What police and politicians wanted to do about protestors

[Ipperwash Inquiry]

Ontario Government lawyer testifies at Ipperwash Inquiry . . .

What the police and the politicians wanted to do about the protestors . . .

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy, Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

August 30, 2005

It was called Project Maple, the main O.P.P. plan for the Native occupation of Ipperwash Park in 1995. The plan had as its main goal to contain and negotiate a peaceful resolution.

"Question - The Government, just like anyone else, can’t tell the police what to do? Answer - Exactly." The Q. and A. is from the Ipperwash Inquiry in Forest, Ontario that is looking into the death of Dudley George in September 1995.

At the heart of the questioning, is the involvement of former Premier Mike Harris, his senior staff and their alleged influence on provincial police, to take action against First Nations people at Ipperwash Provincial Park, where they had gathered in efforts to protect a grave site and their traditional lands.

More testimony was heard that highlights the marked difference between what the police and politicians wanted to do about the protest.

Testifying Friday and Monday, Scott Hutchison, an Ontario government lawyer said he attended an Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies meeting September 6, 2005, and provided senior officials with the basic legal opinion that they could not give the police orders or demand specific action.

He confirmed his understanding that everyone knew the goal of the meeting was to develop options to ensure the removal of the Natives, as soon as possible.

Deb Hutton, who was the Executive Assistant to the Premier at the time, has been accused of saying, "Get the fucking Indians out of the Park and use guns if you have to".

Hutchison testified he never heard her say that. He also said the option preferred by the police to deal with the occupation of the park, was to hang back and let it burn itself.

"I know that the OPP preferred to have an injunction in place eventually, but they preferred to have the injunction because it provided them with a better legal footing. The notion of, if you like, the letting it burn itself out, was simply not to rush on matters, to allow them to proceed, if you like, in a kind of natural way."

It also was confirmed that the Harris government was not interested in negotiating the underlying issues that sparked the occupation of the park. "I know that there was a reluctance to be seen to be negotiating anything substantive."

Under cross examination by Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for the Estate of Dudley George and the Family of Dudley George, Scott Hutchison said he was aware of what the government wanted to do about the occupation of the park, "I know that it was fairly clear that the -- the desire was to remove rather than sort of hold back and let it burn itself out".

Was there discussion at that meeting about negotiating anything at all? "I don’t recall any discussion around that. I know that, for example, no negotiator seemed to be appointed, there wasn’t a discussion about what the parameters of the mandate for a negotiator would be. I don’t recall negotiations being one of the -- the topics that was being canvassed or being, if you like, developed in terms of what it would look like."

Hutchison also testified that the Harris government approach to Native issues was different from the previous provincial government, "I certainly went into the meeting and I’d had some discussion that had led me to the conclusion that the conciliatory approach that had typified the previous government’s approach to these issues, that there be a change from that".

MORE . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?t=1109