issues of Native fishing 21 rights and a land claim, Bruce peninsula for $90 billion. 22 A: Cape Croker, is that -- 23 Q: Cape Croker. Do you remember that? 24 A: Yes, I do. 25 Q: Okay. We've heard from MNR that


1 Minister Hodgson went and visited the area and dealt 2 directly with the stakeholders, because it came to a head 3 in August of 1995. 4 Does that refresh your memory at all? 5 A: I recall the issue prior to 6 government. Off the top of my head, I would have thought 7 that it was an issue for a greater amount of time than 8 simply the summer of 1995, so. 9 Q: I appreciate that. 10 A: That's all I can recall. 11 Q: I take it from your answers, you 12 weren't personally involved in dealing with that matter, 13 either? 14 A: I don't recall. I certainly have a 15 greater understanding and -- and recollection of the 16 specifics of the matter, so I can't recall if I was 17 involved in it or not. 18 Q: You don't specifically recall if you 19 were involved in dealing with the Cape or the Nawash 20 matter? 21 A: That's correct. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: As I indicated earlier, I dealt with


1 probably thirty (30) issues every day. 2 Q: I appreciate that. I'm trying to get 3 a feel for your knowledge and understanding going into 4 the September 5th and 6th meetings, because we've heard 5 from a number of witnesses as to what they knew and what 6 they were working on. I just want to know what you knew 7 at the time. If you don't recall that's fine. It's an 8 answer same as yes or no. 9 And just as a bit of background, I 10 understand that there were briefings that occurred along 11 the way in regards to dealing with aboriginal 12 emergencies. And I thought I took that, from your 13 examination-in-chief, that you had been part of that, but 14 you just didn't remember the specifics relating to it; is 15 that fair? 16 A: I'm not sure I understand the 17 question. 18 Q: Prior to September 5th -- 19 A: Right. 20 Q: -- there was at least one (1) or more 21 briefings that you had attended that dealt with how to 22 deal with Aboriginal issues? 23 A: No, I -- I don't recall attending 24 those briefings. I -- I can't say whether I did or not. 25 Q: All right. You may not be able to


1 help me then because part of these briefings, I 2 understood, was that ONAS was the department that would 3 be monitoring such a situation and dealing with any 4 Native or Aboriginal emergency or blockade or issue that 5 arose. 6 Is that consistent with your understanding 7 going into the September 5th and 6th meetings? 8 A: Yes, insofar as that's how government 9 functions. Issues, policies within the purview of 10 individual ministries obviously are monitored and dealt 11 with by those ministries first and foremost; that is -- 12 that is how government functions. 13 Q: Right. Before you went into the 14 September 5th and 6th meetings -- 15 A: Right. 16 Q: -- were you aware of any efforts by 17 ONAS or other members of the Government to deal with the 18 Stoney Point Group or the Kettle Point First Nation in 19 regards to this threatened occupation of late -- 20 A: I was not aware of that, no. 21 Q: Okay. Sorry, you weren't aware of 22 that or you weren't aware of any steps that were taken by 23 the Government in regards to that perceived or the threat 24 of occupation? 25 A: Both.


1 Q: Part of your evidence that I've had 2 some difficulty with is it seems to me, in listening to 3 your evidence, that your understanding of what the IMC 4 meeting was doing on September 5th or 6th was deciding 5 whether or not to seek an injunction. 6 Is that the gist of your evidence that 7 that was the decision that you were looking at? 8 A: Those are slightly different 9 questions for me, so perhaps I'll answer the first. 10 My belief about what would occur at a 11 meeting following an issue and in this case what's been 12 known as the Interministerial Committee Meetings of the 13 5th and 6th, would first and foremost be an opportunity 14 to be briefed on the issue. That's I think fairly 15 standard. 16 Further, to get a sense of what, if any, 17 options existed for the Government to respond to this 18 issue or to manage this issue. And finally, usually the 19 course in managing an issue would be to make an analysis 20 and -- and discuss the options that had been put on the 21 table in this or any issue. 22 And in the event that there was a 23 government decision as distinct from strictly a 24 government communication, the group of civil servants and 25 political staff would make a recommendation to the


1 Ministers and the Premier. 2 Q: All right. I appreciate that. It 3 sounded more of a paraphrasing of the guidelines that 4 you'd been referred to at one (1) point in your 5 examination-in-chief that we have at Tab 7. 6 A: To me that is both the specific in 7 this situation but also the general in how my experience 8 in government would say we managed the issues, whether in 9 a formal or informal structure. 10 Q: Okay. I appreciate that, but we've 11 heard from a number of witnesses from the Ministry of 12 Natural Resources that a meeting took place at the start 13 of August with then Inspector John Carson and they came 14 to discuss an action plan that, should this occupation 15 take place, there was a number of options they'd employ. 16 Were you aware of that going into the 17 September 5th and 6th meetings? 18 A: I was not. 19 Q: All right. They had another meeting 20 on September 1st to confirm that everybody was on the 21 same page as to how to deal with the perceived or 22 possible occupation that was expected on September 4th, 23 5th, or 6th. 24 Were you aware that that meeting took 25 place?


1 A: Heading into September 5th? No. 2 Q: Okay. In fact, we have a number of 3 documents from -- that's been produced by the MNR in the 4 course of this Inquiry that confirms that they were 5 working towards putting together materials for an 6 injunction prior to, and while these IMC meetings were 7 taking place. 8 In the course of the IMC meetings, did 9 anybody from MNR tell you that they were already getting 10 the injunction? 11 A: No, they did not. I believe there 12 was a media report to that affect. 13 Q: I appreciate that. I think we've 14 looked at a media report that quotes Sergeant Babbitt, 15 indicating that they were seeking an injunction and that 16 in the interim they weren't going to remove anybody from 17 the Park. 18 A: Yeah. I -- I thought there was a 19 local media report as distinct from the one we've 20 reviewed earlier. 21 Q: So, in fact, in addition to that 22 media report you recall a different or another media 23 report that also indicated the same thing? 24 A: No. I seem to recall a media report 25 from the morning of the 5th that quoted a local MNR


1 official saying the Government would seek an injunction 2 as distinct from the report on the 6th that we reviewed. 3 Q: Okay. So, there's one on the 5th and 4 one on the 6th -- 5 A: I think so. 6 Q: -- and it confirmed that seeking the 7 injunction was taking place? 8 A: Well except we hadn't come to that 9 conclusion on the 5th. 10 Q: So, we come back to my original 11 question which was: Was your impression at the IMC 12 meeting, after all of the information was gathered as to 13 what was going on in the background, that you were 14 deciding whether to seek an injunction or not to seek an 15 injunction? 16 A: No. It was broader than that. 17 Q: And I suggest to you because -- 18 A: And -- and can I just say, it would 19 not be a civil servant nor a political staff person's 20 role to make that decision. It would only be our role to 21 recommend. 22 Q: Oh, I appreciate that. And it wasn't 23 the role of the Committee at all to make that decision as 24 to whether to -- 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: -- seek an injunction or not. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: That will be up to MNR and the 4 Attorney General, and possibly the Premier, correct? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: It's not the role of IMC to make 7 decisions, simply to take all the information together, 8 gather it and make recommendations to the Minister? 9 A: That's consistent, yes. 10 Q: Because we've heard from members of 11 the OPP and MNR, that if a large group, including women 12 and children, entered the Park and make a claim, similar 13 to the tactics used at Camp Ipperwash, that the OPP 14 response would be, evacuate the Park of staff and public, 15 negotiate, physically remove from the Park, but with 16 respect to the latter they required an injunction, and 17 for MNR to seek that injunction. 18 Is that consistent with what you recall 19 the approach being at the time? 20 A: No. I was not aware of the OPP's 21 specific approach at the time. To my best recollection, 22 no one said to us at the 5th or the 6th meeting, the OPP 23 would like us to seek an injunction. 24 Had they said that, that would have been 25 an important piece of information for me. In the end, we


1 came to that conclusion independently but it would have 2 been an important piece of information. 3 It was not to the best of my knowledge 4 communicated. 5 Q: It -- it would have been an 6 appropriate piece of information if in fact the decision 7 hadn't already been made to seek an injunction. 8 What I'm suggesting to you is that there 9 had already been meetings between the OPP and the MNR and 10 they decided that they were seeking an injunction at the 11 request of the OPP to provide support for the grou -- the 12 OPP on the ground. 13 A: The -- no one from the Minister's 14 office, and by that I mean Natural Resources, to the best 15 of my recollection ever said that the Minister of Natural 16 Resources had decided that seeking an injunction was the 17 appropriate course. 18 Q: Or that they were in fact already 19 doing that? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: We have documents, and I -- I 22 referred to My Friend -- I sent out a list of documents, 23 but I think I can simply refer to it, Mr. Commissioner, 24 is Exhibit P-782, which Mr. Sturdy testified to, that as 25 of -- it's Inquiry Document Number --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Sturdy 2 is an MNR official; you're aware of that? 3 THE WITNESS: I am aware, thank you. 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 8 Q: The Inquiry Document for My Friends 9 is 1009247. You don't have that before you. 10 A: I don't have it. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Could a copy be 12 provided to the Witness? 13 I'm not sure she's had a chance to see the 14 actual document. 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: They don't want my 16 copy, but perhaps the exhibit could be provided. 17 THE WITNESS: I might want your copy. 18 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I don't think you 19 need one. I'm just going to quote from it and it's only 20 whether or not you knew what was going on. 21 Perhaps I can do that and we can see if 22 you need a copy of the document. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps you 24 could do that and, if you would, describe what the 25 document is, at least some context because I don't --


1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- have this 3 in front of me, either. 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Okay. I'm just -- 5 again, I'm trying to expedite things -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 7 that. 8 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- but at the same 9 time make sure that -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm happy to 11 have you do that -- 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- the context -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- as long 14 as we know what the context of the document is. 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: The context is the 16 status report number 1 distributed by Mr. Sturdy to the 17 distribution list at MNR and it's dated the 5th of 18 September 1995, 6:56 a.m. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 24 Q: I see you have it in front of you, 25 but let me just go directly to what I wanted to address


1 which was: Page 2 deals with the fact that what had been 2 anticipated by MNR and OPP had, in fact, occurred, and 3 they were following the plan that they had put into place 4 prior to the occupation. 5 And in particular, there's a line that 6 says: 7 "As of last night, we've proceeded 8 through the first four (4) steps,[which 9 are outlined at page 2] and our request 10 is now with legal services to obtain a 11 Court injunction." 12 And when Mr. Sturdy was asked about that, 13 he indicated that MNR had their own legal services 14 department and that they were preparing injunction 15 materials as early as the morning of Tuesday September 16 the 5th. 17 My question is simply: were you aware of 18 that, or did anybody bring that out in the course of the 19 IMC meeting that, in fact, materials were already being 20 prepared for an injunction? 21 A: As I said earlier, no. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: And again, I have a document that I


1 had distributed to Ms. Hutton's Counsel. Inquiry 2 document 1007859, which I'm not sure if that was an 3 exhibit yet, but it's Status Report number 2 from Mr. 4 Sturdy. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It probably is an 6 exhibit. I don't have the number. 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 59. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Again, I've just -- if 9 a copy could be provided to the Witness, it would 10 probably be helpful. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we may 12 get it on the screen. 13 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Yeah, we are. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 18 Q: It may be unnecessary. Let me just 19 cut to my question which is, as of 7:19 a.m. on September 20 6th, 1995, a draft affidavit was prepared by Leith 21 Hunter, MNR legal services, and being reviewed with Peter 22 Sturdy prior to the Interministerial meeting scheduled 23 for 9:30 that day, which is the second IMC meeting, 24 September 6th. 25 Do you see that note?


1 A: I do. 2 Q: Do you recall anybody advising the 3 meeting that, in fact, materials had been prepared by MNR 4 legal services in order to obtain an injunction? 5 A: I do not and further, much of the 6 discussion around the injunction on Tuesday and Wednesday 7 as I've indicated was the lengthiness of time that it 8 might take to prepare, I can only assume, similar 9 material, so. 10 Q: And that's where I run into trouble 11 is -- is you're discussing -- 12 A: Well -- 13 Q: -- how long it's going to take to 14 prepare materials and -- 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: -- apply for an injunction and it 17 seems that it's going on in the background. It seems to 18 be a disconnect between these IMC meetings and what's 19 actually being done by the OPP and the MNR on the ground. 20 A: Based on what you have said to me 21 today, I would agree. 22 Q: Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Because taking that at face value, it 2 seems to me that the only question was how quickly you 3 needed to be in Court in order to justify the 4 communications message that you were putting out to the 5 public, which included the OPP. 6 A: Yeah, I -- I think, from my 7 perspective, that is simplifying a governmental process a 8 little bit. 9 Ministries each, as I said earlier, have 10 their own set of responsibilities and their own set of 11 issues that they are responsible for and it's why you 12 have different Ministries come together in these 13 situations so that each Ministry can put on the table 14 their perspective, their information, and their unique 15 combination of those two (2) things. 16 I can't explain to you if as you've shown 17 me this morning why MNR officials on the ground didn't 18 share that. Perhaps it was just good due diligence on 19 their part and they were waiting for the broader 20 discussion. I -- I do not know. 21 Q: All right. Which -- my next question 22 is: Mr. Rosenthal asked you quite a bit about this idea 23 of going slow versus going quickly? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: It seemed to me that there's three


1 (3) options: One (1), the going slow which had no 2 injunction; the second which is going in the usual course 3 of getting an injunction but on a two (2) week basis; and 4 the third is getting in immediately to get an injunction. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Is that -- is that fair? Did I miss 7 something in your evidence? 8 A: No, I think again the evolution 9 between Tuesday and Wednesday is important on that point. 10 My initial perspective based on the discussions on 11 Tuesday was as I said earlier that there were two (2) 12 options; let's do nothing that did not involve any 13 government action including a communications message by 14 the way and secondly an option of an injunction. 15 We had a brief discussion on Tuesday about 16 moving more quickly in an injunction, but the -- the true 17 specifics of the two (2) types of injunctions, so in your 18 words the three (3) options if you will by Wednesday in 19 my mind did not occur fully until Wednesday. 20 Q: Okay. But as of Wednesday the 21 discussion was focussed on whether or not to proceed with 22 what I think we've labelled as options 1 and 2, the quick 23 approach versus the slower but still getting an 24 injunction approach? 25 A: I think that's fair. The only thing


1 I would add is that when I went to the meeting initially 2 on the 6th I was still waiting to hear what additional 3 options might have been discussed overnight based -- 4 Q: Right. There were no other options 5 were there? 6 A: That's correct. And as well there 7 was additional information about the -- what I perceived 8 to be the escalation of the situation on the ground that 9 led me to conclude that we needed to get on with making a 10 decision on seeking the injunction. 11 Q: Okay. But I think we've just 12 discussed you didn't know that the decision had been 13 made already to get an injunction, simply what was 14 outstanding was how quickly to get that injunction? 15 A: But -- 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, I have an 17 objection. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 19 Vella? 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: My concern is that the 21 impression being given by My Friend is that the 22 Government had made a decision to seek an injunction. I 23 don't think that was the evidence. The evidence was that 24 Mr. Sturdy instructed that affidavit material be 25 prepared --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- in support of a 3 possible injunction. I don't think those are synonymous. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 5 think that's an important distinction, Mr. Scullion. As 6 I read it it said that an affidavit was being prepared. 7 I didn't see anymore than that so if you have -- 8 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I -- I think I've 9 been fairly careful in my questions. I'm just looking to 10 see what the answers are. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I don't know that 13 the decision was made or not made, I just -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- am looking to -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 17 suggesting though that the decision was made and I think 18 the evidence isn't as clear as you're suggesting; that's 19 all. There's no question that efforts were being made to 20 prepare materials including the affidavit -- 21 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but I'm 23 not sure what else was done. 24 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Perhaps I 25 overstepped at the last suggestion.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 6 Q: One (1) of the issues that came up in 7 Mr. Bangs' evidence was he indicated that you told the 8 meeting that this was the first encounter for this new 9 government and that how it responded was an important 10 test. 11 Do you agree that you had said that to the 12 meeting? 13 A: I believe I've addressed that. 14 Q: Perhaps you can refresh my memory? 15 A: I don't recall specifically using 16 words to that effect or to the effect of others that 17 people have used throughout the course of the last couple 18 of days with that -- on that point. 19 For me, as I've said repeatedly, there was 20 a broad concern on my part that if we didn't respond to 21 this first situation, or I would actually argue any 22 situation, but in particular this first one, with a 23 response that said this is not the appropriate way to 24 communicate your position to the Government, that we 25 could in fact be encouraging additional illegal behaviour


1 by anyone as a means to force the Government to do 2 anything or to get its attention. 3 Q: Right. And that response that this 4 was not the appropriate way was never conveyed in respect 5 to the Serpent Mounds occupation on Labour Day, was it? 6 A: I don't believe I -- as I said that I 7 was aware of Serpent Mounds at the time it was happening. 8 Q: The response that this is the 9 appropriate way was never conveyed with respect to the 10 Chippewas of Nawash in August of 1995 to your knowledge? 11 A: I don't believe as I said earlier, 12 that I was aware there was a specific crisis at that 13 time. 14 Q: So to your knowledge, this was the 15 first opportunity for this group to convey that 16 particular message? 17 A: I need you to be more specific on 18 your question. I don't know who this group is. 19 Q: The IMC meeting. 20 A: Okay. Yeah I -- 21 Q: That's who was crafting this message, 22 was it not? 23 A: I just would look at it slightly 24 differently. This was the first in my opinion, with the 25 knowledge I had, the first situation where the Government


1 was going to have to respond publicly to a situation that 2 involved illegal activity. To my knowledge. 3 Q: Right. And the easiest way if it 4 could be done would be to direct the police to remove the 5 occupiers directly? 6 A: I think I've spoken about what I 7 believed over the course of the 4th, 5th and 6th was our 8 government's position. 9 Q: Right. And you weren't able to 10 direct the police. 11 So instead you directed the civil servants 12 to get an injunction to direct the removal of the 13 occupants, correct? 14 A: We had as a government options at our 15 disposal. We chose the option of an injunction. If 16 that's what you meant, then that is correct. 17 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Those are my 18 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 20 Mr. Scullion. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 24 George...? 25 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Good morning,


1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 3 original estimate, is it still reasonably accurate? 4 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: No, I estimated a 5 half hour. I -- I'll be shorter than that. I won't take 6 half an hour. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: 10 Q: Good morning, Ms. Hutton. 11 A: Good morning. 12 Q: How are you doing today? 13 A: I'm okay. 14 Q: Good. My name is Jonathan George and 15 I represent the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony First 16 Nation. 17 A: Thank you. 18 Q: And as I indicated to the 19 Commissioner, I'll -- I'll be brief. There's only one 20 area I wish to canvas with you. 21 Yesterday Ms. Vella asked you about and 22 turned your attention to the evidence, the testimony 23 earlier in this proceeding of -- of Elizabeth Christie. 24 And -- and I think you indicated 25 yesterday, you didn't and don't know who that is


1 specifically? 2 A: Specifically, yes. 3 Q: Yeah, okay. But I -- but I take it 4 you had an awareness generally of Attorney General 5 representatives or lawyers from the Ministry of the 6 Attorney General being present at that -- at those 7 meetings, September 5th and 6th meetings. 8 Is that fair to say? 9 A: That is fair. I don't think 10 individuals identify themselves as a lawyer from -- 11 Q: Right. 12 A: -- any of the specific ministries. 13 But I certainly believed that we had legal advice 14 available to us at that table. 15 Q: Okay. And -- and I certainly don't 16 want to repeat Ms. Vella from yesterday. But briefly, 17 you will recall Elizabeth Christie is the one who among 18 other things attributes to you the comment -- again, I'm 19 referring to the September 6th meeting, that the 20 Premier's office doesn't want to be seen to be working 21 with Indians at all. 22 And I take it you recall having that 23 discussion with Ms. Vella yesterday? 24 A: I do. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: I -- I'm not sure I remember it was 2 Ms. 3 Vella versus someone else -- 4 Q: Sorry. 5 A: -- this discussion. 6 Q: Quite possibly it would have been 7 other counsel as well. But -- but I do recall Ms. Vella 8 talking to you about that. And once again I want to turn 9 your mind to that but before I do that I want to step 10 back for a moment. 11 And I take it as of 1995 you had spent 12 several years in government. I believe you had indicated 13 five (5) years in Mr. Harris' government and prior to 14 that you had worked for two (2) years with Mr. Brandt 15 while he was in Opposition. 16 A: Yes. It was actually seven (7) years 17 in Opposition prior to Mr. Harris. 18 Q: Sure. Okay, sorry. And by virtue of 19 that experience I take it you had a good knowledge of the 20 roles and function of the various ministries, the 21 Ministers and the various branches of government? 22 A: I think I had a good working 23 knowledge of that, yes. 24 Q: You -- you certainly weren't a novice 25 by any stretch in terms of having that knowledge?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Okay. And I take it you had a good 3 understanding of the role of the Attorney General and the 4 Attorney General's office? 5 A: I believe I did. 6 Q: Okay. Now again returning to Ms. 7 Vella's examination of you and relating specifically to 8 discussions about Chief Bressette. 9 You, and again the specifics of the 10 September 6th meeting, you indicated to Ms. Vella and if 11 any of My Friends are interested, I'm referring to page 12 42 of yesterday's transcript and -- and I'll just 13 paraphrase instead of taking you directly to what you 14 said. 15 But, I -- I believe you indicated 16 something to the effect of you recall thinking it would 17 be obviously helpful to engage Chief Bressette in some 18 way if he would have any influence in ending the 19 occupation. 20 Do you remember saying something to that 21 effect? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And I think you followed that 24 by saying something to the effect of, but this particular 25 situation didn't call for the Government and Chief


1 Bressette working together. 2 It wouldn't be appropriate in these 3 circumstances? 4 A: I believe -- I certainly hoped to 5 leave the impression that if -- if Chief Bressette was in 6 any way able to assist in ending the occupation based on 7 his relationship with the occupiers, obviously that would 8 be great. 9 My concern at the time as I recall it, was 10 if Chief Bressette worked with the Government in trying 11 to end this specific situation, that that may well put 12 both the Chief and the Government in a difficult 13 situation given our clear position that there be no 14 negotiations of a substantive nature while the occupation 15 occurred. 16 Q: And I believe what you said 17 yesterday, specifically, is by doing that, by working 18 with him that would confuse or complicate the issue? 19 A: Exactly. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, as I recall that exchange and 23 feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall 24 that exchange between you and Ms. Vella, I -- from my 25 view it was clearly in the context of three (3) things,


1 you know. 2 The question of whether or not substantive 3 negotiations could occur while the occupation was still - 4 - still ongoing, okay? 5 The second being whether or not third 6 parties should be engaged in the process at all and, 7 thirdly, whether or not information being discussed and 8 canvassed in the IMC meeting should be shared with anyone 9 outside of that -- that forum and I take it all of those 10 things -- 11 A: Sorry, could I just stop you there. 12 Q: Sure. 13 A: This -- the first point I think we've 14 just talked about. The second point, I believe Ms. Vella 15 asked me if the idea of a third-party entering into 16 negotiations on the Government behalf was raised at the 17 Interministerial Committee. 18 My answer was no, with the exception of 19 the suggestion that perhaps Chief Bressette could be 20 helpful. 21 Q: Sure. 22 A: And the third point I'm not sure I 23 understand. 24 Q: I guess what I'm suggesting to you is 25 that --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- in your view you had a concern 3 with information strategies which were being discussed in 4 the IMC meetings being relayed to anyone outside of that 5 forum? 6 Was that a concern you expressed at the 7 meeting? 8 A: That was not a concern related to 9 this, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only 10 thing I recall saying of that nature, at some point in 11 the last two and a half (2 1/2) days, was around the fact 12 that subsequent to those meetings, I understand, a series 13 of conversations were held between a -- an individual of 14 the civil service who attended the Interministerial 15 Committee meetings and various individuals in the OPP. 16 I commented on the fact that given the 17 oath that we all take as civil servants and political 18 staff, that seemed inappropriate. It was not my thinking 19 at the time. It wouldn't have occurred to me anyone 20 would be speaking about the discussions at the meeting, 21 so. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: I'm not sure if that's what you're 24 referring to, I'm sorry. 25 Q: I think I am but I think --


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: -- what I was driving at is in terms 3 of did you -- the sentiment that discussions with anyone 4 other than OPP and MNR representatives, is that something 5 you advocated at that meeting, that they shouldn't take 6 place? 7 A: Did I advocate they shouldn't take 8 place? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: I -- 11 Q: Other than with representatives of 12 the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of Natural 13 Resources? 14 A: Right. I believe there are comments 15 attributed to me which I don't specifically recall but -- 16 but are consistent with my thinking that to ensure that 17 no substantive negotiations take place on the 18 Government's behalf, that MNR clearly as part of 19 government, should only be discussing very specific 20 issues with the occupiers. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: But nothing substantive. 23 Q: And -- and -- 24 A: I apologize. I'm worried that we're 25 not having the same conversation here.


1 Q: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm missing 3 something, too. I think she's referring to discussions 4 between the occupiers. 5 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: Okay, well let -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm not 7 sure that's what you're referring to. 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And either 10 the MNR or the OPP. 11 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: I actually see the 12 confusion and I'm going to step back a couple of minutes. 13 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JONATHON GEORGE: 16 Q: The -- I, sort of, recounted to you 17 your testimony of yesterday about the concerns you would 18 have, although it may be helpful, the concerns you would 19 have with involving Chief Bressette. 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Okay. And I follow -- 22 A: Which was a very specific -- 23 Q: Right. 24 A: -- suggestion, okay? 25 Q: So let's stick with that for a


1 minute -- 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: For the time being. And I think I 4 also went on to, sort of, give my characterization of 5 that exchange between you and Ms. Vella, and as I recall 6 it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I -- but I 7 think I'm right that you -- you said that in the context 8 of negotiations and involving someone to speak to the 9 occupiers and end the occupation; do I have that correct? 10 A: I think that's accurate, yes. 11 Q: Okay. Okay. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I hate to jump back and forth 14 here, but I just want -- I just wanted to confirm that 15 because I want to turn you to something else Elizabeth 16 Christie said -- 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: -- in her testimony. And again if 19 any of My Friends are interested I'm referring to the 20 transcript of September 27th starting at page 288. And - 21 - and I'll just -- I'll just read you -- I -- I 22 unfortunately don't have a -- hardcopy of the transcript 23 to give you so I'll just read it for you, Ms. Hutton. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Starting at paragraph 14 Elizabeth


1 Christie said: 2 "Certainly there -- in my notes say -- 3 and I certainly recall that Tim McCabe 4 said, Can we get an affidavit from 5 Chief Bressette? And shortly after 6 that Ms. Hutton indicates that no, we 7 don't want to be seen to be -- [that's 8 where the comment], 'We don't want to 9 be seen to be working with the 10 Indians.' 11 She goes on: 12 It all came in and we took that as an 13 indication that we weren't going to be 14 getting an affidavit." 15 I'll just stop there for a moment, Ms. 16 Hutton. 17 Would you agree with me that there's a 18 distinction between involving someone generally to 19 facilitate negotiations to end occupation and simply 20 attempting or canvass with somebody and engaging them and 21 having them prepare an affidavit which would be used in 22 court? 23 A: I would agree -- 24 Q: You -- you see the distinction? 25 A: I would agree with that general


1 distinction. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And -- 5 A: If -- if I could just further say -- 6 Q: Sure. 7 A: -- the second part of that, in other 8 words the suggestion of Chief Bressette helping with the 9 affidavit I don't recall being discussed. 10 Q: Okay. So, you -- you -- simply don't 11 recall the conversation? 12 A: Right. My recollection of the 13 conversation as it related to Chief Bressette was around 14 any assistance he could be directly with the occupiers in 15 seeing this occupation come to an end. 16 Q: Okay. You don't dispute that that 17 exchange did take place; you simply don't recall? 18 A: I can't do that, correct. 19 Q: Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Looking back now and sort of from 24 today's perspective is that not engaging him or 25 canvassing with him the possibility of providing an


1 affidavit? 2 Is that consistent with your thought at 3 the time? 4 A: No, actually it isn't. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: To be honest it wouldn't have 7 occurred to me that the Chief would have had information 8 germane to the preparation of the affidavit so it's just 9 not -- 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: -- something I would be thinking 12 about. 13 Q: Okay. So you don't recall Tim 14 McCabe -- 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: -- talking about an affidavit? 17 A: No, no. I recall Tim McCabe talking 18 about needing to prepare for the injunction. 19 Q: Right. 20 A: He didn't specifically, to my 21 recollection, discuss who -- and in fact as I said 22 earlier it would have been my expectation that OPP 23 information would have helped form the basis of the 24 injunction. 25 Q: Okay. And finally, Ms. Hutton, you -


1 - you indicated yesterday again in an exchange with Ms. 2 Vella that in terms of engaging Chief Bressette, 3 forgetting about the -- the use of -- the potential use 4 of an affidavit you, and I think you spoke to this 5 earlier, that among other things the reason you didn't 6 want to do that was because you didn't want to put Chief 7 Bressette in an awkward position 8 and -- 9 A: Or the Government. 10 Q: Or the Government and I think you've 11 confirmed it, but that's simply in the context of 12 generally speaking not with respect to the use of an 13 affidavit. 14 You have no recollection of Chief 15 Bressette and an affidavit being discussed at all at that 16 meeting? 17 A: Of the link between those two (2) -- 18 Q: Right. 19 A: -- Chief Bressette helping with an 20 affidavit? That's correct? 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: I do not have a recollection of that. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Those are my questions, Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 3 Mr. George. Mr. Horton? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can I ask 8 you, Mr. Horton, if your original estimate is still 9 reasonable accurate? 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm going to say 11 yes, Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It was an 13 hour I believe? 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I -- I did, yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I think the safest 17 thing for me to do is to say yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 That's fine. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 22 Q: Ms. Hutton, I'm Bill Horton and I 23 represent Chiefs of Ontario. 24 A: Thank you. 25 Q: And I do have a few questions for you


1 today. 2 I want to go back to the time when you 3 stopped working for Premier Harris and I gather that 4 happened when? 5 A: Early 2000. 6 Q: Early 2000. And your next job was 7 working for Hydro 1; is that correct? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, I'm not 9 sure what the relevance of all of this is. The mandate 10 is with respect to the circumstances around the events of 11 September of 1995. 12 We're now, if I understand My Friend 13 correctly, talking about the year 2000. What on earth is 14 the relevance of this? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 16 not sure what the relevance of it is. Perhaps Mr. 17 Horton -- 18 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: If My Friend would 19 like me to address the question of relevance, 20 Commissioner -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she's 22 made an objection so I -- 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Then I'm -- then I'm 24 happy to do that. 25 As you know, Commissioner, relevance is


1 judged by whether or not evidence may help a trier of 2 fact in determining the truth or falsity of some issue 3 that needs to be determined by the trier of fact, and 4 that issue is determined by materiality. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Now, in this 7 particular instance, if Ms. Hutton's truthfulness was not 8 an issue, then the questions I'm about to ask would not 9 be relevant. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: The fact of the 12 matter is that Ms. Hutton's truthfulness is very much an 13 issue, and I'm quite happy to go into why that is the 14 case. 15 But it is clearly the case that it is in 16 issue and -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What you 18 take as credibility -- 19 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Absolutely it goes 20 to credibility -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is an 22 issue that I will have to -- 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And your 25 question goes to that.


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Based on that, there 2 are issues both of partiality -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- and issues of 5 motive, in terms of not being truthful. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: My questions, and I 8 want to -- I don't want to have a series of objections to 9 this. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: So I'm going to 12 state what questions I wish to ask. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I was going 14 to say, it may be that you could stop there. But you 15 would insist that he explain in a fulsome manner the 16 reason why he's asking her about where she worked after 17 she left the Government. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Absolutely. This is 19 an Inquiry, not -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 21 think -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- a fishing 23 expedition, so. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 Let's --


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: It's not -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- carry on. 3 Yeah. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm concerned that 5 this may be collateral. I'm not -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought you 7 might -- 8 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- not 10 insist on that -- 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, Commissioner - 12 - so Commissioner, this witness has given evidence that 13 is inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses, 14 plus she has claimed not to be able to remember -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- what I would 17 suggest, I will certainly be submitting, are significant 18 conversations with her boss, and the most senior 19 politician in the Province at the time, on an issue of 20 significance, and there are issues as to whether or not 21 she is truthful in doing those things. 22 And there are issues, if she's not 23 truthful, as to whether or not her relationship with Mr. 24 Harris or the Progressive Conservative Party or the 25 Ontario Government while the Progressive Conservatives


1 were running it, is a factor to be considered. 2 And that is absolutely proper cross- 3 examination where truthfulness is an issue. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How does her 5 subsequent employment affect her credibility -- 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, Commissioner, 7 if you want me to go further into it, the issue is 8 whether or not she has a motive to protect Premier 9 Harris; whether or not she has been rewarded by the 10 relationship that he has -- that she has had with Mr. 11 Harris and with the Progressive Conservative Party. 12 And I'm not proposing to -- I'm not 13 proposing to browbeat her on these issues, Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Not at all. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You wouldn't 17 do that and I wouldn't let you do that. 18 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm not proposing 19 that. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 21 right. 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And I can advise you 23 that I sought this information from Commission Counsel -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You mean -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And so all I want to


1 do is have a CV. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: That's all I want. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So that's -- 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I want to know her 6 employment history and furthermore, Commissioner, we have 7 had employment histories from others. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well we have 9 them. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And, for example, 11 with respect to Superintendent Fox, whose evidence she -- 12 her evidence contradicts, we had a full history of his 13 employment right up to the time that he gave evidence. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And I think it's 16 only fair, when her evidence is being contrasted with 17 that of Superintendent Fox -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- that we should 20 have a complete employment history, and it -- it 21 surprises me, frankly -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- that there would 24 be resistence on putting the witnesses -- and this -- 25 there are people in this room who can determine this


1 information. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm sure the counsel 4 -- I'm sure your counsel has this information. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it -- 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: So there's no reason 7 why the public should not have this information. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, stop 9 there. Yes, you're -- what you're trying to get is what 10 amounts to a CV or employment history; that's the 11 questions you're -- 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: All I'm seeking is a 13 CV. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's-- 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And I may have one 16 (1) or two (2) additional questions, but basically 17 depending upon what's in the CV. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We do not 19 have a copy of a CV. If we did, we would probably have 20 put it in as we have with -- 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: My Friend asked me last 22 night if we had a CV, and fact of the matter is we do not 23 have a CV, and therefore I cannot assist him in this 24 respect. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm not


1 anxious to get into a long description of this, I'm 2 really not. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I just wanted to 4 indicate for the record, I requested of Ms. Perschy 5 yesterday -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- also a 8 curriculum vitae and for frankly the same reasons Mr. 9 Horton did, so -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Perhaps over the 12 lunchbreak, since the request was made yesterday, maybe 13 we can find out what progress Ms. Perschy has made on 14 that request. 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Mr. Falconer didn't 16 indicate what the reasons were for. As I just stood up a 17 few moments ago, I didn't see the link at all. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I still frankly don't 20 see the link. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: So -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is there a 24 CV in existence that we could have and put it into this? 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I don't know.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 2 have one. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I don't -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 5 questions are not -- yes, Mr. Downard, do you want to say 6 something about the relevance or propriety of asking -- 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just that -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- questions 9 that amount to eliciting a CV? 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, but My Friend 11 doesn't just want to know what the CV is, it's what -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, what-- 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- he wants to -- 14 it's the express purpose that's going to guide his 15 questions. And my only concern is that it sounded like 16 he was just about to ask her almost whether she is now, 17 or ever has been, a member of the Conservative Party. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And that she's trying 20 -- and that his line of questioning suggests that she is 21 biassed because of her political allegiance. And I 22 simply want to make this -- the submission, which I doubt 23 you would disagree with, sir -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: That this is not a


1 place where people's politics should be put on trial. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 3 certainly agree with that and I don't think that's what 4 Mr. Horton was doing. 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, 6 politics are at the bottom of this entire Inquiry. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And that is our 9 position, and we have a political witness. We have -- 10 she was responsible to the most senior politician. The 11 evidence is perfectly capable of being interpreted that 12 there were political motivations in what was done. 13 That is very much the line of my 14 questioning. And for Mr. Downard to get up and say, 15 politics has got nothing to do with this -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- is in the realm 18 of the absurd. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 20 what -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, Mr. 22 Commissioner, there are a number of issues here that we 23 can either piecemeal out and keep dealing with as Mr. 24 Horton does his examination and then as I do mine. 25 But frankly, we're about to hit a


1 threshold issue which I think I need to simply be heard 2 for ten (10) seconds on, which is it comes down to this: 3 Ms. Hutton's credibility is an issue, as any witness. 4 There's nothing special about Ms. Hutton in that respect. 5 But it's not every witness that counsel 6 may feel the regrettable need at the -- and may, I say, 7 may, because we have to do our examinations and we have 8 to look at the results, may feel the regrettable need to 9 be making a submission to you at the end of the day that 10 they've sought to mislead the Court. 11 Now, because of that, there will be -- 12 there is a potential for cross-examination on credibility 13 that doesn't accompany all of the witnesses, for example, 14 her allegiances and her loyalties, et cetera. 15 It's in that respect that, with great 16 respect, I disagree with Mr. Downard, only to this point. 17 It doesn't matter what her political beliefs are, that's 18 irrelevant. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That is completely 21 irrelevant. She's entitled to them, as is Mr. Rae or 22 anybody else, left right or in the middle. 23 But if there is an allegiance that affects 24 her evidence or her way of thinking in terms of giving 25 her evidence, that's relevant.


1 So that issue, her allegiances, is very 2 relevant and it is an issue that I certainly, assuming 3 I'm not repeating what Mr. Horton does and Mr. Horton may 4 cover all of it, but I also will be inquiring into her 5 loyalties. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's why I 8 say the CV is part of that because of her employment 9 history and where she owes her loyalties to. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 You said ten (10) seconds, thank you, Mr. Falconer. 12 Yes, Ms. Vella...? 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just a couple of 14 observations. The first is, of course, every witness' 15 credibility is arguably at issue in this Inquiry. No 16 facts have been found about anything. 17 Second, I do think it appropriate cross- 18 examination to explore areas which delve into possible 19 biasses of any witness. 20 So I don't think there's anything 21 objectionable about that and I haven't heard any 22 prejudice put forward by My Friend Ms. Perschy with 23 respect to the employment history. 24 So I think that, at least with respect to 25 the employment history, that it's appropriate to ask


1 questions and let's hear what those questions are and if 2 they go too far in someone's opinion, I'm sure they'll 3 rise. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 I mean that's where we are and that's where I'd like to 6 continue. The question that you've asked regarding 7 employment is not irrelevant, in my view. 8 It's been asked of other witnesses and I 9 think you're entitled to ask it. 10 Where we go from there remains to be seen. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, may I 12 suggest this, because I don't want to -- it's going to 13 take me longer to do this by question and answer. 14 If I can be provided over the lunch hour 15 with Ms. Hutton's employment history over the last ten 16 (10) years. And I do also want to have her answer about 17 her relationship with the Progressive Conservative Party 18 in terms of any offices or significant ties she has had 19 and maintained with that party over the last ten (10) 20 years, I do want that information also. 21 And I'm happy to get it in written form 22 and then I may or may not have a couple of supplementary 23 questions on it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I would suggest that


1 that is the appropriate way to deal -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see if 3 the information -- 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- with it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If the 6 information exists in written form, that might -- 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, I 8 thought Mr. Horton had just indicated he had a couple of 9 questions. I would have thought the simplest way to 10 address the employment issue, which is the only one we're 11 addressing at this point in time, would be to simply to 12 ask the couple of questions. 13 I don't see how it speeds up the process 14 if it literally is just a couple of questions. 15 I'm not sure where else Mr. Horton is 16 going and I do have some -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 18 indicated -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- concerns with 20 respect -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 22 indicated where he's going. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- to purely personal 24 information. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right.


1 Ms. Perschy, I don't want to ask the witness, but I 2 could, but is there a CV in existence? We don't have 3 one. 4 Are you aware of one? 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I don't -- I don't 6 have one. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, no 8 problem. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: She's not answering 10 -- she's not answering if she's aware of one. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't hear 12 you. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: She says we don't 14 have one, that you -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm not -- I'm not 16 aware of one. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 18 fine. So I think we have to have you ask the questions. 19 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, I just 20 have to say this -- this may impact my time, that's all. 21 But I'm prepared to deal with it that way if that's -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: If that's your 24 preference. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 2 Q: So let's start with your job at Hydro 3 1. You took that job in 2000? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And when was that in relation to Mr. 6 Harris resigning as Premier? 7 A: I believe Mr. Harris indicated in 8 fall of 2001 that he would be stepping down. 9 Q: So that was before? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Before that happened, while he was 12 still Premier? 13 A: That is correct. 14 Q: You got the job at Hydro 1; is that 15 correct? 16 A: I did. 17 Q: All right. And what was your annual 18 compensation at Hydro 1 when you took that job? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just stop 20 there. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: What's the relevance 22 of her annual compensation at Hydro 1? And again, I'm 23 becoming more concerned about this. I would not have 24 thought about cross-examining Julie Jai, for example, on 25 her political allegiances and how that might have


1 affected her recollections. 2 I thought that would have been completely 3 inappropriate and I think that's exactly where we're 4 going. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 6 stop the proceeding now. We're going to take an early 7 break and we're going to see where we're going from here. 8 I need to think about this. You've 9 indicated what you're intending to do and -- 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I need to 12 see because you're obviously going to be asking questions 13 or are going to be provoking a number of objections from 14 a number of counsel. 15 And I think we need to back up a step. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And obviously I concur 17 with Mr. Downard's point. I'd just add this -- this is 18 leading into personal information. 19 It's simply outside the mandate of this 20 Commission and -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- it's not helpful to 23 you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we may 25 have to have some more argument on this after, but I'd


1 like to take a break now. 2 Yes, Mr. Horton...? 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I just wanted to... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, I'm 8 just wanting to -- did you want to take the lunch break 9 now? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 11 we should. 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 14 quarter to 12:00 and this is obviously an issue that's 15 going to cause some time and tension. 16 Let's take a minute, or let's take a lunch 17 break, rather. 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 19 adjourned until one o'clock. 20 21 --- Upon recessing at 11:45 a.m. 22 --- Upon resuming at 1:00 p.m. 23 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 25 resumed. Please be seated.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 When we adjourned, Mr. Horton, a little bit early for 3 lunch, you had asked the question for compensation and I 4 wanted to adjourn for lunch. And have I decided that 5 that's a proper question for you to ask. 6 That information, as I understand it, is 7 readily available to the public domain. It's a matter of 8 the public disclosure. So, I think that's a proper 9 question to ask. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Thank you, 11 Commissioner. It -- 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, I didn't want 13 to interrupt. I just -- but I just did want to make the 14 point that Ms. Hutton's come forward to testify and she's 15 agreed to answer these sorts of questions. I, as her 16 counsel however, do have some concerns, some serious 17 reservations, with respect to where these questions are 18 going, propriety and the relevance of these questions. 19 So, I may still at some point stand up and 20 make objections and I just wanted to make that clear. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 22 have to announce that, Ms. Perschy. But, when and if you 23 feel a matter is worth an objection, then I presume 24 you'll make it and we'll deal with it. 25 Carry on, Mr. Horton.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 3 Q: Ms. Hutton, can you provide that 4 information then as to your annual compensation at Hydro 5 1? 6 A: I believe it was around a hundred and 7 eighty thousand dollars ($180,000). 8 Q: And does that include all of the 9 bonuses and that sort of thing? 10 A: I was there for three (3) years. I - 11 - I can't recall the specific number for in each of those 12 years. I believe the highest might have been around, 13 with bonus and all, two hundred and thirty thousand 14 dollars ($230,000), I believe. 15 Q: All right. And prior to the election 16 where the Liberals succeeded, did you have any other jobs 17 with either the Ontario Government or an Ontario Crown 18 Corporation? 19 A: I was at Hydro 1 from early 2000 20 until almost exactly three (3) years later, 2003. I then 21 entered the private sector and I have in the course of, I 22 guess two and a half (2 1/2) years, had no government 23 contracts whatsoever. 24 It is my own personal business and I had 25 decided once I left Hydro 1 that I would not do any


1 government work whatsoever. 2 Q: All right. And the second area I 3 wanted to ask you about was simply relationships or ties 4 to the Progressive Conservative Party and yes, I was 5 going to ask you whether you are a member of the 6 Progressive Conservative party. I'm sure you're not -- 7 A: I hope I'm still in good standing, 8 yes. 9 Q: -- concerned about that one way or 10 the other. Have you held any offices with the 11 Progressive Conservative Party? 12 A: I believe I have, from time to time, 13 been on my local executive. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: Not currently though. 16 Q: Right. And have you had -- held any 17 other -- any other offices with the Progressive 18 Conservative Party in that period of time? 19 The last ten (10) years is the period of 20 time I'm referring to. 21 A: I don't think so, other than I would 22 simply say that in the course of 1990 -- 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: -- '95, '99, and 2003 I was a member 25 of the campaign team. So, I -- I had --


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- a role, an unpaid one in the 2003 3 campaign we have not yet discussed. 4 Q: Yes, all right. And is there 5 anything else in relation to your connections to the 6 Progressive Conservative Party that you feel the 7 Commissioner ought to know in assessing your evidence? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 9 think that's too general a question. I think that's too 10 general a question. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just going to 12 say I'm not -- I'm not sure she can answer that -- that 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 15 That's fine. well, you asked the question -- 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: All right. 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: If -- if the issue -- 18 if I may just interrupt. 19 If the issue is allegiance or loyalty 20 that's -- just ask the question. I don't know why we 21 need to get into -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think, Ms. 23 Perschy, Mr. Horton is able to ask the questions the way 24 he wishes to. Thank you. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 2 Q: Let me put it this way, do you have 3 any other relationship to the Progressive Conservative 4 Party that is not a matter of public record? 5 A: That is not a matter of public 6 record? 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: Such as? 9 Q: Well -- 10 A: I -- I just don't want to say no 11 and -- 12 Q: Yes, all right. 13 A: -- misunderstand the question. 14 Q: Correct. You have as spouse who is 15 active in politics; is that right? 16 A: Yes, I do. 17 Q: Yes. And was a member of the Harris 18 Cabinet? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: That is a matter of public record. 22 Q: Yes. No, that's why I was -- I was 23 trying to avoid asking -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- the question, Ms.


1 Hutton, but that's fine. We have the information now. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 4 Q: And is still a sitting member of 5 parliament? 6 A: Yes, he is. 7 Q: With the Progressive Conservative 8 Party? 9 A: Provincial Parliament. 10 Q: Right. And just to cover it off 11 then, in the last ten (10) years have you had any 12 professional relationships with Mr. Harris? 13 A: In the last ten (10) -- 14 Q: Any sort of business -- 15 A: -- years? 16 Q: Yeah. Well, after you left 17 government -- 18 A: So, in the last five (5) years. 19 Q: All right. In the last five (5) 20 years have you had any professional relationships with 21 him, worked with him on any joint ventures or contracts 22 or consulting matters; anything -- anything at all of 23 that nature? 24 A: No, I do from time to time still 25 receive, on his behalf, media inquiries. Unlike many


1 other jurisdictions we do not provide assistance to our 2 Prime Ministers and Premiers after they leave office of 3 any great deal. And so he has no staff independent of 4 his own professional work despite the fact that he is 5 asked from time to time to comment on public affairs 6 matters, et cetera. 7 So, I have continued to play that role 8 strictly voluntarily. 9 Q: All right. And has that included 10 then, discussing the Ipperwash Inquiry and evidence and 11 things of that nature with Mr. Harris? 12 A: No. And interestingly -- 13 surprisingly I might -- I might add I do not recall ever 14 receiving a call from the media since I left Queen's Park 15 to comment on Ipperwash on Mr. Harris' behalf. 16 Q: Now, I want to move to a few other 17 areas, Ms. Hutton. 18 And I wanted to ask you some questions 19 about your evidence that you wanted to send a message 20 with how the Government handled the Ipperwash Inquiry. 21 Is that a fair way to -- to summarize your 22 evidence? 23 A: I was concerned that if we were 24 silent on the matter that that in and of itself is -- is 25 a sort of response --


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: -- and so -- and one that I didn't 3 think was prudent. And so yes, I did feel we needed to 4 make a public statement on September the 5th. 5 Q: And the public statement as I 6 understand it was simply, to the effect, that this kind 7 of behaviour would not be condoned; is that right? 8 A: I think it was a little more 9 extensive and -- and I'm sorry I don't have the benefit 10 of some notes in front me, but my recollection was the -- 11 the Province has clear ownership of the Park, that the 12 individuals have been told -- I believe we used the term 13 'trespassing' in our public communications, and have been 14 asked to leave and that we were looking at our legal 15 options; that's my recollection of a bit of a precis of 16 that message. 17 Q: I stand to be corrected, but I think 18 you -- 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: -- also did use the words that this 21 behaviour would not be condoned; the word 'not be' -- the 22 phrase 'not be condoned' -- 23 A: I -- I have. 24 Q: -- in your evidence. 25 A: I have certainly, yes.


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: That was my point of view. I was -- 3 Q: Right. 4 A: -- speaking, I think, to the more 5 specific language that I believe we landed on at the end 6 of that day. 7 Q: Yeah, but I wasn't asking about the 8 specific language, I was asking whether or not part of 9 the message was that this kind of behaviour would not be 10 condoned. And do you agree with that? 11 A: Yes, I just took your word 'message' 12 to mean public messaging, that's all. 13 Q: And -- but isn't that the -- one of 14 the thrusts that you wanted to get across to the public 15 was that the Government would not tolerate this kind of 16 behaviour? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Right. And I -- I noticed when Mr. 19 Rosenthal questioned you about it, you said that this had 20 nothing to do with the Common Sense Revolution. 21 Do you remember giving that answer? 22 A: Yes. I forget what the first part of 23 his question was but he linked something specific to this 24 situation to our platform, I believe was his word. 25 Q: Right.


1 A: And I took platform to mean Common 2 Sense Revolution. 3 Q: Right. But, outside of the Common 4 Sense Revolution document, we have seen this document 5 called, Voice for the North. Have you -- do you remember 6 being referred to that? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: And I don't want to take you all 9 through your evidence again on that, but the -- I'm going 10 to summarize to you that that document suggests that one 11 of the characteristics of a Harris government would be 12 that the Government would address the concerns of non- 13 Natives with respect to certain Native issues. 14 Would you agree with that? 15 A: With respect to certain Native 16 issues, I would agree with that. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: I -- I'm sorry I can't -- I can't say 19 whether it was in Voice for the North or community 20 development which we also went through. I just -- I 21 wouldn't want to be positive on which of those two (2) 22 that -- 23 Q: Yeah. 24 A: -- sentiment occurred. 25 Q: Okay. But, you'll agree with me that


1 one of the points on which the Harris campaign was based 2 was that the -- specifically that the concerns of non- 3 Natives vis-a-vis Native issues would be addressed? Am I 4 correct? 5 A: Yeah. You're -- you're really over 6 stating those documents. As I said I think at the very 7 beginning of -- of my evidence on Monday, our platform, 8 our set of priorities to the -- to the people of Ontario 9 in asking them to elect Mr. Harris and his colleagues, 10 was around getting the size of cost and cost of 11 government in balance with the economy. 12 Q: Yeah. No, I wasn't asking about 13 that. I was asking about the issues with respect to 14 Natives and non- Natives. 15 A: Right. You just -- 16 Q: And that one of the components of 17 that -- 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: -- was that the issu -- that the 20 concerns that non-Natives had with respect to Native 21 issues would be addressed and you have agreed with me on 22 that; is that correct? 23 A: I did. I felt you were stating it as 24 part of our campaign platform and I felt that was simply 25 over stating its prominence.


1 Q: Well, that was certainly was 2 information that was provided to the public? 3 A: I think that's most correct. 4 Q: With respect to the Harris 5 government? 6 A: With respect -- 7 Q: With the -- the Harris -- with 8 respect to what a Harris government might do in -- 9 A: I think that's more accurate, yes. 10 Q: -- connection with those issues? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Never withdrawn prior to the 13 election? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Continued to be part of the program? 16 A: Again, I just take exception with the 17 -- the program. I think policy statements in areas of 18 this nature where you would operate in a particular way, 19 is a little bit different than saying it's part of our 20 platform, our agenda, or our program. I just -- I make 21 the distinction because for me it is two (2) different 22 things. 23 Q: Presumably, that kind of statement 24 when it was reduced to writing, Ms. Hutton -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- was intended to reach non-Natives 2 who had those concerns? 3 A: It would be intended to reach anyone 4 who was making a choice in the 1995 election campaign, 5 yes. 6 Q: Right. But -- but, specifically if 7 you're creating a document that says non-Native concerns 8 with respect to Native issues will be addressed -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: -- then what you're hoping to do is 11 that in a -- in a political way is that non-Natives who 12 have those concerns will be aware that the Government in 13 -- that the Harris government would deal with that; isn't 14 that correct? 15 A: I do think that's obvious, yes. 16 Q: Yeah. And in relation to that 17 constituency, the constituency of non-Natives who have 18 concerns with Native issues, did you -- are you following 19 my terminology to this point, Ms. Hutton? 20 A: I hope so. 21 Q: Okay. That was a constituency that 22 Mr. Harris paid some attention to during that election 23 campaign and previously, right? 24 A: Yes. But, I wouldn't say exclusively 25 if that's what you're suggesting.


1 Q: Did I say exclusively, Ms. Hutton? 2 A: No. I just want it to be clear. 3 Q: No. That's -- that's fine. There 4 are a lot of constituencies out there, right? 5 A: Absolutely. 6 Q: Right. But, one of the 7 constituencies is non-Natives who have concerns with 8 Native issues, right? 9 A: Yes. I guess, again, for what it's 10 worth, when you say constituency it seems to be a -- a -- 11 it seems to have a greater significance than I would have 12 thought that, but -- 13 Q: Yeah. 14 A: -- I mean, certain people can have 15 views without assuming they a part of the constituency, I 16 think. 17 Q: That's why I stopped after I said 18 constituency to give you an opportunity to take issue 19 with that word. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: So, now if we're back to that, I 22 think in political parlance, people normally talk about 23 constituencies as being a group of people who have a 24 particular interest or a particular feature in common 25 that can be targeted by political policies; is that


1 right? 2 A: Right. And so in this case if I 3 wasn't clear before, I would say that to call a group of 4 people who happened to be non-Aboriginal, but might have 5 some concerns about very specific Aboriginal policies, a 6 constituency, I think is overstating my view -- 7 Q: Fair enough. 8 A: -- of a number of people -- 9 Q: Let's not use the word con -- 10 A: -- you would have to -- 11 Q: Let's not use the word constituency. 12 Let's talk about non-Natives who have concerns with 13 Native issues. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: You were aware that, for example, 16 that included various associations of hunters and 17 fisherman and that kind of thing, correct? 18 A: I think I probably was, I'm not sure. 19 I think it's more accurate to say that I would have been 20 aware of various groups' concerns -- 21 Q: Hmm hmm. 22 A: -- and I'm not sure I would bring 23 them together in the way that you might be suggesting to 24 me. 25 Q: But you were aware that Mr. Harris


1 addressed such groups, from time to time, during the 2 campaign and before the campaign? 3 A: Yes, it was part of his public 4 responsibilities. 5 Q: Right. And in keeping with the 6 political message for non-Natives who had concerns with 7 Native issues, he would address those types of issues 8 with those audiences. 9 You were aware of that? 10 A: Yeah, again, I think you are really 11 overstating certain things. 12 Q: How am I overstating that? Would he 13 not address those issues with those audiences? 14 A: Perhaps it was just for me, but you 15 left the impression, in my mind, that you were suggesting 16 that Mr. Harris would go specifically to specific groups, 17 perhaps those with hunting and fishing concerns, strictly 18 to address the areas that we've just gone over -- 19 Q: Hmm hmm. 20 A: -- I just -- I think that is 21 overstating the fact -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- that you go to speak to public 24 groups on many topics at many times. 25 Q: Yeah. No, I didn't mean to convey


1 that, Ms. Hutton. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: I just meant to convey that he would 4 address those types of issues when he would speak to 5 those types of groups? 6 A: He may have, yes. 7 Q: Well you were aware that he did, 8 weren't you? 9 A: I attended, I would venture to say, 10 thousands of Mr. Harris's speeches and while I'm sure at 11 the time I listened attentively, it would be very hard 12 for me to be able to say to you today he spoke about 13 this -- 14 Q: Right. 15 A: -- this topic on that -- 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: -- particular speech. 18 Q: We'll -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to 19 interrupt. 20 A: I'm finished, sorry. 21 Q: Okay. We'll -- we'll revisit that, 22 I'm sure, on another occasion. What I want to ask you is 23 this: In terms of the group of non-Natives who had 24 concerns with Native issues, they were -- essentially 25 what Mr. Harris had been promising them was that he would


1 take a firmer position with Natives on things like land 2 claims and things like hunting and fishing rights, 3 correct? 4 A: Again, I think you're overstating by 5 using the term 'group'. I do think that the documents, 6 both Voice for the North and the community development 7 document that we went over, speak for themselves. 8 Q: Right. And you don't disagree with 9 the way I've characterized it, just to say that a Harris 10 Government would take a firmer position with Natives on 11 those issues? 12 A: On very specific issues. I'm not 13 sure I'd use the term 'firmer'. I think -- 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: -- as I said, those documents speak 16 for themselves. 17 Q: Well certainly not more favourable -- 18 A: I think -- 19 Q: -- to Native -- 20 A: I think the word I'd -- 21 Q: -- land claims? 22 A: I'd be most comfortable with would 23 be, balanced. 24 Q: Balanced? Okay. Well, as you say, 25 the documents speak for themselves.


1 Now, let me -- let me ask you this. When 2 you were formulating the message relating to Ipperwash -- 3 A: On Tuesday? 4 Q: I'm actually covering Tuesday, 5 Wednesday. I'm covering both days, all right? 6 Any discussions that you had or thoughts 7 you had -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: -- with respect to formulating the 10 message. 11 Did you give some thought to how that 12 message would be understood by the non-Natives who have 13 concerns with Native issues? 14 A: I would say yes, insofar as I was 15 certainly aware of the concerns, locally, of the non- 16 Native community, and that was part of my thinking. 17 Q: But also you've said that the message 18 was intended, really, to deal with other potential 19 situations, correct? 20 A: Correct. That's correct. 21 Q: Right. So you certainly recognized 22 that that would be a message that would be to which 23 attention would be paid by non-Natives who had concerns 24 about Native issues? 25 A: No, that is overstating my thought.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. Let me ask you this. You 2 can't remember any of the specific discussions you had 3 with Mr. Harris on this Ipperwash issue, as I understand 4 it. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: So, let me just take you to 7 discussions that you would generally have with -- with 8 Mr. Harris -- 9 A: Right. 10 Q: -- about issues. I'm assuming that 11 in discussing issues that have some profile that one (1) 12 of the kinds of things you would discuss with Mr. Harris 13 would be how the Government's position would be received 14 by different groups within the -- within the Province. 15 A: I think that is dependent on the 16 issue, but that's certainly one (1) of the things that 17 you might be looking at and discussing, yes. 18 Q: Well, I'm assum -- you're a political 19 aide, right? 20 A: I was. 21 Q: Okay. So your responsibility is to 22 deal with the political issues, right? 23 A: That's one (1) of the 24 responsibilities I had, yes. 25 Q: Yeah. And I don't mean to belittle


1 that I'm just saying that was one (1) of your 2 responsibilities was to deal -- 3 A: Yes it was. 4 Q: -- with the political aspect. 5 A: Yes, it was. 6 Q: And to be particularly attuned to how 7 things would play with different groups that may support 8 or oppose the Premier and the Party politically, correct? 9 A: Yes, and the Government. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: I -- I -- we just -- 12 Q: And is it fair to say that -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 14 minute, Mr. Horton. 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes, I'm sorry. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 THE WITNESS: I was just going to make 18 the point that -- that while a government is, by our 19 process, a political party, once a party is elected 20 government our responsibilities go beyond the straight 21 political and our point of view goes beyond the straight 22 political. We are elected to represent all Ontarians. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 25 Q: Oh, I'm -- I'm well aware of that and


1 I'm sure the Commissioner is as well, Ms. Hutton, but 2 what I want to know is, in terms of the discussions that 3 you had with the Premier, which you can't recall, can we 4 assume that those discussions would have included how 5 different groups in the Province would react to the 6 decisions that were being made? 7 A: As I said it certainly was part of my 8 thinking -- 9 Q: Hmm hmm 10 A: -- in a very specific way that we 11 respond as part of our response to the concerns of the 12 non-Native communities -- 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: -- specifically. So to the extent 15 that there was a -- a community component as you're 16 raising it, I think that is fair. 17 Broadly speaking, my concern, which I've 18 expressed, around ensuring that no one in the Province 19 think that we condone, as a government, this type of 20 behaviour, as I've said, I -- I just -- I didn't parse 21 that thought into specific groups. 22 Q: But I'm suggesting to you that it 23 would be pretty clear to you that taking a position that 24 appeared to -- to take a stand against Aboriginal peoples 25 would be pretty popular with the non-Natives who had a


1 concern with Native issues. I'm suggesting to you that 2 you were well aware of that political implication at the 3 time, were you not? 4 A: It certainly wasn't top of mind or 5 even something that I would say I can tell you today I 6 was thinking specifically. 7 Q: And -- but nor can you remember not 8 thinking about it; is that right? 9 A: That's true, but I do -- 10 Q: Yeah. 11 A: -- recall, I think -- 12 Q: Yeah. 13 A: -- I hope, fairly well, my thought 14 process at the time and it just wasn't consistent -- 15 Q: Yeah. 16 A: -- with what I recall it to be. 17 Q: And nor can you rule out the 18 possibility that you discussed it with the Premier? 19 A: I cannot. 20 Q: Now, you've used the term, "top of 21 mind," and the next topic I wanted to canvass with you 22 is: In responding to Ms. Vella's questions you said 23 public safety and a peaceful end to the occupation were 24 "top of mind." 25 Do you remember saying that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And also when Mr. Downard was 3 questioning you you said the only discussions you ever 4 heard involved the word, "peaceful." 5 Do -- do you remember saying that? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: Now, I -- I want to -- 8 A: I do think it was in response to a 9 very specific question. 10 Q: I want to give you an opportunity to 11 comment on -- on this, Ms. Hutton. 12 If a peaceful resolution was at the top of 13 your mind, is -- is that -- should we -- first of all, 14 should we make that assumption? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: That a peaceful resolution was the 17 top of your mind? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And that the only discussions you 20 ever participated in were, use the word, "peaceful?" 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: You -- you -- is that a fair summary 23 of your evidence? 24 A: Yes. Again I said I -- I think -- 25 Q: Right.


1 A: -- there was a specific question -- 2 Q: Yeah. 3 A: -- that I answered on that particular 4 point. 5 Q: Can you explain why, in the detailed 6 records we have of these meetings, there's no -- appears 7 to be no reference of your using the word 'peaceful', or 8 peaceful resolution? 9 Can you explain that? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 11 minute. Yes, Ms. Perschy...? 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, the 13 difficulty that I have with this is -- is I think this 14 Witness is being asked to comment on the notes of other 15 people. And -- and I'm not sure how she can speak to the 16 note taking practices of other people and what they may 17 have recorded or not recorded. 18 I mean, I'm not suggesting there aren't 19 any questions he can ask, but this particular question 20 I'm not sure how she can answer it. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner -- 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And I'm not -- not 24 entirely sure it's accurate. There's certainly 25 references to "peaceful" in various notes. So -- and I


1 think this Witness didn't take those notes, so I think in 2 fairness to her that should be pointed out. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, may I 4 respond before you comment? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, of 6 course. 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Because I would like 8 to. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Because of our rule, 11 which I've been trying to observe, about no lineups on 12 objections -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- I have not risen 15 on this point before. But I am not aware of any rule of 16 evidence or any practice that says that you cannot have 17 one witness comment on the notes of another witness, if 18 they were at that meeting. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Because it is 21 entirely open to that witness to say, well those notes 22 are inaccurate or I'm sure that I did or whatever and 23 then we have that evidence. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've had 25 lots of comments of that nature in this Inquiry.


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Of one 3 witness of another's -- 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes, exactly, 5 exactly. And that's -- that's why and -- but that 6 objection continues to be made. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I'm not 8 sure how far it goes and perhaps I should hear Ms. Vella. 9 Are you finished with your comments on 10 that? 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes, I -- yes, I am, 12 sir. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 14 Vella...? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Of course the objection 16 doesn't relate to the ability to comment on notes. I 17 don't believe -- the difficulty I have with this question 18 is that it's asking the Witness to provide an explanation 19 as to why other people didn't include a particular word 20 in their notes. 21 And I think that that is -- is akin to 22 asking the Witness to -- to go inside the minds, if you 23 will, of those people who took the notes. I think that's 24 the difficulty with the way that this question was -- was 25 worded.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which is a 2 very different objection than the one that was made. 3 Yes. 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: The problem I have, 5 Commissioner is with Ms. Vella supporting the objection 6 but speaking after me. Because then that doesn't give me 7 a chance to respond to Ms. Vella. 8 So I would like to just say -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have the 10 chance to respond. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes, so I would like 12 to just say that it's a question of fairness to the 13 Witness as much as anything else. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Because I will be 16 submitting, at the end, that she should essentially not 17 be believed that she had a peaceful resolution in mind, 18 that the evidence is all to the contrary in terms of the 19 written record and in terms of how people remember her 20 participating in the meeting. 21 And I want to give her an opportunity, if 22 she can, to say why all the evidence may go in the 23 opposite direction. That's the purpose of the question. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I want 25 to hear the way in which the question is framed again.


1 Because I'm not sure what part of it is now objectionable 2 and what part isn't. We've agreed that she's entitled to 3 comment on the notes of people when she was at the 4 meeting. 5 Now Mr. Downard has a -- 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I have a little bit 7 of difficulty with the premise upon which the question is 8 based. And when we -- when we look at the -- the 9 minutes, the formal minutes of September 6th, the 10 concluding paragraph says it's agreed that one of the 11 goals is public safety, and removing the trespassers from 12 the Park, are key objectives. 13 So it's a little misleading to suggest 14 that there's no discussion of public safety. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure 16 there is. 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And that's not -- 18 and that is not what I suggested. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why I 20 want to hear the question. 21 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Mr. -- Mr. Downard 22 is simply misstating my question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why I 24 want you to restate it. 25 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, Commissioner,


1 I'm also happy to have it read back if that's helpful. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No we don't 3 have that capacity. If you would re-ask, ask the 4 question and see where we are. 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I am saying that 6 there is in -- in all the extensive notes we have, the 7 word peaceful is never attributed to this Witness as 8 something she said; as a word she used. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that part 10 of Mr. Horton's statement accurate? 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. And frankly, I 12 thought my objection was identical to the one that Susan 13 Vella had made. 14 She perhaps did it more eloquently than I 15 did. My con -- and I have said that it's not that there 16 aren't any questions that can't be asked in this area, 17 the concern that I have, the objection that I have, is 18 with any question that asks this Witness, essentially, to 19 speak to the note taking practices of other witnesses and 20 what they may have recorded or not recorded. 21 There are other questions that may be 22 properly asked. It's just I have some difficulty with 23 this particular question. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why I 25 was hoping you might ask the question in a way that


1 wouldn't provoke an objection because I think that you 2 can if you want to. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: That gives too -- 4 too much power to my opponents, Commissioner. To say I 5 have to frame a question in a way that doesn't provoke an 6 objection. 7 But frankly, Commissioner, may I say this, 8 it was a question that I was posing in fairness to the 9 Witness. If -- if Ms. Hershey (sic) -- I'm sorry. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I have a senior's 12 moment every now and then, Commissioner. 13 If Ms. Hershey (sic) doesn't want her 14 Witness -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 16 Perschy. 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- asked that, and 18 I'd -- I don't want to get the objection when -- when we 19 make the argument at the end that she wasn't given an 20 opportunity to explain, I'm happy to move on. 21 It was a question asked in fairness to the 22 Witness. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure that that's -- 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Just so that it's


1 crystal clear, I have not suggested that there are not 2 proper questions in this area that can't be asked -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I -- 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My only concern was 5 the way it was -- was respect to the way -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- this particular 8 question was framed. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: So, I don't want Mr. 11 Horton to think that I am suggesting that there aren't 12 questions that he couldn't ask; that I invite him to do 13 so. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 15 Let's move on. 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Hmm hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 18 looking for difficulties that don't exist. Let's move 19 on. 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Nor am I, 21 Commissioner, and I'm -- I'm content to leave it to 22 argument and I, perhaps -- Ms. Hershey (sic) can deal 23 with it in her examination if she'd like to give the 24 Witness an opportunity to comment on that further. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 2 Q: Let me move on to another area, Ms. 3 Hutton. 4 In your evidence, a lot of what you have 5 said seems to depend on your understanding that the 6 Province had clear legal title to the Park; am I correct 7 in that? 8 A: That was certainly one of the 9 significant points for me, yes. 10 Q: All right. And based on that, just 11 to summarize, you felt that the occupation should be 12 ended sooner rather than later, correct? 13 A: No, that was not the only point that 14 was part of my thinking. 15 Q: It was -- I had the impression that 16 it was an important point -- 17 A: Yeah, I just -- 18 Q: -- in your thinking? 19 A: -- it was a significant, it was not 20 the only, yes. 21 Q: All right. And I accept that. 22 Significant point in your thinking as to why the 23 occupation should be ended sooner rather than later? 24 A: Yes, because in my mind therefore it 25 made it an illegal activity.


1 Q: Right. Right. Now, I just -- I'm 2 just interested in your thought processes now. Did it -- 3 did it occur to you that just because the Province 4 thought that there was clear title, that the occupiers 5 might not think there was clear title? 6 Did that thought cross your mind? 7 A: The issue of ownership and the 8 suggestion of what might be in the minds of the occupiers 9 came to us in the form of speculation. 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: The first and initial thought, I 12 think, that was raised at a certain point, and I can't 13 recall whether it was prior to September 4th or on the 14 5th -- 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: -- was that this occupation might, in 17 fact, just be a spill over of frustrations against the 18 Federal Government as it related to Camp Ipperwash. 19 That was one suggestion as to the 20 motivation of the occupation. 21 Second suggestion was, as we've discussed, 22 the potential that there was a burial ground. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: So, those are the two (2) things in 25 terms of anything that spoke to the motivation of the


1 occupiers that I recall thinking about, I believe. 2 Q: But, on the question of title -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Did it occur to you that the 5 occupiers may have a belief, however mistaken, that the 6 Province did not have clear title to the Park? 7 A: As I said, I -- the only thing that 8 was in my mind, based on the briefing I received, are the 9 two (2) things that I just shared. 10 Q: All right. You analogized the 11 situation to a private dispute over land; do you recall 12 that? 13 A: I did at the meeting in an effort to 14 ensure that we were thinking as broadly as possible about 15 the potential options available to government. 16 Q: All right. But, if -- if there are 17 two (2) neighbours who have a dispute over land, would 18 you expect the first thing to happen to be that either 19 there be legal proceedings started or that there would be 20 police action of some kind? 21 Is that -- in a private dispute, is that 22 what you would expect to have -- to be the first thing 23 that would happen? 24 A: Your analogy is not the one that I 25 used, so.


1 Q: Oh. Well, if you have -- in this 2 particular case, the Province believed it had title -- 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: -- right? And possibly you thought 5 the occupiers were asserting some kind of title, is that 6 -- or did that occur to you or not? 7 A: I just answered that, I think -- 8 Q: All right. 9 A: -- a couple of times. 10 Q: All right. Did it -- did it cross 11 your mind that there may be some misunderstanding that 12 could be assisted by simply talking about what the -- 13 talking to the occupiers about what the legalities were? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Did that cross your mind? 16 A: I relied on the facts and the advice 17 we were given at the table about the ownership and the 18 title of the Park. 19 Q: Hmm hmm. 20 A: And as I've said earlier that as long 21 as the occupation, based on that fact of -- of title, was 22 underway that our government was not interested in 23 getting into substantive negotiations with the occupiers. 24 Q: No, but just -- what I'm talking 25 about is did it occur to you to try to communicate to the


1 occupiers the fact that the Province did have clear title 2 as a starting point in the process? 3 A: Yes, and I believe MNR said to us, so 4 I take it out of my thought process but received as 5 information, that MNR I believe had communicated that. 6 Q: The -- what I'm trying to do, Ms. 7 Hutton, is to try to put this in a human context for a 8 moment in terms of how people normally deal with 9 disputes. 10 So, let me shift ground a little bit in 11 order to -- to do that. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: You were questioned about the burial 14 ground issue? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And I don't want to go all over that 17 again, but -- and you were of the view that the fact that 18 there was a burial ground didn't affect title or that was 19 your understanding? 20 A: It was my understanding -- 21 Q: Yeah. 22 A: -- based on what I was told. 23 Q: Based on what you were told -- 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: -- that it doesn't affect title.


1 A: Right. 2 Q: But, you were also of the 3 understanding that there were strong feelings, likely, 4 involved when people thought there were burial grounds 5 involved. You -- you recognize that? 6 A: I would -- I would say that is the 7 case. Again, the potential of a burial ground and the 8 suggestion that this may be the issue -- 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: -- were just that. 11 Q: Yeah. But -- but while it's -- 12 while it's a possibility -- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: -- I -- I think you acknowledged 15 already in evidence that you recognize that that would 16 give rise to strong feelings if it was in play as to 17 whether there were or were not burial grounds on that 18 property -- on that -- in that Park; isn't that right? 19 A: I -- I think I spoke about the need 20 to protect and respect a burial ground, I don't know that 21 I -- 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: -- spoke about strong feelings. 24 Q: Oh, well then let's cover it now. 25 A: Okay.


1 Q: Did it -- did it not occur to you 2 that if there's some issue about burial grounds that 3 there might be strong feelings among the occupiers about 4 that issue from a human perspective? 5 A: Right. I don't recall thinking it in 6 the specific you've -- you've stated it. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: Again, most likely, because of the 9 way in which the burial ground was addressed. 10 Secondly, I might say on that very 11 specific issue of the burial, as well as the -- the 12 broader issue of land claims, and I think someone, one of 13 your colleagues this morning addressed this, quite often 14 as I said in -- in my evidence there is some evidence of 15 frustration that builds before an act of this type. 16 To my understanding based on the briefing 17 there had not been, with the exception of the Federal 18 Government and some frustration, there had not been an 19 ongoing indication of frustration or as you put it strong 20 feelings about this particular piece of property. 21 Q: Hmm hmm. I think you did testify 22 that you realize that there were frustrations based on 23 the history with the Federal Government, correct? 24 A: Yeah. Absolutely. 25 Q: Right?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: And my question to you is: When the 3 issue of burial grounds was mentioned -- 4 A: Right. 5 Q: -- did it cross your mind that we may 6 be dealing with a group of people who have strong human 7 feelings about this particular parcel of land that's got 8 nothing to do with legal title. 9 Did that thought cross your mind? 10 A: I -- I think I just answered that 11 question. 12 Q: Is -- did you want to add anything to 13 the answer you've already given? 14 A: I don't think so. 15 Q: All right. And similarly, did it 16 cross your mind that there could be cultural issues at 17 play, based on belief or a possible belief that there are 18 burial grounds involved in this property that may be 19 motivating the occupiers? 20 Did that thought cross your mind? 21 A: Again I -- I've spoken about the 22 burial ground and the motivation to the best of my 23 ability. 24 Q: Okay. Well, I -- I -- I've heard 25 your evidence about the Cemeteries Act and so on --


1 A: Right. 2 Q: -- but just be clear I'm trying to 3 ask whether or not you ever really thought of this as a - 4 - as an issue that involved human beings with human 5 feelings about significant cultural and social values. 6 Did you ever think of it that way? 7 A: I -- I don't recall specifically 8 thinking it in the way that you've expressed. 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: I mean, I think for any of us, the 11 existence of a burial ground, if in fact that was the 12 case -- 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: -- is something that we respect and 15 understand has -- has personal implications -- 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: -- for people. 18 Q: But just -- here's what I'm trying to 19 get -- get at with this. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: Government -- when government is 22 dealing with people, and dealing with people who've got 23 strong feelings and cultural values that relate to a 24 particular dispute. 25 Did you view it as any part of the


1 responsibility of government to address the issue from 2 that perspective as opposed to simply talking about legal 3 title and the Cemeteries Act? 4 Did that factor into your thinking at all? 5 A: I don't think you can separate out 6 the public from or even specific groups from your 7 thinking. I mean, I just I don't recall it in exactly 8 the way that -- that you're suggesting it, that's the 9 difficulty I'm having in answering the question. 10 Q: Right. No, I think you have answered 11 the question, Ms. Hutton. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: So let me -- let me then just pursue 14 it this little bit more. 15 And that is this: If that type of dynamic 16 is at play, where people have strong community values, 17 cultural values and feelings about an issue, did it occur 18 to you that you couldn't really address that issue 19 without talking to the people who were involved, about 20 those issues? 21 A: I would simply say to that, that, as 22 I -- as I tried to a few minutes ago and perhaps I wasn't 23 clear. If there had been a, sort of, an ongoing 24 discussion or if there was evidence of, as you put it, 25 given to me on the Tuesday or the Wednesday of an ongoing


1 sense of strong feeling and perhaps in that sense, 2 frustration with the Ontario Government about this 3 specific burial ground, that would have been a factor in 4 my thinking, yes. 5 It was, in fact, put to me quite the 6 opposite; that the potential of a burial ground was, (a) 7 a potential, (b) that the sense that the existence of a 8 burial ground may be a motivating factor. 9 It was again speculation and, in fact, I 10 was not apprized of any evidence that this had been an 11 ongoing discussion or frustration with the group that was 12 occupying the Park and with the Provincial Government. 13 Q: Now, to be fair, Ms. Hutton, we have 14 heard evidence that this issue was specifically addressed 15 by some participants in the meetings of the 5th and the 16 6th, in the context of the situation requiring some 17 special handling because of the fact that burial grounds 18 are an issue and sacred sites are an issue, and so on. 19 A: But that -- 20 Q: Do you -- do you not recall any of 21 that? 22 A: Yes, and I believe I have said that. 23 I'm not sure you and I are speaking about exactly the 24 same thing. 25 Q: Well, wouldn't you agree with me,


1 because you had some thoughts about how to deal with 2 these issues, and it's been canvassed by other Counsel so 3 I won't go there, but if you have that kind of strong 4 feeling and cultural value in play, that you're not 5 likely to get any kind of a resolution of the issue 6 unless you actually address those -- address those issues 7 head on. 8 Isn't that just common sense? 9 A: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're 10 asking me. 11 Q: I'm asking you about whether it 12 occurred to you that you had to speak to the occupiers 13 because it wasn't just about legal title to land, it 14 wasn't just about the Cemeteries Act, it was about deeply 15 held cultural values. 16 I'm just curious as to whether that 17 factored into your thinking in terms of how the thing 18 might be resolved? 19 A: And as I said, I -- I hope I said, if 20 -- in that case, if you use the word if in a general and 21 hypothetical sense -- 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: -- I don't know that I disagree with 24 you and I think I've said that. 25 In this very specific situation, we were


1 given information about the burial ground, as I've 2 discussed. There was no additional information to 3 suggest that there was this ongoing and deep feeling, as 4 it related to the Provincial Government on this matter, 5 to suggest that therefore I would cast this situation in 6 the light that you have. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 8 you've made that -- 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. And I'm moving 10 on, Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 14 Q: Let me then ask you some questions 15 about this, Ms. Hutton, if -- on the evening of September 16 the 6th, a series of events led to the killing of Dudley 17 George and I don't want to ask you about those events. 18 But, I do want to ask you about the 19 position of the Government, the policy of the Government, 20 as you understood it, before and after that event. All 21 right? 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And I just have a series of question 24 about that. 25 And you're free to disagree with me on


1 either side of this, by the way. But my understanding 2 from the evidence -- your evidence -- 3 A: My evidence. Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- as well as from the evidence of 5 others, correct me if I'm wrong, is that before the death 6 of Dudley George the Government wanted to be seen as 7 controlling the situation; is that fair? 8 A: Yeah. I think there was an 9 expectation, a reasonable one, on the part of the public, 10 and as I think I said in my evidence, I would suspect on 11 the part of the media, that the Government would have a 12 response. And if by control you mean we're on top of the 13 situation, give some comfort that we were addressing the 14 situation, then I would agree with you. 15 Q: And after the death of Dudley George 16 was -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- was it the position that the 19 Government wanted to be seen to be controlling the 20 situation? 21 A: Well, there are at that stage two (2) 22 very different situations and I appreciate the link 23 between the two (2) for many, but they were two (2) -- we 24 -- we had an occupation and we now had a tragedy and... 25 Q: But apart from the tragedy you still


1 had the occupation, correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: And our position on the occupation, I 5 believe, remained consistent. 6 Q: Yeah. My -- my -- my question to 7 you is: Did -- did you view it as still a government 8 policy to be seen as controlling the situation, needing 9 to be seen to be controlling the situation after the 10 death of Dudley George? 11 A: Again, I think I defined the word 12 'control' in -- in my words to be -- to be accurate; that 13 we were responding to, we were on top of the situation, 14 and by the situation I mean the occupation. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: It was very different than how we 17 responded to the death of Dudley George. 18 Q: I'm not talking about the death of 19 Dudley George. I'm -- I'm using that -- 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: -- as a point -- as a -- as a marker 22 in time. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And after -- after the death of 25 Dudley George, what was the Government doing to control


1 the situation, in terms of the occupation? 2 A: I believe that we would -- were 3 intending to continue to seek an injunction. 4 Q: Hmm hmm. 5 A: Which had been our action before 6 September the 6th. 7 Q: Well, yeah, I'll -- I'll come to that 8 in a moment. 9 Now, before the killing of Dudley George, 10 I understand that you had said at the meeting that -- at 11 one (1) of the meetings that the Premier was prepared to 12 speak on the issue? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And, in effect, I took that evidence 15 to mean that the Premier was prepared to lead the 16 messaging on the issue, if necessary. 17 A: If necessary -- 18 Q: Yeah. 19 A: -- yes. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: And again -- 22 Q: And -- 23 A: -- I don't recall the specific -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- but it was consistent with my --


1 Q: Right. 2 A: -- point of view at the time. 3 Q: Right. And is it your understanding 4 that after the killing of Dudley George the Premier was 5 prepared to take the lead on the issue and speak on the 6 issue? 7 A: Yes, although there were other 8 factors that other ministers as well, as had been the 9 case before, would be dealing with, I think, specifically 10 about -- 11 Q: Right. 12 A: -- questions related to the SIU, for 13 example. 14 Q: Right. Right. And -- and be seen to 15 be taking responsibility for how the issue was being 16 handled? 17 A: Yes, I believe so. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. And before the killing of 19 Dudley George you wanted to be seen to be taking action? 20 A: On the illegal occupation? 21 Q: Yeah. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Right. And -- and after the killing 24 of Dudley George, was it still the policy of the 25 Government that they wanted to be seen to be taking


1 action? 2 A: I think I've already tried to answer 3 that. 4 Q: You have nothing to add to what 5 you've said before, is that -- 6 A: I don't think so -- 7 Q: -- is that right? 8 A: -- I -- I just -- I don't think that 9 you can separate that there are two (2) issues and -- but 10 they existed at the same time. I mean I just... 11 Q: How did -- how did the killing of 12 Dudley George change the issue in terms of whether or not 13 the Government wanted to be seen to be taking action? 14 A: Well, I -- my recollection, for 15 example, is, in fact, I believe that the injunction was 16 stood down, for example, for a number of days out of 17 respect for the funeral process for Mr. George, for 18 example. 19 Q: Well, in fact, the injunction was 20 never continued. I mean it -- it was eventually 21 abandoned, was it not? 22 A: But -- but that was the position at 23 the time, as I recall. 24 Q: And before the killing of Dudley 25 George the Government wanted to send a message with


1 respect to the illegal occupation, correct? 2 A: I believe I've answered that. 3 Q: Yeah. And after the killing of 4 Dudley George, is it your recollection that the 5 Government wanted to send a message about the illegal 6 occupation? 7 A: We continued to indicate, as I 8 recall, that it was an illegal occupation and as such our 9 position around substantive negotiations, some of the 10 main messages that were important, as you put it, to the 11 message prior to September the 6th, I believe remain 12 consistent. 13 Q: And here's what puzzles me. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: What action was actually taken by the 16 Government to deal with the occupation, after the killing 17 of Dudley George? 18 A: Well as I said I -- I thought we 19 continued to seek an injunction. It was stood down for a 20 period of days. 21 Q: Were -- were you not aware that legal 22 proceedings and -- that those legal proceedings were 23 eventually abandoned? 24 A: I was. But I am speaking about the 25 days following, where that --


1 Q: All right. 2 A: -- continued to be our position. 3 Q: Okay. Well I'm -- let me just expand 4 the horizon -- 5 A: Certainly. 6 Q: -- a little bit further. Before the 7 killing of Dudley George, the policy of the Government 8 was to pursue an injunction? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And then after the killing of Dudley 11 George, that policy was eventually abandoned; is that 12 correct? 13 A: Eventually. 14 Q: All right. And now, you did mention 15 about the policy prior to the killing of Dudley George, 16 about no substantive negotiations, correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And I take it that, from what you've 19 already said, that after the killing of Dudley George, 20 that policy was continued? 21 A: I believe that's the case, yes. 22 Q: Right. Right. And, in fact, the 23 occupation was continued. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And has continued to this day.


1 A: As I understand it. 2 Q: Right. So then, after the killing of 3 Dudley George, it was the policy of the Government to 4 allow the occupation to continue, rather than speaking to 5 the occupiers; is that -- do I have that right? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: I'm sorry, I'm thinking. I want to 10 be very clear. I recall, specifically, in, I would say, 11 the three (3) or four (4) days, if I can take that 12 timeframe roughly, after September the 6th, that we 13 continued to be of the view that the occupation was 14 illegal and that we would not, as you point out, have 15 substantive negotiations. 16 I recall that, specifically, because I 17 believe, for example, the document that I believe Ms. 18 Vella reviewed with me, that was one of Mr. Harris' 19 points after he met with Chief Bressette and others three 20 (3) of four (4) odd days later. 21 My recollection beyond that point is -- is 22 less clear, so I guess I would -- I would answer for the 23 first few days. 24 Q: Well it's less clear, I suggest to 25 you, because, in fact, the occupation continued and there


1 were no substantive negotiations; isn't that correct? 2 A: I -- I believe that is -- those are 3 the facts but, that just -- 4 Q: Right. So what I'm suggesting to you 5 is that in terms of this no negotiation policy, the 6 policy of the Government, as you understand it, was it's 7 better to let the occupiers stay in the Park than to talk 8 to them; is that right? 9 A: I just -- I just wouldn't 10 characterize it that way. 11 Q: All right. And what happened to the 12 concern, before the killing of Dudley George, that the 13 occupation was going to create a risk to public safety in 14 other parts of the Province? 15 Was that still a concern after the killing 16 of Dudley George? 17 A: I think the fact that the Government 18 did respond on the first day following the occupation on 19 the Tuesday, and again on the Wednesday sought an 20 injunction, sent, I think, a message that was the 21 appropriate message to send, as I've said several times. 22 I think that events overtook those first two (2) days and 23 I think that's obvious. 24 Q: Well, if the injunction -- are you 25 aware that the injunction order never became operative?


1 A: I am aware of that. 2 Q: All right. So how did that send any 3 sort of message? 4 A: Well as I said, on -- on the Tuesday 5 and the Wednesday, when the occupation first occurred, I 6 believe we sent exactly the message -- 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: -- that we've been discussing. 9 The tragedy occurred on the evening of 10 September the 6th -- 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- and I do think that while the 13 occupation in itself, as we continue to indicate, was 14 illegal and -- and we would not have substantive 15 negotiations while it was underway, I think you do have 16 to cast the Government's continued response in that 17 important light. 18 Q: Are you saying it was the killing of 19 Dudley George that ended up sending the message so you 20 didn't have to do anything else? 21 Is that what you're saying? 22 A: That is such a mis-characterization 23 of what I'm trying to say. I -- I can't, quite frankly, 24 believe you said that to me. 25 Q: I'm trying to understand what message


1 was sent by the activities of the Government, prior to 2 the killing of Dudley George. 3 Can you help me with that? 4 A: Apparently not. I have tried my 5 best. 6 Q: All right. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 8 you've asked that question. I think you've gone over 9 this, Mr. Horton. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 12 Q: Ms. Hutton, the response of -- of the 13 Government which you were involved, in terms of what you 14 added to the process, was primarily political, was it 15 not? 16 A: Perhaps you could tell me what you 17 mean by that? 18 Q: Well, in other words -- 19 A: I just don't want to misunderstand. 20 Q: -- it had -- it had nothing to do 21 with the underlying facts. It had to do with how the 22 Harris Government wished to be perceived; isn't that 23 right? 24 A: That is incorrect. 25 Q: And the reason I suggest that to you,


1 and I invite you to disagree with me about that, was that 2 nothing changed after the killing of Dudley George, other 3 than the political situation; isn't that correct? 4 A: I'm not sure what you mean by that. 5 Q: Well, the occupation continued. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All of the concerns that supposedly 8 led to the positions that were taken by your government 9 or the Government in which you were involved, continued, 10 correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So all that changed was the fact that 13 Dudley George had been killed; isn't that right? 14 A: As I indicated, I hope, clearly, in 15 managing any issue there is an evolution of thinking and 16 an evolution of facts. 17 And I think, as I've tried my best to 18 explain, my evolution of thinking on the 4th and the 5th 19 and the 6th, and to the best of my ability going forward, 20 at least for the first few days following September 6th, 21 I think that you -- you do your best, in government, to 22 respond to the facts and to evolve your thinking 23 according to those facts. 24 Q: I'm suggesting to you, Ms. Hutton, 25 it's my last question, that the -- after the killing of


1 Dudley George, saving the Ipperwash Park became less 2 important than saving Premier Harris' political 3 reputation; isn't that correct? 4 A: It's ridiculous and offensive. 5 Q: Thank you, Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 7 Mr. Horton. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right on 12 time. 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Is that right? I 14 didn't realize that. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 16 Falconer...? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now a lot of 21 areas have been covered, Mr. Falconer, and I know you're 22 going to try not to, but I realize your original estimate 23 was expanded a little bit after you made it. 24 Now what would be your current estimate of 25 how long you might be?


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My estimate is an 2 hour and a half, Mr. Commissioner, with respect, and I am 3 studiously going to avoid covering old territory. 4 I have to manage a group of Hansard 5 extracts that are going to take us a little time so I -- 6 I factored that in. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 8 Let's proceed. We'll go for a half hour or so and take a 9 break and then try to conclude it. 10 I would like to start the next witness 11 this afternoon. So let's continue to go. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: There's some 13 documents I just need to set up. Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you all 18 right, Ms. Hutton, to carry on? 19 Do you need a break? You're fine? 20 THE WITNESS: I'm okay. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm somewhat hurt, 23 Mr. Commissioner. You didn't ask me. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you need 2 a break, Mr. Falconer, just say so. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you very 4 much. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Ms. Hutton, my name is Julian 8 Falconer. I act on behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services 9 of Toronto. 10 A: Thank you. 11 Q: Ms. Hutton, I tortured one of my 12 staff at the office and required them to conduct some 13 research for me, and your examination-in-chief evidence 14 in terms of answers to questions provided, or made by Ms. 15 Vella, was on November 21st, Monday and November 22nd, 16 Tuesday. 17 Do you recall that you gave all that 18 evidence? 19 A: I do. 20 Q: On a hundred and thirty-four (134) 21 occasions you said the following words: 22 "I don't recall. 23 I don't specifically recall. 24 I don't recall specifically. 25 I don't have a specific recollection.


1 I don't have a recollection of it. 2 I just don't recall it. 3 I don't recall the specifics." 4 A hundred and thirty-four (134) times. 5 Now, I -- obviously, your counsel has 6 access to that transcript. You'd agree with me that it's 7 regrettable that your memory seems to be rather lacking 8 in terms of specifics of key moments in respect of the 9 occupation and subsequent government reaction at 10 Ipperwash? 11 A: I wish I could recall more. It was 12 ten (10) years ago. As I've tried to indicate to the 13 Commission I had -- while this was an important issue, I 14 -- I had much more on my plate than this, and -- and I 15 appreciate there are others who -- who had this as their 16 sole issue. 17 So, I have done the best I can to recall 18 and I've tried not to speculate unless I had something 19 that I felt could assist, in a general nature, the fact 20 that I couldn't recall. 21 Q: I understand that's your explanation, 22 but my question to you was that it's regrettable that 23 your memory is so lacking. Do you agree with me? 24 A: And I believe I said, yes. 25 Q: All right.


1 A: I wish I could assist further. 2 Q: And I -- I ask you this not 3 facetiously, right, but I have to ask you this, as a 4 lawyer is supposed to check off certain boxes: Is there 5 any organic problem? 6 For example, have you suffered some memory 7 problems in the past, and I say this with respect, that 8 could account for it, perhaps medication or anything 9 else, that could account for the extraordinary lack of 10 memory you have about the events? And I say that with 11 all due respect. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy, 13 are you objecting to that? 14 I'm not sure there's any basis for asking 15 that question. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just going to 17 make that point. This Witness has testified at 18 considerable length -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- with respect to her 21 thinking at the time, with respect to the topics -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- that were covered 24 in this meeting. I -- I just don't accept that 25 characterization --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 2 don't think -- 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- and -- and frankly, 4 I don't think it's warranted. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- there's 6 any justification. It was ten (10) years ago. I don't 7 want to hear -- did you want to say more? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. Well, I 9 didn't say anything, with respect. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's -- I do ask, 12 Mr. Commissioner, you're -- you're very fair and -- and 13 I'm not suggesting otherwise, but it is important if 14 Counsel objects that I'd get the chance to respond. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is. 16 It is important that you do. Go ahead. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. Mr. 18 Commissioner, I started by laying a foundation for the 19 question; a hundred and thirty-four (134) times she 20 doesn't remember. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I don't have to 23 go through all the evidence that you've -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 25 not enough for me.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm not -- I 2 don't want to be arguing with you, Mr. Commissioner, but 3 I have to stop if you talk so I won't talk. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Go 5 ahead. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. And 7 you've heard all the examining counsels' questions about 8 her memory. And I'm not going over all that again and I 9 did bring up something new to be fair to me. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is new. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And it is possible 12 -- I'm not saying likely or conceive -- or -- or 13 definitely and it is not a criticism, it is possible that 14 a witness could come to a courtroom and have a physical 15 reason that they have a memory loss. 16 Now, no one has asked her about it, and 17 because of the extraordinary nature of the evidence I 18 felt duty-bound to ask it. It's not meant facetiously -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- it's meant in -- 21 in all honesty. She may -- the answer maybe simply no, I 22 have no problem physically and we go on. I -- I just -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 asking the question is offensive at this point and I 25 don't think it's a proper question, and I'd like you to


1 move on. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move on. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If this were 4 last year then it might be a proper question. This is 5 ten (10) years ago. She remembers a fair bit and she has 6 not recalled a fair bit as well. 7 And you've counted the number of times and 8 that's not enough to suggest something organic. So, I 9 would suggest that you move on. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Would you agree with me, Ms. Hutton, 13 that no matter how you characterize your evidence to-date 14 there is not a single conversation with Mike Harris in 15 which you can remember his statements to you relating to 16 Ipperwash? 17 A: I think I've been very clear about 18 that. I have attempted to be as precise in my evidence 19 insofar as -- as stating when I can tell you that I 20 recalled a specific conversation, versus a specific 21 sentiment, versus whether I heard something at all, and 22 if in doing that you have suggested that my recollection 23 is worse than others, I just -- I can't that that's the 24 case. 25 Q: Mr. Commissioner, I don't want to


1 engage in arguments with the Witness, but I must say, 2 with respect, I can repeat the question so that I ask you 3 for direction, but I would like it -- an answer to the 4 question I asked. 5 And the question I asked was: Based on 6 all the evidence you've provided to date, you cannot give 7 an account of a memory of an actual statement by Premier 8 Mike Harris relating to the Ipperwash incident to you, 9 personally? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I may be 11 wrong but I believe another counsel asked that question 12 and I believe she answered it that she couldn't. 13 So, I believe Mr. Scullion asked that 14 question. I may be wrong, but I believe that question 15 was asked and answered. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It was raised in 17 argument. No one actually asked her specifically. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: It's fair to say there is not one 21 single statement that you can attribute to Premier Mike 22 Harris. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: My 24 recollection may be wrong, but I seem to remember that 25 question being asked and answered. Am I right?


1 I'm looking at my counsel to see if they 2 could remind me. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, I -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think that 5 question -- 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Certainly the -- the 7 area with respect to what -- what Ms. Hutton could or 8 could not recollect concerning conversations and 9 briefings with the former Premier has been very 10 thoroughly canvassed. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I remember 12 it was asked by -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's -- 14 that's a not getting an answer to my question about not 15 answering my question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 17 question -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm -- I'm saying 19 that -- the actual question I asked was not asked 20 before -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 22 was asked in essence. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In essence. That's 24 fine but -- but that means counsel's entitled when a 25 question hasn't been asked to --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have an 2 answer though. The question was asked in essence and it 3 was answered; she couldn't recall. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move -- I'll 5 move on. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Excuse me, Mr. 10 Commissioner. I do believe that your recollection is 11 correct. I believe that question was asked by me and I - 12 - and I -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, it was 14 you. I thought it was Mr. Scullion. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I believe 16 that she did indicate she does not recollect one (1) 17 word. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I believe that 20 that might be a basis for the question as to why her 21 memory is so bad; not a hundred and thirty-four (134) 22 times but the fact -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 24 to go back there. I'm not going backwards. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With -- with


1 respect, Mr. Commissioner -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked 3 the question and -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She is telling this 5 Inquiry she cannot remember one (1) word that the Premier 6 said during that time and that is unbelievable unless 7 there is some serious cognitive defect in my view. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 9 Rosenthal, this is not the time to make argument and I 10 don't want to listen to argument at this point. And I'm 11 going to ask Mr. -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No but, 13 Commissioner -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 15 question has been asked and answered. Let's move on. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- who -- I -- and 17 I thank you for the correction. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 Mr. Downard, we're moving on. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, I -- I've seen 21 enough shabby treatment of this Witness. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I am, frankly, very 24 concerned that each of My Friend seems to want to make a 25 speech about how she's not to be believed.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And I think, with 3 due respect -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And now My Friend 5 is going to make a speech on us making a speech. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I simply, sir -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 9 rising to alert. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- I object to the 11 conduct of counsel with respect to this Witness in the 12 manner I've just described. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 much, Mr. Downard. And I'm going to ask you, Mr. 15 Falconer, to please treat this Witness as you would any 16 witness with respect that the Witness deserves. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can ask 19 questions. It's cross-examination; I understand that. 20 But you still can ask the questions in a manner that's 21 respectful of a witness. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's true, Mr. 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all I 25 ask of you.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I assume you 2 ask me that but now as a result of you saying that, the 3 only inference this Witness could draw is that you think 4 I haven't done that, Mr. Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- and with 7 respect -- with respect, I have in the most peaceable 8 fashion possible offered a question, sought to justify it 9 and was told and was prepared to move on. 10 At no time did I treat this Witness in a 11 shabby fashion and your caution to me could only blend 12 itself to an inference for this Witness that somehow I've 13 misconducted myself. And I'd ask with respect that be 14 clarified, because I haven't done anything. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 16 asking you as we go forward to treat the Witness with the 17 same respect that you would treat any witness -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in a 20 civil manner -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you 23 could ask questions that are appropriate and relevant and 24 let's carry on. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair, but I


1 take it there's no finding that I've somehow mistreated 2 this Witness. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I haven't 4 made any findings. We're cautioning -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 7 moving forward carefully. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: From the point of view of addressing 11 your memory, would you agree with me that just as a 12 matter of common sense experience, there are many 13 different reasons people might have a poor memory? 14 Would you agree with that? 15 A: I'm not a doctor, but I suspect 16 that's true. 17 Q: All right. And staying from physical 18 diagnosis, in terms of why people might suffer from 19 memory difficulties in recounting an event, there could 20 be, for example, simply the passage of time, right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: People can also have what's known -- 23 have you ever heard of the term 'selective memories'? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right. And you'd agree with me


1 that selective memory implies a person who remembers what 2 is convenient to remember and forgets all else. 3 Do -- are you familiar with that? 4 A: I am familiar with that. 5 Q: And it's fair to say that another 6 thing that can affect someone's memory to recount an 7 event is if the account of the event either casts them or 8 someone close to them in a negative light; that might be 9 another reason someone has difficulty recounting an 10 event? 11 Would you agree with that? 12 A: I don't know that to be the case. 13 Q: All right. Now, you graduated from 14 the University of Western Ontario in approximately 1998; 15 is that fair? 16 A: That's fair. 17 Q: Now, I took the liberty, and I wanted 18 to be fair to you, of actually provided you some book 19 passages on the history of -- that chronicles, from one 20 author's point of view, how -- how the team that 21 surrounded former Premier Harris came to be. 22 Is that true, I gave you some passages? 23 A: You did, I have them here. 24 Q: Right. And the only reason I raise 25 that now is I did that in order -- the book's entitled,


1 Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, by Mr. 2 John Ibbitson, and I provided that passage -- those 3 passages to you. 4 I also have passages available for the 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have some 7 passages. Which pages are you referring to? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm not going 9 to page -- I wanted to be fair to you. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: As I ask you questions about your 13 background and your role in -- in Mr. Harris' circle, I 14 want to make sure that if I'm getting it wrong, you know 15 that, to be honest with you, one of my sources is this 16 Ibbitson book and you could say, hey, that's wrong, and 17 tell me; all right? 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Good. In and around 1988 at the age 20 of approximately twenty-one (21) or twenty-two (22), you 21 started working for the Conservative Party as an 22 assistant to Mr. Brant; is that right? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 24 minute. Ms. Perschy has an objection. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern with this


1 is simply this, I don't know what the relevance is with 2 respect to biological age. If -- if Mr. Falconer wants 3 to address the issue with respect to experience, that's 4 fine. 5 But, in terms of the issue of respect for 6 witnesses, no other witness, on issues relating to their 7 experience, were addressed with reference to their 8 biological age. 9 Biological age is simply irrelevant. If 10 he wants to deal with experience, he can do that, but out 11 of respect, it's not fair to this Witness to start 12 getting into that kind of personal information. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not -- 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It hasn't been done 15 with any other witness. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 17 necessary to do, Mr. Falconer. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She 20 graduated in 1988. Assuming she wasn't a mature student, 21 it doesn't take much math to figure out roughly how old 22 she would have been. 23 So let's move on. We may be out of here-- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: With -- with 25 respect, Mr. Commissioner --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It doesn't 2 make any -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the difficulty I 4 have is this is going to take longer than an hour and a 5 half if simple questions about -- I wasn't given a CV and 6 I was told I'm to do this question by question. 7 Now ,I gave the Witness the courtesy of 8 giving her my source of information in case I got 9 something wrong. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I asked a 12 respectful question. The age does count, not for a lot, 13 but I was simply trying to make sure I understood her 14 background in the Harris circle. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 16 got -- you've got her graduation in 1998. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And let's 19 move on. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Up until the age of twenty-one (21) 24 had you worked full-time -- full-time, that is not just 25 outside of school, but full-time for anyone?


1 A: I was a student, no. 2 Q: All right. So, your first full-time 3 job was essentially working for Mr. Brandt in the 4 Progressive Conservative Party; is that correct? 5 A: In actual fact, and I'm not sure if 6 we covered this with Ms. Vella, in actual fact my first 7 job with Mr. Brandt was as a summer student. 8 I believe I indicated it was originally my 9 intention to return to my graduate studies. 10 Q: And subsequent to that, and again 11 because I don't have the benefit of a curriculum vitae, 12 subsequent to that, it would have been within two (2) 13 years that you started working for Mr. Harris? 14 A: May of 1990. 15 Q: So, within two (2) years? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And from May of 1990, for basically 18 ten (10) years, you were full-time employed by Mr. 19 Harris? 20 A: Yes. I think technically, I was 21 employed by either the Legislative Assembly or the 22 Government of Ontario but certainly I worked for MR. 23 Harris in his office. 24 Q: And it's fair to say that in working 25 for Mr. Harris over the ten (10) years, you simply became


1 closer and closer to him as a trusted advisor; is that 2 true? 3 A: I would like to think so, yes. 4 Q: And in the course of those ten (10) 5 years, you carried increasing responsibilities 6 commensurate with the trust that developed between the 7 two (2) of you? 8 A: I would like to think it was 9 commensurate with the job that I did. 10 Q: Now, one of the passages -- it's at 11 page 75, and it's not a particularly startling 12 proposition, speaks -- 13 A: Sorry, I don't have 75. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I -- 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: You should, it's -- but I can hand 18 you an extra two (2) pages because they were handed out, 19 those extra two (2) pages, but it's possible it didn't 20 end up in your extract. 21 A: My copy goes from 65 to 101. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: It's not a particularly startling


1 proposition, but in discussing the formation of the 2 circle around Mr. Harris as he developed his leadership 3 team, it refers to a John -- a Tom Long's appointment and 4 then it says, the last two (2) lines of 75: 5 "Harris had decided to dance with the 6 kids what brung him. Harris, like many 7 politicians, values loyalty above most 8 other traits." 9 And that's a fairly accurate description 10 of your boss; is that correct? 11 A: I -- I could not say the, like the 12 many politicians piece. I do believe Mr. Harris values 13 loyalty. I think most of us do. 14 Q: Right. And you value loyalty? 15 A: I do. 16 Q: And that probably goes some distance 17 to explaining why today, in November 2005, you still, on 18 a volunteer basis, provide the media communications to 19 the extent they're needed for Mr. Harris, when called 20 upon to do so. 21 A: I think that's fair. 22 Q: And in assisting Mr. Harris in that 23 fashion today, on a volunteer basis, do you know if 24 anyone else does that job, that form of voluntary media 25 communications for Mr. Harris, other than you, voluntary?


1 A: Well, no, I do it. 2 Q: All right. So you're the sole person 3 that does it. 4 A: Actually, there are a number of 5 individuals who do volunteer for Mr. Harris in other 6 ways. There are -- 7 Q: No, I asked about media 8 communications. 9 A: I'm sorry. I thought you were 10 speaking about people who continue to volunteer -- 11 Q: But media communications -- 12 A: -- out of loyalty. 13 Q: -- is you solely, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And -- 16 A: I would say media, not 17 communications, which was going to be my expanded point. 18 Q: Okay. And in reference to your 19 performing that function for Mr. Harris, it's fairly 20 informal because it's voluntary, correct? 21 A: Completely. 22 Q: But on the other hand, I take it it 23 requires you to at least have discussions with Mr. Harris 24 from time to time? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And so you personally speak to him, 2 either in person or on the phone, from time to time, in 3 order to carry that out? 4 A: I do. 5 Q: And you have an ongoing friendship, 6 correct? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: And what I'm going to suggest to you 9 is that over the course of a ten (10) year professional 10 relationship and now five (5) years of assisting him 11 voluntarily, it would be extremely -- extremely awkward 12 and unpleasant for you to give evidence that in any way 13 cast Mr. Harris in a negative light. 14 Would you agree with that? 15 A: I am under Oath and have not at any 16 time done anything or said anything to disrespect that 17 Oath. I have been wholly as honest as I possibly can 18 with this Commission. 19 Q: A hundred and thirty-five (135) 20 times, "I don't recall". Not one (1) word from Mike 21 Harris that you recall. 22 Now, I ask the question that I asked 23 again, which was: You'd agree with me, given the 24 relationship you have with Mr. Harris, it would be 25 awkward and difficult for you to give evidence, if you


1 had evidence, for you to give evidence -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to cast him in a 5 negative light? 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm objecting to this 7 question. This is harassing the Witness. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It's the exact same 10 question as she -- he just provided and has been 11 answered. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well no but it -- 13 it's simply -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- saying words 16 that happen on the record does not answer a question. I 17 asked, would it be awkward and difficult and her answer 18 was, she is not lying. 19 Now, with respect, Mr. Commissioner -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said 21 she's under Oath and she's doing the best she can to -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No that's what she 23 said, but that's not what -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- be 25 truthful.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I asked her. I 2 asked her -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- would it be 5 difficult to give evidence -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- casting Mr. 8 Harris in a negative light. I just wanted an answer to 9 that question and I didn't get it. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 11 answered the question in the way that she feels is 12 appropriate. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, Mr. 14 Commissioner -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I 16 suggest that you -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I don't -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- move on. 19 I'm not going to -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But, I don't want 21 to have to bring a Motion on these things, but it comes 22 down to this. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Counsel's -- 25 counsel has to do a job in asking questions but --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- you, Mr. 3 Commissioner, obviously have to rule on the propriety of 4 the question. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 6 having some difficulty with the line of questions at the 7 moment, but in any event, I'm asking you to move on. 8 That question has been asked. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: In saying that you've done your best 15 to answer each question, is it fair to say, though, that 16 your -- whatever memory failings you have, they don't 17 extend to not being able to remember Mike Harris' words 18 in all situations. 19 I mean, there must be some situations in 20 the time period of 1995 to year 2000 where you remember 21 the words of the former Premier. 22 There must be some situation you can 23 conjure up today? 24 A: I actually think it is most accurate 25 to say that I remember sentiments much better than I


1 remember specific conversations. 2 As I -- as I tried to say earlier, I spoke 3 with Mr. Harris, particularly when I worked for him, 4 several times every day on a wide variety of issues. 5 Q: Your evidence is that you remember 6 sentiments better than words, correct? 7 A: Absolutely. 8 Q: Now going back to my question, my 9 question to you was not do you remember sentiments better 10 than words. 11 My question to you, in the time period 12 1995 to 2000, there must be some words of the Premier, to 13 you personally, in a personal conversation, that you do 14 remember? 15 A: I -- I actually can't think of any at 16 this moment. No, I really can't. It was many years ago 17 and we are not talking about one (1) or two (2) 18 conversations. 19 Q: All right. And that -- that's fine. 20 Thank you. And you said it was many years ago and that's 21 been mentioned a couple of times and I want to ask you 22 some questions about that. 23 Could you -- could I ask that the binder 24 of Hansard extracts be placed in front of the Witness 25 please?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 2 ask for a break now, Mr. -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's an hour 5 and twenty (20) minutes since we started and I know we 6 had an early lunch, but I think I need a break now so -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is that 9 all right? We'll take an afternoon break now. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 11 for fifteen (15) minutes. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 2:20 p.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 2:35 p.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 17 resumed, please be seated. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Commissioner, I wanted 19 to just share one (1) observation of something that 20 happened just before the break. 21 It's an issue that leads to issues of 22 broader fairness and that was -- there was an objection, 23 you might recall, on things like the Witness' age and 24 that sort of thing being raised with this Witness. 25 Now I do recall, and specifically some of


1 my clients were asked about their dates of birth, their 2 personal information, a number of things of that nature, 3 their parents or grandparents, relationships, that sort 4 of thing. 5 And I was concerned that all of the 6 Witnesses be treated similarly. It wasn't -- when -- 7 when First Nations witnesses were asked that information 8 there was no objection raised on the basis that that was 9 offensive in those cases, so I'm just concerned of what 10 the perceptions might be that -- that -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 12 don't have that -- 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- the objections are 14 based on the Witnesses and not on the questions being 15 asked. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Zbogar. Thank you. We -- 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'll be very brief. 19 My only concern at the time, I think, was the connection 20 between the age and experience and I didn't -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 Thank you. As if we're not having enough fun, we just 23 heard that there's a major snowstorm coming into the 24 area. I'm sure you fellows have access to the weather 25 channel. So we're going to have some more fun when we


1 leave here. Let's carry on. Let's -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Storms within and 3 storms without. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Storms all 5 over, major storms. Let's carry on, Mr. Falconer. Let's 6 carry on. It's now twenty (20) to 3:00. I'm not 7 counting the time of the break into your time, don't 8 worry. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I appreciate it, 10 Mr. Commissioner. 11 Mr. Commissioner, there is a binder, 12 courtesy of your Counsel, Ms. Vella, has been prepared of 13 Hansard extracts. I'd only just want to bring one (1) 14 thing to Ms. Vella's attention and yours, Mr. 15 Commissioner. The binder needs to be handed up to you. 16 Thanks. 17 I've already taken Ms. Hutton's counsel 18 and Ms. Hutton through the binder so they knew -- they 19 understood it. But at the index at Tab 2 a correction 20 should be made. It should read January 1997. I don't 21 know if Ms. Vella wants to make note of that. Tab 2 of 22 the binder, the index, should read January 27th, 1997. 23 Obviously somebody just misplaced it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 25 January '97?


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. In 2 other words Tab 2 right now shows January 27th/96. It's 3 -- it's a mistake by somebody. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well mine 5 shows '97. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's the index, the 7 index -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If you go to the 9 index at the front. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The document is right; 11 the index is wrong. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: My index is 13 not at Tab 2. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Tab 1 in front of 15 the -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, there it 17 is. I see it now; that should be '97. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've got you 20 now. Okay. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I do want to 22 express appreciation to Ms. Vella for helping in terms of 23 amassing these materials on the -- on the fly. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: Starting this area, before the break 2 I had raised a question and we decided to take a break so 3 I just want to start where I left off -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Ms. Hutton. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: What I had said was: In the context, 9 Ms. Hutton, of your answers talking about remembering 10 events ten (10) years later, I wanted then to commence 11 with the -- addressing the Hansard extracts that appear 12 in the materials. 13 But, there's a couple of things that I 14 want to understand by way of your role in relation to 15 preparing the Premier on issues in Question Period. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Now, first of all if you -- if you 18 simply flip to the book extracts, there's an extract that 19 very helpfully describes a function. If it's wrong, 20 you'll tell me, but the only reason I -- I simply found 21 it helpful because it -- it gave me some understanding of 22 your function. 23 If you turn to page 149 under Chapter 7, 24 149. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: The author, Ibbitson, refers to the 2 basically leaving aside the -- the -- any editorials or 3 the chapter title -- I'm only interested in the facts 4 that it refers to. 5 It talks about the convening of your 6 particular government following September 1995, and in 7 particular once the Legislature was in session; that's 8 why I'm bringing your attention to this. 9 And in particular, it refers to the 10 routine in the Harris team: 11 "Once the Legislature was in session 12 life in the Premier's office on the 4th 13 floor of Whitney Block had settled into 14 a predictable if taxing routine. Each 15 morning at 8:30, in a notoriously 16 cramped meeting room, the key members 17 of the Harris inner circle gathered to 18 plan the day." 19 It talks -- and then now I stop reading 20 and it talks about David Lindsey, Mitch Patten, Paul 21 Rhodes and -- and then it refers to you, Debbie Hutton, 22 Guy Giorno and Bill King. And then rounding out the 23 group is Scott Monic (phonetic). 24 Is that an accurate description of 25 generally the routine that would happen in the mornings


1 when Legislature was in session. 2 A: Yes. Although Mr. King I don't 3 believe was a participant in those meetings, regularly. 4 Q: But other than that? 5 A: I -- I've just scanned it, so my 6 apologies. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: I -- I think to the facts, it's 9 relatively accurate. I actually would have said eight 10 o'clock. But -- 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: -- beyond that I -- 13 Q: He didn't give you enough credit. 14 A: Yeah, well -- Mr. Ibbitson is a 15 reporter. 16 Q: In re -- in respect of you, 17 personally, it says, quote: 18 "Debbie Hutton would lay out what to 19 expect from the opposition that day." 20 End quote. 21 And that was what you did? 22 A: That was one of the things, yes. 23 Q: And that's part and parcel in 24 briefing the -- the Minister for Question Period; is that 25 right?


1 A: The Premier. 2 Q: The Premier. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now -- 5 A: Although, this speaks to our staff 6 meeting I believe, not the meeting with the Premier. 7 Q: Fair enough. And in terms of process 8 I'm curious, what else was involved in preparing the 9 Premier for Question Period? 10 What else was involved -- 11 A: What -- what was -- 12 Q: -- other than tellin him what to 13 expect from the opposition by way of questions. What 14 else was involved? 15 A: This is going to be a bit of a 16 lengthy answer. 17 Q: Well, it's important because I need 18 to know your functions as they related to -- to the 19 debates. 20 A: Okay. To the Legislature. 21 On any given morning, there would be two 22 (2) or three (3) sources for me, of a general nature, on 23 helping me think through what -- if I were in the 24 opposition, I would be asking of the Government that day. 25 One, obviously, is the media, and I think


1 I've spoken previously in this Inquiry about our meeting 2 clippings -- our media clippings package. 3 The second would be what I would call a 4 longer range planner and things that might arise in that 5 sense. So, for example, there are many weeks or days 6 designated as -- as having specific significance; 7 anniversaries, education week. 8 I mean, there a number of things that, for 9 example, on education week, or on the Ontario Medical 10 Association lobby day, you would expect on those types on 11 days education questions in the former and -- and health 12 questions in the latter. 13 So, that was sort of a second general area 14 where you might get some clues as to where the opposition 15 might be going. 16 The third area would be through the 17 Ministers offices, and the Ministries, sometimes through 18 Cabinet office. They would either, based on incidents 19 that had occurred or information they received, give me 20 and give Cabinet office a head's up on issues that they 21 thought might arise in the Legislature. 22 I would compile that list from those, sort 23 of, three (3) general sources, and there might have been 24 others on occasion, share that with my colleagues. I 25 would then ask, both through Cabinet office and through


1 our political staff in the Ministers offices, that what I 2 called 'house notes' be prepared. 3 I don't believe house notes were specific 4 or particular to our government. I think that has been 5 one of the general ways of briefing Ministers for -- and 6 the Premier for Legislature -- for the -- the Legislature 7 and for Question Period. 8 Those notes would be prepared by the 9 appropriate Ministry, vetted by the political staff in 10 the Minister's office and then would come to me some time 11 mid to late morning. 12 At the nine o'clock meeting with the 13 Premier, I'd give him a general heads up on what I 14 thought was coming his way. And then I would meet with 15 him, I think he indicated, somewhere in the 12:00/12:30, 16 one o'clock range, depending on the day, to provide him 17 with a binder that had a series of house notes prepared 18 by others in it, and I would strictly walk him through 19 that binder, and that was a binder that he would take to 20 the Legislature. 21 For the most part, the House notes started 22 with what I would call a 'message card', which were 23 basically the key communications messages on an issue, 24 and then usually about a page and a half, sometimes a 25 little bit longer, basic details and facts would follow


1 that message card. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Are you finished? Is that -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. Thank you for that. And in 8 terms of what you described as the binder; what was the 9 binder called? 10 A: It was his House book. 11 Q: House book? 12 A: I referred to it as the House book, 13 I'm not -- 14 Q: All right. In -- in terms of the 15 House book, would that be an example of materials -- you 16 made the -- you gave the evidence before in answer to Ms. 17 Vella's questions that materials didn't get to Premier 18 Harris other than through you. 19 Do you remember saying that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. And the House book would 22 be a perfect example, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And the House book would have been 25 something not only went through you, but you were in


1 charge of understanding so you could, in turn, brief the 2 Premier? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And is it fair to say that if you saw 5 something in error in the House book, or wrong, according 6 to your understanding, you'd fix it and tell him? 7 A: As a general answer I would say yes. 8 There were, in preparing the House book, there were times 9 when, particularly, if my time with the Premier to brief 10 him, based on his other commitments, was -- was brief, I 11 would indicate to him that particular issue X is under 12 Tab 3, but Minister Y is going to handle that today, so 13 we don't have to go over it. So I -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- just wouldn't want to say that I 16 scanned every note with the same type of eye to detail if 17 other Ministers were handling it. 18 In particular, in that case, I would 19 concern myself most with the public messaging as it 20 appeared at the top of the House book note and would 21 indicate any suggestions or changes I thought were needed 22 to that. 23 Q: And that term, 'public messaging', is 24 -- is consonant with the function in the House, isn't 25 that right, that it's a form of public debate where a


1 healthy form of debate in which members of the opposition 2 or the other parties would question, critically analyse 3 positions taken by members of government, and members of 4 government would publicly state their positions on it and 5 what they'd done, what they expected to do; that kind of 6 thing, correct? 7 A: Yeah, you're -- you're going to get 8 my bias against Question Period but -- 9 Q: And that's the idea. I didn't say it 10 works. 11 A: I would say that -- that much of what 12 you said is probably more likely a characterization of 13 the actual debates in the Legislature as distinct from 14 Question Period. 15 Q: All right. And in terms of the -- 16 either the debates in the Legislature -- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: -- or Question Period, in both cases, 19 you would be involved in preparing the Premier; is that 20 right? 21 A: Yes. Once in government, once Mr. 22 Harris became Premier his participation in the debate 23 part was more limited than it might have been just based 24 on his schedule and the carriage of legislation by 25 Ministers than it would have been in opposition. So --


1 Q: All right. 2 A: -- I'm not sure how often he spoke to 3 debates. 4 Q: And you raised something that's of 5 some interest to me; I needed to understand this. You're 6 in -- in essence, from the Premier's office point of 7 view, you're in charge of messaging; isn't that right? 8 A: Along with some of my colleagues, 9 yes. 10 Q: And being in charge of messaging, how 11 do you go about coordinating what other Ministers might 12 say in the House? 13 In other words, if another Minister is 14 going to speak to a very brief that you have 15 responsibility for, how do you coordinate that? 16 Is there a right hand/left hand, they 17 don't know what they're doing, or does the right hand 18 know what the left hand's doing? 19 A: Are you -- 20 Q: And I'm not saying that critically. 21 I'm just trying to understand how does that work. 22 A: Yeah, and I'm just trying to 23 understand your question. So -- so, the notes that I've 24 referred to -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: -- if the Premier has a note on a 2 problem at a hospital it comes from the Ministry of 3 Health and would be the same note that the Minister of 4 Health would have in his or her House book. 5 Q: All right. So that -- 6 A: As I said to Ms. Vella earlier we did 7 not generate in the Premier's office our own briefing 8 notes. We relied on the Ministries through the political 9 staff to do that. 10 Q: So, that ensured that -- some level 11 of consistency of message? 12 A: One would hope. 13 Q: Right. And so, what you saw in the 14 House book and what you briefed the Premier on would be 15 things that you would expect, if another Minister was 16 going to speak to it he would also or she would also see, 17 correct? 18 A: Yes. And in fact in saying that you 19 have pointed out another of my responsibilities which was 20 actually to make the decision on any given day who would 21 be the lead spokesperson on any particular issue. 22 This was most important when the Premier 23 was in the House and the Opposition -- again I'll use the 24 healthcare example -- they might choose to go to the 25 Premier instead of the Minister of Health.


1 Q: And it would be you personally that 2 would made that call? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Now, that's helpful, thank you and I 5 apologize for the length of that, but in order to 6 understand these Hansards, Mr. Commissioner, I thought it 7 was appropriate to get proper background because I don't 8 think we've heard evidence of this nature before today. 9 Now, could you assist me with this, Ms. 10 Hutton, was there any doubt that in speaking in the House 11 on the part of the Premier or any other minister that you 12 had experienced was -- with, was there an obligation to 13 speak the truth in the House? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. And you'd agree with me 16 that it was absolutely essential as a matter of public 17 interest and integrity to speak the truth in the House in 18 answer to question? That -- that's a fundamental 19 principle that -- that certainly underlay your 20 understanding of the roles of those who spoke in the 21 House; is that true? 22 A: Yes, I'm not sure I have anymore 23 information on that -- 24 Q: No, that's fine. 25 A: -- than any of the rest here would.


1 Q: And if a mistake had been made or if 2 a misunderstanding or a misapprehension had arose it 3 would be equally obligatory on the relevant Minister or 4 the Premier to acknowledge that a mistake had been made 5 or a misapprehension had occurred; that would be part of 6 telling the truth, isn't that right? 7 A: I would distinguish between Minister 8 and/or Premier making a mistake, and a misunderstanding 9 by someone else as to what was said. 10 Q: No, no, a misunderstanding by the 11 Premier. I'm saying if the Premier had a 12 misunderstanding or was under a misapprehension or had 13 made a mistake, if the Premier had -- had committed an 14 error of some kind, part of telling the truth is to 15 actually acknowledge that; isn't that right? 16 A: Right. I -- I was simply saying yes 17 to the -- to the word 'mistake'. I'm just -- I'm not 18 sure what you meant by the rest. 19 And -- and quite often members in the 20 Legislature do correct the record from time to time. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I think the one thing that I need to 25 understand is the messaging that surrounded the questions


1 in the House around Ipperwash. 2 If you look at the Hansard brief it's 3 apparent this binder reflects the best efforts on behalf 4 of Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto to search the 5 Hansard dat -- database for dealings in the Legislature, 6 in the House, with the subject of Ipperwash. 7 And it's apparent from a review of the 8 index in front of you that it appears that the first time 9 the House had an opportunity to deal with that, that is 10 on the record in the House, would have been March 18th, 11 1996. 12 Do you see that; it's Tab 1? 13 A: I do. 14 Q: The legislative session didn't start 15 until February 1996; isn't that right? 16 A: No, we -- we sat in the fall of 1995. 17 Q: All right. We did a search in the 18 fall of 1995 and couldn't find any references to 19 Ipperwash. Do you know if -- do you have a memory of it 20 being dealt with in the fall of 1995? 21 A: I don't. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: What that would mean is that the 24 Opposition didn't raise it. 25 Q: That's right. And we did a search


1 and the first time that it's referred to is March 18th, 2 1996. 3 Now, I corrected that index because it 4 reflects a January 1996 entry that's wrong; it should be 5 January/97. 6 The next time it's dealt with in the House 7 is April 1st, 1996. So, what I'm going to do is take you 8 to some of these passages because I want to make sure 9 that the issues being raised in the House were, in fact, 10 issues that came to your attention. 11 First off, it's obvious from the -- that 12 first entry on March 18th, 1996, that this wasn't an 13 issue of Question Period, this was a question of Mr. 14 Beaubien raising a matter. I'm -- I want you to go 15 please, to Tab 3 which is April 1st, 1996. 16 A: Not -- 17 Q: Could you go there? 18 A: -- not Mr. Beaubien's? 19 Q: No. 20 A: Tab 3. 21 Q: If you could go to Tab 3. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And Ms. Perschy's asked me to go 24 slowly so she catches up with me because she doesn't have 25 the same tabbing, and the good news for Ms. Perschy is no


1 matter how slow she wants me to go, I am slower. 2 So, April 1st, 1996 it is what I have as 3 the first debate and it reflects, Mr. Commissioner, Tab 3 4 of the binder that you and the Witness have. 5 Now what you'll see in respect of that 6 particular exchange -- first of all, is it fair to say 7 that this reflects the debate in the House; is that 8 right? 9 A: This appears to me to be a Question 10 Period exchange. 11 Q: All right. And -- 12 A: I just distinguish because debate has 13 a particular meaning in the Legislature. 14 Q: All right. And in being a Question 15 Period exchange, it's fair to say that it appears that, 16 courtesy of Mr. Eves, Mr. Harnick is expected to carry 17 the ball. 18 Is that right; just looking at the 19 questions that are raised? 20 And I'm -- I'm carefully, studiously, Mr. 21 Commissioner, not reading every line here. I'm giving 22 the Witness an opportunity -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to take 25 us through this fast and I'm trying to do just that,


1 that's why you're hearing me do it that way. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: So, it's fair to say that on this 6 time period, April 1st, 1996, what would be the first 7 series of questions, it's Mr. Harnick as a result of Mr. 8 Eves passing on carrying the ball; is that fair? 9 A: That appears to be the case. 10 Q: All right. And what is occurring 11 here is the leader of the Opposition, Ms. McLeod, on 12 April 1st, 1996 actually raises the question of political 13 interference; is that correct? 14 A: It appears to be that she's raised a 15 question based on information in the media. 16 Q: Yes. And -- but the bottom line and 17 again, I'm -- you should be careful in your answers so 18 I'm not trying to speed you up. 19 Bottom line is the reason I'm talking 20 generally is I'm trying to move you through of this 21 material. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: Looking at it, it's fair to say, and 24 I don't want to speed you up, that is you -- you take 25 your time, it's fair to say that Ms. McLeod is raising,


1 in the House, and ultimately Attorney General Harnick 2 answers the issue, among other things, of the massive use 3 of force, alleged massive use of force and the question 4 of political interference. 5 That's being raised in the House on April 6 1st, 1996; is that fair? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you 8 answer the question, we have an objection from Mr. 9 Downard. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My Friend's question 11 got better as he went along. My concern is that we got 12 a -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. -- Mr. Downard 14 improves me as a person. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Downard...? 17 Now don't start. 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My concern is that 19 we got a boatload of these Hansard excerpts by e-mail 20 this morning from My Friend. And I would request that he 21 go quite slowly and carefully if he's going to be putting 22 excerpts. 23 I have a concern also about where we're 24 going with this and that there's been use of Hansard 25 before that was objected to and found to be inappropriate


1 by the Commission. I'm concerned that we're going there. 2 But for the moment I'm just concerned that 3 My Friend should go slowly with this because we're trying 4 to catch up with this big pile of information we just got 5 this morning. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 7 Mr. Downard -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm in a conflict 9 here. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm anxious 11 to go quickly and I think you're right, we have to go at 12 a right pace so everybody gets a chance to answer 13 appropriately. Let's just do it -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and see 16 where it takes us. And if that issue comes up, Mr. 17 Downard, that we were concerned about before, you'll 18 raise it. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: Is it fair to say, by the way, Ms. 23 Hutton, that you would attend some of these Question 24 Periods? 25 A: Yes. It doesn't appear the Premier's


1 in the House, but I think I probably would have been 2 there. 3 Q: All right. So, in fact, part of your 4 function would be when the Premier wasn't actually 5 personally sitting in the House, you would assist by 6 sitting in yourself so you could give a perspective; is 7 that fair? 8 A: I would retain the same 9 responsibilities that I had for the Premier for whomever 10 was acting. Quite often the Deputy Premier, in the 11 Premier's stead, in Question Period. 12 The exception to that would be if I were 13 travelling with the Premier. 14 Q: All right. And have I generalized 15 the allegations appropriately that there -- that there's 16 an allegation of a massive buildup of force and there's 17 an allegation that there was political interference at -- 18 at the highest levels of government and Attorney General 19 Harnick is, in essence, denying the -- the validity of 20 these allegations; is that fair? 21 A: I would have to read this to feel 22 comfortable saying yes or no. 23 Q: That's fair, that's fine, that's 24 fine. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just take


1 your time. 2 THE WITNESS: Did you want me to read it 3 through. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, please do. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assume 6 you're being asked a question -- 7 THE WITNESS: The whole thing? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Please do. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 10 that's the problem with getting this at this late stage. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: You know, I can help. The second 14 paragraph, Ms. McLeod, quote: 15 "The Chief Superintendent of the OPP 16 now acknowledges that the police made a 17 conscious decision to use massive force 18 to confront an unarmed group of people 19 at Ipperwash. And this force included 20 the use of snipers in the OPP Riot 21 Squad. 22 This is disturbing in part because this 23 new information appears to contradict 24 statements that were put out by both 25 the OPP and the by the Government at


1 the time of the shooting occurrence. 2 The Premier's press secretary has said 3 there were ongoing meetings among 4 government officials here at Queen's 5 Park to discuss the situation at 6 Ipperwash, prior to this massive use of 7 force. 8 I ask you, Deputy Premier, if you can 9 tell us who in the Government was 10 participating in these meetings? Who 11 in the Government was then aware of the 12 decision, the deliberate decision to 13 use massive force at Ipperwash, and did 14 your Government concur with that 15 decision?" 16 And then you'll see the second paragraph 17 of Charles Harnick? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: "I also point out to the leader of 20 the opposition that I believe it's 21 Chief Superintendent Coles who was in 22 charge of the Southwest Region of the 23 Ontario Police, indicates quite simply 24 this is a Police matter not a political 25 matter, there was no political


1 interference." 2 I simply raise this with you to -- to 3 indicate to you, certainly as of April 1st, 1996 Members 4 of the opposition in Question Period, formally had raised 5 the spectre of an inappropriate use of force and 6 potential political interference by your Government; 7 isn't that true? 8 A: Yes, and I believe that followed 9 speculation in the media. 10 Q: Right. And -- 11 A: I had said early to mid '96, I would 12 not have been able to recall that it was the 1st of 13 April, or that weekend. 14 Q: Can we agree that whether you were 15 actually sitting in the House at the time, it was your 16 job to either be aware of this coming up before it did in 17 the House, or certainly be aware of it immediately after? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And it's fair to say it was 20 particularly your job, in view of the words you used in 21 past evidence with other counsel, one (1) of the words 22 you used was that: 23 "Premier Harris and I were 24 communicating, because I was acting on 25 behalf of the Premier on this issue."


1 Didn't you say that? 2 A: In a very specific answer to a very 3 specific question, I believe. 4 Q: Yes. At the IMC meetings, you were 5 acting on behalf of the Premier on Ipperwash; isn't that 6 right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. And it's fair to say -- 9 A: I would say further than that, but -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: -- and I -- 12 Q: Beyond the IMC meetings you were 13 acting on the Premier's behalf in respect of Ipperwash; 14 is that true? 15 A: Sorry, I -- I meant beyond the 16 Premier, I had a role in government to play, is what I 17 meant. 18 Q: So it was your business to know about 19 this as of April 1st, 1996? It's part of your functions? 20 A: To know about? 21 Q: The questions being asked? 22 A: Well I certainly could only speculate 23 on what Ms. Macleod and others in the opposition would 24 raise. It was part of my job to try and do my best to 25 speculate and anticipate.


1 Q: And then once they've raised it 2 though -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- let's say, God forbid you 5 speculated wrong, it's your business to know what they 6 raised? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Right. So let's put it as of April 9 2nd, 1996 there is no doubt that the issue or the 10 allegations of an inappropriate use of force and 11 inappropriate political interference with the Police at 12 Ipperwash were matters that were certainly part of the 13 brief you were now handling from the point of view of 14 messenging; isn't that right? 15 A: I believe that's correct. 16 Q: Okay. Now if you could turn then to 17 May 29th, 1996? 18 A: Tab 4. 19 Q: Which is the next tab, Tab 4, it's 20 the next time that comes up in the House. 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Now this time Premier Harris is in 23 the House. Do you see that? 24 A: I do. 25 Q: And these are oral questions, so it's


1 Question Period again? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it's fair to say you would have 4 been in the House as well? 5 A: I think that is fair to say, I can't 6 confirm it, but, yes. 7 Q: All right. And regardless of whether 8 you were in the House, you again -- all of the answers 9 you gave before about preparing the House book, being 10 briefed on what was going to happen, what you were going 11 to talk about, these were all things that applied to this 12 -- to this Question Period of May 29th, 1996; is that 13 true? 14 A: Save and except something like 15 illness, yes. 16 Q: All right. And do you -- I have to 17 now ask: Do you know of an illness that was going on, in 18 mid May or late May '96, that would preclude your 19 involvement? 20 A: I cannot recall if I happened to be 21 sick that day. I -- I just wanted to be accurate, 22 because I cannot tell you definitively that I was in the 23 Legislature on May 29th, 1996. I could tell you -- 24 Q: It was part of your function? 25 A: -- it is -- it is most likely that I


1 was there, yes. 2 Q: Thank you. Now, I -- I simply now 3 want to take you to a little bit of detail, and I'm going 4 to move you as fast as I can through it. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: On May 29th, 1996, Michael Brown, 7 Member for Algoma -- Algoma-Manitoulin? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Had questions for the Premier. And 10 it's the first paragraph on the first page? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: "I have a question for the Premier. 13 Today we learned that a mere twenty- 14 four (24) hours before the unfortunate 15 events at Ipperwash on September 6th 16 last, events which left one (1) person 17 dead and three (3) people wounded, a 18 meeting took place between an OPP 19 Superintendent, the Parliamentary 20 Assistant to the Attorney General, and 21 as many as six (6) senior political 22 staff, including your most trusted 23 advisor, your Executive Assistant for 24 Issues Management, Deb Hutton. 25 Premier, what directions did you give


1 to Ms. Hutton before she went into that 2 meeting with the OPP Superintendent?" 3 Then you'll see the Premier's answer: 4 "None." 5 A: Right. 6 Q: So it's fair to say that you and Mike 7 Harris never talked prior to the meeting of September 8 5th, 1996 about what you were supposed to do in the 9 meeting of September 5th, 1995; is that correct? 10 A: No, I don't believe that's correct 11 and I've indicated that. I cannot speculate on the 12 specific of Mr. Harris's answer at the time. 13 I can tell you reading this what I take it 14 to mean, if that's helpful. 15 Q: Well, if your point is that he did 16 give you some direction prior to the September 5th 1995 17 meeting, that's fine. I -- 18 A: You just asked me if we had a 19 conversation and I've indicated throughout the last two 20 (2) days that, yes, I believe we did. 21 Q: All right. Fair enough. Can we move 22 on then? 23 In terms of what is asked of Mr. Harris, 24 and I only am taking you to the question asked because 25 I'm going to take you to part of the answer, but it's


1 unfair for me not to show you the question first, all 2 right? 3 A: I would agree with that. 4 Q: So Michael Brown, I just -- I'm not 5 trying to take up more time than I have to, but I have to 6 be careful. 7 The next paragraph that quotes the Member 8 for Algoma-Manitoulin, Michael Brown: 9 "Let me tell you who was at that 10 meeting. Deb Hutton, your executive 11 assistant -- 12 And he goes and lists the people, 13 "Dan Newman, parliamentary assistant to 14 the Attorney General; David Moran, 15 executive assistant to Charles Harnick; 16 Jeff Bangs, executive assistant to 17 Chris Hodgson. 18 Premier: These are among the most 19 powerful political staff people in the 20 Government. They make decisions. 21 What decisions were made at their 22 secret meeting with the OPP 23 superintendent the day before the 24 tragic events at Ipperwash?" 25 Now, that's the question asked, correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. Now, as a result of that 3 question, Premier Harris gives answers on the -- on that 4 page and the next page and then -- and this is one of the 5 few that I'm doing in detail, because I have to, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 I can tell you now, each one of these will 8 be like this. 9 At the next page, under Mr. Jerry 10 (phonetic) Phillips, Scarborough-Agincourt, Member for 11 Scarborough- Agincourt, you see, "to follow up?" 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: "To follow up with the Premier and 14 just to confirm, on September 5th at 15 the time the meeting was taking place, 16 I gathered the OPP were assembling a 17 large number of officers to gather at 18 Ipperwash to deal with the crisis. 19 At the same time, many of the senior 20 staff, the political staff, were at 21 this meeting. I can only assume that 22 it was a meeting designed to bring your 23 staff up to date on what was being 24 planned. 25 A very important question, Premier, is,


1 was your staff informed of the OPP 2 plans for a build up and what was the 3 response of your staff that you had at 4 that meeting to that build up?" 5 Now -- now I'm going to read you Premier 6 Harris' answer. "Premier Harris" -- this is at page 2 of 7 that Tab. 8 "First of all, the meetings involved 9 twenty (20) people of whom there would 10 have been one (1) political staff 11 member from each of the Ministries that 12 were affected and that were involved in 13 this situation. 14 The Ministry of Natural Resources 15 because it was their Park and they had 16 responsibility for the Ipperwash 17 Provincial Park and I believe the 18 Attorney General's Ministry. 19 By the way, the meeting was called as 20 it ought to have been, by the Minister 21 responsible for Native Affairs. 22 That person is the one who would call 23 the meeting, call the people together 24 and give a briefing on the situation 25 that was taking place at that time.


1 Quote. 'Here's the update, here's the 2 best information we have available' 3 close quotes. 4 Invited from the OPP was the liaison 5 officer who was assigned to that 6 committee in these circumstances. 7 I can't recall at this particular time 8 back to September 5th the precise 9 information, but if you check the press 10 records of what I said to the media, 11 that's what I was told." 12 Mr. Philips does a follow up question 13 about the meeting. And on the next page, Premier Harris 14 answers: 15 "When it came to an assessment of the 16 situation, it would have been reported 17 what the assessment was at the Park. 18 I think you can clearly get that from 19 the records of what I said to the 20 media. 21 When it came to whatever might have 22 been the response to that, clearly my 23 understanding would have been that that 24 is a matter for the OPP to deal with. 25 That is not the business of the


1 Premier, the Premier's staff or any 2 staff. 3 It is now in the hands of the OPP. Any 4 negotiations are in the hands of the 5 OPP. They are the experts in this 6 field and surely nobody would presume 7 to think that the Premier or his 8 political staff would have expertise in 9 these areas. 10 Therefore we would not have offered any 11 opinion." 12 Now you, likely as you put it, would have 13 been present when the Premier stated that, correct? 14 A: I believe I would have been. 15 Q: And you understood -- you understand, 16 as I read these words to you now, that he's not simply 17 including himself when we says, We and my staff would not 18 have offered any opinion, he's including you, correct? 19 A: That appears to be the case. 20 Q: And, in fact, he's including you in 21 circumstances where the opposition members are actually 22 directing themselves to your personal presence at these 23 meetings as a, quote, "trusted advisor", close quotes. 24 Isn't that right? 25 A: It appears to be the case, yes.


1 Q: And these would have been all matters 2 you would have been alive to as of may 29th, 1996, 3 agreed? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Right. Because either you 6 anticipated it, as was your job, a form of Houdini. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Or alternatively you certainly -- it 9 was your job to know about it while it was going on or 10 the next day, correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: So there is absolutely no doubt, 13 first of all, that as of April 1st 1996, simply a number 14 of months after September 19, 1995, the issue of whether 15 you or your colleagues engaged in political interference 16 with the OPP was a front and centre concern in the House 17 and the Legislature; isn't that right? 18 A: Yes, and I believe I indicated that 19 was the first time that I began to turn my attention back 20 to the meetings of the 4th, 5th, and 6th. 21 Q: So -- so when people ask you, Can you 22 remember what Harris said to you, it's in the context of 23 someone who had to think about what Harris said to me and 24 I said to him only eight (8) months after the incident, 25 correct?


1 A: Correct. And I have said that. 2 Q: And then secondly, and most 3 importantly, on May 29th, 1996, it was the position of 4 Mr. Harris and I take it your position that no opinions 5 were expressed to the police and no directions were given 6 to the police, correct? 7 A: I want to be very clear in answering 8 your question. No directions were given to the police, 9 that was Mr. Harris' perception, mine, our position then 10 and today. We did not, as I think I've identified for 11 you earlier, understand that Mr. Fox, then or to this 12 day, was acting in the capacity of an OPP officer. 13 Q: Thank you for that answer. Now, 14 when -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Downard...? 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I -- I'm -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is he objecting to 19 the answer or to the question? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 21 not sure. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I'm objecting to the 23 -- the foundation for the -- the questioning. I stand to 24 be corrected -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: She's given the


1 answer and -- 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: That's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let him make 4 his objection. 5 Mr. Downard...? 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I -- correct me -- I 7 trust I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think 8 My Friend read the passage immediately preceding this 9 statement by Mr. Harris, which makes it very, very clear 10 that what Mr. Phillips is asking about here is what -- or 11 the way in which the OPP handled the situation on the 12 ground at Ipperwash. 13 He's not -- there's a paragraph that says: 14 "Premier, it's a very clear question, 15 you had a representative at the 16 meeting. The OPP had decided to handle 17 things very differently in this 18 circumstance than they had in previous 19 circumstances." 20 And so on. And earlier there's reference 21 to the build-up. And this takes place on the day of the 22 May Star story which I referred the Witness to which 23 talks about two hundred and fifty (250) officers marching 24 on the Park and so on. So that's the context. 25 And I don't think My Friend has made clear


1 that what -- as he fairly should, is that in the context 2 of this Hansard transcript, what's being asked about is 3 what's happening on the ground at the Park. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can -- I can help 5 to avoid the lengthy exchange. I think I can just help 6 with a follow-up question. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 8 concerned about how much of this you're going to have to 9 go through because it's obvious that, in order to be 10 fair, you have to go into it in some detail. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's why 12 I'm trying to -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you 14 can't -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I'm trying to -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You know you 17 can't do that in a couple of hours. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 20 concerned that this is going -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that may be, but 22 Mr. -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This 24 represents months of Hansard. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, it does, but


1 I don't intend -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to go through 4 any the level of detail each tab, at all. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In order to 6 be fair, sometimes you have to -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, then -- then 8 the time will have to take longer. I mean I -- I can't 9 lose it both ways. This is an important -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- this has not 12 been canvassed by any other party. I -- and, with 13 respect, the positions taken by this Witness are -- are 14 clearly triggered by her involvement in the creation of 15 these -- these answers and her involvement in the 16 process. So we are not talking about somebody who has a 17 remote interest. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 19 understand that; that's why I mean -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I'm going to 21 lose more time explaining why it's not going to take too 22 much time. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 24 on. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: All right. Now, Ms. Hutton -- 3 A: Yes? 4 Q: -- I -- I just want to be fair to Mr. 5 Downard's point which is: Did you understand, in giving 6 your answer, that it may well be that Premier Mike Harris 7 was addressing the notion of giving direction to the 8 police such that it affected their operations on the 9 ground, or expressing opinions to the police such that it 10 affected their operations on the ground? 11 Did you understand that was the issue? 12 A: In a general sense, yes. 13 Q: Okay. Good. 14 A: I believe my answer was reflective of 15 that. 16 Q: That's what I thought. All right. 17 Now, having said that, you made a point of -- you sort of 18 created a dichotomy on direction and then opinion in your 19 answer and I -- I -- I, you know, I could lose track but 20 I'm going to try not to. 21 You made a point that the Premier said 22 there was no direction and then you said on the point of 23 opinion -- you -- you made a point of explaining rather 24 than that Premier Harris was right about not expressing 25 an opinion, you made a point of explaining about your


1 knowledge of Fox. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Why did you do that? 4 A: Because -- 5 Q: Was Premier Harris not right? 6 A: The premise of this question is that 7 we went to a meeting that contained an OPP 8 superintendent. I was objecting to the premise of the 9 question and think it's relevant to the context of Mr. 10 Harris' answer. 11 Q: Fair enough. So am I correct, then, 12 to -- you see when Premier Harris says he didn't -- 13 neither he nor his staff expressed an opinion, on the 14 previous page he actually refers to Fox doesn't he, 15 Premier Harris? Do you see him? 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: If you go to the previous page and 18 you go -- the set of paragraphs right above, "Phillips," 19 at the bottom of the page -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- you see, "Honorary Mr. Harris, 22 first of all"? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Do you see, "first of all?" 25 A: I do.


1 Q: All right. Do you see how he refers 2 to the IMC meeting? 3 A: I do. 4 Q: All right. And do you see the quote, 5 quote: 6 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 7 officer who was assigned to that 8 committee in these circumstances." 9 Do you see that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Premier Harris, matter of factly, 12 described Superintendent Fox, correct? 13 A: He did, after the fact. 14 Q: Yes. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have a concern, 16 Commissioner and it was a concern I had earlier. We just 17 received these materials by e-mail about 9:20 this 18 morning. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Today. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: This morning -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I heard 22 that. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- after this Hearing 24 had commenced. The -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My Friend's


1 mistaken. This is already an exhibit. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Notice was given 4 through a document list a previous day. My Friend's 5 mistaken. Some of the other Hansards, that's true. Not 6 this Hansard. 7 This Hansard is an exhibit in these 8 proceedings and document notice was given yesterday about 9 it. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 12 which are in which category, but some of them were 13 received today. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, this 15 passage -- this exact set of passages were the subject of 16 a document notice and it's filed in the proceedings. So, 17 we're -- 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's fine. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- having a debate 20 about a document that's in existence. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 22 Vella. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's fine. My 24 concern is a more general concern. Two (2) of the 25 documents are exhibits, the others are not, as I


1 recollect. 2 My difficulty is that Ms. Hutton's being 3 questioned with respect to specific portions of answers 4 and questions without having had the benefit of reading 5 the entire context of the discussion. 6 And now Mr. -- Mr. Falconer, to make his 7 point is going to a different part and saying, but look 8 on the page before there's this. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 10 right. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And of course she 12 wouldn't know that unless, you know, one has a memory 13 that could record that type of thing. And it's a concern 14 I have. I appreciate this document is an exhibit and we 15 got notice yesterday, but the majority of these documents 16 we got notice of this morning. 17 And I have a concern -- it goes to the 18 fairness of the Witness. It's not, you know, the 19 propriety of the questions, but the -- the fairness to 20 the Witness so that she can know what it is the Premier 21 was responding to and then that informs whether or not 22 there may or may not have been a mistake. That's my 23 concern. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes, 25 Mr. Downard?


1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And I -- I agree 2 entirely with Commission Counsel. But, in addition, I 3 would ask that My Friend be putting before the Witness 4 the Toronto Star story of May 29, 1996 that is repeatedly 5 referred to and on this day, the same date, and which 6 forms the basis for the questioning, because, I mean, 7 that's -- that's an article which said that OPP 8 Superintendent Ron Fox is at this meeting. 9 So, it's all -- it forms part of the 10 context of this questioning. It -- it specifically 11 incorporated in the subject matter and so it should be 12 before the Witness as well. It's just a matter of 13 fairness and context. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I don't have a 15 difficulty at some juncture, once I look at the article 16 Mr. Downard's talking about assisting with context, but, 17 Mr. Commissioner, in circumstances where I'm questioning 18 from a document that's an exhibit in the proceedings and 19 to which I gave notice yesterday on, I just -- the issue 20 doesn't crystallize right now, so can't we just deal with 21 it when it crystallizes? 22 If someone thinks I'm being unfair on 23 something no one's seen, then we can deal with it. This 24 isn't something no one's seen, so -- we shouldn't be 25 doing this with respect, not on this question.


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm concerned about 2 what the Witness has seen. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, the Witness 4 got notice like everybody else gets notice, in the due 5 course, with an exhibit from the proceedings. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 This witness -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But, you know if -- 9 if you think we should take a break now -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 11 understand. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, because I 13 don't want to be put in a position where my clients -- I- 14 - I'm happy to -- to accommodate Ms. Hutton if she wants 15 to read some more, I -- I don't mind. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It is going to snow 18 really big time so that -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I know 20 that. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that might -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 23 worried about the snow. We're not staying up here -- 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: In -- in fairness to 25 the Witness I think providing some of the media articles


1 at the time that were referenced in this Hansard would be 2 helpful to this Witness, to provide the necessary 3 context. It -- it does appear that they -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- the questions that 6 were raised in the Legislature arose out of what was in 7 the media at the time. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, but, Mr. 9 Commissioner, I -- I'm happy to help on the particular 10 article My Friend raised. I don't think it's incumbent 11 upon counsel questioning on Hansard to then go track down 12 all the media reports to -- as -- as a means of loading 13 up for a witness to read. 14 This is the Witness who, of course, was 15 involved in the preparation of the answers. So, all I 16 want to do is on an exhibit, that's already an exhibit, 17 finish my question. 18 If we get to an area where somebody says 19 hey this is new and she doesn't have context, then we'll 20 do that. But, there can be no way that this Witness is 21 being blind-sided on a exhibit and circumstances where we 22 gave notice. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well this 24 Witness is capable of indicating if she does feel blind- 25 sided. Is that fair, Ms. Hutton?


1 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you feel 3 that you need time to go back and read the whole thing or 4 read more or have some background, all you have to do is 5 say so. 6 And I'm just fearful of the way you're 7 proceeding, Mr. Falconer. It's going to take not just 8 hours but days, so I'm sure that you've got a strategy 9 that allows you to -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Can I share this -- 11 can I share this with you because you've expressed this 12 concern a number of times before to me. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I have 14 because I'm quite concerned. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I understand but 16 I -- I assume, Mr. Commissioner, you -- implicit in that 17 you recognize that the issue of what the Premier, through 18 his staff, sent by way of responses to major questions 19 for the Ontario public are important -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and no counsel 22 has covered this. So, I'm not into an area that I'm 23 retreading. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 saying you are.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, the -- so, the 2 issue is -- the issue is simply how do I do it 3 efficiently and within a reasonable timeframe. And what 4 I was going to propose to do, so you know, and I've 5 shared this with your counsel and other counsel, what I 6 propose to do is for the most part, and I've told the 7 Witnesses, most of these tabs will be covered topically; 8 that is, first of all, most are short. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and only a 11 few require focus on wording of the nature we're doing 12 right now. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, what's going to 15 happen is, so as of September '96, this was an issue 16 raised, the Witness looks, yeah, there is the issue. 17 And so as of September '96, it was part of 18 your functions to know that this issue was raised, and 19 then I go on; that's the point. But, I'm not allowed to 20 do this in the air, I have to have the paper in front of 21 her. That's -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- how I'm going to 24 do it and we'll move through it fast. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right.


1 So, it's just possible that I did not understand that, 2 and I was getting quite concerned about -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. No problem. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- how this 5 was going to -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: There's a few that 7 require a line by line, but not many at all. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, let's 9 take it as you say -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- one (1) 12 document at a time. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And if you 15 need anything, Ms. Hutton, to feel confident that you're 16 giving a fair -- and you just tell us and we'll stop and 17 give you an opportunity. And let's -- 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- see if we 20 can get through this. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: In terms of process, what I had 24 pointed to you, Ms. Hutton, was that the Premier had 25 stated, quote:


1 "Premier Harris had stated on the 2 previous page, quote 'Invited from the 3 OPP was the liaison officer who was 4 assigned to that Committee in these 5 circumstances.'" 6 Do you see that? 7 A: I do see that, yes, sir. 8 Q: Now -- now, your point was that when 9 you did that dichotomy -- when I asked you is that true, 10 the direction and the opinion, you created a dichotomy: 11 direction, definitely not; opinion, well, we didn't know 12 about Fox. 13 Do -- do you remember that dichotomy? 14 I'm -- gist, but is that fair? 15 A: Gist, yes. 16 Q: All right. Now, the reason I ask you 17 that is here are the Premier's words: 18 "Invited from the OPP." 19 He describes Superintendent Fox as someone 20 quote, "From the OPP", close quotes, doesn't he? 21 A: It appears so, yes. 22 Q: And this would have been something, 23 as of May 29th, 1996, you certainly would have known, 24 because the Premier knew it and it was being said in the 25 House, correct?


1 A: I believe so, yes. 2 Q: In addition to this being from the 3 OPP, according to the Premier, he was a liaison officer. 4 Do you see the word officer? 5 A: I do. 6 Q: Now officer, with great respect, 7 isn't lawyer, right? Officer, is a Police Officer, are 8 we agreed? 9 A: No. 10 Q: All right. So, when it says liaison 11 officer, it means something other than a Police Officer; 12 is that fair? 13 A: It may well, yes. 14 Q: All right. So, a person who is an 15 "officer", quote/unquote, from the "OPP", quote/unquote, 16 is unlikely to be a Police Officer; is that fair? 17 A: I'm sorry, say that again? 18 Q: A person who is quote, "an Officer," 19 close quotes, open quotes, "From the OPP," close quotes, 20 is unlikely to be a Police Officer; is that fair? 21 A: I'm really struggling with your 22 question, I'm sorry. 23 Q: Well, if you don't understand the 24 question -- 25 A: I don't.


1 Q: -- I'd be happy to rephrase it. 2 A: I don't. 3 Q: When you said officer, doesn't mean 4 Police Officer -- 5 A: I said it doesn't necessarily -- 6 Q: -- were you're taking into account -- 7 right. You said it doesn't necessarily. 8 A: Right. 9 Q: Were you taking into account the 10 words before officer; quote, "from the OPP," close 11 quotes. Were you taking that into account? 12 A: No, you did not ask me that. 13 Q: All right. Would you agree with me 14 that if you marry up the words "from the OPP", and 15 "officer", it probably means -- and the word 16 "Superintendent", it probably means Police Officer; would 17 you agree with that? 18 A: It may, but you would have to ask Mr. 19 Harris. 20 Q: Fair enough, because you don't know, 21 correct? 22 A: I don't know. 23 Q: Right. Now -- 24 A: I know what I knew at the time. 25 Q: -- that's interesting, because I


1 thought we were agreed that you were in charge of 2 preparing the Premier for these very Question Periods, 3 weren't we agreed on that? 4 A: We are. 5 Q: And I thought we were agreed that in 6 all likelihood you sat in that House when that question 7 was asked and the answer was given? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: All right. Could you turn to the May 10 30th, '96, the next tab. The very next day it's raised 11 again in Question Period, the issue of Ipperwash and the 12 very similar issues are raised, but this time it's left 13 to Mr. Runciman to answer. Do you see that? 14 A: I do. 15 Q: And it would have been your decision 16 to leave it to Mr. Runciman to answer, correct? 17 A: I don't know if the Premier was in 18 the House. 19 Q: All right. But, the day before, the 20 Premier was in the House, correct? 21 A: It appears that way, yes. 22 Q: All right. On May 30th, 1996, just 23 very quickly, taking you to the second page, there -- 24 halfway down the page you see the number, fourteen ten 25 (1410)?


1 A: I do. 2 Q: All right, the paragraph right above 3 that, that starts, "All I can indicate": 4 "All I can indicate to the Honourable 5 Member whether she wants to accept it 6 or not, is that the Government felt 7 throughout this exercise, and certainly 8 my Ministry and the representative who 9 advises on Native Affairs at the time, 10 Inspector Fox, now Superintendent Fox, 11 always reinforced the message 12 throughout this difficult time, that 13 the OPP were, in terms of operational 14 matters, operating outside of any 15 political direction or influence. I've 16 always reinforced that message in my 17 role as Solicitor General, and I do not 18 believe that in any way, shape, or form 19 was that advice ignored or breached." 20 Do you see that? 21 A: I do. I'm -- I'm reading along, yes. 22 Q: All right. And would you agree with 23 me that Solicitor General Runciman refers to Fox as 24 Inspector Fox, Superintendent Fox? 25 A: He does, yes.


1 Q: Yes. And would you agree with me 2 that on neither of the passages that I've just put to 3 you, does anyone say we were operating under a 4 misapprehension that he was not a police officer? 5 Do you see anything like that -- 6 A: I -- 7 Q: -- in the passages I've read to you? 8 A: I do not. 9 Q: Would you agree with me, in fact, 10 simply looking at what Mr. Harris says on May 29th, 1996, 11 he simply, matter of factly says, on page 2: 12 "Invited from the OPP was the liaison 13 officer who was assigned to that 14 committee in these circumstances." 15 Would you agree with that; he just matter 16 of factly states it? 17 A: I -- 18 Q: Yes, Mr. Downard...? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I -- I think it would 20 be helpful if My Friend could point out where that is put 21 in issue, when there's a question being asked that 22 requires a response as to what these people's 23 understanding was in September 5th and 6th, 1995, as to 24 the role of Inspector Fox at the time. It wasn't in -- 25 put in issue in this Hansard --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am -- I am -- 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's -- it's entirely 3 reasonable to -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- My Friend is -- 5 is making argument. He's saying that my question right 6 now doesn't prove what they knew in September 1995. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: First of all I 9 don't have to do that in one (1) question, I'm entitled, 10 like anyone else, to do proper cross-examination which is 11 I'm building towards that. 12 But to be fair, Mr. Commissioner, if My 13 Friend is allowed to get up and simply say, He hasn't 14 proven his case as a result of the question, he doesn't 15 object because the questions inappropriate, he just says 16 he hasn't proven his case. That is not -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 18 what he's saying is the question in its context is not a 19 fair question. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 22 that's the essence of his objection. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The -- the question 24 doesn't reasonably arise from the context. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am asking: As of 2 May 29th, 1996 it's fair to say that there was no doubt, 3 based on the statement here, no doubt expressed by 4 Premier Harris as of May 29th, 1996, or Solicitor General 5 Runciman as of May 30th, 1996 as to Inspector Fox's 6 status as a police officer; there was no doubt expressed 7 on those two (2) days, wouldn't you agree? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 9 minute. Yes, Ms. Perschy...? 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, my 11 concern is this, we -- we can all read what's in the 12 Hansard. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 14 that and it's not helpful. 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just -- if he wants 16 to ask her what her recollection is, whether she recalls 17 attending in the Legislature at that time perhaps there 18 may be some questions there, but we can all read what's 19 in the Hansard. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, that's -- that's 21 -- first of all, Mr. Commissioner, we're bound to get a 22 hundred and thirty-six (136) or a hundred thirty-seven 23 (137), I don't recalls. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I know 25 she gave some evidence some time ago, I don't remember


1 which questions, about her understanding of what 2 Inspector Fox was. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's -- and 4 I'm cross-examining in this area. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 6 mean as a result of the Hansard, I mean as a result of 7 his attendance at the meeting. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But it's very 9 important, Mr. Commissioner, that cross-examining counsel 10 be given the latitude -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to use 13 statements that the Witness is involved in creating and 14 statements that reflect the knowledge of her superiors 15 she was responsible for briefing and assigning tasks to, 16 that she was present when they spoke; that counsel have 17 the ability to cross-examine on the area fairly. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You just 19 added the word, "fairly." 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, and -- and -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're just 22 trying to make sure that the questions and the context 23 are fairly put -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And as of May 29th, 25 1996 my question remains the very same question. There -


1 - on the materials before this Commission and I made a 2 point of including every single Hansard extract right 3 through 1996 and into 1997 because I'll be making a -- 4 putting a next question to the Witness about that. 5 But there is not one (1) reflection of a 6 misapprehension about Fox's role by anybody in any of 7 those Hansard answers. Not once does one (1) minister, 8 including the Premier, ever suggest that their 9 understanding was anything other than he was from the 10 OPP -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and a liaison 13 officer. Now, that's very strange in circumstances 14 where, today, they go, Well we did express an opinion, 15 but we had no idea who he was. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you're 17 making your argument; that's where you're going. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I am, but I 19 need to. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's where 21 you're going. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's where 24 you're going. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I kind of


1 signalled it for the Witness. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 That's -- MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It operates to our 4 disadvantage, doesn't it? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Mr. 6 Downard...? 7 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: My objection is to 8 the continued reference to the hundred and thirty-seven 9 (137) or whatever I don't know's. I was just -- I just 10 did a short scan of a transcript of not two (2) days full 11 of evidence from a witness who had very detailed notes, 12 and I've got about seventy (70) 'I don't know's' so far. 13 Maybe My Friend -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 15 you've got -- 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- would like to put 17 that with his -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And so My Friend -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 20 Mr. Downard, I didn't hear you. You've got what so far? 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just did a quick 22 scan of a couple days of the evidence of a witness who 23 had very detailed notes and I've got about seventy or so 24 I don't know's already. 25 OBJ I object to My Friend coming back to this


1 bit about a hundred and thirty-five (135) I don't know's. 2 It's plainly a sound bite for the media and it has been 3 done before and -- and the manner in which he just put it 4 smacks of brow beating and editorializing. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, and 6 that's the objection. But understand the objection, Mr. 7 Falconer; that's what it is. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Now, we're 9 somewhere else now. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And it's a 11 perfectly legitimate objection. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm not 14 saying that you're doing that -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but 17 that's what the basis of the objection is. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. And I'm not 19 going to respond because I'm pretty sure you just -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- want me to ask 22 my question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 24 on. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Now going back, there's nothing about 4 these passages that I read to you on May 29th or May 5 30th, 1996 that would suggest any feeling of 6 misapprehension on the part of Premier Harris or 7 Solicitor General Runciman about the status of 8 Superintendent Fox in being, quote, "from the OPP," or in 9 being, quote, "an officer," is there? 10 A: I would say that based on very small 11 pieces I have read, there's no indication of that. I 12 can't speak to their state of mind. 13 Q: No, of course not. And it's fair to 14 say that you can't speak to their state of mind even 15 though it was your responsibility to prepare this man to 16 answer those questions, right? 17 You were -- you were preparing -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Are you looking at 20 Mr. Commissioner? 21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I thought you -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm not. 23 You're fine up until that last question. It wasn't a 24 necessary question. 25 You've got your answer that she gave you--


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move on, 2 that's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And now 4 you've moving on. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. I'll 6 move on. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then you 8 don't have to go into your argument -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, that's 10 fine. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- or your 12 conclusion. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's for 15 us to draw. Let's go. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, that's 17 fine. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: And, Ms. Hutton, in terms of what we 21 see here, I'm going to suggest to you and encourage you 22 to take the binder home over the course of the evening, 23 that there is no clarification or suggestion by any 24 Minister called upon to answer a question in Question 25 Period, over the course of that entire binder or anywhere


1 else we could find in Hansard, where any, any Minister or 2 Premier says, I misapprehended the role of Fox. 3 I didn't know he was a police officer and 4 when we expressed opinions, we didn't know we were 5 expressing them in front of Fox. 6 I'm going to ask you to review the Hansard 7 and satisfy yourself that my suggestion is correct. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 9 asking her to take it home and do it overnight? 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If she would -- 11 yes, that's right. Not right this second, but when she 12 takes it home tonight. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well that's -- I'm 14 sorry. That -- is My Friend suggesting that this Witness 15 will be held over until tomorrow in order to -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well then don't 17 then, that's fine. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- answer this? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 20 fair. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I invite her to. 22 If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to. I simply -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm trying to -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How can she


1 satisfy herself except if she goes through it? And that 2 is going to take hours. That's what I'm concerned about. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well that may be, 4 Mr. -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The nature 6 of your examination -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is just-- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- this Witness 10 appears before you and tells you, we didn't know certain 11 things. I listened to the evidence -- I listened to the 12 evidence and we spent half the night collecting every 13 single Question Period answer. 14 And we review it and we analyse it and we 15 find out that nowhere -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- does this 18 explanation, that shows up ten (10) years later, appear 19 in any of the answers she was responsible for creating. 20 So I felt it was incumbent upon me -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So you're 22 saying -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to put it to the 24 Witness. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, that


1 may be accurate and it may not be accurate -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I can do it by 3 undertaking. I undertake to you, and that's the -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the-- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that may be the 6 best way. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I undertake to you 9 that I've -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- done that review 12 and I encourage My Friends, if they find something 13 different, to bring it to my attention. 14 You don't have to come back tomorrow. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 16 And you can move on now? 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all 19 you really needed to make. That's the point -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: On that -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you 22 needed to make. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: On that portion, 24 yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to


1 hear from counsel, but if that's the only point that 2 you're making on that point -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- then I 5 think that maybe -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We can move on. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- will 8 allow us to move on. 9 Ms. Perschy...? 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: One of the many 11 concerns that I have with this is -- is My Friend's 12 characterization that she was somehow -- what her 13 responsibilities were with respect to briefing the 14 Premier. 15 And the suggestion that she's sort of 16 formulating a message and I think there's -- there's an 17 assumption in there that I don't think is fair to this 18 Witness and doesn't follow from the evidence that she's 19 given to date. 20 So I have an issue with the way that he's 21 characterized what she's -- what she was doing in advance 22 and what these transcripts reflect. 23 We can all see what's in the Hansard. Mr. 24 Harris is presumably -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- going to testify 2 and he can speak to that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: She can speak to her 5 responsibilities -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but 7 she -- 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- and when she's 9 done -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- indicated 11 that she did help to brief him to answer these questions. 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Absolutely. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And all I'm indicating 15 to you is my concern with respect to My Friend's 16 characterization of her evidence in that regard, and I'm 17 not sure that it's accurate or fair. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And, Mr. 19 Downard, and your observation? 20 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: My concern is that 21 it's objectionable, it's not -- it's not reasonable at 22 all. My Friend has not referred the Witness to one 23 question, anywhere in his mountain of Hansard we got this 24 morning, where anyone in the Government has asked: What 25 did you perceive Inspector Fox's role to be as of the


1 4th, 5th and 6th? 2 The matter -- My Friend has not shown one 3 (1) transcript where that issue was put in question. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's making 5 argument -- 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And then -- and 7 then -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's making 9 argument. He's not objecting. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- what he's trying-- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's just making 12 argument. 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, I'm just trying 14 to explain my objection. No, I think I've made my -- my 15 point. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay. 17 Well, let's move on. 18 What's your next point Mr. Falconer? 19 We'll move on. We have to complete this 20 Inquiry somehow, Mr. Falconer. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, but it -- what 22 can't happen is -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 24 do it fairly. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right.


1 Fair -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and we 3 have to do it completely -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- fair to the 5 Witness, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fair to 7 everybody. Yes. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- also fair to the 9 parties. So that if counsel gang up on top of me and 10 make each question go twenty (20) minutes, her question - 11 - it can't be an hour and a half anymore. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could 13 handle yourself and -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. That's 15 right but it can't be an hour and a half anymore if each 16 question takes twenty (20) minutes with speeches. So, 17 that -- that's my problem. That's not fair. That's the 18 problem here because I have made what is a elementary 19 point. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 Let's go on. You -- you still have time left in your 22 allocated time. So let's keep going. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Would you agree with me, now setting


1 aside the transcript, that the messaging that you were 2 involved in creating in 1996, early to mid 1996, was that 3 the Government gave neither a direction to the OPP nor 4 expressed an opinion to the OPP on how they should 5 conduct affairs on the ground? 6 A: I believe that is accurate. 7 Q: All right. And would you agree with 8 me that faced with all of the evidence of opinions, 9 whether by you, Ms. Deb Hutton, or by Marcel Beaubien or 10 the third and the fourth hands, the messaging now is, We 11 didn't give a direction but if we gave an opinion, we had 12 no idea it was to the police. 13 Isn't that the messaging now? 14 And isn't that different than the 15 messaging used to be? 16 A: No. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 18 minute. 19 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard 21 has an objection. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's a proper 23 question. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's a totally 25 improper question. Just -- just -- to try to contradict


1 the Witness, attack the Witness on the basis of -- on the 2 basis of all of this evidence over here about this, that 3 and the other, if he wants to put evidence to the Witness 4 and say if that changes her view or if there's a question 5 arising, he should put the evidence to the Witness and 6 not give it a broad brush in a very vague way as he just 7 has. 8 It's not a proper approach of cross- 9 examination. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 11 to put something specific to her, Mr. Falconer? 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, with all 13 -- with all respect, I -- I don't -- I didn't see a 14 problem with the last question. The question was putting 15 aside the Hansard, did the messaging change from one 16 issue -- from one message to another message. 17 And the Witness can tell us if she's not 18 able to answer that question. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Putting 20 aside the Hansards? 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll simply restate 23 it again? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well once 25 again, state the question again so I have a clear


1 understanding of what -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: Ms. Hutton, putting aside the 6 Hansards for a moment -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- isn't it fair to say that while 9 the initial messaging, that you were in charge of 10 creating, was the Premier and the Government, neither 11 gave a direction to the OPP about operations on the 12 ground nor expressed an opinion in front of the OPP about 13 operations on the ground? 14 That messaging changed now to the Premier 15 and Government did not give a direction to the OPP about 16 operations on the ground, but we may have expressed an 17 opinion because we didn't know there was an OPP officer. 18 Isn't that a change in messaging? 19 A: No. And if I left -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 21 minute. You still have an objection? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. My concern is 23 simply with respect to -- I think this contains a built- 24 in premise as to what is the supposed message at one 25 point or another and I think My Friend, in fairness to


1 this Witness, should ask those questions first before he 2 asks -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 4 those questions you asked at some point in time -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: They were asked and 6 I'm trying to -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 8 those questions were asked. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I'm trying to 10 build on the evidence, not being -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think the 12 way you put your question now, I think it's a question 13 that the Witness can answer. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Could you please answer the question, 17 Ms. Hutton? 18 A: I did. The answer is, no. I -- I 19 take from your question that you felt that I said earlier 20 that I had expressed opinions about operations -- on OPP 21 operations. If I left that impression, it's not true. 22 So, I'm not sure -- I just don't 23 understand the basis for your question, I guess, and I -- 24 I worry that it's somehow something that I implied that I 25 didn't mean to, if that makes sense.


1 Q: Fair enough and perhaps I can clarify 2 it. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: In answer to questions by Ms. Vella, 5 she asked you -- she asked you hypothetically, if you had 6 known that Ron Fox was a police officer -- 7 A: Right. 8 Q: -- would it have changed what you 9 said at the meeting? And to -- to make sure I got the 10 gist of your answer -- the gist of your answer was: It 11 wouldn't have changed my comments -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: -- but it was inappro -- it would 14 have been inappropriate for him to be there. 15 Do you remember saying that? 16 A: Yes, I do. And I agree with that. 17 Q: And you still maintain that evidence, 18 correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: All right. Now -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well if she's 22 adopted it, why am I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but 24 just give her a chance to answer. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No, no, no, she --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: She just said, 2 Correct. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I believe -- I believe 5 that, just to finish what her -- I believe the answer in 6 total was: It would have been inappropriate for him to be 7 there if he was acting in a position as an operating 8 police officer. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That -- that is 10 not, by the way, accurate. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well I stand to be 12 corrected. That's my recollection. That was my only 13 comment. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I seem 15 to have a similar recollection. But anyway, where are 16 you going now, Mr. Falconer? 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I will go 18 back because I got an answer and after I got an answer 19 counsel objected to add to the evidence and so we'll have 20 to go back. And this isn't the way I prefer to do a 21 cross-examination, Mr. Commissioner, but I'm stuck. So 22 I'll go back again. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 24 have to do it the way you have to do it. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They have to 2 object just as you do when they think it's appropriate. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So let's 5 just keep moving. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm trying, but I 7 have to take a step back -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and do it again. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: It was your evidence that it would 14 not have been appropriate for Ron Fox to be present as a 15 police officer, correct? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 17 THE WITNESS: As a police officer, yes. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: Or -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 21 THE WITNESS: -- or anyone, in my view, 22 as a police officer. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: And therefore, am I to take your


1 evidence to be, that as long as Ron Fox, as a police 2 officer, was seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor 3 General, it was okay for him to be there? 4 Am I to take your evidence that way? 5 A: Yes, if it was clear to him and 6 everyone, as it was to me at the time, that he was a 7 civil servant at those meetings. 8 Q: And... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: In terms of your answer just now, 13 what I took from that is that that was your 14 understanding, that he was a police officer acting as a 15 civil servant; is that right? 16 Do I take that from your answer? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm allowed to make 19 a suggestion to the Witness. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She -- 21 THE WITNESS: No. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She gave 23 evidence on this point. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Just -- yeah. Just 25 make the question clear because that question was


1 somewhat vague in terms of the time frame and I think we 2 need to be very -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move on. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- careful in 6 fairness to this Witness. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll move on. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She believed 9 that he was seconded and she thought she understood what 10 that meant. She gave evidence on this point. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: Would you agree with me that his 14 status as a seconded police officer was something you 15 were comfortable with then and you're comfortable with 16 now, in terms of his presence at the meeting? 17 A: I am trying to be really clear about 18 different time frames. 19 On September 5th and 6th I did not know 20 Ron Fox had been, was, or was seconded from the OPP. I 21 subsequently learned, and as I said, I hope, previously, 22 I don't recall what time frame I learned this, that he, 23 in fact, was seconded. 24 If, in fact, his understanding, as mine 25 would be, that a seconded individual, from wherever they


1 were seconded from, was acting as a civil service 2 individual, that would be appropriate. If he believed, 3 in any way, that he was still acting as an OPP officer, I 4 personally do not believe it would have been appropriate 5 for him to be sitting in on a government decision making 6 or even recommendation meeting. 7 Q: And would you agree with me that the 8 reason you're of that view is because there would be a 9 risk if not a fact of, an appearance of the Government 10 funnelling information through a police officer back to 11 police operations. 12 That would be the -- the concern, correct? 13 A: It could be. For me it was a little 14 more fundamental. I think it is very difficult in any 15 circumstance, and -- and I don't contain this just to 16 individuals, as is this case, being seconded from the 17 OPP. 18 I think it's very -- very difficult for 19 Government to have an open and honest discussion about 20 options outside of the bounds of -- of the Government. I 21 just don't know how Government could do its job in that 22 context. 23 Q: Mr. Taman, Deputy Attorney General at 24 the time, testified that one (1) of Ron Fox's functions 25 was to facilitate and act as a conduit to officers in


1 operations from Government. Did you understand that was 2 his function? 3 A: I did not and I don't know to this 4 day that it -- it, in fact, was. 5 Q: If the Commissioner accepts that was 6 his function, do you still maintain it was appropriate 7 for Ron Fox to be sitting in on meetings of the nature he 8 did? 9 A: If an individual is sitting there as 10 a civil servant and one (1) of their responsibilities is 11 to communicate government decisions and perhaps 12 government -- I guess, decisions, would be what I'd be 13 most comfortable with, as part of their civil service 14 responsibilities, I would be comfortable with that. 15 Q: But, in any event, we can close this 16 area out by simply agreeing that at the time you didn't 17 know Ron Fox was from the OPP, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And at the time you didn't see him as 20 an officer, correct? 21 A: Absolutely. 22 Q: Do you have any idea when Premier 23 Harris would have figured that out? 24 A: I do not. 25 Q: Do you recall a discussion with


1 Premier Harris, prior to May 29th, 1996, when he said 2 those words, where he relayed that information to you? 3 A: I do not. 4 Q: Do you recall ever saying to Premier 5 Harris, It's important, or words to this effect, It's 6 important that we clarify that we didn't know Ron Fox was 7 from the OPP when he was at the IMC meeting and when he 8 attended the dining room meeting. 9 Did you think that that was important and 10 was it a matter that you discussed with the Premier? 11 A: No, not to my recollection. 12 Q: In terms of the dining room meeting-- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- it's the evidence of Officer 15 Patrick that Ron Fox was introduced at the doorway near 16 the Premier. 17 You would have been sitting, as you put 18 it, to the right of the Premier, correct? 19 A: Yes. I'm not sure if I was beside 20 but... 21 Q: To the right of him? 22 A: Yeah, absolutely. 23 Q: In close proximity to the Premier? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: As the map goes, and I may


1 misunderstand the map; the doorway's to the right isn't 2 it? 3 A: It's almost in the middle. 4 Q: All right. So if someone were to 5 come in the doorway and be introduced, it would be in 6 very close proximity to both you and the Premier, 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Now, do you dispute Officer Patrick's 10 evidence that Ron Fox was introduced as Inspector Fox in 11 the dining room meeting? 12 A: I do not recall that and I believe if 13 I had heard that, since it was news to me, I would have 14 recalled it. 15 Q: So that's a piece of information that 16 you can confidently say as far as you're concerned, 17 didn't happen? 18 A: From my perspective, that's correct. 19 Q: Well, I only want your perspective. 20 So it didn't happen? 21 A: I do not recall it happening and I 22 think I would have. 23 Q: Right, and so it's not about not 24 remembering, right, correct? 25 A: I feel as though you're asking me to


1 call someone else a liar and I'm uncomfortable with that. 2 Q: My question to you was, it's not 3 about not remembering. So if you could just confine 4 yourself to that question. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: It's not about not remembering. It's 7 your position that didn't happen, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And you remember we went over the 10 definition of selective memory? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Right. I'm going to put it to you 13 that when it suits your purposes, your memory triggers 14 very nicely. Such as, Ron Fox wasn't introduced. I 15 remember that. I can't remember what the Premier said to 16 me, but I know Ron Fox wasn't introduced that day. 17 That is selective memory, I suggest to 18 you. 19 A: I believe what I said was that the 20 information that Mr. Fox was an inspector would have been 21 news to me and therefore I believe I would have recalled 22 it. 23 That is the best that I can tell you about 24 that. 25 Q: Do you recall speaking on the evening


1 of September 6th, 1995 to Mr. Bangs, correct? 2 A: I do. 3 Q: And you recall, in fact, while 4 speaking to him there was a page that came in from Mr. 5 Moran right over top. Was it call waiting, I take it? 6 A: Yeah, it wasn't a page. I -- as I 7 said, I think I was finishing one call when the other 8 came in. 9 Q: And you recall that, you testified to 10 that to Ms. Vella? 11 A: I do, I have very specific 12 recollection given the nature of what I was being told. 13 Q: And that's because you were being 14 told of the tragedy. 15 A: Absolutely. 16 Q: The death? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Something that you felt sick about? 19 A: Absolutely. 20 Q: And you knew part of your 21 responsibilities were to convey that horrible information 22 to Premier Harris? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: What did he say? 25 A: As I said, I don't recall.


1 Q: So you remember what Bangs said to 2 you, you remember a phone call coming in over Bangs' -- 3 A: Right. 4 Q: -- call, but you don't recall what 5 Premier Harris said? 6 A: I recall it because I recall very 7 clearly my emotions in responding to that. 8 Q: Did your emotions suddenly die down 9 and were you completely calm, cool and collected in the 10 minutes or hours immediately after when you had to report 11 to the Premier? 12 A: I think in the hours following, I had 13 had a little bit of time to, as you say, calm down; not 14 my words. So I think the answer's yes. 15 Q: And you told Ms. Vella and you told 16 others that it was your responsibility to communicate 17 this information as quickly as you could to the Premier, 18 correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And, in fact, you had access to the 21 Premier in the middle of the night if you had to? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: This might have been one of those 24 moments you called him. 25 A: I chose not to.


1 Q: When did you call him? 2 A: As I said, I don't recall. I suspect 3 it was very early in the morning. 4 Q: Well, I thought you just said you 5 chose not to call him? 6 A: In the middle -- 7 Q: I thought you just testified to that? 8 A: In the middle of the night. 9 Q: Yes. You chose not to call him. 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: So you remember deciding not to call 12 the Premier? 13 A: Right, because -- 14 Q: So you remember that? 15 A: As I said, in that very instant, I 16 mean that is really and I would think for many people, 17 that is a moment in time that I recall very clearly. 18 Q: What did Mike Harris say to you when 19 you called him? 20 A: I -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 22 already said -- 23 THE WITNESS: I've answered that to the 24 best of my ability. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it


1 doesn't help for her to say anything again like that. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: Isn't it fair to say -- isn't it fair 5 to say that the reason you don't want to tell us the 6 statements of Mike Harris is that you know he's going to 7 be testifying and you want to leave him as much latitude 8 as possible in giving his evidence. 9 Is that true? 10 A: That is wrong and offensive. 11 Q: Isn't it fair to say that you 12 understand this process, this process as an Inquiry, 13 right? You understand that there's a public obligation 14 to advance all facts in this case. 15 You understand this is the process, don't 16 you? 17 A: I do and further I understand and 18 respect that I'm under Oath. 19 Q: And you understand -- and you -- and 20 you said it before and it's a reality that in 1995 when 21 you were elected, your team was elected, and the -- the - 22 - The Common Sense Revolution document was adopted it 23 wasn't for people who politically disagreed with you to 24 challenge, you had a moral authority as a team to run a 25 government, correct?


1 People could disagree with you -- 2 A: I -- 3 Q: -- but as a government. 4 A: I did not say that. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 6 already said she had a responsibility. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, she just told 8 me she didn't say that. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 10 THE WITNESS: I -- I thought you said to 11 me I said that we had a moral authority. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: You had the authority to govern 15 consistent with the election platform you put forward in 16 1995, correct? 17 A: Correct. The people of Ontario 18 expected us to carry out what we said we would do. 19 Q: That's right. And you don't dispute 20 any less of authority from the McGuinty government when 21 they were elected in 2004 when one (1) of their election 22 promises was to conduct this Inquiry; that's -- that's no 23 less important is it? 24 A: To them, no. 25 Q: No. And it's no less important to


1 run this Inquiry in accordance with what the electorate 2 expected, right? It's important? 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: And so it's important that the 5 electorate have the details by the major decision makers, 6 right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And you are a major decision maker? 9 A: No, I'm not. 10 Q: I see. You didn't handle the brief 11 for the Premier? 12 A: Yes, I did. I was responsible for 13 briefing the Premier in many respects. 14 Q: Is there anywhere we can look to find 15 any rules that govern your conduct or the limits of what 16 you're allowed to do in interacting with the Civil 17 Service? 18 When you took your job in June and July 19 and through September of 1995 can we find anywhere where 20 you were given rules as to how you could interact with 21 civil servants? 22 A: I can't think of a specific document 23 if that's what you're suggesting, no. 24 Q: This Commission has heard evidence 25 that it is a fine line and that while you can make


1 structural changes, while you can make structural changes 2 to a system -- 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- you can never forget that judgment 5 -- judgment is a key factor in how a public official 6 conducts themselves. 7 Do -- do you agree with that? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: And would you agree that the more 10 powerful the public official, staffer, or politician, the 11 more important restraint is as part of their lexicon of 12 tools? 13 Do you agree with that? 14 A: I don't think it's a matter of 15 degree. 16 Q: All right. Would you agree that 17 restraint's important? 18 A: Restraint of...? 19 Q: Restraint in how you conduct yourself 20 is important? 21 A: I think being professional is 22 important if that's what you mean, yes. 23 Q: Do you think restraint is important? 24 A: I've never thought of it in that 25 term. I -- I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.


1 Q: When Mr. Taman spoke to the issue, 2 former Deputy Attorney General Taman spoke to the issue 3 of judgment it was in the context of structural change, 4 but we also heard evidence from Mr. Hutchison and we 5 heard evidence from others that civil servants' 6 responsibility to present options to the politicians has 7 to be respected in that political staffers have to be 8 alive to not restricting any options. 9 Is that something you were familiar with, 10 that reality? 11 A: I agree with that, yes. 12 Q: And it was something you were 13 familiar with at the time? 14 A: Yes. The only thing I would say is 15 that if there are broad policy directions that the 16 Government would like to see themselves go in that -- 17 that sometimes those options are within the context of 18 that broad policy. 19 Q: Having -- with that qualifier you'd 20 agree that the ability to let civil servants do their job 21 while you're being briefed somewhat involves walking a 22 fine line doesn't it? 23 A: I'm not sure I understand your 24 question. 25 Q: Well, when you went to the IMC


1 meeting, when you went to the IMC meeting on September 2 5th and then September 6th, 1995 -- the Hansards say it, 3 I'll take you to it -- the messaging about those meetings 4 was that public officials were there to be briefed. 5 Wasn't that the messaging? 6 A: The messaging or the facts? 7 Q: Yes, political staff were there to be 8 briefed; that's the answers that are in the Hansards, 9 that you folks attended so you could be briefed. 10 A: I believe I have said that I attended 11 so I could be briefed so the -- 12 Q: And that's the message publicly given 13 wasn't it at the time? 14 A: Are you asking me about Hansards 15 or... 16 Q: You were responsible for giving the 17 public message on what you folks were doing at the 18 September 5th and 6th meetings, right, what political 19 staff were doing at the IMC meetings. 20 Do you remember being responsible for 21 giving that message? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 23 already testified -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can -- I can do 25 this another way.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, but 2 she's already testified here that that's why she was 3 there -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so it's 6 consistent with the messaging. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 9 where you're going. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 12 inconsistency -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. I'll 14 keep moving. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- between 16 what you're asking and what she's answering. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: And in attending for the purposes of 22 a briefing you would have been alive to the importance of 23 not in any way restricting the options these civil 24 servants would have been responsible to present to 25 politicians, correct?


1 A: That is correct and further I have -- 2 have indicated at this Inquiry that I felt, in fact, we 3 needed to have more options on the table. 4 Q: And in being alive to the importance 5 of leaving civil servants feeling free, you'd had to have 6 some insight into your behaviour and how it impacts on 7 people in order to do that job, to follow that rule. 8 Would you agree with that? 9 A: I would have to have some insight -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- into my own behaviour? 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Yes. I'm not sure that's how I look 14 at it, but I would-- 15 Q: Well, let me give you an example. 16 A: -- conduct myself in a manner that 17 was consistent with that. 18 Q: Let me give you an example. If you 19 were a person that was extremely aggressive but had no 20 idea that that was your impact on people, it would be 21 very hard to maintain the balance we've been talking 22 about, wouldn't it? 23 A: It could be. 24 Q: Right. 25 A: You're asking me rather hypothetical?


1 Q: Yes. And similarly, if you were a 2 person prone to express opinions in various different 3 places, if you had no insight on how those opinions might 4 affect others, that could be a problem; agreed? 5 A: I've no idea what you just asked me. 6 Q: I'll rephrase, that's fair. I'm 7 sorry, it was an awkward question. 8 Similarly, in -- in having that -- 9 similarly in answering the question you've had, you've 10 acknowledged with me that part of your job in maintaining 11 this line is to have to some insight into your own 12 behaviour, are we agreed? 13 A: I think what I said is that I would 14 want to act in a professional way to allow for the free 15 flow of options, as you've described them. 16 Q: And insight into one's behaviour 17 includes understanding how other people perceive you, 18 would you agree with that? 19 A: I'm not sure I feel equipped to 20 answer these questions. 21 Q: I'm sorry, are you ruling on the 22 propriety of the question? 23 A: No, I just -- I -- 24 Q: All right. Well, I'm just asking you 25 to answer the question.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You have counsel 3 that will object. If you could just simply -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- she's 5 not -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- answer the 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's not 9 doing that, Mr. Falconer. Ask the question again. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll ask it again. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: In -- in terms of -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry. Yes, 15 Mr. Downard, you have an objection? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I -- yeah. I'm 17 objecting for the record again to the shabby treatment 18 and the editorializing from My Friend. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's been consistent 21 with this Witness. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I don't think -- I 24 don't think another witness has been treated as badly -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's absolutely--


1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- as this Witness 2 has. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that is 4 completely inaccurate. I have sat here on numerous 5 occasions -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- while -- while I 8 have heard different witnesses questioned in different 9 ways. I have sought to be polite and I have been polite 10 and I won't be told for the third time -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the reference to 13 shabby. It's easy to -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to refer to a 16 transcript, 'cause someone might get the mistaken 17 impression a wit -- a Counsel is yelling or being uncivil 18 or anything of the kind and I'm doing none of those 19 things. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, you 21 know. You're not being accused of being shabby. It's 22 the manner in which some of the questions are being asked 23 is what he is saying, and I'm just asking you again -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to be


1 civil and to move forward. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I'm doing that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you're 4 doing -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm moving it as -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're doing 7 your best. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 10 to keep going. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: Ms. Hutton, either the last question 14 that I asked you that you said that you didn't think you 15 could answer it, I had asked you, didn't you agree with 16 me that in order to maintain the line of restraint or 17 professionalism, you would have to understand how other 18 people perceive your behaviour. 19 Wouldn't you agree with that? 20 A: I just don't think of it that way, I 21 guess that's why I'm -- 22 Q: I see. 23 A: -- struggling with your question. 24 Q: All right, so when -- 25 A: I'm not disagreeing, I'm just --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's not 2 finished answering yet, Mr. Falconer. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I apologize. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You see how 5 the -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, that's 7 fine. I've -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You see how 9 the question you're -- the perception that sometimes 10 you're not being fair because you're going over her 11 answer. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's prob -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And asking 14 her another question. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's probably a 16 lack of insight into how I affect -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, how 18 you -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- others. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- how other 21 people perceive you. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we're 24 right on the money. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could be, could be.


1 THE WITNESS: That I might want to 2 comment on. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Only -- only the 4 line I have to walk is cross-examining counsel isn't a 5 line where I sit and wait to be briefed, right? 6 It's a line where I'm supposed to -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in a rigorous 9 fashion -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- challenge and 12 test the evidence. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We 14 understand that, everybody does. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: So, Ms. Hutton, once again. I'm 18 happy to let you keep going because I think you -- I cut 19 you off and I didn't mean to. I had suggested to you 20 that understanding how others perceive you is an 21 important tool in maintaining that line and you -- and I 22 cut you off so -- 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: -- I'm happy to let you finish. 25 Q: I was -- I was simply going to say


1 that the way you characterize that is just not a way I 2 think of it. It wasn't a disagreement per se, it was 3 just that I don't think of it in those terms necessarily. 4 Q: And so on September 5th, 1995, you 5 weren't of any different mind set. You wouldn't have 6 thought of it that way, on September 5th 1995, either? 7 You wouldn't have been thinking like that? 8 A: Not in the way you have put it. 9 Q: And on September 6th 1995, you 10 wouldn't have been thinking like that? 11 A: I would have attended those meetings 12 and every one else that I did in government on a daily 13 basis with a view to doing my job and respecting 14 individuals and being as professional as I could. 15 I would not have thought beyond that in 16 terms of how I interacted with others. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're about 18 to say you're almost finished. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was about to say 20 if we could take a brief break, I could coalesce my notes 21 and tighten things up, and I think I've got maximum 22 twenty (20) minutes left. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take a 24 brief break. How long do you need? 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: A maximum of twenty


1 (20) minutes left, so about a ten (10) minute break. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take a 3 ten (10) minute break. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 6 for ten (10) minutes. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 3:59 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 4:11 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 14 there's a couple of areas of Hansard that I'm going to 15 conclude with and they're not long, they're -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the one (1) 18 thing I wanted to do at this stage is respectfully 19 propose to file the Hansard binder as an exhibit in these 20 Proceedings. And my respectful submission, this Witness 21 is an ideal witness as a foundational base for filing 22 them because of her evidence. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I don't 24 think there's a problem with that so let's just put it 25 in.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 2 THE REGISTRAR: A whole binder? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, there's a 4 binder in the Witness's possession, what I'm going to ask 5 is perhaps that could be made the next exhibit or -- 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-973, Your Honour. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-973: Hansard Debates - Excerpts, 10 September '95 - December '96. 11 12 THE WITNESS: I actually marked mine up. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, that's okay 14 then, we'll -- we'll -- 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: If I could just ask 17 My Friend if he could circulate the index to the binder, 18 so that we can all have the contents if we want to 19 duplicate that particular exhibit, we can. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's very fair, 21 and I'll do that. I think what will end up happening of 22 course is I'll cheat and ask Ms. Vella to give me a copy 23 of her index and then I'll go from there. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I may have 25 made some marks on it, I don't know. I may have made


1 some marks on some of those -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Mine -- mine will go 3 in. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is yours 5 clean? All right. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. What 8 exhibit number was that? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is that Exhibit P- 11 973? 12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, sir. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Now, very quickly, Ms. Hutton, I want 17 to confirm with you, we -- we stopped at May 30th, '96 18 and which represents -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry for the 20 paper shuffling, Mr. Commissioner, I just have to get it 21 in front of me. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: Which represents Tab 5 of the Exhibit 25 P-973.


1 Simply and very quickly, you'd agree with 2 me that what happens is on June 4th, 1996 and I invite 3 you to look at this, but it's -- it's only a page and a 4 half. 5 On June 4th, 1996, a discrete issue is 6 raised by a member for Algoma, Mr. Bud Wildman. And 7 you'll see the mid paragraph under -- under Mr. Harnick's 8 statements, you see Mr. Wildman under 1430, you see the 9 number 1430? 10 A: I do. 11 Q: "Last week I asked the Premier to 12 request the Minister responsible for 13 Native Affairs to investigate and find 14 out who, if anyone, said get the 15 [blank] Indians out of the Park." 16 Do you see that? 17 A: I do. 18 Q: And it's fair to say, and with all 19 due respect to your process, Mr. Commissioner, the 20 expression was: 21 "Get the fucking Indians out of the 22 Park." 23 Is that correct? That -- that's the 24 allegation; is that fair? 25 A: That is the allegation, yes.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and I 2 apologize to your process, Mr. Commissioner, but I think 3 we have to be careful to -- to say what we're talking 4 about. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: And so that there is little doubt 9 that it would have come to your attention either 10 immediately prior to June 4th, 1996 or immediately after, 11 that that allegation that someone in government had said 12 this offensive remark, that came to your attention, 13 correct? 14 A: I -- 15 Q: The allegation? 16 A: -- I can't -- I can't speak to the 17 time frame, but, yes. 18 Q: Well, June 4th, 1996, it's part of a 19 Member's statement in the House, correct? 20 A: It actually says last week I asked, 21 so I just -- I was only -- 22 Q: Right. It could have been earlier? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: But it's certainly by June 4th, 1996 25 you would have known about it?


1 A: That appears correct, yes. 2 Q: All right, thank you. And then if 3 you flip to the next tab, which is June 5th, 1996 it's 4 raised again in both Mr. Harnick -- Attorney General 5 Harnick at the time, and the next tab is Tab 7, June 5th, 6 1996, Mr. Harnick and Mr. Hodgson address it; is that 7 correct? 8 A: You're asking me to read a little 9 quicker than I normally do. 10 Q: No, that's fair and I must tell you, 11 I -- I make an error when I say that. Mr. Hodgson 12 addresses a different aspect of the Ipperwash issue than 13 the -- than the comment. So Mr. Harnick addresses the 14 comment and Mr. Hodgson addresses the -- the question of 15 what he's quoted as saying, Mr. Hodgson does. 16 But the bottom line is again the issue of 17 the offensive statement about getting the Indians out of 18 Park is raised again on June 5th, the next day, yes? 19 A: Okay. I haven't read it. 20 Q: I can -- I can show you where it 21 arises in -- in terms of discussions. It's the -- Mr. 22 Hampton, Member for Rainy River at the top of the June 23 5th, 1996 Hansard. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: My questions for the Minister.


1 "Last week our Leader asked the Premier 2 to request you --" 3 And then you see the reference to the 4 offensive statement again? 5 A: Yes, I do. 6 Q: So it's -- again it's raised in the 7 House on June 5th, 1996, correct? 8 A: It appears to be, yes. 9 Q: And -- and ultimately the messaging 10 at that time is that the Government is going to 11 investigate. Is that right? 12 A: That is Mr. Harnick's answer. I 13 can't speak to whether that was a message in his 14 briefing. 15 Q: All right. Would you -- do you have 16 any recollection about -- I mean this statement, "Get the 17 fucking Indians out of the Park," that is offensive, 18 isn't it? 19 A: Absolutely. 20 Q: You recall this allegation, don't 21 you? 22 A: I do. 23 Q: All right. So at the time the 24 allegation was made, was part of your advice to the 25 Premier that we should do an investigation?


1 A: I don't recall that it was and I'm 2 speculating, so in fairness I say that, but it was such a 3 ludicrous thing for someone to say or have said, that I 4 would have -- while it was offensive and taking that part 5 of it seriously, dismissed it. 6 Q: Fair enough. So as far as you were 7 concerned and the advice you gave the Premier, your 8 advice was it's not worth looking to, it's too ludicrous? 9 A: I -- I didn't say that. I said I am 10 speculating about what would have been in my mind at the 11 time. I did not say I gave the Premier that advice. 12 Q: All right. So in terms of your state 13 of mind now, as you think back to the advice you might 14 have given, it would have been to that effect? 15 A: I spoke to my state of mind. I -- I 16 don't recall having any further discussion about it. 17 Q: Thank you. If you could flip to the 18 next tab and you see, Mr. Commissioner, how fast I'm 19 doing this. Tab 8, it's all topical and that's why I'm 20 trying to do this right. 21 Tab 8, June 6th, 1996. It's amazing how 22 easy I can blow my own horn, Mr. Commissioner. 23 At Tab 8, June 6th, 1996, again, the issue 24 of the offensive statement is -- is raised. And there's 25 a reference to a Notice of Dissatisfaction, do you see


1 that? 2 A: No. I actually see a question about 3 the SIU, so. 4 Q: All right. Then there's a Notice of 5 Dissatisfaction, do you see that? 6 A: Okay. Yes, I do. 7 Q: All right. And the Speaker then 8 permits Mr. Hampton, Member for Rainy River, to speak to 9 an issue he was unhappy with an answer he got before; is 10 that right? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And a Notice of Dissatisfaction under 13 the rules permits a five (5) minute form of debate where 14 there's a speech made by the questioner, a speech made 15 the answerer; is that right? 16 A: They have an opportunity to do that, 17 yes. 18 Q: Okay. And und -- at the -- at the 19 last page, you'll see the Member for Rainy River, 20 Hampton, again makes reference as he calls it to the 21 derogatory comments. And -- and he -- he takes issue 22 with the answer he received about those issues. 23 And all I'm saying to you is again, on the 24 third day, it's raised again; isn't that right? 25 A: It appears to be, yes.


1 Q: All right. So you're managing right, 2 every morning you meet at 8:00 or 8:30, Ibbitson got it 3 wrong, eight o'clock every morning you meet and you're 4 envisaging what are the questions that are going to be 5 asked by opposition members. 6 There can be little or no doubt that in 7 that time period you would have been saying, this -- this 8 reference, "Let's get the fucking Indians out of the 9 Park" they're very hot on this. They're going to raise 10 it again. 11 Isn't that about along the lines of what 12 one would expect? 13 A: I think you're overstating it that I 14 think -- I don't dispute that it would have been part of 15 this is likely to be question, if that's what you're 16 conveying to me. 17 Q: All right. And on June -- I 18 apologize, let me back up. And in the circumstances of 19 what you've just answered, would you agree with me that 20 the words chosen to answer this issue as to whether the 21 comments made would have been deliberated upon carefully 22 because it was obviously a central issues and quite 23 explosive? Would you agree? 24 I mean the phrase is very offensive, 25 right?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And so the answers by the Ministers 3 to such an offensive phrase, the answers would have, over 4 the course of those numerous days where it got raised, 5 would have been carefully chosen, yes? 6 A: Well, I -- I think the answer to it 7 was no one heard it and no one said it. So I'm not sure 8 how much more careful one should be about that. 9 Q: But you've testified that you don't 10 remember what you advised but speculating you would have 11 advised that it wasn't worth looking to. Speculating. 12 A: I did not say that I advised. I 13 speculated as to what would have been in my mind. 14 Q: Well, and -- and I tried to be fair 15 to you. I used the word "speculating." 16 A: Right. 17 Q: That was your speculation. 18 A: About what was in my mind at the 19 time, yes. 20 Q: Yes. So as far as you were concerned 21 you wouldn't -- the trust -- you had the Ipperwash brief 22 and you were the trusted advisor for the Premier on the 23 Ipperwash brief in political staff, right? 24 A: Among other things, yes. 25 Q: All right. And your advice to him


1 was that, speculatively, -- 2 A: Right. 3 Q: -- if all the -- with all the caveats 4 you've given out, was it's not worth looking into, 5 speculatively, right? It's just too -- too wild a -- 6 too -- 7 A: You're taking what was in my mind and 8 translating it into advice, which I don't recall giving. 9 I -- if I can assist, the fact that an opposition Member 10 might make an assertion that is untrue, is not 11 uncommon, -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- and doesn't often require a great 14 deal of messaging, as you call it, in that particular 15 type of question and answer interchange. 16 Q: All right. And then the same issue 17 is raised again, I apologize, I'm just pulling the 18 reference... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: On December 3rd, 1996, with Michael 23 Harris personally, and you'll see that at Tab 25. So 24 it's raised repeatedly in June and it comes right back 25 again on December 3rd, 1996.


1 A: Sorry, I... 2 Q: And you'll see that -- 3 A: December 3rd, '96, Tab 25? 4 Q: That's correct. 5 A: I have two (2) brief comments from a 6 Mr. Len Wood and one (1) word from Minister Runciman. 7 Q: Yes. And then flip the page, please. 8 A: Tab 26? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Oh. 11 Q: Flip the page. You should have 12 several pages that start: Members' Statements, Ipperwash 13 Provincial Park, and that's -- 14 A: December 4th. 15 Q: Oh, I'm sorry. It's -- it got mixed 16 in my tab, so I apologize. Yes, December 4th, 1996, 17 Tab 26, they were combined in my tab. 18 A: Okay, I'm there. 19 Q: And I apologize. You'll see the 20 second page in, Mr. Hampton, for Rainy River, raises it 21 again directly with Michael Harris; is that right? 22 Second page in. 23 A: Yeah. I'm on the second page. 24 Q: Last -- last two (2) main paragraphs: 25 "Hampton: Here's the crux in the


1 matter. Your officials, when the 2 question is put to them, about a 3 September 6th Cabinet Meeting, clearly 4 denied that anyone said, 'Get the 5 (blank) Indians out of the Park,'" 6 And onwards? Do you see that? 7 A: I'm reading that, yes. 8 Q: Yeah, okay. So it's raised again in 9 the House again, in December '96. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. Over the course of months, 12 this is a repeated concern that's expressed to 13 Government, that this happened, right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Thank you. Now, the other issue that 16 repeatedly came up, I'm going to suggest to you, was the 17 conduct of Mr. Beaubien, and whether or not he 18 represented the Premier's men on the ground at Incident 19 Command. That was raised in the House, wasn't it? 20 A: It -- it may have been, I don't have 21 a specific recollection of that. I'm happy to look at a 22 question of that nature. 23 Q: Certainly. If you could direct your 24 attention to the Hansard of October 30th, 1996, which is 25 Tab 16. It is suggested to Mr. Harris, and you'll see


1 this, Mr. Phillips, Member for Scarborough-Agincourt? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Second paragraph: 4 "We have been told that on three (3) 5 separate occasions, the Conservative 6 Member for Lambton, Mr. Beaubien, was 7 at the Command Post of the OPP. We've 8 also been informed that on three (3) 9 separate occasions, apparently he was 10 in touch with your office, either 11 yourself or your staff, including on 12 one (1) occasion, written 13 communication, that is right up until 14 the shooting took place on September 15 6th. 16 Premier, can you confirm that Mr. 17 Beaubien talked to either yourself or a 18 Member of your staff during those three 19 (3) days leading up to the shooting of 20 the Native at Ipperwash?" 21 Answer by the Premier, quote: 22 "Not to the best of my knowledge. If 23 the Attorney General knows more, I'm 24 happy to refer it to him." 25 And you'll see the Attorney General says,


1 there is currently charges, there's a lawsuit, and... 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: The bottom line is, Premier Harris 4 denies the Beaubien contact, to the best of his 5 knowledge, correct? 6 Not to the best of my knowledge. 7 A: Yes. I -- sorry, I was just 8 rereading the question. 9 Q: Sure. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have to 11 read more, because they continue to talk about it as a -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, absolutely. 13 And I -- and I can help more in the subsequent 14 transcripts as Premier Harris -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 16 fine. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- provides a 18 contrasting account; that is he then finds out more and - 19 - and advises the House. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 21 Harnick talks about -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: No, I'm not cross-examining on 25 Premier Harris' -- the form of this denial. That's not


1 where I'm going so it -- I'm just trying to raise with 2 you that Mr. Beaubien's involvement from incident command 3 with the Premier's office and staff was an issue raised 4 on October 30th, 1996, in the House, correct? 5 A: It appears accurate, yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She -- 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: And you would have known at the time 10 either immediately prior to October 30th, 1996, or 11 immediately after that that was a contentious issue how 12 Mr. Beaubien was involved, correct? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, just 14 before you answer. Yes, Ms. Perschy? 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: To be fair to the 16 Witness, and I appreciate Mr. Falconer is trying to go 17 quickly, with respect to these numerous references in the 18 Hansards the context is the issue of political direction 19 of police with respect to police operations. 20 And I do think that context needs to be 21 put because the Witness doesn't -- doesn't have the 22 opportunity to look at all of these Hansards and read all 23 of this information. And that as -- that is a part of 24 this; that is the context in which these questions are 25 being raised --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- including some -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My Friend is quite 4 accurate. So if you could take into account what your 5 lawyer just said, Ms. Hutton, about the context, what she 6 just said, that that's fair. I'm just trying to move us 7 along because -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 9 understand. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- it's not -- I'm 11 not contesting -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: Harris says not to the best of his 16 knowledge; Mr. Harris says that and then he presumably -- 17 all I'm asking in terms of timing, October 30th, 1996, 18 the Beaubien issue crystallizes and it's being discussed. 19 People are concerned about his presence at incident 20 command and his contact with the Premier's office, 21 correct? 22 A: That is true. 23 Q: So no one's being called upon to 24 remember things ten (10) years later about Beaubien, 25 that's for sure. It was up and front and centre twelve


1 (12) months after the incident, correct? 2 A: It appears to be, yes. 3 Q: All right. And it would have been 4 knowledge you personally had because of the way it arose 5 in the House, correct? 6 A: I would have been aware of the 7 question, if that's what you mean. 8 Q: And you would have spoken to the 9 Premier about it, correct? 10 A: Well, not necessarily. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: And -- and perhaps I've done not a 13 great job of explaining the process. 14 You anticipate topics. To a certain 15 extent you -- if you're able to you anticipate specific 16 questions. Quite often the message that Government gives 17 in the Legislature is more, as I said earlier, of a 18 message nature than a specific answer to a question. 19 If you had asked me, without the benefit 20 of Hansard, what I believed in looking back was the 21 message that the Government had on this set of issues of 22 which there are many apparently according to our review 23 right now, I would have said that the message that we 24 were develop -- that we had developed and I would have 25 been comfortable with was, in fact, not to get into many


1 of the details because there were criminal proceedings 2 taking place at the time. 3 So, I -- I just don't want us to assume 4 that in discussions where we talk messaging and -- and 5 the briefing notes that it assumes that every single 6 thing that comes out of the Premier's mouth or the 7 Ministers' mouths are something that's been discussed or 8 that in fact were the part of -- and I know you're using 9 my language, but messaging. 10 So independent of all of this I would have 11 said our messaging is actually quite similar to what 12 Minister Harnick says in the middle of October 30th, the 13 middle of the page. 14 I just -- I don't want to overstate or 15 leave the impression that the -- the amount of detail 16 that is -- is taking place in the Legislature is, in 17 fact, always consistent with the approach that we take to 18 developing messages for the Legislature. 19 Q: Fair enough. 20 A: I hope that's clear. 21 Q: I appreciate that. Could you please 22 turn to -- to Tab 19 of P-973? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Now, we're on October 30th, 1996. A 25 week later the issue of Mr. Beaubien is raised again in


1 Question Period and again it's Michael Harris answering. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And this time Michael Harris, second 4 paragraph: 5 "I think if you go back and look at the 6 evening news over the 4th, 5th, and 6th 7 did I know there was a command post? 8 Of course. Is that normal? Police 9 know it's not normal. Set up the 10 command post." 11 It was what one considered a very 12 serious situation and command posts 13 were set up. This was on the news as a 14 matter of public record. I can assure 15 you that I have checked and I have no 16 record in my office of any fax. 17 I have asked Mr. King if he can recall 18 having learned anything from Mr. 19 Beaubien that wasn't already in the 20 public domain; he replied, No, there 21 was not." 22 So, if you're messaging to Mr. Harris was 23 that he shouldn't give any details, apparently you'd 24 agree with me that certainly as of November 6th, 1996, he 25 wasn't following your advice; is that fair?


1 A: That's really unfair. I was trying 2 to point out that in briefing and setting messages you're 3 setting context and -- and that is the extent of our 4 discussion. 5 Mr. Harris said every Cabinet minister in 6 our government or anyone else's is free to answer 7 questions as they see fit. I was trying to draw a 8 distinction between specific questions and answers, and 9 the briefings and messages that I had tried to explain 10 and discussed earlier, were part of the process of 11 getting ready for Question Period. 12 Q: In fairness to you, you should also 13 know that at page 2, without getting into any details, 14 Mr. Harris again describes Mr. Beaubien's interaction 15 with staff, second paragraph of Mr. Harris's statements. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And all right, now flipping -- 18 leaving that, that was November 6th. Next day again, 19 November 7th, 1996. Now this is the third time it's 20 being raised in the House since October 30th, 1996, the 21 issue of Mr. Beaubien is raised again. 22 A: Right. 23 Q: And at this time Mr. Runciman deals 24 with it, and I simply ask you to confirm. 25 A: Sorry, I'm on Tab 20?


1 Q: Yes, my apologies, you're on Tab 20. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: Thank you for that. Mr. Phillips, 4 Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, raises you'll see: 5 "The Solicitor General know that we've 6 now had it confirmed that Mr. Beaubien 7 was at the OPP Command Post at least 8 four (4) times during this very tense 9 situation. We also had it confirmed 10 that he told the Commanding Officer 11 that he was in constant contact with 12 the Premier's office and the Ministries 13 involved, et cetera." 14 And you'll see Mr. Runciman addresses it 15 and provides his view or his take on Mr. Beaubien and his 16 conduct. Do you see that next paragraph? 17 A: I do. 18 Q: So it's safe to say that November 19 7th, 1996, the issue remains concern for opposition such 20 that it's raised in the House; is that fair? 21 A: It appears to be the case, yes. 22 Q: All right. And then if you look at 23 Tab 22, Michael Harris is in the House, and there's an 24 exchange at the third page? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: You see it's November 20th, 1996, my 2 apologies, you'll find it at Tab 22, third page? 3 Again, Mr. Phillips, Member for 4 Scarborough-Agincourt raises his concerns, much along the 5 lines I've just read to you, I just -- I don't want to 6 repeat. Mr. Harris: 7 "I had not seen the fax." 8 It's now -- there's now a revelation that 9 there is a fax; all right: 10 "I had not seen the fax first of all, I 11 don't believe it was a fax to me. I 12 understood there was a fax that had 13 come to the office, or at least there 14 was the allegation of that. My 15 understanding is that any of the faxes 16 have not contained anything that really 17 wasn't public knowledge. I personally 18 have no objection, you can have all the 19 faxes you want. We have lawyers 20 looking at whether release of any 21 information jeopardizes the Court 22 case." 23 Then down the page do you see the last 24 paragraph attributed to Mr. Harris on the page, starting, 25 "Let me set the record straight"?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: "Let me set the record straight on a 3 number of things you've indicated. Mr. 4 Beaubien was not representing me nor my 5 office nor the Ministry. Mr. Beaubien 6 was representing his constituents both 7 Native and non-Native who had very 8 grave concerns. There were concerns 9 about safety, there were concerns about 10 the Park, there were concerns about 11 neighbours adjoining the Park. So Mr. 12 Beaubien, quite appropriately, was 13 seeking all the information he properly 14 could." 15 And then we just left November 20th, five 16 (5) days later, Mr. Beaubien again, second page. So 17 you're now at Tab 23, November 25th, 1996? 18 A: I am. 19 Q: The role of Mr. Beaubien at Incident 20 Command is raised in the House again, second paragraph, 21 Mr. Harris: 22 "I'm tempted to refer to deliberate 23 distortion of the facts because that's 24 what we've just heard from this Member 25 repeatedly --"


1 A: Sorry, I'm on Minister Runciman's -- 2 Q: Second paragraph. All I'm doing is 3 showing you as quickly as I can, November 25th, 1996, 4 that the Beaubien issue is raised again, only this time 5 it's raised in the context of a denial, relating to Mr. 6 Beaubien having threatened to call in others if the OPP 7 won't act. And I'll show you the passage? 8 A: Okay, because you're moving very 9 quickly for me. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 11 you go on, Mr. Falconer. Yes, Mr. Downard. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Racing through all 13 these passages so quickly, it is unfair to me, because I 14 can't keep up. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 16 moving us forward, you could just summarize it. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm trying to, but 18 if I -- if I -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but I 20 mean just racing through it and actually taking us to 21 sections and reading them -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's very 24 hard for anybody to follow. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay, fair enough.


1 I'm just -- I'm -- I'm balancing my time, there's -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 3 what point you're making that you couldn't make -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's fine. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in a 6 brief summary way. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just -- I was 9 just going to ask, is there a question in all of this, 10 we've been going through a number -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, because 12 there isn't anything -- 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- and I haven't heard 14 a question yet. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The question? That 16 we have a witness who has testified that she doesn't 17 recall the forms of discussions that she had at the time 18 with the Premier. So my job is to reconstruct what this 19 Witness did say she recalls, which is these very issues-- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- were the subject 22 of discussion, because it was her testimony that it was 23 her job. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You haven't 25 done that. All you're doing is showing that they were


1 discussed in the House and you've asked her to 2 acknowledge that they were. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, with respect, 4 Mr. Commissioner, I can make argument at the end or I can 5 make it now. But I think -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 7 want you to make it now. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, but then you 9 can make a declaration that I haven't done it, then I 10 have to do the argument. The simple point is this, given 11 the foundational evidence by this Witness on how she 12 operated when Mr. Harris was in the House, there can be 13 little or no doubt that part of her job was to manage 14 these issues. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And whether it's 17 the Beaubien issue or the -- the reference to getting the 18 Indians out of the Park or any of these issues listed, 19 based on the foundational evidence that we'll take you 20 through in argument at the end, my submission is, no 21 matter what she says about her memory, it's obvious that 22 her and the Premier talked about it. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she's 24 answered those questions -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's right.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And when you 2 ask her a specific question, she answers it. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And that's 5 why I want to keep moving -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's what I'm 7 doing. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You asked me what 10 the point of this was and -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You ask her 12 a specific question, she's answered it. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. And 14 I'm moving. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: Now, could you turn to Tab 24, 19 please, which is November 26th, 1996. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just think 24 you could ask this question in a more general way, if 25 these matters were discussed at these -- on these dates


1 in the Hansard and just ask her if she had any 2 conversation. 3 In other words, I think you could do 4 this -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- fairly, 7 in a much -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: More summary way. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, more 10 summary way. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. I'll 12 try. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which I 14 don't think would be unfair. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let me take a shot. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Is it fair to say that as of November 20 26th, 1996, or thereabouts, you knew that there was an 21 allegation that it was communicated through 22 Superintendent Parkin that Solicitor General Runciman 23 was, quote, "more than pleased" with what the OPP was 24 doing and that that was communicated to Carson? 25 And further, that you knew in and around


1 November 26th, 1996 that Inspector Carson -- there was a 2 record that he'd actually stated that the Premier and the 3 Solicitor General want to deal with this matter and he 4 had said that at a meeting that involved Mr. Beaubien. 5 You knew all of those things as of November 26th, 1996. 6 Isn't that true? 7 A: I would say that based on what you've 8 showed me, it is true that someone else has raised that. 9 That doesn't mean I knew it to be true. 10 Q: But in addition, if you have regard 11 to that date and the next -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: It is a reference to police scribe 14 notes and police records that bear that out. It is not a 15 reference in the air. 16 In other words, you would have had notice 17 at the time that there were records linking Incident 18 Command in the form of Carson to the Attorney General, 19 the Solicitor General and to their views. 20 Isn't that fair that that was a record 21 raised to your attention that you had to deal with in and 22 around November 26th, 1996? 23 A: I can only say that it appears as it 24 was raised in the House. 25 Q: What did Premier Harris say in answer


1 to this, ma'am? 2 I am refreshing your memory as to a topic 3 you found out -- 4 A: Right. 5 Q: -- out about. A topic that goes to 6 the heart of this Inquiry. What was the Premier's 7 reaction to this, to you personally, in those personal 8 conversations you had? 9 What was the -- his reaction to this? 10 A: I do not recall discussing it with 11 him. I have tried to the best of my ability to explain 12 our legislative process and I am concerned that you are 13 overstating the level of detail for Question Period that 14 I think is routine for Ministers, most importantly the 15 Premier, to go through. 16 Q: Thank you, that helps me. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: In the time period since the calling 21 of this Inquiry, what discussions have you had with Mike 22 Harris about this case? 23 A: Mr. Harris and I have spoken about 24 two (2) broad topics. One (1), quite honestly, has been 25 the media coverage around this and secondly we have kept


1 each other posted on our anticipated timing of coming 2 before the Inquiry. 3 Q: Now you said that you had broad 4 conversations about the media coverage? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And I take it that the media 7 coverage, I'm hoping that the media's doing their job, 8 included media covering people's testimony at the 9 Inquiry. 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: So when you say we had conversations 12 about the media coverage, you're saying that you had 13 conversations about what was in the articles, correct? 14 A: I -- we had conversations about our 15 concern, quite frankly, more about what wasn't in the 16 articles based on what we understood to have been 17 evidence given here. 18 Q: So you and Premier Harris -- 19 A: And they were very general 20 conversations. 21 Q: Certainly. So you and Mike Harris 22 would have been discussing how a particular story may 23 have misrepresented a witness' evidence; yes? 24 A: I think that is being too specific. 25 Q: Yes, I -- with respect, ma'am, I


1 accept that you think you. But now backing up, wasn't 2 that the gist of your evidence? 3 A: No, as I said, they were general 4 conversations. 5 Q: And the general conversations related 6 to the fact that in one (1) or another case, the media 7 may have misrepresented what a witness said, correct? 8 A: Yes. As said I think the 9 conversations I recall very generally were more around 10 what the media didn't report and as I understood it 11 specifically from my lawyer, what had been entered --- 12 Q: And I don't want you -- I'm stopping 13 because we all have this obligation to each other as 14 officers of the court. You enjoy solicitor/client 15 privilege as does Mr. Harris so I don't want to know your 16 conversations with your lawyer. 17 A: Fair enough. 18 Q: If Mr. Harris told you about his 19 conversations with his lawyer well I'm an eager beaver. 20 But I want to stay focussed. 21 Leaving aside your conversations with your 22 lawyer, the discussion and the tenure of the discussion 23 had to be contextual, would you agree? 24 Like you couldn't have done it in the air, 25 you had to have been referring to a witness. Would you


1 agree? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. And can you assist me, 4 now we're talking about conversations that happened 5 during the unfolding of evidence at this Inquiry, agreed? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And we're talking about not something 8 I take it you can peg as one (1) conversation only 9 happened, you're not saying that? 10 A: Actually the -- the one (1) that I do 11 recall and there may not have been many others, but the 12 one I do recall was specific to the expletive comment 13 that you raised earlier with me. 14 Q: And -- and when you say that, you're 15 referring to the comment, "Get the Indians out of the 16 Park"? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And what was it that Mr. 19 Harris said? 20 A: I recall what I said. 21 Q: No, no, I want to know what Mr. 22 Harris said. 23 A: Again, you're asking me to give an 24 exact account with exact words of the conversation. I 25 can't do that.


1 Q: Please feel free to give me the gist 2 of what Mr. Harris said if you can't remember the exact 3 words. 4 A: We -- I believe I expressed -- 5 Q: Ma'am, I'm going to back up -- 6 A: I can't tell you what he said until I 7 tell you what I said. 8 Q: All right, fair enough. I see your 9 point, fair enough. Please continue, I apologize for 10 interrupting. 11 A: I made the comment that I was 12 concerned about a particular story that had -- I don't 13 know how else to say this without referencing my 14 conversation with my lawyer so that's why I'm struggling 15 a little bit. 16 I -- I understood that evidence had been 17 entered into this Inquiry two (2) facts and I'll say it 18 like that if I can. 19 One, that everyone to date had testified 20 at this Inquiry that in fact everyone who had been at the 21 meetings of September 5th and 6th had testified at this 22 Inquiry that they had not heard that comment that has 23 been in the public domain for ten (10) years. 24 And further a witness who is apparently 25 the source of that testified as to where she believed she


1 heard that comment. I read the media story, one 2 particular media story, that appeared the day after that 3 individual's testimony, 4 And I expressed to Mr. Harris the 5 sentiment that based on what I understood had been the 6 combined testimony on this point, I didn't think that 7 this article was reflective of what the Inquiry had 8 heard. 9 Q: And -- and based on that it's fair to 10 say that you weren't operating under any caution that you 11 and Mr. Harris shouldn't talk about the case, correct? 12 A: No. And -- and in fairness I didn't 13 see it as a discussion of the case. It was me commenting 14 about the media on something that had been alleged about 15 me and indirectly about him for ten (10) years. 16 And based on the evidence as I understood 17 it, the article I read did not seem to be a fair account 18 of what I understood the Inquiry has already heard. 19 Q: And -- and I'm going to leave this 20 very quickly. 21 A: It was not anymore detailed than 22 that. 23 Q: Right. 24 A: It was kind of a well are you 25 surprised kind of conversation.


1 Q: But there was woman who you recall 2 her testimony on this issue having talked about it and 3 that gives us some timeframe because that woman would 4 have testified in the last number of months. 5 So it's fair to say this conversation 6 would have happened in the last four (4) months, is that 7 true? 8 A: Yes. You -- you asked me if we had 9 discussed it, yeah. 10 Q: No, fair enough. Now you said that 11 that was once instance. 12 There could have been others but that was 13 the one you remember vividly, right? 14 A: It's actually the only one that 15 sticks out of my mind. So I shouldn't have said others. 16 Q: Leaving aside what sticks out in your 17 mind -- 18 A: Right. 19 Q: Leaving aside what sticks out in your 20 mind, I'm asking you there were other conversations 21 between you and Mr. Harris about this case recently? 22 A: I believe all others and I want to 23 take a moment to -- to think, but I believe all others 24 spoke to timing. 25 Q: Thank you.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which is a 2 question I'm going to speak to. It's now quarter to 3 5:00. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, very, very 5 good. Very good segue. I -- I'm -- I am in the last 6 five (5) minutes in that range. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: You testified in answer to Mr. 11 Rosenthal's question this morning and this is a quote and 12 you said it at 10:45 a.m. this morning. Quote: 13 "No one told me that I could not give 14 direction to the OPP." Close quote. 15 Now do you resile from that or is that a 16 fair comment that you made this morning and that's 17 accurate? 18 A: It was in the context of 'did someone 19 say this at those meetings. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: And I said, no. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: I further said I would not have 24 thought it would have been necessary -- 25 Q: No, I have -- no, thank you. Now,


1 you have been of some assistance on the -- 2 A: I'm sorry, can -- can I just -- 3 Q: Yes, did you want to add to your 4 answer? 5 A: I did actually -- 6 Q: Yes, go ahead please? 7 A: -- as I sit here. The question was 8 very specific, I believe, so I just want to be clear in 9 case it wasn't about, I thought the Interministerial 10 meetings, if I recall Mr. Rosenthal's question from this 11 morning. 12 Q: Anything further? 13 A: Yes, I was going to -- I'm trying to 14 be -- I just don't want to leave the wrong impression. 15 Q: Thank you. 16 A: I did testify that Ms. Todres, Deputy 17 Todres at the dining room meeting, made the distinction 18 between Government and Police generally to us at that 19 meeting, later on the 6th, so I just -- I don't want 20 those two (2) things to be seen as inconsistent, in my 21 view they're certainly not. 22 Q: That would have been something that 23 was done after you attended the two IMC meetings, yes? 24 A: Yes, it was at the dining room 25 meeting. And -- and it was a general statement to those


1 in the room, as I recall it. 2 Q: You're familiar with the fact that 3 the following morning Attorney -- or Deputy Attorney 4 General Taman, structurally recreated matters so that 5 political staff did not interface with civil service 6 bureaucrats, other than through Deputy Ministers on this 7 particular issue. 8 Are you familiar with that fact? 9 A: I was not at the time. 10 Q: And are you familiar with the fact 11 that it was the evidence of Deputy Attorney General Taman 12 that you and your staff and how you interacted with the 13 civil service was in part why he did that? 14 A: I'm not aware of that. 15 Q: Would you agree with me that if in 16 fact your conduct led to that change the next morning, 17 you should have been advised of that, so that you could 18 modify your conduct. 19 Would you agree with me? 20 A: I would hope that would be the case, 21 yes. 22 Q: But that didn't happen? 23 A: No. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: There's a built in 25 premise there that I'm not sure has been established that


1 it was in fact her conduct. And I -- and I raise a 2 concern in that regard. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The evidence speaks 4 for itself, if my -- 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- if there's any 7 problem with my question in terms of the foundation 8 quoting Deputy -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Attorney 11 General -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I don't 13 recall that -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that there's 15 absolutely no problem with the question because that was 16 his testimony. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I don't 18 know -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He was asked about 20 why he made the changes and he told us -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- he said in fact 23 and in appearance -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- there was an


1 inappropriate integration between political staff -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and civil 4 servants that he needed to control. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard? 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: He did not say it was 7 because of this Witness's conduct. My Friend is wrong, 8 the question is an improper question on that basis. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you got 10 that -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well he -- he 12 talked about Ms. Hutton and her staff, that's how he 13 described it. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I don't 15 have it in front of me, and here we go again. I mean 16 we -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well that -- that - 18 - I -- I do it summary, because there's certain 19 uncontentious facts -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you're 21 entitled to do it in summary fashion -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and I have to be 23 fair -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- other 25 people don't agree --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right, well, no, 2 well that's -- that's always the case when it's a good 3 question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're at 7 the end now? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And when 10 you're at the end it means you sit down. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, no, I'm 12 finished means I sit down -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I'm at the end 15 means I'm -- I'm wrapping up. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Mr. Laschinger, do you recall his age 20 when you sent him to that August 2005 meeting? 21 A: I do not, and someone's age, their 22 gender or their appearance would not be important to me. 23 Q: I didn't ask you if his gender or his 24 appearance were important. I simply wanted to know his 25 age. Now, are you saying you don't know?


1 A: I can't answer your question. 2 Q: You don't know? 3 A: I do not know. 4 Q: Do you recall what his experience 5 level was when you sent him to the meeting of August 2nd, 6 1995, do you recall? 7 A: I will try to recall. 8 Q: Can I help refresh your memory? 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: He was a student at the time, do you 11 remember that? 12 A: No, I don't believe he was but -- 13 Q: He was -- he -- no, he -- 14 A: Well, I -- I know Mr. Laschinger had 15 been involved in the campaign. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: He was extremely competent in the 18 role that he did for the campaign, which as I recall was 19 issue advance, and I think I spoke about that earlier. I 20 recalled having brought him on staff post the 21 Government's election. And I thought he was with us for 22 about a year. 23 What I was trying to recall is when he had 24 joined us prior to the election. 25 Q: Thank you. And if -- if I'm wrong, I


1 stand corrected. All right. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: We have spent some time in 1996 6 focussing on when you would have known certain things, 7 painfully so, correct? 8 A: I -- I won't use the term painful. 9 Q: All right. And in -- in doing that, 10 what we didn't do was focus on what you would have been 11 alive to, in -- in the days after the shooting of Dudley 12 George, and I would just like to suggest this: 13 You knew when you got the news from first, 14 Mr. Bangs, and then the discussions with Mr. Moran, and 15 the, ultimately, the chat with the Premier. 16 You knew that night and the next morning 17 that this was an explosive issue, didn't you? 18 A: Yes, I -- I don't know if I would use 19 that term, but it was certainly a very serious matter, 20 yes. 21 Q: And that it was one of the most 22 challenging matters the Government had to deal with, a 23 death of an Indian as a result of a police standoff, 24 right? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And that as a messaging person, as a 2 communications person, would be extremely important to 3 you because you would know that what was said and what 4 you did, from that moment on, would be under intense 5 public scrutiny, correct? 6 A: I don't think that that is any 7 different than how I viewed most issues. 8 Q: Are saying that this was -- 9 A: Most things -- 10 Q: -- like most issues? 11 A: No. I said most things, I was going 12 to say, most things that Government does is under intense 13 public scrutiny. 14 Q: But I'm being quite specific here. 15 You knew that as a result of the shooting death of Dudley 16 George, that the Government's actions would be under 17 intense public scrutiny, as a high-profile matter; you 18 knew that after you heard? 19 A: Government's response? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And each time you talked to Mike 23 Harris, you had that in your mind, didn't you, that the 24 advice you were giving was in the context of an extremely 25 high-profile shooting, which would come under intense


1 public scrutiny; isn't that true? 2 A: I think that's fair. 3 Q: Thank you, Ms. Hutton, you've been 4 very helpful. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 6 Mr. Falconer. 7 Do you have any questions, Ms. Perschy? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I do actually. But 9 I'll be short. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 12 Q: Ms. Hutton, there's just a few things 13 that have come up over the course of cross-examination 14 that I wanted to -- to raise with you, just a few points 15 here and there. 16 You testified that you had indicated, at 17 the Interministerial Committee meetings, that Minister 18 Hodgson, as the Minister of Natural Resources, should be 19 the spokesperson on behalf of the Government, and you 20 indicated that you would often make those sorts of 21 determinations. 22 And what I wanted to ask you was, was that 23 part of your job as Executive Assistant Issues 24 Management, and if you could explain to the Commission, 25 your responsibilities in regards to that?


1 A: Yes. It -- it was part of my 2 responsibilities. As I think I've said in the course 3 over the last couple of days, it's -- it's not uncommon 4 for there to be competing, or to sometimes multiple roles 5 and responsibilities for different Ministers in their 6 ministries in any given issue. 7 The same is also the case if you go and -- 8 and make a good-news announcement on behalf of 9 Government. Quite often there are several ministries 10 that -- that want to share in the -- in the good news, 11 and then -- and then being able to make that good news. 12 So on any given day, both from an issues 13 perspective and from a communications, proactive 14 communications perspective, I had as one of my 15 responsibilities, the decision-making of -- of who should 16 be the lead. 17 In some cases it went beyond that to say, 18 who should handle particular parts of an issue. So in 19 this case it was my best determination that Minister 20 Hodgson, at least for Tuesday and until we sought the 21 injunction, was the most appropriate spokesperson on 22 behalf of Government. 23 Q: And why did you feel that Minister 24 Hodgson as the Minister of Natural Resources, should be 25 the spokesperson?


1 A: For me, as we have discussed several 2 times, based on my briefing, I understood this to be an 3 issue of an illegal occupation. And as such, I thought 4 the Minister who, on behalf of Ontarians and behalf of 5 the Government, was responsible for the Park that had 6 been occupied. Was the most appropriate person to speak 7 to that. 8 I'm not sure I -- I'm not sure I went 9 further than that but I, if it's helpful, can say, 10 looking back today, that I don't know what the Attorney 11 General's role would have been, although in terms of 12 being spokesperson I wouldn't have automatically gone to 13 him. 14 I don't know if I was as specific as this 15 at the time but looking back I could say that for 16 Minister Harnick to respond as Minister with 17 responsibility for Native Affairs, would have sent a 18 message that I think is counter to how I characterized 19 the situation at the time, given the facts. 20 And it wouldn't have occurred to me to 21 have Minister Runciman do it in this specific situation 22 when there were other alternatives because, quite 23 frankly, that, you know, he does have responsibility for 24 the OPP and -- and we were trying to respond on the 25 Government's behalf, not the OPP's behalf obviously.


1 Q: You testified about illegal action 2 and -- and using those means as a way to get Government 3 to do something or to get its attention. 4 Can you explain to the Commissioner, from 5 your perspective, were there other ways that you are 6 aware of that you were thinking of that people can employ 7 to get the Government's attention? 8 A: More appropriate means? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Yes. I mean, I think protests that 11 don't prevent people from doing something -- in this 12 case, having access to the Park, protests that are 13 informational of nature, you know, attempts to meet, 14 petitions, I mean, there are many legislative -- I 15 wouldn't have thought of this except for the last half 16 hour, I mean, getting the Opposition to ask questions is 17 a -- is a good tool for people to -- to get the 18 Government to see something from their perspective. 19 I mean, there -- there are many -- many 20 what I'll call democratic avenues within our process that 21 don't speak to illegal means. 22 Q: And with respect to the issue of the 23 burial ground, potential burial ground at the Ipperwash 24 Park or any land claim with respect to the Park, were you 25 aware, as of September 1995, of there having been any


1 attempts for these kinds of methods, these kinds of means 2 that you've just referenced to get the Government's 3 attention with respect to those issues? 4 A: No. And, in fact, I -- I had tried 5 to explain this morning, perhaps I'll do it again if it 6 wasn't clear, that the fact that there hadn't been in 7 particular any noticeable back-and-forth of some sort 8 around the burial ground was part of the information that 9 signalled to me that -- that this was just a -- an 10 illegal occupation issue, as we discussed. I haven't 11 explained that very well but... 12 Q: You testified about the -- the do- 13 nothing approach and Ms. Twohig asked you about the wait- 14 and-see approach and also asked you some -- some 15 questions with respect to OPP and MNR discussions with 16 the occupiers in connection with that approach, and I 17 just had a couple of follow-up questions in that regard. 18 Do you recall being advised at the 19 Interministerial Committee meetings on September 5th and 20 6th that OPP and MNR were going to try and communicate 21 with the occupiers? 22 A: Yes. I believe I indicated I was 23 aware of a -- a midday meeting on the 6th and I believe, 24 based on the notes we reviewed, it appears as though -- 25 and I don't have independent recall of this but --


1 appears as though I asked how we would be updated on that 2 meeting. 3 Q: And I've got a question in regards to 4 that in a moment. You've testified that you felt the 5 prudent and cautious approach was to see the occupation 6 come to an end sooner rather than later. 7 And did you expect, under that approach or 8 in consideration of that approach, that OPP and MNR were 9 still going to be communicating with the occupiers with 10 respect to sort of the -- what I'll call the OPP 11 discussion as opposed to separate from substantive 12 negotiations? 13 A: Yes. Is that -- that's just a 14 different way of asking me the question before or -- I'm 15 not sure I understand then maybe -- 16 Q: Or maybe I'll phrase it this way. 17 Did you at any point object to such discussions taking 18 place? 19 A: No, provided that the issue of 20 substantive negotiations of any sort were distinct and 21 separate from any discussions that either MNR staff had 22 or -- I couldn't speak to OPP except to say that we were 23 not saying to anyone, Have those discussions on our 24 behalf. 25 Q: And I think you testified that you


1 were very clear, in your mind, about the distinction 2 between the kinds of communication that the OPP and MNR 3 could have on the one (1) hand and substantive 4 negotiations on the other. 5 And my question to you is: Do you recall 6 if you perceived at that Interministerial Committee 7 Meetings that this distinction, which was clear to you, 8 was necessarily consistent -- was necessarily clear to 9 others at the meeting? 10 A: I don't know that I can say that. I 11 recall having a concern that -- and I believe Ms. Vella 12 asked me about the guideline for the Committee that said 13 no substantive negotiations. I was not aware of that so 14 I recall wanting to make sure that those in the meeting 15 understood that as -- as one (1) of the things that the 16 Government felt was important to maintain. 17 Q: And you made reference, a moment ago, 18 to requesting an update, sort of towards the tail end of 19 the meeting on September the 6th, the Interministerial 20 Committee Meeting. 21 And do I take it from what you've said 22 that your request in that regard was with respect to this 23 anticipated meeting? 24 A: Yes, and in fairness I said, I don't 25 recall that, in reviewing the notes, it appears. So I --


1 I can't say definitively that I asked, How are we going 2 to be updated on this? Which strikes me as something 3 that I would ask. 4 Q: Did you ever indicate at any of these 5 meetings, and I'm speaking with respect to the 6 Interministerial Committee Meetings, any meetings between 7 September 4th through 6th, that any options should not be 8 considered or were off the table? 9 Do you recall communicating that? 10 A: No. It was not my thinking at the 11 time. I was in fact looking for a greater number of 12 options. 13 Q: And you've testified that you went to 14 the Interministerial Committee Meetings to obtain 15 information and advice. And you've also testified that 16 at some point you communicated your understanding of the 17 Premier's views. 18 What prompted you or -- or why did you 19 share the Premier's views, as you understood them? 20 Do you recall your thinking at the time? 21 A: I don't, and I guess I recall a 22 couple of things that -- that, as I've discussed, the -- 23 the bulk of the early part of the meeting, about half of 24 the meeting was -- was a briefing and I don't actually 25 recall speaking to that. I didn't have facts to put on


1 the table. 2 I seem to recall that at a certain point 3 in the meeting we reached a point where, you know, any 4 perspectives from any of the Ministers, and in my case 5 the Premier, it would be an appropriate place to put that 6 on the table. I don't know if someone asked, you know, 7 any thoughts of that nature, but it strikes me that we 8 were sort of at that point in the conversation. 9 Q: Fair enough. And you've been asked 10 about the -- the comment or reference to -- to, "Wants 11 them out in a day or two (2)," at some length; this 12 comment that's been attributed to you on September 6th. 13 And you testified that whatever you were 14 communicating at that point was in response to a comment, 15 "Best case Friday," in regards to the -- and you 16 testified about the -- the -- the comments regarding the 17 injunction; the preparation of that, et cetera. 18 Can you just explain what it was that you 19 -- when you say that you were -- you were responding to 20 the comment, do you recall what it was, what your 21 thinking was, what it was that you were trying to convey 22 and to whom, when you said that you were responding? 23 A: And again, I want to be clear, I -- I 24 don't have independent recall of the conversation. I 25 believe I said that before. But based on the notes that


1 we've been through it -- it strikes me that, and I recall 2 the general thought, that if -- if someone says, "Best 3 case Friday," it's likely to be later. 4 And I believe I was responding to that. I 5 don't recall having, at any time, a specific time frame 6 in mind beyond, as soon as possible. 7 Q: Did you ever suggest that physical 8 force be used to end the occupation? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Did you ever ask Ron Fox to 11 communicate any direction or message regarding police 12 operations to the OPP on the ground at Ipperwash? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Did you ever intend to communicate 15 any direction to the OPP with respect to police 16 operations regarding the Ipperwash occupation through Ron 17 Fox or anyone else? 18 A: No. I only want to qualify that by 19 the reference to our broad public communications that we 20 discussed at length this morning. 21 Q: I won't revisit that. 22 Did you ever intend to influence in any 23 way, the OPP with respect to police operations regarding 24 the Ipperwash occupation? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Did you know what the OPP's 2 operational plans were? 3 A: I did not. 4 Q: Did you ever ask about the OPP's 5 operations or plans with respect to the Ipperwash 6 occupation? 7 A: I did not. 8 Q: Was there any debate at the 9 Interministerial Committee meetings or otherwise about 10 how the OPP should conduct police operations regarding 11 Ipperwash? 12 And this is with respect to any meetings 13 that you attended between September 4th and 6th? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Did you ever criticize the OPP's 16 operations at Ipperwash between September 4th and 6th? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Did anyone ever ask you to direct or 19 influence police operations in regard to the Ipperwash 20 Park occupation? 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner. 22 This is a -- I -- I object to the question. This is a 23 classic example of having your cake and eat it too. 24 On the one hand we're told that the person 25 in charge of directing or she can't remember what he told


1 them and now on the other hand her lawyer is going to ask 2 her the self serving question did that same person whose 3 comments you can't remember, did he tell you to do 'X'. 4 Now, in fairness, this is just simply 5 unfair. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 7 Perschy? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: She can speak as to 9 her recollection. She's spoken quite candidly when she 10 has a precise recollection. She's also spoken 11 exceedingly candidly about her thought processes at the 12 time, about her general recollection, about things that 13 she knows she wouldn't have done even if she doesn't have 14 a specific recollection. 15 And to the extent she can rely on that in 16 responding to these questions. In my view they're 17 entirely appropriate. Of course they speak to her 18 knowledge. Every witness' answers speak to their 19 knowledge. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You didn't 21 ask about a specific individual? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 24 general question? 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 2 was. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 5 to ask the question again? Does any -- do you have any 6 comments? No? Okay, why don't you ask... 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 9 Q: The general question was, did anyone 10 ever ask you to direct or influence police operations in 11 regard to the Ipperwash Park occupation? 12 A: I can say with confidence the answer 13 is no. Because if they had it would have been something 14 that would have struck me as highly inappropriate. 15 Q: Did anyone ever ask that you try and 16 do so? 17 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm objecting 18 again, Mr. Commissioner. This is absurd. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 20 understand what you're doing Ms. Perschy. I think you're 21 -- are you close to the end of your -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I am. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are? Is 24 this the last question or close to it? 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I've got two (2) more.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Few more? 2 Carry on. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: The question was did anyone ever ask 6 that you try to direct or influence police operations? 7 A: Not to the best of my recollection. 8 Q: And if anyone had asked you to do 9 that or to attempt to do that -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 11 directed at a particular individual. Did anyone ask you? 12 I mean it's a general question, Mr. Falconer. 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, it's a general 14 question. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No she's saying if 16 anyone had asked you -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 18 fine. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- when her direct 20 boss is the one she can't remember talking to. If anyone 21 had -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She can't 23 remember and -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- asked you, she's 25 going this speculation about what she'd do about


1 something she didn't remember. It's absurd. It's about 2 -- you can't have it both ways, is re-examining counsel. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's ten 4 after 5:00 and I want to get to the end. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: She could be 6 actually cross-examining her own client now. That's what 7 she's doing because she's -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she's 9 not doing that. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well what I'm 11 saying is she ought not to be allowed to go on a route 12 that this Witness shut down through her failed memory. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She didn't 14 shut it down and I'm letting you ask the question because 15 you're at the end. So let's ask it. It's not an 16 improper question or I wouldn't let you ask it even if we 17 were at the end. Go ahead. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Very good. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: If anyone had asked you to do that or 22 to attempt to do that, what would have been your 23 response? 24 A: I would not have done that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 3 Q: And to your knowledge did anyone else 4 on behalf of Government direct -- attempt to direct or 5 influence the OPP in its police operations with respect 6 to the Ipperwash Park occupation? 7 A: Not in my presence and therefore not 8 to my knowledge. 9 Q: Those are all my questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much, Ms. Perschy. 12 Ms. Vella, do you have any re-examination? 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Let me think about 14 that. No. I have no re-examination. 15 And on behalf of the Commission, I wish 16 to thank you, Ms. Hutton, for appearing and giving 17 testimony at this Inquiry. Thank you very much. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I would 19 like to echo that, Ms. Hutton. It's a long and difficult 20 time. Thank you very much for coming and giving us the 21 benefit of your evidence, thank you. 22 You're finished now. Unfortunately we 23 aren't, but you're finished now. 24 25 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN)


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Worme, 2 it is ten (10) after 5:00. Your witness is ready to go 3 but I asked you to keep him here, didn't I? 4 MR. DONALD WORME: You did, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you did. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: And I did keep him 7 here and he's waiting. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And he's 9 here. And I think it's unreasonable to expect us -- 10 MR. DONALD WORME: I agree with you, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to begin. 12 Thank you very much for keeping him -- 13 MR. DONALD WORME: I'll let him know, 14 thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 16 thank the Witness for -- 17 MR. DONALD WORME: I certainly will. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- staying 19 and we'll -- 20 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- start him 22 nine o'clock in the morning. It's just not reasonable 23 for us -- 24 MR. DONALD WORME: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to begin


1 now. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 3 we close, I wanted to alert everyone, all of the Counsel 4 and the spectators who are here and the members of the 5 press, that there is a winter storm warning out that they 6 expect, overnight, five (5) to ten (10) centimetres but 7 more problematic, they expect high winds. 8 So I just want to alert everyone to that 9 fact. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much. We will adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow 12 morning at nine o'clock. 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 14 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday November 24th at 9:00 15 a.m. 16 17 --- Upon adjourning at 5:12 p.m. 18 19 Certified Correct, 20 21 22 _________________ 23 Carol Geehan, Ms. 24 25