The Ipperwash Inquiry and the 1995 Death of Dudley George

[www.ipperwashinquiry.ca]

Individuals and Organizations Receive Standing for Inquiry
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... /ipperwash

(NOTE: The hearings will start on July 13, 2004 at the Forest Memorial Community Centre (Kimball Hall), the same venue where the hearings on standing were held. )


May 7, 2004

Justice Sidney B. Linden, the Commissioner of the Ipperwash Inquiry, today issued his ruling on standing and funding.

Parties with Standing

Standing for both Parts I and II of the Inquiry has been granted to the following parties:

The Estate of Dudley George and George Family Group;
Aazhoodena and George Family Group;
Residents of Aazhoodena;
Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation;
The Province of Ontario;
The Honourable Michael D. Harris;
Charles Harnick;
Robert Runciman;
Marcel Beaubien;
Ontario Provincial Police;
Ontario Provincial Police Association;
Chief Coroner of the Province of Ontario;
Municipality of Lambton Shores;
Chiefs of Ontario; and
Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.

Standing for Part I only of the Inquiry has been granted to the following individuals:

Christopher D. Hodgson; and
Debbie Hutton.

Standing for Part II only of the Inquiry has been granted to the following parties:

Union of Ontario Indians;
Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation;
Anishnabek Police Services;
Nishnawbe-Aski Police Services Board;
Centre Ipperwash Community Association;
Aboriginal Peoples Council of Toronto;
Law Union of Ontario;
African Canadian Legal Clinic;
Amnesty International Canada;
Canadian Civil Liberties Association;
Mennonite Central Committee Ontario;
George Simpson and Rowland Carey; and
The Ontario Federation of Individual Rights and Equality.

------------------
BACKGROUND

Read what arguments were made by the various individuals and groups to warrant them receiving Standing at the Inquiry.

April 20,2004
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... /ipperwash

--------

The Commisioner's ruling is posted on the Inquiry's web page: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... /ipperwash

Hearings of applications for standing were held in Forest, Ont., on
April 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2004.

Standing before a Commission of Inquiry gives the individual or
organization the right to take part in the proceedings and to make submissions on terms set by the Commissioner.

The Ipperwash Inquiry was established by the Government of Ontario on
November 12, 2003, under the Public Inquiries Act. Its mandate is to report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George, who was shot in 1995 during a protest by Aboriginal people at Ipperwash Provincial Park and later died. The Commission is also directed to make recommendations that would avoid violence in similar circumstances.

The Commissioner intends to separate the inquiry into two phases that
will run concurrently. Part I will deal with the events surrounding the death
of Dudley George. Part II will deal with the policy issues and recommendations directed to the avoidance of violence in similar circumstances.

In the Ruling, 17 parties have been granted standing to participate in
Part I of the inquiry and 28 parties have been granted standing in Part II of the Inquiry.

The hearings will start on July 13, 2004 at the Forest Memorial Community
Centre (Kimball Hall), the same venue where the hearings on standing were held.

A preliminary schedule is available on the Inquiry's web page
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... /ipperwash

For further information: and interviews: Derry Millar, Lead Counsel:
(416) 314-9258; media contact and information: Peter Rehak (416) 212-6876; cell: (416) 992-0679

[www.ipperwashinquiry.ca]

Ipperwash Inquiry Announces New Counsel

June 3, 2004

The Honourable Sidney B. Linden, the Commissioner of the Ipperwash Inquiry, today announced the appointment of Donald E. Worme, Q.C., as Commission Counsel.

Mr. Worme is a Cree lawyer from the Kawacatoose First Nation Treaty Four, Saskatchewan.

He joins Lead Counsel W.A. Derry Millar, Counsel Susan Vella and
Assistant Counsel Katherine Hensel on the Inquiry's legal team.

After graduating from the University of Saskatchewan College of Law in
1985, Mr. Worme articled with the Federal Department of Justice in public
prosecutions. Since receiving his call to the Bar in 1986, he has been engaged in private practice and has acquired extensive and varied experience in criminal and aboriginal law litigation. He has appeared at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Worme was lead counsel for the family of Neil Stonechild during the
2003-2004 Public Inquiry in Saskatchewan into the death of Neil Stonechild, an Aboriginal teenager whose body was found in an industrial area of Saskatoon in 1990. Mr. Worme also acted for inmate Sandra Paquachon in the Commission of Inquiry into Events of 1994 at the Prison for Women in Kingston.

Mr. Worme replaces Todd Ducharme on the Inquiry's legal team.

Mr. Ducharme was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice last month.

Information about the Ipperwash Inquiry is available on its website:
www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

For further information: Media Contact: Peter Rehak, (416) 212-6876

[admin]

Ipperwash Inquiry and Osgoode Hall Law School Sponsor Symposium on Relations Between Police and Government

June 7, 2004

The Ipperwash Inquiry and Osgoode Hall Law School will hold a one-day academic research symposium dealing with relationship between the police and government.

The symposium will be held on Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at the Osgoode
Professional Development Centre, 1 Dundas Street West, 26th Floor, Toronto, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Inquiry and Osgoode Hall Law School will also host a dinner on the
evening of Monday, June 28, 2004. Mr. Justice Peter Cory will open the
conference with a speech at the dinner titled "Reflections on Recent
Experience with Public Inquiries."

The dinner will be held at the Delta Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street
West, Toronto. It will start at 7:00 p.m.

The symposium on the 28th will address the following issues:

- Core Principles of the Government/Police Relationship;
- The Legal Sites of Government-Police Relations;
- The History and the Future of the Politics of Policing;
- An International and Comparative Perspective;
- Government-Police Relations in an Aboriginal Context;
- The Oversight of Government-Police Relations in Canada: The
Constitution, the Courts, Administrative Processes and Democratic
Governance.

Prior to the symposium, the Inquiry and Osgoode will commission six
academic research papers to be distributed and/or presented at the symposium.

The researchers selected to author and present the commissioned papers represent a diverse mix of scholars who are leading experts in relevant areas of concern to the Inquiry, including:

- Professor Kent Roach, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.
- Professor Dianne Martin, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.
- Professor Margaret Beare, Department of Sociology and Osgoode Hall
Law School, York University.
- Professor Philip Stenning, Victoria University of Wellington in New
Zealand.
- Professor Gordon Christie, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.
- Professor Lorne Sossin, Faculties of Law and Political Science,
University of Toronto.

The writers have been instructed to avoid discussing or speculating on the facts surrounding the death of Dudley George or the role of the police or government in the Ipperwash matter. These issues will be dealt with in the evidentiary hearings in Part One of the Inquiry.

The commissioned papers, any commissioned commentaries, and a summary of the discussion at the symposium will be published on the Inquiry's website: www.ipperwashinquiry.ca
Additional information about the Inquiry and the symposium is also available on the Inquiry website.

The media are invited to attend the symposium. However, space is limited and those wishing to cover the event or to receive materials from the event should contact Peter Rehak, the Inquiry's Media Relations Officer at 416-212-6876.

For further information: Peter Rehak, Media Relations; The Ipperwash
Inquiry: (416) 212-6876

[www.ipperwashinquiry.ca]

Ipperwash Inquiry - Schedule of Hearings

http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

Part 1 Hearings
The Part 1 hearings will start in July at the Forest Memorial Community Centre (Kimball Hall), at 6276 Townsend Line, Forest, Ontario. Forest is part of the Municipality of Lambton Shores.

The hearings in July and August will deal with the historical context of the issues. The dates are:

July 13, 14 and 15, 2004;
August 17, 18 and 19, 2004;
September 8, 9 and 10, 2004;
September 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2004;
September 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2004.

October 12, 13, 14 and 15, 2004;
October 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2004;
November 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2004;
November 8, 9 and 10, 2004;
November 22, 23, 24 and 25, 2004;
November 29, 30 and December 1 and 2, 2004;
December 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2004.

January 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2005;
January 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2005;
January 31 and February 1, 2 and 3, 2005;
February 7, 8, 9 and 10, 2005;
February 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2005;
February 28, March 1, 2, and 3, 2005.

MORE HEARING DATES AND THEIR LOCATION WILL BE ANNOUNCED WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE

LOCATION OF HEARINGS

Subject to the Commissioner's discretion to order a different place for the hearing as he sees fit based on the circumstances including the circumstances surrounding a particular witness, it is anticipated that the bulk of the hearing will take place at Kimball Hall in Forest.

[dsmoke@uwo.ca]

Here is some historical context to the Ipperwash Inquiry proceedings
presently underway in Forest, Ontario.

These witnesses have detailed the history, land settlement, land surrenders, burial practices and sites of the Stoney Point people.

The justice system has denied them the legal remedies needed for them to protect their rights guaranteed under the British North America Act Royal Proclamation, and Canadian constitution.

Nine Year Wait Begins With Historical Culture-Based Testimony
Ipperwash Inquiry Opens With Legal History

By Dan Smoke - Asayenes (NNNC)
dsmoke@uwo.ca

FOREST, Ont. A long-awaited judicial inquiry into the nine-year-old
police killing of unarmed Aboriginal activist, Dudley George, at Ipperwash
Provincial Park finally got underway July 13, 2004.

First witness was Professor Darlene Johnston, an Aboriginal law professor at the University of Toronto, and an expert on the legal history of Canada's First Nations. Asked to make a connection between the current communities and the history of Aboriginal use of the area, Johnson said she researched both oral tradition and evidence in early records of "totemic identity" to show there have always been Anishnaabeg people on the south shore of Lake Huron. Crane, Beaver, and Caribou people (with those totems) inhabited the territory during the French regime (l600-1700), the British regime (late 1700s).

Today's Kettle and Stony Point members, known as the River Aux Sable Indians during the l830s and 40s, were Beaver and Caribou people with
a presence in the region going back hundreds of years, and who signed
treaties in the 1820s.

Aboriginal cultures in Eastern North America are based on a kinship system which Johnston refers to as "totemic identity". Great Lakes people,
Anishnaabemwin (Algonkian) speakers, have a patrilineal system, with
children born into their father's clan or "dodem". Aboriginal use of
symbols, rather than letters, has allowed evidence of totemic identity to
persist despite changes in French or British naming practices and languages in the Great Lakes region.

"People speak of Aboriginal people as illiterate at contact, but they were only illiterate from the perspective of using an alphabet," she said.

In tracing the connection between Anishnaabeg peoples and Great Lakes
landscapes, evidence of totemic identity is paramount. Every person
belonging to the same totem was considered a close relative. This
responsibility for one another's well being resulted in extensive trading
networks and military alliances among far-flung communities. "Totems were the glue that held the Anishnaabeg Great Lakes world together," Johnston said.

The first encounter period is with the French regime who settled what is the region between Lake Erie and Lake Huron. For military and trading purposes the French signed a treaty in 1701 with representatives of twenty
Anishnaabeg Nations. This was known as the Great Peace between the
Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee and French people who promised to live in peace by signing a treaty document and exchanging a wampum belt.

The British regime began in 1761 after the British defeated the French who
were allied with the Anishnaabeg. In 1763 King George III declared the
Royal Proclamation in order to secure peace. Prof. Johnston declared,
"The Royal Proclamation of l763 is described as the Magna Carta of the Indian people."

Later, Donald Worme, Inquiry Commission lawyer, said the 1763 Royal
Proclamation is a declaration of the rights of First Nations people,
reflecting British reaction to the military might of Aboriginal people in
this area, led by War Chief Pontiac." The capitulation of New France to
England left the Indians with no protection for their proprietary interests
in the land, so the King was obliged to make this Proclamation that
"Indians would not be molested within their territories."

British Indian agent, Sir William Johnson, was dispatched to negotiate the
Treaty of 1764 with l500 Anishnaabeg Chiefs and warriors. This Treaty was sealed with two wampum belts, one of which was the Covenant Chain Belt which allied the British with the Anishnaabeg.

Treaty making was deemed a familial undertaking. The Anishnaabeg reference to the French or English king as "father" reflected the way they understood the relationship between parent and child in their culture. A father was responsible for his children, but he did not control or dominate them. They were autonomous beings. There was interdependence and a sense of equality. Treaty-making to the Anishnaabeg meant their "father" was responsible and reliable, with mutual obligations of support and respect to continue into perpetuity, but "today they are sadly neglected", Johnston said.

Later, Worme said these agreements and promises were not a subservient
relationship with the child dependent on the father, but bilateral
agreements. Aboriginals living near the Great Lakes gave up their lands and the hunting that had sustained them over the millennia, noting purchase and surrender were interchangeable terms.

When the Indian agent tried to ask the the Chippewas of Sarnia to move to the River Aux Sable reserve farther north where they would be out of the way of English settlers, they stood firm. They believed that the dead had two spirits, one of which stayed with the body and required feeding and attention.

It is for this reason, "There is a continuing relationship between the
living and the dead," Johnston told the inquiry. "The Chippewas agreed to
surrender all but one per cent of the two million acres of land they
controlled throughout Southern Ontario in exchange for presents and promises of protection," but the area included burial grounds. "It was one thing to give up their land and their lifestyles," Prof. Johnston said, "but they couldn't be persuaded to give up the graves of their ancestors."

Dudley George was shot dead nine years ago by Sergeant Kenneth Deane of the Ontario Provincial Police while he and others were occupying Ipperwash Provincial Park to protest against the appropriation of their land for a military camp. That land, they said, contained a burial ground. George's family was moved from Stoney Point to the neighbouring Native community of Kettle Point when the reserve was seized under the War Measures Act in 1942.

George was among a group of Stoney Pointers who moved back onto the military base in 1993 and refused to leave.

In her third day of questioning, Prof. Johnston appeared emotional when
speaking of the desecration of a burial ground in her community in the Bruce Peninsula. "People took the gravestones out of the area and used them as bases for a baseball diamond," she said.

Pierre George, Dudley's brother, observed that Johnson "could feel what we felt that the Stoney Point burial ground was tied in with our identities and was being desecrated. She said there were two burial sites: one for Kettle Point and one for Stoney Point, which means there were two separate communities."

Maynard (Sam) George, another of Dudley's brothers, said he believes the
historical portion of the inquiry is one of the most important phases.

"It's going to establish why Dudley was doing what he was doing," George
said. "Because of his death, this stuff is all starting to come out now.
We're finally able to tell our history from our point of view."

The Inquiry will resume in August 17 - 19 in Forest, with research witness
Joan Holmes.

Information about the inquiry and transcripts of the hearings are available
at http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca.

- 30 -




Stoney Point History Reveals Burial Site in Provincial Park

By

Dan Smoke - Asayenes (NNNC)



FOREST - Anthropologist Joan Holmes' testimony at the August session of the Ipperwash Inquiry Commission explained the historical context in which the September 6, 1995 killing of Stoney Point activist Dudley George took place

Following the War of l812, the British wanted to allow settlement in
Southwestern Ontario so, following the 1763 Royal Proclamation, they had to arrange a cession agreement with the Chippewas, beginning with the land north of the Thames River. Negotiations began in 1818 with a number of councils, including Chippewas known as Chenail Ecarte from Walpole Island; the Chippewas of Sarnia located along the St. Clair River; and those known separately as the River Aux Sable people, and the Kettle Point people along and the southeast shore of Lake Huron. In l825, they made a provisional treaty by which the Chippewa requested land to be set aside for their exclusive use and occupation.

Taking part were 18-24 chiefs who thought the reserves were just over 23,000 acres of land. The Indian agent recorded the numbers of Chippewa, believed to be about 440. Mr. Burwell, surveying the four reserves in l826, found the total acreage amounted to under 18,000 acres which in 1827 was written into Huron Tract Treaty #29. The Chippewas gave up 99% of their territory in return for l% set aside for the Chippewas' exclusive use and occupation. The Chiefs signed that treaty believing they would receive a yearly annuity, and their reserve land would be for their people's exclusive use and occupation "into perpetuity." In fact, they received goods, not money, from the
government. Under the Huron Tract Treaty #29, the government treated the four reserves as one band, with one head Chief, as if all their land was
interchangeable, all with equal rights in each of the reserves.

During the 1880s, the River Aux Sable name changed to Stoney Point and the Kettle Point and Stoney Point Reserves petitioned DIA to let them separate from the Sarnia band because, as one chief said: "we never pull together very well." In l9l9, the Government, DIA, and the Deputy Superintendent agreed to the separation of the Chippewas of Sarnia band, and the Kettle Point and Stoney Point band, also splitting the funds held in trust for them.

By this time, the Indian Act of 1876 controlled every aspect of Indian life,
with the Chief and council accountable to DIA through the Indian agent, not to the people who elected them. In 1927 and '28 land surrenders on both Kettle Point and Stoney Point reserves were taken by local non-Native developers who wanted the beach front for cottages and recreation.

In both cases, the Indian agent encouraged voting male band members over 21 to agree to the surrender. Kettle Point was opposed, protesting to DIA, but surrender of 85 beach front acres was completed. In 1927, Stoney Point surrendered 377 acres, the reserve's entire beach front. Real estate developer William J. Scott paid the band $35 an acre for 377 acres. In 1936, nine years later, he sold 109 acres of the same land, with no improvements, for $10,000, or slightly less than $100 per acre, a handsome profit known as a "land flip". Both these land claims are now under consideration, but as yet no decision has been rendered.

In l942 the Department of National Defense (DND) decided they wanted the rest of the Stoney Point reserve, excluding the 377 beach front acres sold to Scott, for an advanced infantry training camp. Stoney Point people voted against the land surrender so the federal government expropriated the land under the War Measures Act, forcing everyone residing at Stoney Point to be relocated to Kettle Point. The government promised to return the land after the war when DND no longer required it, but today, the land has not been returned. "It's the only case I am aware of, in the mid-20th century, where a First Nation lost its entire reserve," Holmes said.

Indian people didn't get the vote until l960, so they couldn't get an MP to
represent them, nor could they hire a lawyer without DIA approval. There
was no policy, mechanism, or grievance process in place for land claims
until 1974. People who had been living in two separate communities were
squeezed together on one Reserve, causing over-crowding and depletion of resources.

In 1936, Scott sold 109 acres of the 377-acre plot to the provincial
government for Ipperwash Provincial Park. The next year, an engineer
discovered an old Indian burial ground. The band council requested, through the Indian agent, that the Provincial Government fence the burial site area. A reply from the Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests indicated he would do his best but, "unfortunately," Holmes said, " we don't see any more correspondence about that so we don't know what happened."

In l950, the Park Superintendent's wife discovered a skeleton in the Park.
Photographs were taken, and archaeologist Wilfred July took the skeleton's
skull. Many years later, archaeologist Michael Spence, looking at
photographs, determined it was likely an Ojibway adolescent. (The bones were lost in the '50s). There are no more written records.

In 1942, the army promised to keep the cemetery inside Camp Ipperwash in good condition. Aboriginal soldiers returning from the War discovered the fence broken down and gravestones damaged provoking DIA and DND reaction. The cemetery was fenced and gravestones restored. In confidential letters to DND, Jean Chretien, DIA minister at the time, predicted frustrated natives could resort to civil disobedience to get back their land seized during the Second World War. "They have waited patiently for action. There are signs, however, that they will soon run out of patience," Chretien wrote April 25, 1972 to Edgar Benson, then minister of DND.

The examination-in-chief was conducted by Commission Counsel Susan Vella, who said " I believe that she has made a valuable contribution to the
Commission and am grateful for that."

The Inquiry resumes throughout September, October and November in Forest with witnesses from the Stoney Point community.

Information about the inquiry and transcripts of the hearings are available
at http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

-- 30 --

All My Relations

Dan Smoke-Asayenes & Mary Lou Smoke-Asayenes Kwe
Smoke Signals First Nations Radio, CHRW, 94.9 FM
Outstanding Multicultural Program for 2004
#1 Campus & Community Radio Station in Canada
Sundays 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. EST, www.chrwradio.com
519 659-4682 fax: 5l9 453-3676
dsmoke@uwo.ca

[infocom@pro.net]

"Premature," says Ipperwash Inquiry Commissioner as he dismisses motions for release of what George family calls "shocking" audio tapes . . .

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

October 13, 2004

"These Motions have requested that I override the discretion I've conferred on Commission Counsel with respect to the calling and public disclosure of certain evidence at the Hearing -- at the Inquiry. In my view it's neither necessary nor appropriate to do so in these circumstances. "

At the Ipperwash Inquiry, Commissioner Sidney Linden dismissed motions that called for the release of information, including "shocking" tapes.

" The audio recordings are not secret. They will be introduced in this Inquiry, and thereby will be made publicly available. However, in my judgment, their immediate release and the other release sought in this Motions is neither required nor advisable. Accordingly, the Motions are dismissed," said Commissioner Linden.

The Chiefs of Ontario had brought a Motion requesting the public release of two audio recordings provided to the Commission. The Motion also requested that immediate and ongoing steps be taken to ensure that any documentary evidence, that is, quotes, central to the mandate of the Inquiry be released to the public as soon as practicable after such evidence becomes known to Commission Counsel. The Commission was also asked to take immediate and ongoing steps to publically release any and all documentary evidence at the same time that it is provided to the Commissioner unless Commission Counsel or a party providing a particular document intends to take the position that the document should never be made public.

In a separate and parallel Motion brought by the Estate of Dudley George, and the George family group, the Commission was asked to immediately assign an exhibit number to and enter into the Inquiry public record the same two audio recordings. This Motion sought to have the Commissioner authorize and direct Commission Counsel to immediately make these recordings available for public release and to release legal Counsel for the parties to the Inquiry from their confidentiality and use undertakings in respect of these audio recordings.

Both of these Motions have characterized the recordings as documentary evidence that is central to the mandate of the Inquiry.

"The investigative process of Part I Hearings of this Inquiry will involve, among other things, the identification of those documents that are central to the mandate of the Inquiry. The role of Commission Counsel is to locate the documents, analyse them, put them into context and then introduce them into evidence through witnesses testifying at the Public Inquiry. That's the process that's been followed in other Inquiries and it is the process being followed in this Inquiry. In my view, this Inquiry is proceeding exactly as it is supposed to. A great deal of documentary evidence has been obtained. It is being analysed and evaluated on an ongoing basis and it will be presented publically at this Inquiry. The hearing component of the investigative process is in the early stages with only a few of the many witnesses who will eventually be called having testified thus far. The characterization, weight, and proof of any and all documentary evidence to be put before the Commission will continue throughout the Proceedings and will be completed by my findings, once I have heard all of the evidence that will ultimately be put before the Commission.

The Chiefs of Ontario's Motion request that those documents central to the mandate of the Inquiry be immediately disclosed to the public. To date, tens of thousands of documents have been produced to the Commission by the various parties. The production process has yet to be completed, with several of the parties having indicated that they have further documents to produce. Given the number of documents produced to the Commission, the incompleteness of the documentary production process by the parties, the still relatively early stage of the investigation, and the lack of an evidentiary or testamentary foundation for the characterization or proof of such central documents, it is premature for either the Commission or parties to the Inquiry to identify all of those documents that will ultimately be considered central to the mandate of the Inquiry.

Furthermore, the characterisation of particular documents as central to the mandate of the Inquiry is, in essence, a finding as to the appropriate weight that should be placed on those documents. These recordings may indeed be central to the mandate of the Inquiry but that is a finding that should only be made at the culmination of the Inquiry process after all of the evidence has been heard, rather than at its inception.

Commission Counsel have a duty to present the evidence to the Commission and public in a manner that is impartial, balanced, fair, thorough and orderly.

It would be premature and inconsistent with the duty of Commission Counsel to present evidence in an impartial, balanced, fair, thorough, and orderly manner to characterize any document or documents as central to the mandate of the Inquiry and to disclose it to the public before it has been introduced in its proper context through the Hearing process.

In my view, Commission Counsel need to retain the discretion afforded them under the rules to call evidence in such a manner, order, and timing as to permit the impartial, orderly, logical, fair, and probative presentation of all of the evidence that will ultimately be put before the Commission.

Commission Counsel, in accordance with their duty, have determined an order of the presentation of witnesses which, in their view, ensures the evidence is presented logically, comprehensively and understandably to both the parties and the public, as follows:

First the expert and historical witnesses who have already been called. Then, the First Nations and other community witnesses and that is in progress now. That will be followed by emergency medical personnel and Police Officers and then civil servants and politicians. The need for an orderly and thoughtful plan is particularly important in an Inquiry such as this one with voluminous productions and numerous and complex factual issues.

Now, having said that, the order is subject to change due to the evolving nature of the investigation and evidence before the Commission, the availability of certain witnesses and any other considerations that may affect Commission Counsel's evaluation of the appropriateness of this intended order. The submissions of the various Counsel in this Motion, while differing in many respects, all acknowledge the importance of hearing evidence in context. And I am confident that Commission Counsel will continue to publically disclose documentary evidence when it becomes relevant to the testimony afforded by each witness, or as it becomes otherwise necessary to comply with the obligation of the Commission to ensure procedural fairness in these Proceedings.

The parties to the conversation on the audio recording as well as the parties mentioned in the discussion will be called as witnesses. These witnesses will be called in a manner and at a time to be determined at the discretion of Commission Counsel and consistent with the duty of Commission Council to present evidence in a balanced, orderly, and logical fashion.

From the outset of this Inquiry, I have asked Commission Counsel to consult with the parties regarding the process to be followed by this Inquiry.

I am also encouraging any party who has suggestions to make regarding the conduct of this Inquiry to meet with Commission Counsel to discuss them. Now, I know that this approach has been followed in this Inquiry to date, and will continue throughout the Inquiry. I value and appreciate the suggestions of any party to these proceedings. When it is determined that the evidence and the audio recordings are sufficiently relevant Commission Counsel will enter the recordings as evidence and they will be made public before this Inquiry at that time.

[Guest]

Key native Ipperwash witness to testify about his brutal OPP baton-beating just before the shooting of Dudley George

Lawyers for Dudley George Estate to seek to introduce Rodney King beating tape

FOREST, ON, Nov. 30, 2004

A key Native witness will testify this week Thursday (December 2) at the Ipperwash Inquiry in Forest ON about his being grievously baton-beaten by a number of OPP riot police officers in the immediate lead-up to the shooting of Dudley George.

Former First Nations elected leader Bernard George has testified eloquently on several previous occasions.

Legal Counsel representing the Estate of the late Dudley George and the
Sam George Family Group will cross-examine Mr George.

The George family lawyers will seek to introduce a video-tape of the 1991
Los Angeles Police baton-beating of Rodney King, as well as a number of
official documents and testimony from previous witnesses. They will introduce the video in order to further establish the nature, severity and duration of the OPP police baton-beating of Mr George.

"Bernard was trying at the last minute to prevent any violence. Unfortunately he did not succeed and instead himself became one of the victims of the police use of extreme force that night," said Sam George, Dudley's elder brother. "The situation then escalated and resulted in the OPP sniper shooting my brother Dudley."

Then-Councillor Bernard George of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation
went to Ipperwash Park on the night of September 6, 1995 to try to prevent the large numbers of riot police and other armed OPP officers from attacking the demonstrators who were occupying the Park.

Mr George and many other Natives present were acquitted of all charges
against them. Medical evidence in Bernard George's case established that he had been subjected to large numbers of blunt instrument blows and trauma, which had come close to killing him. No OPP officers were ever charged in his beating.

For further information: For the law firms: Basil Alexander,
(416) 598-0288 or (416) 732-7010;

Official Inquiry website:
www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

[Ipperwash 10 years later]

10 years later, still no answers

Ten years after Dudley George was killed, a year into a public inquiry, the mystery of exactly how the decision that led to his death was made, remains unresolved.

by Kate Harries

September 20, 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=41922

[Profanity Confirmed]

Former Premier's Profane Language Confirmed by Testimony at Ipperwash Inquiry . . .

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

November 28, 2005

I Want the F_ _ _ ing Indians Out!

At the Ipperwash Inquiry, former Attorney General Charles Harnick today confirmed the September 6th, 1995 fierce and foul language of then Premier Mike Harris.

That was the day the Provincial Police launched an assault on unarmed Native protestors, resulting in the shooting death of Dudley George.

At the Inquiry today, the lawyer representing Mike Harris challenged Harnick’s testimony, but he remained steadfast. The former premier will testify at the Ipperwash Inquiry in January and his lawyer said he will deny that he used the profane language.

Here is what Harnick said today during his testimony. "I remember leaving the Cabinet Room and as always there were a number of people milling about, and I -- I walked over towards the -- the dining room. I may have stopped to talk to people. When I got to the dining room, there were people there in their places around the table. And as I walked into the dining room, the Premier in a loud voice said, I want the fucking Indians out of the Park. And I was, at that point I think just taking my seat. I didn’t hear who had spoken previously to -- to evoke that comment. But then there was a complete silence in the room. And after that, the Premier broke the silence in a very calm voice, indicating that once the occupiers were able to get into the Park, he didn’t believe that there was any way that they could be removed from the Park. And, you know, his -- his demeanor changed. He became quiet."

Harnick testified that he personally was stunned when he heard the Premier’s comments. "Well, I just thought it was a wrong and inappropriate comment and -- and I think that the Premier knew that as well. And I think when his demeanour changed that was a signal, a very strong signal that -- that he understood that that was the wrong thing to have said and -- and it was an out of character statement."

Testimony then indicated that the course of action decided was to seek a court injunction to get the occupiers out of the park as quickly as possible.

[One Dead Indian-The Movie]

Aboriginal people remember Dudley George, on this the 11th anniversary of his "political assasination".

APTN to air One Dead Indian . . .

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

September 6, 2006 - Pam Matthews, one of the actors reminds us that in recognition of the 11th Anniversary of the death of Dudley George, the CTV film One Dead Indian airs tonight on APTN - Wednesday, September 6 at 9:00 pm.

In January of this year, Pam was quoted in a Canadian Press article about Ipperwash, Dudley George and the CTV Movie One Dead Indian. Here's an excerpt.

"It still amazes me how it all happened," said actor Pamela Matthews, a Cree from northern Ontario who had met Dudley George for the first time a couple of days before his death during a chance visit to Ipperwash, where she had vacationed as a child in the 1960s.

In a weird twist of casting fate, Matthews portrays George's sister,
Carolyn, in the movie.

"When I was a kid . . . my dad was the resident doctor (for cadets) in
training at CFB Ipperwash, so we spent several summers going there, and
we were actually camping on the army base camp portion of the land
that's in dispute," Matthews recalled. "I was just a kid. I had no idea there was even a land issue."

On Labour Day weekend in 1995, Matthews and a friend were near
Ipperwash while driving back home to Toronto and decided to visit the
park, where they'd heard native protesters had gathered.

Despite the heavy police presence - "there were cops all over the
place and the odd helicopter was flying overhead and there was a police
boat out on the water" - Matthews and her friend jumped over the
barricade and were waved over by a group of aboriginals sitting at a
picnic table.

"One of them was Dudley George, and so we sat and talked for a couple
of hours and they told us what was going on," she said. "We just sat
there and everything seemed pretty calm. They were just enjoying the
weather and enjoying the beach.

"It was men, women and children. There was no threat to the rest of
society whatsoever. It was so peaceful. So we were quite shocked to
hear the OPP had marched in and killed Dudley George."

Another coincidence also tied her to the TV project: Matthews had
worked as a legal aide with the George family's team of lawyers and was
in the courtroom the day Deane was found guilty of criminal negligence
causing death. (He was sentenced to two years less a day to be served
in the community.)

Matthews hopes One Dead Indian will help illustrate to Canadians the
broader emotional context surrounding the shooting death of Dudley
George, the first native protester killed in Canada in 100 years.

"A lot of non-native people understand, but don't understand, why the
native people want their land back," she said. "And a lot of people
think it's because we're greedy. But it goes a lot deeper than that.
It's our ancestral lands.

"Hopefully this film will have them think more and realize that we
just want our land back and be peaceful the way things used to be." "A
lot of non-native people understand, but don't understand, why the
native people want their land back," she said. "And a lot of people
think it's because we're greedy. But it goes a lot deeper than that.
It's our ancestral lands.


Pamela Matthews
www.pamelamatthews.ca



- - - - - - -
BACKGROUND

Canadians affected by CTV movie One Dead Indian . . .

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

January 5, 2006

Last night’s premiere of the movie One Dead Indian attracted more than one million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It is obvious the CTV movie One Dead Indian, broadcast for the first time last night, had a profound effect on some Canadians.

For me the movie met my expectations. Although it obviously wasn't a "big budget" production, it certainly provided a realistic representation of what took place on that ill-fated night ten years ago. The police probably would disagree.

I was pleased to see real Indians playing Indians . . . no Grey Owl stuff in this flick. Perhaps mainstream media-made movies are finally evolving as we hoped they would long ago.

Turtle Island Native Network received e-mails from people who felt compelled to say something, immediately after they watched the movie.

For example, Odie wrote to us and said, "What a shame it took the murder of Dudley George for the men women and children of Stoney Point to be heard. Is this what it takes to retrieve stolen land and sacred burial grounds! As a proud Canadian I say, shame on the provincial and federal governments for allowing this terrible act of injustice to occur. Let me say I am just a middle-aged white male construction worker from the big city and I’m not sure anyone is interested in what I write however after watching the movie, One Dead Indian, last night I figured I ought ado something. Now I have read, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee and I am familiar with Pelletier, Marshal, Oka and the many other tribulations native persons have been through. I guess I just never thought the Ontario government would resort to murder to resolve a legitimate land claim.

I am not so naive to think that racism doesn’t exist, I just didn’t expect it from the elected officials of this province. It seems to me that the stony point issue could have been resolved easily just give the land that was taken back to the Chippewa first nation but like I said I’m just a construction worker from the city, what do I know?"

Carmen wrote, "I am very interested in the Aboriginal rights due to watching the movie about Dudley George’s death. I watched the movie . . . and found it very compelling, but also felt disappointed that I was unaware of this story 10 years ago. Now I feel that more voices must band together to let the Canadian Government know that this was a horrific error on their part and situations of this kind should never happen ever again. How may I help?".

One of the most fascinating letters sent to Turtle Island Native Network is from someone who watched One Dead Indian, and remembered Dudley George from his school days, many years ago.

"My name is Mike Jackson, not the Jackson’s from Kettle Point, but I know them. I grew up in the Port Franks/Grand Bend area and went to North Lambton Secondary School in Forest, Ontario (NLSS), still have the ring to prove it. Played hockey and baseball against Kettle Point, always a challenge, but a good time. It was a long time ago but I remember Tony (Dudley). A young man with a lot of spirit, not afraid to speak his mind, and one hell of an athlete, ran like a deer. I watched the TV movie One Dead Indian and was slightly disappointed in the actor that portrayed Dudley. His attitude may have been fairly accurate but his appearance was not right, hair’s too short. I see him as North of 60, sorry. Anyways, the point is out there and I hope the people responsible get what they’re due. Sincerely, and with respect. Mike Jackson, Sturgeon Falls, Ontario."

By the way, Mike shared with us a page from the 1972/73 NLSS year book that includes a photo of a young Anthany (Dudley) George.
http://www.turtleisland.org/photo/dudleygeorge.jpg

Mainstream media provided ample remarks about the CTV movie. For example, Steve Tilley of the Ottawa Sun thought the movie favoured the Indian side of the story. He also acknowledged the talented actors,
"Dakota House (North of 60) plays the free-spirited George, with Eric Schweig (The Missing) as his conflicted brother, Sam. Gordon Tootoosis, Gary Farmer and *Pamela Matthews also star, part of an impressive ensemble of some of Canada’s finest Native actors, all of whom are at the top of their craft here".

John Miner, of the London Free Press wrote about the reaction to the movie by Dudley George’s brother Sam, "It is going to make my brother a real person".

Sheryl Ubelacker of the Canadian Press wrote, ". . .One Dead Indian doesn’t pull any punches". She called One Dead Indian, ". . . a timely tale of Ipperwash".

Timely, for sure!

Next week the real life Ipperwash Inquiry resumes hearing testimony in Forest, Ontario.

Former top politicians are scheduled to testify including Mike Harris who was premier.

- - - - - - -

The movie One Dead Indian is based on the book by Peter Edwards . . .
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=600

Read more about the death of Dudley George and the Ipperwash Inquiry
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?t=1109

*York University Film Student’s Thesis Project Paves Way to Role in CTV’s One Dead Indian
Toronto, December 21, 2005: York University film student and actress Pamela Matthews joins a star-studded cast in CTV’s One Dead Indian which premieres Wednesday, January 4, 2006 at 8:00 p.m.
Directed by Tim Southam, the film is based on the book of the same title by investigative journalist Peter Edwards. It tells the story of the 1995 skirmish between riot police and aboriginal protesters who had taken over Ipperwash Provincial Park, in which activist Dudley George was shot. Matthews plays the part of George’s sister, Carolyn, in the movie.

A Cree native of the Sachigo Lake First Nation Clan, she has been extensively involved in the Dudley George case from the outset. She has also been a professional actress for ten years, portraying Suzie Muskrat in the television series North of 60, which earned her a Gemini Award nomination.

Matthews’ academic work at York has contributed to her screen persona. She is currently completing her MFA degree in the Graduate Program in Film at York. Her thesis project, titled A Shot in the Dark, is a filmmaker’s journey through Ipperwash and the death of Dudley George.

“I have a long history with the Dudley George case,” said Matthews. “I spent many childhood summers camping at CFB Ipperwash, where my father was the resident doctor for the cadets-in-training. At that time, I had no idea that it was Indian land. We just camped there because it was so beautiful.”

In 1995, Matthews and a friend took a nostalgic drive to Ipperwash Park during the Labour Day long weekend. Although she was aware of the ongoing land dispute, she didn’t know the details.

“When we arrived at Ipperwash, the barricades were up,” recalled Matthews. “At first, I was scared to cross them. Then we decided to walk down the beach, where we spotted a group of guys at a picnic table. One of them was Dudley George. We stopped and spoke with him at length. Two days later, he was shot.”

Soon after the shooting, Matthews was hired by the George legal team to assist on the case. In between acting gigs, she did clerical work and conducted interviews for the lawyers, gaining valuable insight into her thesis project. She was in the courtroom the day Ontario Provincial Police officer Kenneth Deane was found guilty of killing Dudley George.

Drawing on these experiences and her own research, Matthews is writing, producing and directing A Shot in the Dark. The production is a work-in-progress, as the inquiry into the death of Dudley George is ongoing. Matthews’ relentless search for answers has taken her from the shores of Ipperwash Park to the halls of Queen’s Park, and this is reflected in the film footage.

“A Shot in the Dark is more than just a documentary about Dudley George, who was the first person killed in a land claims dispute in the 20th century,” said Matthews. “Clearly, indigenous culture is not understood and I am tired of this. I want A Shot in the Dark to build understanding.”

Matthews is a director, playwright, actor and filmmaker. In 2002, her film Only the Devil Speaks Cree won Best Live Short at the American Indian Film Festival in San Francisco, and the audience award for Best Short Film at the Native American Film and Television Alliance Film Festival in Los Angeles.

Matthews’ plays include the one-woman comedy The Virgin Sister Brigette Regina Virginia Frigid Explain It All for You, which she performed at the 2000 Riddu Riddu Festival in Norway. She served as director of the 10th annual Festival of New Native Plays and Playwrights, and has also worked as a programmer for the Reel World Film Festival. Her television acting credits include The Rez and North of 60. She won the 1996 James Buller Award for Female Performer of the Year for her role in North of 60.

[Chiefs of Ontario Forum]

Chiefs of Ontario to present forum on Aboriginal issues to Ipperwash Inquiry on March 8 and 9, 2006

The Chiefs of Ontario, a coordinating body for 134 First Nation communities in the province, will present a two-day forum to the Ipperwash Inquiry on March 8 and 9 dealing with issues that include land
claims policy, the criminal justice system, aboriginal occupations and
relations between aboriginals and the police.

The Inquiry is examining the events surrounding the death of Dudley
George, who was shot in 1995 during a protest by First Nations at Ipperwash Provincial Park. The Inquiry is also to make recommendations that would avoid violence in similar circumstances.

The Chiefs of Ontario forum is one of many events dealing with topics
relevant to the second part of its mandate.

Details are available on the Inquiry's website:
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... index.html

The Chiefs of Ontario event will be held at Kimball Hall in Forest, the
site of the evidentiary hearings. The session on March 8 will run from 9 a.m. to about 4:45 p.m. and on March 9 from 9 a.m. to about 3:45 p.m.

The purpose of the forum is for the Chiefs of Ontario to identify systemic issues affecting First Nations and government relations, and to make recommendations to address these issues.

The forum will include panel discussions. Some of the panelists are:

- Ontario Regional Chief Angus Toulouse

- Deputy Grand Council Chief Nelson Toulouse, Union of Ontario Indians

- Grand Chief Denise Stonefish, Association of Iroquois & Allied Indians

- Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, Nishnawbe Aski Nation

- Grand Chief Arnold Gardner, Grand Council Treaty No. 3

- Chief Dr. Dean Jacobs, Bkejwanong Territory (Walpole Island)

- Chief William Phillips, Mohawks of Akwesasne

- Grand Chief Stan J. Louttit, Mushkegowuk Tribal Council

- Chief Dave General, Six Nations of the Grand River

- Chief Isadore Day, Serpent River First Nation

- Ron George, Aboriginal Liaison Officer, OPP


This event is the second of two special presentations to the Inquiry on
issues relevant to the Inquiry's policy and research mandate. The first
presentation was by the Ontario Provincial Police on January 26 and 27, 2006.

The event is open to all parties with standing at the Inquiry, to interested organizations, members of the community in and around Forest, and to the general public.

The event will be webcast live at: www.ipperwashinquiry.ca


The event is open to the media. The electronic pool feed will be available.


Information about the Inquiry is available at: www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

For further information: Noelle Spotton, Policy Counsel, Ipperwash
Inquiry, (416) 314-9472; for media arrangements: Peter Rehak, (416) 314-9355

[T-Shirt Revealed - Probe]

Police probe promised after new t-shirt revealed at inquiry . . .

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

May 12, 2006

The Ipperwash Inquiry was established in November 2003. It began hearing evidence in July 2004. Almost two years later, only now has it been revealed that a second racially-motivated t-shirt was circulating within the Ontario Provincial Police.

At the inquiry this week, the legal counsel for the OPP apologized to First Nations and explained the Commissioner called for an immediate investigation.

This t-shirt, created as a souvenir from the 1995 Ipperwash clash between police and Natives, during which Dudley George was shot to death, depicts a picture of a stylized pointed hammer with wings on either side. The hammer is on top of what appears to be a grey anvil. The grey anvil has on it the words E-R-T, in colours and between the point of the hammer and the anvil is a broken arrow. The E-R-T is an obvious reference to the O.P.P.'s Emergency Response Team.

After describing the t-shirt Derry Millar, the counsel for the Commission of Inquiry stated, "I realize that the existence of the T-shirt is not a matter that has been known to the public or any member of the public in the eleven years since the T-shirt was created. Although some members of the public may know of its existence from the creation of the T-shirt and the wearing of it if, in fact, it has been worn in public. I understand . . . that the T-shirt has not been the subject of a public complaint. I also appreciate the disclosure of the T-shirt may create tension between members of the OPP and members of First Nations and others. However, the road to healing and reconciliation will not be built if obstacles to that goal of healing and reconciliation are not excavated and the conduct of individuals not examined in the light of day. It is in the nature of a public inquiry and the investigation that it involves to bring to light matters that have been previously confidential. It is one of the goals of a public inquiry that the examination of the actions of individuals will lead to better understanding and learning so the conduct will not reoccur".

Speaking on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police, lawyer Andrea Tuck-Johnson told the inquiry, "An important lesson learned at this Inquiry is that when an apology is appropriate, it must be made immediately. Accordingly, Commissioner Boniface has advised me to apologise at this time to the First Nations community and to the George family for what has come to light. Furthermore, she has directed that an investigation into this matter be commenced immediately by the Professional Standards Branch of the OPP. I have been further advised that steps are being taken to commence that investigation this morning. In addition, I have been asked to convey that the OPP is shocked and appalled by the existence of these items and that it is unfortunate that they were not captured in the original investigation".

O.P.P. Commissioner Boniface is scheduled to testify before the Inquiry in the upcoming weeks. Tuck-Johnson said she anticipates that she will make a more formal apology at that time.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Star reported that Dudley's brother Sam told Mr. Justice Sidney Linden, commissioner of the Ipperwash inquiry, that he finds the T-shirt offensive to First Nations people. "With the arrow broken, I told the commissioner it looks like they tried to break the spirit of the First Nations people . . . It upset me . . . After 11 years, and two years of a public inquiry, all of a sudden there's a new T-shirt. How does that happen?"

- - - - - - -

IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY
at: Forest Community Centre Kimball Hall Forest, Ontario

May 11th, 2006

Derry Millar, Commission Counsel

Good morning, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning.

MR. DERRY MILLAR: Before we begin there are two (2) things. I'm going to raise an issue first thing this morning . . . And so after we're done this we'll take a short break and start at 9:30.

Commissioner, I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the parties some information that Ms. Vella and I learned at the end of the day yesterday.

On April 21st after the examination of Sergeant Rob Graham who advised us that he had a T-shirt which he disposed of in January of this year I asked Mr. Roland to canvass his clients to determine whether any of his clients had a T-shirt. In making my request I had in mind the T-shirt, a photograph of which has been marked as Exhibit P-458.

Mr. Roland did canvass his clients, some of whom disclosed to him that some did have T-shirts or had T-shirts but not the T-shirt in Exhibit P-458. Mr. Roland disclosed the existence of the T-shirt to us last night and provided us with an opportunity to examine the T-shirt and its logo.

We are presently having photographs taken of the T-shirt and the logo which will -- we will distribute electronically to the parties later today.

We wish to acknowledge Mr. Roland and his team for their integrity and professionalism in carrying out their duties and responsibilities in bringing to our attention the T-shirt. We also wish to acknowledge the actions of Mr. Roland's clients, members of the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Ontario Provincial Police Association who when asked by Mr. Roland disclosed the existence of the T-shirt.

The T-shirt is black. The logo on the T-shirt does not have an OPP crest. The logo is in colours and has on it the words at the top, "Project Maple '95". There is a picture of a stylized -- what appears to be a pointed hammer with wings on either side. The object which I have described as a hammer is -- is on top of what appears to be a grey anvil. The grey anvil has on it the words "E-R-T", in colours and between the point of what I have describe as a hammer and the anvil is a broken arrow.

I realize that the existence of the T-shirt is not a matter that has been known to the public or any member of the public in the eleven (11) years since the T-shirt was created. Although some members of the public may know of its existence from the creation of the T-shirt and the wearing of it if, in fact, it has been worn in public. I understand from Mr. Roland that the T-shirt has not been the subject of a public complaint.

I also appreciate the disclosure of the T-shirt may create tension between members of the OPP and members of First Nations and others. However, the road to healing and reconciliation will not be built if obstacles to that goal of healing and reconciliation are not excavated and the conduct of individuals not examined in the light of day.

It is in the nature of a public inquiry and the investigation that it involves to bring to light matters that have been previously confidential. It is one (1) of the goals of a public inquiry that the examination of the actions of individuals will lead to better understanding and learning so the conduct will not reoccur. Thank you very much and I think Ms. Tuck-Jackson has something to add.

MR. DERRY MILLAR: The -- when looking at the depiction of what I've described as a stylised handwriting, one could abstract from the symbols a -- the letters "T-R-U". If that -- that's just from looking at it and we don't know that yet, but if -- if that was the intent, but it does appear that way.

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms.Tuck-Jackson...?

MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good morning, sir.

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning.

MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: I do wish to put a number of remarks on the record, if I may. First of all, I wish to indicate, sir, that this matter first came to our attention on Tuesday of this week. Neither Mr. Sandler nor myself nor Commissioner Boniface was aware of it beforehand. An important lesson learned at this Inquiry is that when an apology is appropriate, it must be made immediately.

Accordingly, Commissioner Boniface has advised me to apologise at this time to the First Nations community and to the George family for what has come to light. Furthermore, she has directed that an investigation into this matter be commenced immediately by the Professional Standards Branch of the OPP. I have been further advised that steps are being taken to commence that investigation this morning. In addition, I have been asked to convey that the OPP is shocked and appalled by the existence of these items and that it is unfortunate that they were not captured in the original investigation.

As you know, Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Boniface is scheduled to testify before this Inquiry in the upcoming weeks and I anticipate, sir, that she will make a more formal apology at that time. Thank you very much, sir.

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very much, Ms. Tuck-Jackson.

MR. DERRY MILLAR: So perhaps if we could just have a short recess until 9:30?

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right We'll take a short recess and we'll reconvene at 9:30.


--- Upon resuming at 9:40 a.m.
COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. Tuck-Jackson...?

MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, good morning again, sir. There is one (1) further point that I ought to have clarified in my earlier remarks. I indicated, sir, that I was conveying apologies on behalf of Commissioner Boniface and what I failed to make clear, sir, that at the present time Commissioner Boniface is overseas and wasn't in a position to be able to attend personally today to convey that apology herself.

COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you

(later on . . .
COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to commend my counsel for acting appropriately the instant they learned of this. They brought it forward and brought it to my attention first thing this morning and produced it here. And I think the statements made this morning are very appropriate, both by Commission counsel and by Ms. Tuck-Jackson.

And I think we'll handle this matter in an appropriate way in due course. I think that's exactly what a public inquiry does and should do. Bring out everything that's relevant and that's what we've tried to do from the beginning and we'll continue to try to do that.

[Police and FN Protests]

Policing and Aboriginal Occupations and Protests . . .
May 23, 2006

The Ipperwash Inquiry commissioned various research reports to help shed light on key issues, such as policing and First Nations.

The following research report submitted to the inquiry this month is very informative, when you consider the recent events involving the Six Nations land rights protest at Caledonia.

The report included the following premise, among others. . .

Accepting that Occupations and Protests in themselves are basic in democracy and a way for a small decentralized population to bring attention to their rights and concerns, especially in First Nation communities where there has been a long history of oppression, and where many issues remaind outstanding (eg, treaties and other issues).

Check out the Best Practices section for background on previous First Nations protests across Canada . . . ( a .pdf file )
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... y_2006.pdf

- - - - - - -

Aboriginal Peoples, Policing and the Criminal Justice System
Research Papers Commissioned by the Inquiry

Other Research of interest from the Ipperwash Inquiry . . .

NOTE: The links are to files that are .pdf format requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader to view ( or more easily if you own a MAC and have Preview )

"The Collection and Use of Intelligence in Policing Public Order Events" by Wayne Wawryk
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... Wawryk.pdf


"Trespass and Expressive Rights" by W. Wesley Pue
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... df/Pue.pdf


"Public Order Policing in Canada: An Analysis of Operations in Recent High Stakes Events" by Willem de Lint
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... deLint.pdf


"Challenge, Choice and Change: A Report on Evidence-Based Practice in the Provision of Policing Services to Aboriginal Peoples" by Human Sector Resources
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... Report.pdf


"Aboriginal Peoples and the Criminal Justice System" by Jonathan Rudin
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... /Rudin.pdf

"Warrior Societies in Contemporary Indigenous Communities" by Taiaiake Alfred and Lana Lowe
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... d_Lowe.pdf


"Crown and Aboriginal Occupations of Land: A History & Comparison" by John Borrows
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_p ... orrows.pdf

[The Land Must Be Returned]

Closing Submissions Began August 21, 2006 at the Ipperwash Inquiry.

- - - - - - -

The following Conclusions and Recommendations are excerpted from the official submission made to the Commission of Inquiry.
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/closing_ ... ssions.pdf

The Estate of Dudley George and George Family Members ask the Commissioner to include the following points in his findings of fact and conclusions from the evidence.

Historical and land-related issues

1. In 1764, the British and the Anishnaabeg nations of the Great Lakes region entered into a treaty at Niagara. In that treaty, the Anishnaabeg agreed to enter into a peaceful alliance with the British, which was vital to the British being able to protect their interests in the colonies. In return, the British promised that they would never take the Anishnaabeg peoples’ lands and would always provide them with the necessaries of life when called upon, and that the Anishnaabeg peoples would never sink into poverty.

2. The British entered into a Treaty with Anishnaabeg peoples on Lake Huron in 1827. In that treaty, the Anishnaabeg agreed to share 99.2% of their lands with the white settlers, and reserved 0.8% of their lands for their own exclusive use and possession in perpetuity. The British agreed, as a condition of the Treaty, that the reserve lands were reserved to the Anishnaabeg peoples in perpetuity.

3. The lands reserved in the Treaty of 1827 included the lands that became known as the Stony Point reserve or I.R. #43. Those lands included lands that were subsequently taken from the First Nation and became used as an army camp, Ipperwash Provincial Park, Matheson Dr., and a sandy beach access road adjacent to the Park.

4. In 1928, there was a purported surrender of 377 acres of the Stony Point Reserve. The surrender was initiated by a private individual (William J. Scott), and not by the First Nation. The surrender was not in the best interests of the First Nation, but was for the financial benefit of W.J. Scott. The surrender was unfair and morally repugnant. The Crown assisted the unfair taking of the Stony Point treaty land because it was consistent with the government’s anti-Indian assimilation policy.

5. Although the Inquiry declined to look into the issue in detail, there is some evidence that there was corruption and conflicts of interest by the powerful Indian Agent, which may have had some role in procuring the surrender of these lands contrary to the best interests of the First Nation.

6. In 1942, the rest of the Stony Point Reserve was appropriated from the First Nation against the wishes and the best interests of the First Nation. The taking of unceded reserve land by the Crown was neither valid nor fair. The ongoing failure of the Crown to return the treaty reserve land to the First Nation after the war was reprehensible and indefensible.

7. Dudley would not have died if the Ipperwash Park lands had never been taken from the First Nation.

8. The takings of the Stony Point reserve land in 1928 and 1942 displaced a whole community and caused great disruption, severe social and economic problems, and friction between the people from the Stony Point reserve and Kettle Point reserve. That friction continues to exist today and will never be resolved until the Stony Point lands are returned.

9. There is an old aboriginal burial ground in the lands that were used as Ipperwash Provincial Park, or at least there was at the time that the Park was created in 1937.

10. Agents of the Crown were aware of evidence about the existence of a burial ground in the Park in 1937, 1942, 1950, and 1975, but on none of those occasions were any steps taken to preserve and protect the burial ground, and on none of those occasions since 1937 were the affected First Nations notified of the burial findings in the Park or evidence thereof.

11. Because of the failure to preserve and protect the burial ground after the Crown took possession of the Park lands, the present location of the burial grounds cannot be ascertained without invasive steps which will cause further indignities to the bodies of the dead, and therefore the whole land must be considered sacred.

12. Dudley George and the other people who occupied Ipperwash Provincial Park on September 4, 1995 did so because they genuinely and fervently believed that it was their land, which was stolen from them, and that there were sacred burial sites in the Park.

13. For healing to occur, the lands must be returned. Healing will never occur if any of the Stony Point lands remain in the hands of the government. If Ontario is committed to healing, it will return the Ipperwash Park Lands to First Nations ownership – not because of any legal obligation it may have, but because it is the fair, just, and decent thing to do.

Political involvement

14. The Premier and the Premier’s office saw the occupation of Ipperwash Park as a test for the government and a chance to demonstrate to the public how the new government would handle such issues in the future, with a get-tough law-and- order agenda.

15. The Premier and the Premier’s office favoured a policy of treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same both in the Ipperwash situation and in general. The policy of treating aboriginals the same as non-aboriginals is inherently unjust and racist, particularly in the context of a native occupation of land. It is never appropriate to treat native occupations or blockades as simple trespass or criminal issues.

16. The Premier and the Premier’s office wanted the occupiers out of the Park on an urgent basis – specifically, within 24 hours, or at most within two days, after the September 6 meetings.

17. The Premier and Deb Hutton knew that the only way to achieve the objective of removal within 24 or 48 hours was to use physical force (unless the occupiers voluntarily left the Park, which nobody reasonably expected would occur).

18. During the course of September 4 to 6, 1995, there were no circumstances on the ground at Ipperwash Park which warranted that the situation be dealt with on an urgent or emergency basis.

19. At the Interministerial Committee meetings on September 5 and 6, Deb Hutton was speaking on behalf of the Premier with the Premier’s authority. Ms. Hutton made it clear to the civil servants who attended the IMC meetings that the Premier was hawkish and that he wanted the occupiers out of the Park urgently. Deb Hutton’s comments dramatically changed the tone of the meeting and the focus of the discussions at the meeting. Her comments limited the options considered, and steered the civil servants toward the goal of ending the occupation as soon as possible.

20. The Premier and Deb Hutton fundamentally disagreed with the advice they were getting from civil servants on Sept 6, that the best case scenario was a court date for an injunction on Friday (with enforcement to follow an indefinite time thereafter). The Premier and Deb Hutton wanted the Indians out of the Park by Thursday or Friday.

21. The Premier and Deb Hutton fundamentally disagreed with the approach advocated by Ron Fox, which was to take time to find out more about the issues and work out solutions in a peaceful and sensitive way. Deb Hutton saw Ron Fox as an obstacle to her getting her way, especially because he spoke with some authority as a senior police officer.

22. Deb Hutton knew that Ron Fox was a police officer and had a liaison function with the OPP on the ground at Ipperwash based on having attended the Interministerial Meetings of September 5 and 6.

23. After the September 6 IMC meeting in which Deb Hutton did not get her way despite her assertiveness at the meeting, she and the Premier called a meeting of relevant cabinet ministers, their executive assistants, and deputy ministers for the afternoon of September 6 in the Premier’s Dining Room. This meeting was convened because the Premier was adamant that steps be taken immediately to end the occupation, and he did not believe enough was being done to achieve that objective.

24. Deb Hutton required Ron Fox’s attendance at the Premier’s Dining Room meeting, so that he would hear from the Premier himself how things would operate, and so that the Premier’s instructions could be communicated to the OPP.

25. The Premier knew that Ron Fox was a police officer and was liaising with the police on the ground, and he wanted Ron Fox to hear how things would work. The Premier knew and expected that his intentions, as communicated at that meeting and heard by Ron Fox, would be passed onto the operational police officers at Ipperwash.

26. The decision to get an ex parte injunction (as opposed to a regular injunction on short notice, which the civil servants had recommended as the most appropriate means of achieving the Premier’s objective of quick removal of the occupiers) was made by the Premier. The decision was contrary to the advice of civil servants, and was not based on any recommendation made by anyone at that meeting or before the meeting. The Premier’s decision did not reflect a consensus of those present at the meeting, but was dictated instead solely by the Premier. The Premier’s decision was a reflection of his hawkish desire to get the “fucking
Indians out of the Park” within 24 or 48 hours.

27. The Premier’s desire to move quickly to get the occupiers out of the Park (including the decision to get an injunction on an ex parte basis) dramatically escalated the urgency of the situation and created an emergency mindset inside and outside the government. This compressed the time for conducting necessary research and looking for options to end the dispute peacefully. As a result, necessary research (e.g. regarding the burial ground and the surrender of land) was not performed, and options such as appointing a fact finder or negotiator were either not presented or rejected on the basis that they would take too much time and would be contrary to the government’s desire to not be seen to be working with Indians.

28. The Premier was hawkish about the Ipperwash occupation. His priority was never that there be a peaceful solution to the occupation (which might take some time). His priority was that the occupation be terminated quickly, no matter what.

29. Given the passage of time, witnesses have inconsistent recollections of what transpired at the meeting in the Premier’s Dining Room on September 6, 1995. No notes were taken at that meeting. The most contemporaneous and only detailed recording of what transpired at that meeting is the tape recording of Ron Fox’s call to John Carson and Chris Coles, and that must be taken to be the most reliable, accurate, and detailed version of what transpired during the time that Ron Fox was present at that meeting.

30. The full truth of what Mike Harris’s involvement was in Ipperwash will never be known, because he and Deb Hutton (and some other witnesses) were obviously not completely truthful and forthcoming about the roles that they played.

31. Mike Harris knows that his actions were inappropriate, as proven by his
consciousness of guilt, which is demonstrated by his deceiving of the Legislature for many years and his failure to call a public inquiry or any other independent investigation into the allegations of political interference.

Events on the ground

32. The Premier’s intentions and desires were communicated to the OPP on the ground at Ipperwash, including to John Carson, Mark Wright, and Stan Korosec. These officers and others were unequivocally aware of the political pressure emanating from Queen’s Park.

33. In particular, the OPP were aware that:
• The Premier was following the situation;
• The Premier wanted swift action to remove the occupiers from the Park; and
• The Harris government’s policy was to treat aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same, and that the Park occupiers should be treated like ordinary criminals or trespassers without treaty or aboriginal rights.

34. Mark Wright and Stan Korosec drew encouragement and inspiration from the Premier’s views. They were emboldened by the political messages they were receiving and the law-and-order political mindset of the government.

35. Like Harris, Wright and Korosec wanted to teach the occupiers a lesson. When Wright and Korosec heard Harris’s wishes, it was like taking the leash off a pair of dangerous pit bulls.

36. Mark Wright and Stan Korosec became aware on the afternoon of September 6 that the province was going to be seeking an emergency injunction the next day. However, they knew that there were not sufficient circumstances to call the situation an emergency. And so, having been unleashed by the political messages they were receiving, they set about to create a confrontation which could be labeled an emergency.

37. As of the afternoon of September 6, everything was calm and there was nothing happening at the Park that would have warranted any aggressive action by the police.

38. After meeting a number of angry local white cottagers who shared the same views as Mike Harris and wanted the occupation terminated immediately (views which Mark Wright was completely sympathetic to), Mark Wright drove to the Park looking for an excuse to send in the police to confront the occupiers that evening. He observed a small number of occupiers along the Park fence line, some of whom were holding sticks. This in itself was not enough to warrant any further action by the police. However, a few minutes later, Mark Wright learned that one of the occupiers had thrown a stone at a car, causing a minor dent.

39. That incident involved Stewart George throwing a rock at a car being driven by Gerald George after they had exchanged words, which caused a dent in the car. Gerald George was a band councilor who had been outspoken against the Stony Point occupiers.

40. This incident was wildly distorted as it was communicated up the chain, so that the Incident Commander came to understand the incident to involve a group of natives beating on a white lady’s car with bats and sticks as she was driving by the Park.

41. Wright exaggerated the nature of the stone-throwing incident and manipulated the information to achieve his desired objectives of manufacturing a confrontation with the occupiers, teaching them a lesson, and creating an emergency situation. The stone-throwing incident was merely the opportunity Wright and Korosec were hoping for in order to put their desires into action.

42. Wright and Korosec mobilized CMU shortly after 8:00 p.m. without authorization from the Incident Commander. The Incident Commander’s authorization only came after CMU was already mobilized.

43. The car-denting incident (or at least the distorted version of that incident), and the fear that that incident might indicate that the occupiers intended to expand the occupation beyond the Park lands, was the sole reason why the Incident Commander ultimately authorized the deployment of CMU and TRU on the evening of September 6, 1995.

44. None of the other factors cited by John Carson for the mobilization of the troops justified that use of force that night. Those factors included: the bonfire in the Park; vehicle movement in the Park and Army Camp; women and kids leaving and saying something is about to happen; blinds being pulled down in the kiosk; people holding bats in the sandy parking lot; fears that the cottagers might attack the occupiers; or that the occupiers might expand the occupation to the neighbouring cottages.

45. During the confrontation on the sandy parking lot, the police engaged Cecil Bernard George in combat and severely beat and injured him. The beating, and the desire to rescue him from further injury, is what motivated Nicholas Cottrelle and Warren George to drive the bus and the car, respectively out of the Park. A police officer opened fire on the bus, and other officers followed.

46. Ken Deane shot Dudley George in the chest. Dudley George was unarmed at the time, and the only thing he was holding was a stick. Ken Deane knew that Dudley George was unarmed when he shot him.

47. None of the occupiers had firearms with them on the night of September 6, 1995, or during the entire course of the occupation from September 4 to 6.

48. The CMU would not have marched down the road toward the occupiers if the OPP reasonably believed that the occupiers were armed.

49. There is no evidence that any occupiers had any firearms in the Park during the course of the occupation. There is one report of police hearing what they believe was automatic gunfire within the Army Camp lands on the night of September 5, 1995. However, that does not necessarily indicate that automatic weapons were discharged or were in the possession of the occupiers, as it may well have been something else that sounded like automatic gunfire (i.e. firecrackers).

Factors causing Dudley’s death

50. The following were the factors which combined to cause Dudley’s death:
• The taking of the Stony Point reserve lands in 1937 and 1942;
• The government’s failure to preserve and protect the burial ground in
Ipperwash Provincial Park;
• Decades of frustration caused by the Canadian government’s failure to return the Army Camp lands;
• Decades of frustration caused by the desecration of the burial ground in the Park;

• A deeply held understanding by the Stony Point people that the Ipperwash Park lands were their treaty reserve lands which had been wrongfully taken from them;
• The systematic failure of Canadian courts to deal with First Nations land
issues fairly;
• The Premier’s hawkish attitude on Ipperwash and his insistence that the
occupation be terminated within 24 or 48 hours, which created an emergency mindset and compressed the time available to research the issues or to attempt a peaceful resolution;
• The Harris government’s policy of treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same, including its refusal to recognize the application of aboriginal and treaty rights;
• The lack of cultural or historical awareness by the police or by the Premier, and in some cases, racism;
• Political messages filtering down from the Premier to the operational police officers, including:

o That the Premier wanted a swift end to the occupation; and
o That the Harris government’s policy was to treat aboriginals and non-
aboriginals the same in this situation;
• Pressure on the police from local citizens and politicians, who, like the
Premier, wanted swift affirmative action to terminate the occupation;
• Aggressive police officers (i.e. Wright and Korosec) who seized upon the
opportunity presented by the political situation to create a confrontation;
• A minor altercation between Stewart George and Gerald George which was blown out of proportion and used as justification to send in CMU and TRU;
• Bumbling police officers who made error upon error in collecting and
interpreting so-called intelligence and in making reckless decisions about how to deal with the issue;
• The police beating of Cecil Bernard George, which provoked the occupiers to drive out of the Park to rescue him, which was followed by police opening fire on the vehicles; and

• Ken Deane set the sights of his high-powered rifle on Dudley George and
pulled the trigger.

CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS

The Estate of Dudley George and George Family Members ask the Commissioner to make the following recommendations as part of the Inquiry’s mandate to prevent violence in similar circumstances.

Restoration of the Stony Point Reserve

1. The Province of Ontario should waive and renounce its ownership of, or any claim to, the Ipperwash Provincial Park lands.

2. Canada should immediately waive and renounce any claim it asserts to use or occupy the Camp Ipperwash lands, and should clean up, or pay the cost of fully cleaning up the lands of all contamination caused by its use of the lands since 1942.

3. The Municipality of Lambton Shores should waive and renounce its ownership of, or any claim to, Matheson Dr. and the sandy parking lot adjacent to Ipperwash Provincial Park.

4. Canada, Ontario, and the Municipality should agree not to assert any rights to land with respect to land that was the subject of the purported surrender in 1928.

5. The Ipperwash Provincial Park lands, Camp Ipperwash lands, and municipal lands should form a reconstituted Stony Point Reserve.

The taking of the Stony Point Reserve lands was wrong – both in 1928 and in 1942. Even if the takings technically met the legal requirements of Canada in place at the time, that does not make them any more fair or morally defensible. Residential schools which destroyed aboriginal culture and aboriginal families were also legal at one time, but that does not mean that it is now inappropriate to compensate their victims. It is impossible to
replace what residential schools took away. However, in the case of unjust and unfair land takings, it is possible to return the land, and that must be done.

Compensation may also be warranted for the loss of Treaty Reserve lands, but that alone will never be adequate. The people need the land itself. In the words of Tina George: “you can’t grow potatoes and corn on money. The land is priceless.”

The Anishnaabeg people should be able to prosper and thrive socially, economically, and culturally as an Anishnaabeg people on the land that they specifically reserved for themselves in perpetuity. In order to do that, and for the Anishnaabeg to prosper and thrive, they need an adequate land and resource base to make that possible. The economic development and survival of the Anishnaabeg people requires getting the Stony Point reserve back. They need the land for future generations.

Many people in the community know in their hearts that the 1928 surrender was not fair or valid – even some three or four generations after the surrender vote. They do not accept that the surrender was morally and politically legitimate or correct. They believe that it is one of the many wrongs done against their community. Their land is their life – for themselves and for their future generations. This is a truth that will pass down from generation to generation until justice is done and the land is returned to its rightful owners. If the treaty lands are not returned, it will always be an outstanding issue. Any outcome other than the return of the Treaty lands would neither be fair nor effective.

Returning the land is essential to healing the community. In the words of Sam George:

If you don’t go back and find the source that is making a person hurt, then
you can never heal it. Our people have been hurting since the lands had
been taken. I think ... the only way healing can possibly start amongst our
people is to have the lands returned to them. And that would be the whole
section. All the lands have to come back and I think at that time there may be a healing process that starts amongst the people. ... As long as that land is in other peoples’ names, that healing won’t take place and you
can’t heal that conflict. So it has to come back into the First Nations
people’s hands.

It is also appropriate to return the Park lands in particular to the people because they contain sacred burial grounds. Unfortunately, the Province has consistently failed to mark and preserve the burial grounds in the Park; therefore it cannot be known with certainty where those sites are, and the whole land thus must be considered sacred. It would be morally repugnant for Ontario to use those lands as a provincial park again in the future because of the burial grounds and because of what it represents as a place where deadly political violence was exerted against First Nations protestors. The only reasonable and honourable way forward is for Ontario to return the lands.

For healing to occur, the lands must be returned. Healing will never occur if any of the Stony Point lands remain in the hands of the government. If Ontario is committed to healing, it will return the Ipperwash Park Lands to native ownership – not because of any legal obligation it may have, but because it is the fair, just, and honourable thing to do.

Research and Public Education

6. As part of its public education mandate, the Inquiry (or alternately, the
Province of Ontario or the Government of Canada) should commission a study into the quantum of economic benefits that have accrued to the Crown and the non-native population as a result of land transactions between the Crown and First Nations. This should start with a study of the economic rents in relation to land dealings between the Crown and the Chippewas at Lake Huron

Among other things, this is important to counter the anti-Native sentiments that are held by many people, and even by governments sometimes. Many non-natives do not understand or appreciate the economic and other benefits that they have received as a result of treaties between their nation and First Nations, and what First Nations have lost – either because they agreed to give it up in treaties or because of breaches of those
treaties. A deeper public understanding of these issues will promote more harmonious relationships between natives and non-natives, and reduce the resistance that some may have to righting the wrongs done to native people in the past – even where that involves returning treaty lands.

In the course of the last two centuries or so, land transactions occurred involving over 2,000,000 (two million) acres of Chippewa traditional lands in the context of ongoing relations between the Chippewa people of southwestern Ontario and the Crown. In the course of these relations and transactions, over 99% of these lands were purportedly conveyed by the Chippewa people to the Crown. In return, the Chippewa people were
promised secure ownership, occupation and use of four reserves amounting to less that 1% of their traditional lands, in perpetuity.

Given the enormous value of the land and resources purportedly conveyed by the Chippewa to the Crown, these conveyances are hard to comprehend. Is it conceivable that the Chippewa freely conveyed their vast hunting grounds – and thus their means of economic survival – without seeking and receiving concrete assurances of future survival, a secure place to live and be, however small, and a future means of economic subsistence, assurances upon which they felt they could rely as a people?

The historic record contains useful information in this regard. The evidence called by the Commission at the Inquiry described how during the period in question, relationships between First Nations and the British Crown involving Wampum Belts, a Covenant Chain and treaties were solemnly entered into. It is recorded (for example in the Wampum Belts that constituted for the Indians the record of some of the agreements) that the Indians were assured, and then re-assured, of a perpetual and beneficial relationship with the British Crown in consideration of their cession of much of the Chippewas’ traditional lands. Among these promises were included assurances of assistance, including that the Indians would never sink into poverty.

In the contemporary era surrounding the shooting of Dudley George and the conflict concerning the Stony Point reserve and Ipperwash Provincial Park, local non-native economic interests have asserted concern about, and even strenuous opposition to, the possibility of the “loss” of the Provincial Park as a key economic asset in and to the Township. These concerns have been expressed by non-native economic interests including community associations, chambers of commerce, and local councils and tourist boards. The concerns involve, in main part, a sense that Ipperwash Park and / or Camp Ipperwash now rightfully “belong” to the broader Canadian polity, and that if they are left in the hands of, or restored to, the Indians in some way (or not “restored” to Canada / Ontario) there are significant and quantifiable losses that are being and will continue to be inflicted on local non-native and broader economies. In short, there is a perception that it would be an unfair economic loss to non-native interests to recognize the return of Ipperwash lands to native peoples.

For their part, involved First Nations individuals and entities have primarily articulated their concerns and aspirations relating to the Park and Camp Ipperwash in terms of ownership of and attachment to reserve lands originally guaranteed to them by Treaty, usually applying conceptions of land claims, restitution or compensation. However, most or all of the First Nations interests involved also consistently articulate economic development goals and imperatives. In short, there is a native perception that natives have been unfairly left behind in the area of economic development.

In the context of the overall circumstances of Dudley George’s killing by an agent of the Province of Ontario and the indication in the Commission’s terms of reference of the need to search for effective options for preventing future violence in issues concerning aboriginal lands, it is critically important that all parties involved are fully aware of the overall nature of the long-standing relationship between the Chippewa people and the Crown, a relationship exemplified in the Wampum Belts with their promises in perpetuity. However, this relationship is one that now appears to have left the Indians landless, dispossessed, and impoverished.

It is absolutely apparent that there have long been (and likely still are) extremely deep frustrations on the “Indian side of the river” with respect to the gross disparities and manifestly inequitable outcomes of the Chippewa-Crown relationship over the last 200 years or so. It is also clear that these frustrations are related to questions not only of destruction of burial grounds, police violence and state accountability, but also to overarching aspects of the economic, geo-political and other relationships between the Crown and the Indians concerned. These issues are important to the mandate of the Commission to seek the avoidance of violence in the future.

The proposed study would build on a foundation of the testimony of Prof. Johnston, and some of the aboriginal parties to this Inquiry, with respect to the nature and content of the overall legal, economic, constitutional and political relationship between the Chippewas and the Crown in south-western Ontario, the very relationship that culminated in the violence leading to the death of Dudley George. The essence of the proposed study is an economic analysis of the total economic rents that have accrued to the Crown (both in right of Canada and in right of Ontario) since and as a result of the land transactions involving 2,000,000 acres (almost the entirety) of Chippewa traditional lands.

The proposed study will aim to achieve a more complete overall understanding (using conventional, orthodox economic models) of the relative benefits that have accrued to Canada / Ontario on the one hand and to the Chippewa people on the other hand, as a result of the treaties, the Wampum Belt promises and the Covenant Chain dealings between them in south-western Ontario. In the case of the reserves concerned, the study may provide (should it be felt to be possible, appropriate and useful) a number of alternative scenarios of benefit, including actual scenarios and optimal economic development scenarios under a range of “what if” possibilities with respect to (at least) the Ipperwash reserve at Stony Point, distinguishing between the Camp Ipperwash and the Ipperwash Park economic rents. The optimal scenarios will be informed by reference to the formal expressions of the relationship made by the parties to it, in the Wampum Belts, Covenant Chain and the treaties. The study should further provide a full understanding of the economic rents that have accrued to Canada and Ontario respectively as a result of the takings of Camp Ipperwash and Ipperwash Park reserve lands in 1942 and 1928 respectively.

The public will gain invaluable information from this study concerning the foundations for, and the depth and legitimacy of, the grievances felt and the claims expressed by Dudley George and his fellow demonstrators on the one hand, and the frustrations and claims being expressed by non-native entities and interests on the other hand. All of this information will be based on the particular historical record of the land transactions
relationship between the Chippewa of southwestern Ontario and the Crown.

This economic information is surely now known to underlie and underpin, at least in part, land conflicts and other social conflicts between aboriginal peoples and the Crowns in right of Canada and Ontario in general, and in the Ipperwash context in particular. We see some of the same kinds of conflicts occurring today in Caledonia. Accordingly, the study methodology might be replicated for other parts of Canada as well.

The study should be undertaken by one or more economists with experience in the area of economic rents and appropriate economic modeling. If necessary and as required, they will be assisted by other qualified persons with experience in the area of aboriginal economic participation and articulations of aboriginal rights and claims.

Responding to Native occupations and blockades

7. Governments should understand that a blanket policy of treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same is not appropriate government policy, and it is racist and unconstitutional.

Not only is a policy of treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same wrong, but we have seen how such a policy can cause death.

8. When First Nations occupations or blockades occur, governments should
always emphasize an approach of peace, prudence and caution.

Ideally, governments will always be proactive in dealing with First Nations grievances in a timely and fair way, so that First Nations people will not feel compelled to resort to occupations or blockades. Until that happens, the reality is that occupations and blockades will continue to occur from time to time.

When First Nations people decide to engage in occupations or blockades, they do not do so frivolously but because of deep-seeded feelings about their lands and/or their rights as aboriginal people, and because they perceive (often, quite legitimately) that there are no other means to bring attention to their grievances. Occupations and blockades are a symptom of the failure of Canadian legal and political systems to deal with aboriginal
issues in a fair and respectful way. A First Nations occupation or blockade is always a “native issue” and is never just a simple trespass.

As stated by Ron Fox:
There are some very special areas that need to be addressed when dealing with First Nations people, particularly when it is of times their reasonable belief that they have certain rights and entitlements either enshrined in treaty, or at least articulated orally by their forefathers.... When we approach any of these situations, we can’t view it as overly simplistic. We have to identify that there are some unique complexities to it, try to break it down into its simplest integers, and then move forward. ...

One of the first steps governments must take in any occupation or blockade is to develop an understanding of the underlying issues. The only prudent long-term way to end an occupation or blockade is for governments to address the underlying issues, or at least to engage in a process with the aboriginal group towards addressing the underlying issues.

The government failed to do this in Ipperwash. It was aware of the claims that the land belonged to the Stony Pointers, but did nothing to understand the basis for those claims and respond to them on their merits. There was no advice or information given regarding the legality or fairness of the underlying surrender or whether it was fair and equitable. Similarly, there was no research into the basis for the claims about the burial ground. If
there was, and if the 1937 correspondence or other evidence about the burial ground in the Park had come forward prior to September 6, 1995, it might have, or at least should have, changed the course of events.

9. The use of force against First Nations occupations and blockades is never appropriate with respect to the underlying historical issues, and force should never be used to just “deal” with the dispute.

The reason for this recommendation is best explained in the words of Ovide Mercredi:

I never thought that I would see the use of force as a way of exacting political will of Canada, as they did in Oka. The incident in Oka left a permanent imprint in the psychology of our people that the State, namely Canada, will be quite prepared to use force to exact compliance in terms of their positions on matters that we don't agree on, right? So that is not a very positive message to convey to any Aboriginal children in the country, much less, the Elders or to the leaders. But, nonetheless, that's the message that’s there. So my concern when I saw what happened in Gustafson with the presence of the RCMP there, was unless steps were taken to say to Canada, This is wrong, you can't deal with us in this manner, that it might become a precedent, that other governments might do that. And so when the Ontario government did the same thing, then my
paranoia, like, we all get our moments, made me wonder if this is in fact
the strategy on the part of governments as a way of giving a signal to the
Indian people that, “You better behave yourself,” or, “You better conduct
yourselves in a certain way.” I mean, you can't help but come to that wondering because that's not part of the ideal that you have to begin with. And you know that these issues are real, that they're not made up by our people, they're not false, and we don't do it to be controversial. And when we assert our statements with respect to our positions, we're not trying to be militant, we're trying to be assertive about our position. So the use of force is totally inappropriate in dealing with political matters between us and Canada.

This recommendation refers to the use of force to deal with the issue in dispute, and would, of course, not preclude police from acting in the normal course to deal with criminal activity that may sometimes occur while these disputes are ongoing.

10. When First Nations occupations or blockades occur, there should be an onus on governments to ensure that the underlying issues are thoroughly researched. The results of such research should also be shared with the First Nations group. Preferably, such research would be undertaken by an independent researcher outside government, who is accountable to (and preferably jointly appointed by) both the government and the First Nations group, and who has full access to government and other archives and records and a mandate to learn the oral history connected with the issue in dispute.

In Ipperwash, the provincial and federal governments were in possession of documentation that supported the occupiers’ claim of a burial ground in the Park. The occupiers, and the First Nation of which they were members, never apparently had copies of those documents. It is often the case that the government will have relevant documents that the First Nation does not have.

Further, because of the compressed time frame that resulted from the government’s decision to proceed with an injunction on an ex parte basis in Ipperwash, there was not enough time (even if there was a willingness) to conduct such research. Important documents came out after the fact – documents that were stored in government archives all along and could have been found if somebody had looked. Many OPP and government witnesses told the Inquiry that it would have been useful or important to have this information before the tragic events of September 6, 1995, and that such information would have or may have factored into their decision making.

Legislative amendments

11. Amend the Cemeteries Act to better accommodate the concerns of First Nations people about the burial places of their ancestors
In particular, there is a need to recognize that archival evidence of burial grounds is to be dealt with in the same way as physical evidence.

12. Amend the Public Inquiries Act to provide that commissions of inquiry may admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible due to parliamentary privilege by adding section 11.1 after section 11 to read as follows:

11. Nothing is admissible in evidence at an inquiry that would be inadmissible in a court by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence.

11.1. Notwithstanding s. 11, a commission may admit at an inquiry evidence that would be inadmissible in a court by reason of parliamentary privilege under the law of evidence.

Often, public inquiries are intended to review issues regarding the actions of a government (e.g. Ipperwash, APEC, Federal Sponsorship). As a result, statements made by politicians in the Legislature may often be important, especially when inquiries are focused on politicians and they have been questioned on the issue.

Parliamentary privilege would continue to apply with respect to criminal and civil liability, but public inquiries are different than civil or criminal trials. Public inquiries cannot determine questions of civil or criminal liability. Rather, they are primarily truth-finding exercises. If public inquiries are not able to look at statements made in the Legislature, the very purpose which public inquiries are intended to serve is impaired.

Fortunately in this inquiry, parliamentary privilege was waived. However, the choice as to whether or not to waive parliamentary privilege should not be left to a person being investigated. This Inquiry has demonstrated the benefit of being able to rely upon statements made in the Legislature. Among other things, it has revealed that statements made by Charles Harnick and Mike Harris and others in the Legislature starkly contrast
with evidence that has been given in this Inquiry and that the public had been deceived about Harris’s role in Ipperwash.

The proposed amendment to the Public Inquiries Act would make politicians more accountable to the public and in the Legislature, as politicians would, hopefully, be less likely to mislead the public if they know that the truth might come out in a public inquiry after the fact.

13. The Province of Ontario should adopt legislation requiring all Members of Provincial Parliament to take an oath to tell the truth in the Legislature. Other jurisdictions in Canada should do likewise.

Currently there is no such oath, and there are no sanctions for lying in the Legislature. Charles Harnick was under no such oath when he lied to the Legislature to cover up Mike Harris’s wrongdoing. If he were, perhaps the public would have known the truth about Mike Harris’s involvement in Ipperwash and his anti-native stance years ago.

Unfortunately, implementation of such an oath would not be a failsafe (as demonstrated by the fact that Mike Harris and some other political witnesses lied under oath at the Inquiry), but it would be an improvement over the current situation. When confronted with the fact that he had lied to the Legislature, Charles Harnick stated that he was not under any oath to tell the truth in the House. He was under oath in the Inquiry, and he
told the truth about what the Premier said at the Dining Room meeting as a result. It is reassuring to know that at least some politicians honour their obligation to tell the truth when they are under oath.

Land claims process

14. An effective process for resolving land claims and disputes over aboriginal rights must begin with recognition of the historic relationships between First Nations and the Crown, including the treaty relationships whether written, oral, or documented by wampum belts or any other means.


15. An effective process for resolving land claims and disputes over aboriginal rights must be based around fairness to First Nations, which includes recognizing historic injustices done to First Nations by legislation such as the Indian Act, the policy of assimilation of Indians and obliteration of “Indianness,” the dominant roles of Indian Agents, and social and economic pressures.

This party agrees that the current land claims process is broken and needs to be drastically overhauled. However, this is a very complex issue and not one on which this party will be able to suggest comprehensive recommendations without a great deal of further consideration. But amongst whatever other reforms might be implemented, the above two recommendations are essential.

Correcting the public record

16. The OPP should formally withdraw and publicly apologize for its September 7, 1995 press releases.

17. The Government of Canada should formally retract and publicly apologize for the false position it took before the United Nations, i.e. First Nations people fired upon the police at Ipperwash.

The Inquiry has done its part to expose the truth and expose the lies. It is now incumbent on those who propagated or repeated the lies to do their part, to retract the positions they have taken, and to publicly apologize for the harm they caused.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED


August 1, 2006
Murray Klippenstein


Vilko Zbogar


Basil Alexander


Andrew Orkin

KLIPPENSTEINS
Barristers & Solicitors
160 John St., Suite 300
Toronto, ON M5V 2E5

Murray Klippenstein
Vilko Zbogar
Basil Alexander
Tel: (416) 598-0288
Fax: (416) 598-9520

- and -

ANDREW ORKIN
Barrister & Solicitor
103 Glenfern Ave.
Hamilton ON L8P 2Y9

Tel: (905) 522-7929
Fax: (905) 522-0884

Counsel for the Estate of Dudley George and Members of Dudley George’s Family




http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/closing_ ... index.html

[Denials and More Denials]

Almost eleven years since the killing of Dudley George at Ipperwash, there continues to be efforts to cover up the use of political violence against Dudley George and his people.

"Still attempting to cover-up the truth."

Lawyers for Dudley George's family say the people who were involved in the events leading up to the death of Dudley George still do not accept responsibility.

Ipperwash Inquiry, The following is gleaned from documents made available August 21, 2006

"In their submissions, they all deny mistakes were made or attempt to blame someone else for the tragedy, but never accept responsibility themselves."

"It is apparent from the submissions that some of the parties continue to try to hide the truth or deflect attention away from the truth through straw man arguments or by trying to redirect responsibility."
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/closing_ ... ssions.pdf

- - - - - - -

THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY
The Honourable Sidney B. Linden, Commissioner

REPLY SUBMISSIONS
on behalf of The Estate of Dudley George and Members of Dudley George’s Family

Klippensteins
Barristers & Solicitors
160 John St., Suite 300
Toronto ON M5V 2E5
Tel: (416) 598-0288
Fax: (416) 598-9520
Murray Klippenstein
Vilko Zbogar
Basil Alexander

Andrew Orkin
Barrister & Solicitor
103 Glenfern Ave.
Hamilton ON L8P 2Y9
Tel: (905) 522-7929
Fax: (905) 522-0884

1. WHAT’S THE POINT?

Q: What I'd like to know, sir, is looking back on the events of September 4th through September 6th, 1995 and your personal involvement in the Ipperwash matter, looking back on it today would you do anything different than what u did back then?

A: I don't believe so.

Testimony of Mike Harris, February 20, 2006, p. 10

An unarmed man was shot by the OPP during a land dispute. It should never have happened. Something went terribly wrong. Many things went terribly wrong.

This Inquiry has spent two years (and Sam George and his family have spent eleven years) trying to learn the truth of what happened and why. The point of it all has been to make sure that Dudley’s death will always remain unique in Canadian history. Nobody else needs to die at the hands of state forces in a dispute over aboriginal land. No other family needs to suffer the loss of a loved one in this way ever again.

Few, if any, of the parties who were involved in the events leading up to the death are completely blameless. To deny it is folly. But to deny it is exactly what Mike Harris, Deb Hutton, Chris Hodgson, Robert Runciman, Charles Harnick, Marcel Beaubien, the Province of Ontario, the OPP, and the OPPA have attempted to do. In their submissions, they all deny mistakes were made or attempt to blame someone else for the tragedy, but never accept responsibility themselves. The minor exception is that the OPP has admitted that its “intelligence” about the dented fender incident on September 6 was wrong and that it could have done better to prevent a “perception problem.”

The occupiers have not denied responsibility for their own actions. The occupiers occupied a closed Provincial Park. They did so knowing that they might be forcibly removed and arrested for their actions. They understood that their actions would have reactions, although being shot at by police was not one of the reactions they were counting on. Labeling the occupation as “illegal” doesn’t help. Painting the occupiers as lawless,
hard-drinking, gun-toting thugs does not help. Dismissing the true motivations for the occupation does not help. Blaming the First Nation community for being divided does not help.

In other words, it is our submission that significant portions of some of the
politician and police parties’ submissions are not particularly helpful or relevant to the point of this Inquiry.

Occupations happen. They are a fact of life in a country that has a shameful record of dishonouring treaty promises to First Nations and, as a result, has a great number of unresolved aboriginal grievances over their lands. When occupations and blockades do happen, there will be reactions. However, it cannot be expected that the use of physical violence – and especially guns – will deal with the underlying issue in dispute.

This is particularly the case in a situation such as Ipperwash, where the occupiers decided that there would not be guns in the Park and were intending to keep the protest peaceful (which it was, up until the siege of September 6, 1995, aside from a few isolated incidents involving just a few individuals).

At Ipperwash, massive physical force was deployed. Guns were fired at the occupiers of the Park. Everything did not go perfectly. An unarmed man was shot. A family, a community, and a nation suffered.

This is not to suggest that appropriate physical force should not be used to deal with criminal activity that may occur during the course of an occupation or blockade. For example, at Gustafsen Lake where First
Nations people did have guns and were using them, it may have been necessary to have a heightened kind of response. However, Ipperwash was not Gustafsen Lake.

Mistakes were made. We need to acknowledge them and learn from them. Denying those mistakes just paves the way for repeating those mistakes in the future. The fact that none of the government or police parties have admitted that mistakes were made (other than the OPP “intelligence” and “perception problem” mistakes) or have accepted any responsibility for those mistakes is troubling.

At least the OPP has, to its credit, begun to make changes aimed at increasing sensitivity towards aboriginal issues and preventing violence in land disputes (even though it has denied that it made any mistakes in Ipperwash that played a significant role in the deployment of massive force). This stands in stark contrast to the inaction by the federal and provincial governments and their representatives up until the calling of this Inquiry.

What is the point of this Inquiry? As set out in the Order in Council establishing the Inquiry, the point is avoiding violence arising from First Nations occupations or other protests. Firstly, such violence can be obviously prevented by avoiding the protest in the first place. Secondly, the point can be to prevent violence when such protests occur.

The first point – avoiding protests – has largely been addressed in our previous submission and in other parties’ submissions to this Inquiry, and is further addressed herein.

Preventing occupations and other aboriginal protests requires healing the
underlying causes of the problem. Governments must deal with First Nations respectfully on a Nation-to-Nation basis, honour Treaty promises, and return Treaty land where that is the right thing to do.

With respect to the second point, preventing violence in the future starts with taking responsibility for the mistakes that led to violence in the past. Dudley George’s death was the tragic exclamation point on a night of violent confrontation. The violent confrontation only occurred because decisions were made to treat the situation as an emergency and to deploy massive force against the occupiers. Those decisions were made because of mistakes made by the police and politicians involved in the situation.

Those decisions sent the police – not the occupiers – on an offensive that night. There must be some accountability on the part of those responsible for causing the offensive deployment, in order to prevent anything like it from happening again in an aboriginal dispute – accountability for both those causing the actual deployment and those creating the political conditions resulting in the deployment. We will be better off by coming to
terms with our mistakes and learning from them rather than denying them.

When the Commissioner considers the question “should anything have been done differently,” we hope his answer is different than the one given by Mr. Harris (cited on p.1, above) and by the other government and police parties. We think, based on all of the evidence, and based on the course of events that disastrous night, it must be.

There's always risk involved in leadership, okay? And Aboriginal leaders, sometimes when the facts and the information, the truth is there, they have to stay with that, even if it means reversing their previous role or
position on issues. It's not an easy thing to do but if the truth is facing you, you have to do it. I mean, you can't dismiss the truth, right. You have to side with it, even if it means taking some risk with your community. Testimony of Ovide Mercredi, April 1, 2005, p. 120


2. THE IPPERWASH PROTEST AND THE RULE OF LAW

Mike Harris attempts to emphasize in his final submissions to this Inquiry that the “overarching policy issue that arises from the Ipperwash tragedy” is the issue of restoring and maintaining the rule of law and civil order. Harris refers to “the obligation of government to maintain the rule of law and civil order in cases of direct action.” His submissions state: “the real question arising from Ipperwash is how government may restore order and maintain the rule of law and civil order where it is disregarded by
persons who have experienced historical injustice.”

The assumption and assertion is that it was Dudley George and his fellow protestors in Ipperwash Park who “disregarded” the rule of law. The estate and family of Dudley George submit that with a bigger picture look, the scene looks very different. It begins to look like it was the non-native governments who have been the real violators of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada carefully described some of the fundamental aspects of the concept of rule of law in its 1998 decision in the case of Reference re Secession of Quebec. The Supreme Court stated that “the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law lie at the root of our system of government.” The Court defined the core of the idea of the rule of law in stating that:

At its most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the citizens and
residents of the country a stable, predictable and ordered society in which
to conduct their affairs. It provides a shield for individuals from arbitrary
state action.

One of the recurring features of discussion of the rule of law in the context of native protests is that non-native parties often refer to the first concept in the Supreme Court’s definition of the rule of law, but leave out the second concept. It is easy to suggest that messy native protests violate the idea of a stable, predictable and ordered society – but one cannot ignore the idea that natives equally have the right to protection from, and
redress for, arbitrary state action. In other words, it is easy to say that natives should be quiet and follow “the rules”, while avoiding discussion of whether “the rules” – how they were made, how they are maintained – may be half (or all) of the problem. Does the rule of law protect natives from arbitrary state action? Or is a stable, predictable and ordered
society mainly for non-natives?

When Dudley George’s ancestors signed a written agreement with the Crown in 1827 which defined the Stony Point lands (part of which later became Ipperwash Park) as being theirs in perpetuity, the natives thought they had achieved a stable, predictable and ordered arrangement in which to conduct their affairs. Instead, the state used arbitrary action to deprive Dudley’s people of what the state had promised them (including the
lands at Stony Point). The state arbitrarily adopted an official policy of eradicating Indians (and their reserve lands) through assimilation despite the state’s own Treaty promise. Was that the rule of law? The state passed the Indian Act without any consent or even input from natives. Was that the rule of law? The state set up Indian Agents with
overwhelming coercive state power to control natives and shepherd them into selling off their lands and disappearing as a people, and the state maintained a system in which the Indian Agents themselves violated the laws by corruptly selling Treaty lands. Was that the rule of law?

Instead of a stable order based on the agreed-upon Treaty, Dudley’s ancestors discovered that the state forgot the Treaty, changed the rules and unilaterally imposed rules of its own creation, rules that would produce the result that the state wanted. The result was the loss of Treaty lands – in particular the Ipperwash Park lands through the 1928 “surrender”.

When Dudley protested, the natives at Kettle and Stony Point were told
(and are told still to this day) that they must obey those one-sided and arbitrarily imposed state rules, in the name of the rule of law.

The story of Dudley George and his fellow protestors, the Ipperwash Park lands, and the rule of law can be told as a parable – a hockey story.

In this hockey story, the native team shows up at the arena to play the non-native team under the agreed upon and accepted rules of the game (in this case, the Treaty). But in the dressing room, they are told that the rules have been changed, and that there are new rules for the hockey game – rules that were written by the non-native team.

The new rules, also known as the Indian Act, have been written entirely by the non-native team without any input from the natives. Worse, the non-native team is openly boasting that the new rules have been written to eliminate the native players from the hockey league, once and for all.

Under the new rules, the coaching staff for the native team, also known as Chief and Council, are, amazingly, required to follow the direction of the opposing team’s coach, also known as the Indian Agent. The new rules also specify that the native hockey players are not allowed the benefit of using hockey sticks on the ice (also know in this parable as lawyers).

The referee and linesmen for the game, also known as the judges, have all been chosen by the non-native team.

Behind the scenes, the coach for the non-native team (the Indian Agent, who has the power to direct the native team’s coaches) has a lot of friends (known as local land speculators) who have bet large sums of money on the game – with all the money riding on the non-natives of course (if the non-natives win, the speculators get the Treaty lands).

To top it off, the non-native coach, the Indian Agent, has himself got his own money riding on the non-natives.

Does the native team stand a chance under the new rules? No. In fact, that is the purpose of the new rules.

The native team protests about the new rules, but no one will listen. The native team can’t leave, because they have nowhere else to go. The native team tries to play. What else are they supposed to do, start a bench clearing brawl? That is not their way.

Not surprisingly, the score is soon ten to nothing for the non-native team. When the native team protests to the referee, he says he is just enforcing the rules. When the native team says that everyone had agreed that the game would be played under Treaty rules, the referee says he doesn’t know much about the Treaty rules, and anyway, the owners of the league have told him to use the new rules.

When the score reaches twenty to nothing for the non-natives, something snaps, and half of the native team sits down on the ice in frustrated protest.

Some people in the stands start shouting at the natives. They yell “play the game”, “follow the rules” and “rule of law”. They can see that the natives are not co-operating. Very few of the onlookers pause to think about where the rules came from. Almost none of them have heard of the Treaty rules that both teams had originally agreed to be bound by.

The arena security arrive to remove the protesting hockey players. However, the security personnel know nothing about the original Treaty rules, and, anyway, they say that’s not their problem. One of the native players is shot and killed.

Somebody says it is a tragedy, and says that the real problem is how to deal with hockey players who disregard the rules.

Everything in this hockey parable happened to the native people of Ipperwash.

The agreed-upon rules were ignored. Unilateral one-sided rules were imposed. The result was the “official” loss of native Treaty land in 1928, part of which eventually became Ipperwash Park.

Can the non-native governments say they are respecting the rule of law when they are ignoring the original, agreed-upon basic Treaty rules governing the Stony Point lands?

Can the province say it is respecting the rule of law so long as it keeps the Park? The estate and family of Dudley George say no.


3. BEWARE THE “STRAW MAN”

If you cannot refute an argument, set up a “straw man” instead. That is, create a position that is easier to challenge, and use that position as your target instead of the one that is truly important. This seems to be one of the main strategies adopted in the written submissions of the politician and police parties to this Inquiry. There is a substantial failure to recognize the factors that actually led to the use of violence, and a great deal of
argument on matters that had little or nothing to do with it. Beware the superficially impressive straw man. He is well represented within the arguments of the politician and police parties.

No direct orders to the police?

A straw man set up by Mike Harris appears front and center on the first page of his submissions – a selectively excerpted allegation included in the original George family Statement of Claim some twelve years ago asserting that Harris specifically “ordered the O.P.P. to utilize its Tactical Response Unit.” By selecting out and emphasizing that one specific claim out of many, and saying that the Inquiry uncovered no evidence of that
specific scenario, the suggestion is made that Harris is exonerated of all similar claims of pressuring, influencing or affecting the actions of police.

The final submissions of the Dudley George Estate and Family Group, as well as those of other parties, describe how the expressed views of Mike Harris probably affected police action in important ways, as they were intended to. Those points will not be repeated here, but it is submitted that “straw men” should not divert this Inquiry from the real causes.

The Police did not go into the park

Hutton points to the fact that the OPP never actually went into Ipperwash Provincial Park on September 6, 1995 as somehow being significant in showing there was not political influence. This is fallacious. Clearly, Harris wanted an end to the occupation, but more importantly, the message received loud and clear by the OPP was that the political people wanted the police to “kick ass.” “Kicking ass” did not necessarily mean removing the
protestors that particular night. Confronting the occupiers, hopefully making some arrests (ideally of some of the leaders), and having something to say to the Court next morning when asked what justified bringing an ex parte motion on an emergency basis, would qualify as “kicking ass.”

Government entitled to respond to the occupation

Harris and Hutton in their submissions try to put forward a false dichotomy – saying that the provincial government was entitled, and had some responsibility, to respond to the occupation, with the alternative apparently being to do nothing at all. That is not the issue. It is not controversial that governments are entitled to, and probably obliged to, take certain steps when occupations happen. The question is whether the government’s
response is a responsible one. Our submission is not that the Harris government was not entitled to respond to the occupation of Ipperwash Park – it is that the government responded in a reckless and unnecessarily belligerent way based on a policy approach (treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same) that is wrong.

No influence on OPP policy or Project Maple before Sept. 4

Harris and Hutton put much stock in John Carson’s evidence that no member of the government influenced what should be contained in the Project Maple plan. Similarly, Runciman argues that “the OPP policy surrounding occupations, as described by Commissioner O’Grady, was put in place several years before the election of the Harris government. Mr. Runciman had no input into this policy.”

This is another “straw man.” Nobody has ever alleged that the Premier or anybody on his behalf ever had input into the 1991 OPP policy or into any aspect of Project Maple, including its objective of negotiating a peaceful resolution. We take no issue with the 1991 OPP policy or with the Project Maple objective (of peaceful resolution), nor has anyone at this Inquiry suggested that either was subject to political interference. The problem is that the OPP policy and Project Maple crumbled under the weight of political pressure on the night of September 6, 1995.

Perhaps it is not accurate to label this argument a man of straw, since it actually demonstrates the difference between how things worked before political pressure was exerted (generally cautiously and prudently) and after (with chaos, violence and death).

Hutton just communicated the government’s policy

Hutton claims that, at the IMC meetings, her sole focus was communicating the government’s policy position. However, the problem is not that she communicated a position, but how she communicated and what she communicated. Bangs and Hunt provided the perspectives of their Ministers during the course of the IMC meetings, but they did it in an appropriate way. Hutton’s imperious and aggressive conduct, as a
representative of the Premier, stands in stark contrast. She effectively hijacked the meeting and caused it to change its focus from a cautious wait-and-see kind of approach to ending the occupation as soon as possible (“Premier wants them out in a day or two”), all of which was part of creating an emergency mindset within and outside the government.

Furthermore, the policy position asserted by Hutton was itself highly problematic. Treating aboriginals and non-aboriginals the same, not wanting to be seen to be working with First Nations at all, demanding an immediate end to the occupation despite the lack of urgency, etc., were part of this reckless and dangerous policy position. Governments are entitled to set policy, but it is not “anything goes.”

Harnick and Runciman did nothing

Charles Harnick and Robert Runciman set up a straw man by claiming that none of their actions led directly to the shooting of Dudley George. In fact, none of the parties allege in their submissions that this was their transgression. Their transgressions were their failure to do anything to stop the strong political pressure from engulfing the police operation and their covering up of the truth after the fact.

Harnick was “not involved in any debates or discussions regarding an ex parte versus a with notice injunction” either in the Premier’s Dining Room meeting or otherwise. Instead, the Premier made the ultimate decision, calling for an emergency injunction and instructing the Attorney General that he wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24 hours. He usurped the Attorney General’s role, and the Attorney General allowed this.

Runciman’s position on the morning of September 6 was that he wanted to go slow. However, when things heated up in the Premier’s Dining Room, he was silent.

Runciman “said either very little or nothing at the dining room meeting. Mr. Runciman was at the meeting as an observer and did not otherwise participate, but if a policing issue had arisen, and he had felt it was appropriate, he would have contributed to the discussion.” In other words, he apparently believed that nothing inappropriate happened at the meeting, even though he would have seen Ron Fox there, and even
though he heard police operational information, or “so-called intelligence,” being passed up (e.g. reports of AK47s and warriors coming), as he did nothing.

More important is the conduct of Harnick and Runciman in the cover-up which followed the death, which is discussed later in this Reply.

The occupiers were bad people

The OPPA’s smokescreen of choice is a slew of tenuous allegations designed to colour all of the occupiers as a bunch of lawless gun-toting alcoholic thugs. Most of these allegations stretch the boundaries of both truth and relevance, but in any event, even if those allegations were accepted at face value, it still does not explain or justify an OPP sniper shooting and killing one of them.

Ex post facto justification for the use of force

The OPP has manufactured an ex post facto attempt to explain its mobilization of massive force. They have built an elaborate multi-armed straw man, but it is still a straw man. The reason why this multi-armed ex post facto justification for mobilization is a sham is covered in our submissions and the submissions of other aboriginal parties in
some detail.

Everybody’s fault but mine

All of the government parties place blame for much of what happened leading up to the death of Dudley George on somebody else. In most cases, those arguments turn out to be a sham as well. This is addressed in the next chapter.

What all the straw men don’t do

All of the aboriginal parties agree that there was political pressure exerted upon the OPP, and that the source of the political pressure was the Premier’s Office. It is not controversial that John Carson and other operational police officers were aware of the existence of political pressure from all angles. The documentary record makes that clear. It is also more than plausible that the events of September 6 were influenced by that political pressure. The course of events makes that clear.

Deploying the riot police and sniper units to march upon the occupiers was the wrong decision. Failing to stop “the runaway train” anytime in the 21⁄2 hours after it had left the station was the wrong decision. These are decisions that were made in the overheated atmosphere of political pressure, which must have critically influenced thinking.

The Estate and Family of Dudley George have waited a long time for answers about why there was violence and death that night. After two years of hearings in this Inquiry, and after eleven years of looking for the truth behind the tragedy, none of the police and none of the politician and government witnesses have put forward any adequate explanation for the escalation of state force against the occupiers that night. Instead, they have deployed an army of straw men. All of the attempts at justification fall short. There is no legitimate justification available to be put forward. There is no way to make sense of the events of September 6 without accepting that a miasma of political pressure enveloped the police operation and created a crisis.

4. EVERYBODY’S FAULT BUT MINE

Deb Hutton, Marcel Beaubien, the Province of Ontario, Mike Harris, the OPP and the OPPA spend a great deal of their submissions blaming everybody except themselves. Sometimes holding others partly responsible, such as the federal government for its failure to return the Army Camp lands, is appropriate. Other times the blame is misplaced. In either case, this exercise of passing the buck needs to be seen for what it usually is – an attempt to deflect attention from a party’s own mistakes or wrongful
conduct.

To list a few examples, some of these flawed “passing the buck” arguments advanced in some of the parties’ submissions include:

• The federal government is responsible because of its failure to return the Army Camp;
• Previous provincial governments are responsible because they established the structure and policy for how to deal with occupations and blockades;
• The First Nation is responsible because there are divisions within the community;
• Chief Tom Bressette is responsible because the OPP and the government was only doing what he wanted;
• The occupiers are responsible because of their own conduct;
• Ron Fox is responsible because he passed on information from Queen’s Park to Forest; and
• The OPP is responsible because it was advocating for a quick injunction.


Blame Canada

Denying justice with respect to the Army Camp lands

The federal government rightly ought to be condemned for its unjust and unjustifiable failure to return the Army Camp lands to the First Nation. It also ought to be condemned for failing to participate as a party to this Inquiry to explain itself, despite several invitations from the Commission to do so. Ron Irwin, who was the federal Minister of Indian Affairs at the time of the shooting and for several years thereafter, publicly supported the George family’s call for a public inquiry (see Appendix A), but now the
federal government does not even show up.

Despite Canada’s failure to show up at the Inquiry, the Commissioner may, and indeed is obliged under the terms of reference, to make findings about the circumstances surrounding the death of Dudley George, regardless of who they implicate. The takings of Stony Point Reserve land in 1928 and again in 1942 are part of those circumstances.

We agree that the federal government is partly to blame for disregarding justice and fairness for many decades with respect to the Stony Point Reserve lands. What we disagree with is the suggestion by some of the parties that the federal government’s delinquency somehow relieves the provincial government and its representatives from any responsibility. As discussed in the next chapter, the inaction of the Federal Government on the Army Camp lands was not a main justification for the occupation of
the Park, and it serves no one’s purpose, except for a self-interested few, to pretend that it was.

Although the federal government did produce a number of documents and three witnesses to the Inquiry, it should have had much greater involvement given its responsibility for taking the Stony Point Reserve
lands.

Failure to follow up on the burial ground issue

Marcel Beaubien blames both Canada and the First Nation for the fact that nothing was done to fence off and protect the burial site in the Park. On the other hand, he defends the provincial Deputy Minister for his inaction on the basis that he “was not aware of the location of the alleged burial grounds.” This position is completely untenable.

Let us not forget that it was the Province’s engineer that came across the burial ground. As stated by the Indian Agent at the time: “When cleaning out this park recently the Engineer discovered an old Indian burial ground.” The Engineer was, certainly, working for the Province. Why Deputy Minister Cain did not simply asked the Engineer to go ahead and mark off the area, or find out from the Engineer where the burial site was
so that he could take appropriate steps to have it fenced off and preserved, is unknown.

Beaubien goes on to state that “the Federal Government’s inaction as early as 1937 in relation to the alleged burial ground may have contributed to the occupation of the Provincial Park in September 1995,” and that “it was incumbent upon the Federal Government to protect Natives by arranging, on their behalf, with the Province to locate, then fence and protect such a location.” This is unreasonable. The Province claimed to own the land, provincial employees knew the location of the site, and the Province should
have done something about it. There were many failures by the Federal Government in connection with the history of the Stony Point reserve (particularly its role in taking the shorefront lands and then taking the rest of the reserve and failing to return it). However, responsibility for failure to protect the burial ground falls squarely on the shoulders of the Province. The Province again and again failed to do anything when it was reminded over the years about the burial ground – in the 1940s, in 1950, in 1975, in 1993 or at any other time.


Blame the previous government

Harris and Hutton explain in some detail how the IMC structure had been set up prior to Mike Harris’s 1995 election, and that the policy of not “negotiating over barricades” was carried forward from previous administrations. Runciman also states: “most of the policies that were applied in reaction to the occupation of the Park were policies developed by or under other governments, led by different parties.”

This is another straw man. It is not those particular structures and policies that are impugned in the death of Dudley George. It is the fact that the IMC process was effectively hijacked by the Premier’s office, and ultimately overridden by a knee-jerk ad- hoc process, that being the Premier’s Dining Room meeting, where the actual decision was made to get an immediate injunction rather than one that would not be heard for at
least two days. How this meeting and other political pressure created an emergency mentality that filtered down to the police is covered in our previous brief.

The other point that Harris and Hutton do not mention is that the Harris government rejected the Statement of Political Relationships (SPR) set up under the previous government. The point is that while the Harris government may have adopted and adapted some of the policies and structures that suited its political position from previous administrations, it had a fundamentally different, and dangerous, approach to First Nations issues, rooted in its assimilationist philosophy of treating aboriginal people the same as everybody else. It misused the structures that it had inherited, and it dictated dangerous and reckless policy positions that clearly marked the Harris government apart from previous governments.

It is no accident that Dudley died after Harris took power and he implemented his policies, and not before. If the occupation had happened one year earlier under the NDP administration, it is impossible to imagine that there would have been the same kind of political pressure exerted or the same kind of result. Similarly today, it is hard to imagine that the OPP would engage in the same kind of offensive against the Caledonia occupiers as it did in Ipperwash, given that the policy position of the current government in respect of native issues is much more responsible than that of the Harris government.

Blame the First Nation and the Chief

Despite all of the ink that has been spilled detailing Chief Tom Bressette’s position regarding the occupiers and their claims, the fact is that the government and the police never did anything because of what Chief Bressette wanted. In particular, the Harris government did not want to be seen to be working with Indians at all. Chief Bressette is now used as an excuse for the province and the police acting as they did, but he was not
the reason.

Regardless of the views of a First Nations chief or any other individual in society, the government and the police have a duty to act responsibly, and they cannot avoid responsibility for their actions by stating that somebody supported or wanted them to take those actions.

Prior to the shooting, the police and MNR had obtained Chief Bressette’s understanding as to whether there was a burial ground in the Park. They put a lot of stock in his understanding that there was no burial ground in the Park, completely discounting the fact that he did not speak for all of the members of his community – particularly the group that had engaged in the action. As it turns out, Chief Bressette was wrong. In any event, the point may be moot since the Province’s position was that even if there was a burial ground, it did not affect title and apparently would not have changed how the government responded.

The Province of Ontario and Marcel Beaubien also attempt to blame the First Nation for failing to follow up with the Province about the burial ground issue between 1937 and 1995. This misplaces the burden of responsibility. The Province was the purported landowner. The Province had a fiduciary duty to protect the burial grounds. The Province, and not the First Nation, had the archival records and other evidence about the
burial ground. There may be many reasons why the First Nation did not apparently formally follow up on this issue, and we cannot presume today to know exactly what those reasons are, although the oppressive Indian Act structure in place at the time is likely an important part of the story. In any event, the Province does not have license to continue to do nothing to honour its fiduciary and moral obligations until enough complaints about its inaction are brought to its attention.

Several of the parties refer to the divisions within the community, referring to the Stony Point group as a “splinter” or “breakaway” group. It is true that there has been some friction between Chief Tom Bressette and the Stony Pointers. However, it is not helpful to exploit that for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for a party’s own actions or inactions. There is an important historical context underlying the internal friction, but there are conflicts within many First Nations in Canada, as there are within many
organizations, groups, societies, and countries. Many groups have dissidents, and the claims of the dissidents cannot be dismissed simply because they are dissidents. Nelson Mandela in South Africa was a dissident, as is Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma (Myanmar) today. Neither had “a democratic mandate” from their government. That does not mean
that their grievances, against apartheid in the former case, and against the anti-democratic military junta in Burma in the latter, were and are not legitimate. A “democratic mandate” is not a prerequisite to raising legitimate grievances.

Blame the occupiers

One of the claims made by Harris and others is that the occupiers “made no effort to communicate any message of protest. They showed no interest in communication with authorities or the public.” He and other parties further claim that the occupiers made no attempt to assert any substantial case to any relevant authority about the need for protection of a possible burial ground in the Park. On the other hand, however, Harris
says that “justice had for so long been disregarded by the Government of Canada that for the persons who took over the Park, government, regardless of jurisdiction, had entirely lost its moral authority.” There is certainly much truth to that latter statement, and it largely answers the point as to why the occupiers asserted their rights in the manner that
they did as opposed to engaging some formal process that they regard as illegitimate.

Much has been made about the occupiers apparently being non-communicative, and other aboriginal parties have commented on this issue. However, we wish to point out that OPP negotiation officer Seltzer noted that he simply did not have the time to do the negotiation job that they wanted to, and that they had actually been “so close.” We also note that Ron French seemed to have no problems communicating with the
occupiers, and the Command Post was aware that Ron French was going on to the old Army Base on the night of September 6. These examples are contrary to the idea that one should keep talking as much as one can, and they raise obvious questions about how serious the OPP was about “negotiating” and “communicating.”

The occupiers may not have appointed a spokesperson before Dudley was shot. With time, there would have been dialogue, but that dialogue was never given a chance to happen. Mike Harris caused an emergency mindset which precipitated swift action and which prevented any kind of dialogue from developing.

Blame Ron Fox

Hutton’s extensive efforts in her submissions to blame Ron Fox for his “lapse in judgment” in communicating with John Carson about what was happening at Queen’s Park are a smokescreen designed to cover up the inappropriate conduct of the Premier and herself. Ron Fox should not have been at the Premier’s Dining Room meeting in the first place. He did not have the rank in the civil service that would ordinarily justify him being at a meeting of this nature. His being summonsed to the meeting was quite
extraordinary, and was not done at the behest of his boss. It can only have been done at the behest of someone from the Premier’s Office. Ron Fox’s attendance at the Premier’s Dining Room meeting can only have been required so that he could be put in his place and told what the Premier wanted and what the reality would be (after Ron Fox had openly disagreed with Hutton at the IMC meeting just a short time earlier). He was summonsed to be told that the situation was to be treated as an emergency, and that the police would have to account for what they were doing (i.e., if their actions were not in accordance with the Premier’s wishes).

Ron Fox was expected to communicate with John Carson, especially with regard to such things as the injunction and obtaining information that the government needed to know about the situation on the ground. He did what he was supposed to do in terms of passing on the message about the emergency injunction and the context for that decision. If he had any lapse in judgment at al, it was in saying more than he needed to and saying it in an inelegant way, but the fundamental message to the OPP was already contained in the communication that the government wanted the matter to be treated as an emergency.


Blame the OPP

Both Harris and Hutton advanced in their submissions the argument that the OPP wanted MNR to get a quick injunction on September 5. We submit that this proposition is not substantiated when the greater context is considered.

In order to support this proposition, the parties rely on Carson’s testimony where he questioned MNR’s seriousness about the injunction. He heard there were two types of injunctions: a 24 hour emergency one or one that would take 2 to 4 weeks to get, so Carson challenges MNR as to what is going on. However, Carson’s reaction was very understandable when one considers that his expectation as of the September 1 OPP planning meeting was that “MNR is literally prepared to go into court at a minute’s notice.”

While this information was apparently wrong and/or misunderstood, Carson’s reaction was very understandable given this expectation and the news that it could be 2 to 4 weeks before the injunction would be in place. This reaction was also consistent for someone who was (at least at this time) apparently nai've about court injunctions and did not really appreciate the difference between the two injunctions.

There is also some reliance on a phone call between Carson and D/Chief Austin of the London Police Department at about 2:00 p.m. on September 5, 2006. It is necessary to examine this call in more detail and in the proper order. To provide some context, Carson was attempting to make arrangements for the LAV from London PD, and Carson and Austin were discussing logistical issues. Carson was simply doing some preplanning
for down the road, and Austin was concerned about how long the LAV may be in the Ipperwash area. Carson accordingly explained the time-frame in the context of potential injunctions as it had been explained to him:
Carson: Well, there is the emergency type one they can get within a day,
Austin: Okay
Carson: and if they’re not prepared to do that then I have to, you know, we have to really re-look at our whole situation here.
Austin: What you’re doing, yeah.
Carson: Yeah yeah yeah.

It is clear that at this time, which was prior to Carson speaking to Fox later in the day, Carson would adjust his operation depending on how MNR decided to proceed. He was alive to the fact that the emergency injunction may not be sought. Carson was not expressing a preference for a particular type of injunction. Rather, he was indicating his awareness that if the process was going to take longer, reality dictated that he would have
to re-examine what they were doing on the ground (particularly since MNR’s expected timelines had changed since the meeting a few days earlier).

In short, at this time the OPP was willing to adapt to whatever course of action MNR chose to take, and the OPP was not requesting a quick injunction. It is also important to remember that this was on the afternoon of the 5th, when Carson was just becoming acquainted with the “alligators” (i.e., political pressures). As detailed in our previous brief, his approach changed on September 6 when he agreed to buy into the emergency
mindset that the Premier had created.

Blame Dudley

The OPPA’s submissions are full of inflammatory characterizations of the occupiers, including Dudley. The Commission heard a lot of evidence about Dudley’s character, as well as some of the tragedies and troubles he had during his life, and these are dealt with in our previous brief.

Rather than responding to all of the specific vilifying and largely dubious allegations against Dudley, we will only refer to Sam George’s words, which capture the essence of the truth. I’ve looked at all the evidence that we’ve heard from Dudley, and about Dudley, and we looked at – we were aware that he would drink and so forth and I’ve never claimed in all my times that I’ve been seeking the truth as to what happened to him, that Dudley was an angel. But I can guarantee you one thing right now, that he
is now.


5. IT’S THE LAND – REASONS FOR THE OCCUPATION

Ignoring or trying to delegitimize the grievances about the Stony Point Reserve lands and the desecration of sacred burial grounds will not make them go away. It will simply increase the level of frustration of those who have experienced historical injustice.

Beaubien, Hutton, and Ontario go to great lengths to argue that the reasons asserted by the Stony Pointers as motivating the occupation of the Park were not the real reasons for the occupation, and that even if they were the real reasons, they were wrong to have a grievance. Harris also claims that the occupiers had neither a legal right nor a justifiable
moral claim for the occupation.

We are unclear about the point of those submissions, unless it is to somehow suggest that the emergency mindset and the use of force were justified because the reasons for the occupation were illegitimate.

Beaubien in particular alleges that the real reason, and the only reason, for the occupation was that the occupiers were trying to draw attention to their dispute with the federal government over the Army Camp lands. This implies that all of the occupiers who talked about reclaiming their land and their burial grounds as reasons for the occupation were either lying, just making it up, or unaware of why they did what they did.

In some cases, different First Nations witnesses had different understandings as to the specific location of burial sites and the specific basis for the claim to ownership. Obviously, the specific details had not been completely preserved over more than 50 years of oral history, but the core truths remained intact. The fact that there may be differences in understanding some of the details now does not detract from the core
truths: that the land was wrongfully taken and the burial grounds desecrated.

The unjustifiable failure of the federal government to return the Army Camp lands was certainly a source of frustration. It is an important part of the context for occupying the Park, but it was not one of the main reasons for the occupation. The Stony Pointers occupied the Park because they sincerely believed the Park was part of their Treaty lands and were concerned about their ancestors’ burial places in the park. This was repeated, in various ways, by many of the First Nations witnesses. Moreover, their beliefs have proved to have a foundation in truth.

These were not reasons that the occupiers came up with after the fact. The police and the provincial government both knew, prior to the shooting, that the occupiers were claiming the Park lands as their own and that there was an issue about burial grounds in the Park, even if the occupiers did not announce those “demands” in a formal communiqué. These were not just issues that the occupiers made up for the benefit of the outside world or a
complex legal document – these were points that they were making to others within their own community.

With respect to the burial ground issue in particular, Dudley and others shared their intentions with Bonnie Bressette (who was not part of the occupying group) on the afternoon of September 6. There is certainly no reason why they would not be honest with her. Bonnie spoke about this during her testimony: Q: Okay. And you had a discussion with Mr. Glenn George and Mr. Dudley George and Mr. Roderick George, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And what did you learn from your discussion?
A: That they were there because they wanted to bring attention that this Park was located on our ancestors' burial ground and that they wanted it to stop. That we couldn't be doing that anymore. And it had to stop. That's why they were there was to bring attention. And that's -- I'd like to add my comments that that's what causes all the problems. When people who have the responsibility to address things like this never address it until there's been a protest, a demonstration or whatever. And that's what it was, to say this is our ancestors' burial ground and it should not be a Park where people can party and carry on anymore. A: The last time I seen Dudley, they were sitting on the corner of the picnic table talking to us, my husband and I. Q: At what time approximately would
that have been? A: When we were having supper. Q: What kind of a mood was he in through that day? And what was his -- his general attitude? A: He was proud of himself by having a sit-in down there to create and let people know that this was a burial ground for our ancestors and that being part of creating this awareness and saying, This has to stop. He was -- he was proud of himself. Q: Now, with respect to their concerns about that sacred ground, you asked them, did you not, why they don't just go through the Courts with their concerns? A: Yes. Q: And what did -- A: Courts don't -- Courts don't listen to us, by the time we get anything into the Court system the money that we -- we don't have the economy to continually keep supporting the high legal costs of anything. We had the -- with us we've tried the Court system for our beach frontage that was taken at Stony Point -- or Kettle Point, for other land issues, and by the time the Courts deal with it more time goes around and more seasons.

Q: Did you talk to Dudley about that, that day? A: No, all my -- my only question was, why don't we just go into the Courts? And they said, we're here to let people know that this is our ancestors burial ground and we want it stopped and -- so that was their way of making it known. Q: And they told you that they thought this was perhaps the only way to make this known? A: Yes. Q: And they said that if they did not do anything about it, people would just continue to use this place where their grandfather's are buried, just as a place to party and camp? A: Yes.62

With respect to the other main reason, David George was one of the many occupiers who testified that the Park was their land,63 and that there had long been an intention to reclaim the Park and restore all of the Treaty lands that were wrongfully taken:

Q: And how was it decided to move into the Provincial Park? Did you have meetings? How did that come about? A: I think it was just like a group decision to go in there because of -- it's part of our original peace land. Q: And when did the -- when did you first start to think about -- thinking about going into the Provincial Park? A: Ever since I had first came on. Q: First came on to the army camp? A: Yeah. Q: And did you discuss that issue with other people? A: There was -- everybody was always talking about it. That's one of the things that we always talked about. Just about the Park and all -- all the lands that were taken away from us, like our hunting grounds. They took all that land and drained it all because it used to be a bog and drained it. And people just started selling off the land. Q: And so that from the time you moved onto the Army Camp in '93, the Park was a topic of discussion, as other parts of your land were? A: Yeah. People always talked about it.

The Park was not occupied simply because of frustration over the Army Camp lands, but because the Park was also part of the Stony Point lands. The connection between the two pieces of land was that both had been reserve lands promised in the Treaty and had been wrongfully taken, although in different ways and at different times. The goal of the Stony Pointers was to get all of the Treaty lands back, and to restore the land to
indigenous status. Q: What was your goal in participating in these demonstrations as you got older? In -- in -- in other words, what was it that -- that -- that you wanted to accomplish for your people? A: I wanted to get all our land back. That's what I wanted. I wanted to make sure that those -- those treaties that they wrote with our people were honoured because I could see, you know, you could watch TV and see always the white man kicking the Indian's ass. Every movie I seen, it was like that. I didn't like that. I -- I wanted to change stuff. Q: Hmm hmm. What was you understanding, you mention the treaties, can you give us a brief sense of - and I know some of these treaty relationships are very complex and large -- but can you give us a brief sense of your understanding of that treaty relationship that your - your - - your people hold Stoney Point. A: I knew it was a piece of paper that the White Man used to steal our lands. Q: Hmm hmm. A: I knew that and that's pretty much the way I still see it. Like, they don't honour them, they just write them so they can get what they want and then that's it Q: Right. A: And it's still that way.

It is disappointing that even after hearing all of the evidence about the grievances that led to the occupation of the Park, several parties still want to suggest that those grievances were never honestly held. That kind of approach – failing to listen and assuming we know better than what native people are saying – simply contributes to the frustrations that many First Nations people have in the first place in their dealings with the Crown and with the Canadian legal system.

People may disagree with the characterizations of native people that they are experiencing unjust impoverishment, dispossession, racist oppression and abuse, neglect, state violence, etc., but it is apparent that many in Canadian society are incapable of really hearing, understanding, and acting swiftly, broadly and generously upon the elements of native grievances and complaints that are demonstrably true.

This is why we have, before this Inquiry, stressed the importance of dealing with the underlying issues (i.e., the taking of land and the failure to protect the burial ground), as it is only when First Nations people see that their underlying issues are dealt with fairly and respectfully that there will be healing.

The broader context for the occupation is described in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:

Land is absolutely fundamental to Aboriginal identity. We examine how land is reflected in the language, culture and spiritual values of all Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal concepts of territory, property and tenure, of resource management and ecological knowledge may differ profoundly from those of other Canadians, but they are no less entitled to respect. Unfortunately, those concepts have not been honoured in the past, and Aboriginal peoples have had great difficulty maintaining their lands and livelihoods in the face of massive encroachment.

This encroachment is not ancient history. In addition to the devastating impact of settlement and development on traditional land-use areas, the actual reserve or community land base of Aboriginal people has shrunk by almost two-thirds since Confederation, and on-reserve resources have largely vanished. The history of these losses includes the abject failure of the Indian affairs department’s stewardship of reserves and other
Aboriginal assets. As a result, Aboriginal people have been impoverished,
deprived of the tools necessary for self-sufficiency and self-reliance.

Aboriginal peoples have not been simply the passive victims of this process. They have used any means at their disposal to halt the relentless shrinkage of their land base. From an Aboriginal perspective, treaties were one means to that end. But Aboriginal people insist that the Crown has failed to uphold those agreements and has generally broken faith with them. And since the nineteenth century, they have continuously protested — to government officials, to parliamentary inquiries, and in the courts —
what they see as the resulting inequity in the distribution of lands and
resources in this country.

There is a strong moral case, then, for improving Aboriginal access to lands and resources. But there are also many pragmatic reasons. One is
the sheer cost of the present system of programs and services for First
Nations, Inuit and, to a lesser extent, Metis people. Improved access to
lands, resources and resource revenues will finance at least some of the
costs of self-government.

An equally important reason is that conflict over lands and resources remains the principal source of friction in relations between Aboriginal and other Canadians. If that friction is not resolved, the situation can only get worse, as events between the summers of 1990 and 1995 have already shown.

The confrontation at Kanesatake (Oka) was much more than a trivial dispute over the location of a golf course. Like most Aboriginal communities, the Mohawk people of Kanesatake were seeking to secure their land base. In this particular instance, the interests of the neighbouring municipality of Oka became caught up in a three-way dispute between the Kanesatake community, Canada and Quebec over title to land. That dispute, which dates to the early eighteenth century (see Volume 1, Chapter 7), remains unresolved.

This was not an isolated incident. Also during the summer of 1990, a group from the Blackfoot Confederacy called the Lonefighters tried to halt construction of an irrigation dam on the Oldman River in southern Alberta, citing potential environmental damage to their communities and loss of traditional livelihood. This provoked an immediate reaction from the provincial government and area farmers, who expected to benefit from
the regulation of water flow on the river. In northern Ontario, members of
three Ojibwa bands blocked railway lines in support of their claims to a
greater share in the allocation of local lands and resources. At Ontario’s
Ipperwash Provincial Park, members of the Kettle and Stoney Point First
Nations communities, claiming the park contained burial sites, clashed
with provincial police in the fall of 1995, resulting in the death of one of
the protesters.

[...]

It is nevertheless essential for Canadians to understand that these are not new problems. The basic difficulty — given the change in power
relationships between Aboriginal people and other Canadians over the past
century or more — has been that, until very recently, governments have
either ignored or failed to address the basic issues. Now the time of
reckoning has arrived.

There will be other occupations and blockades in the future. The reasons for those protests will vary (although they will probably almost always have something to do with the land). Part of the point of this Inquiry is to identify ways to resolve the underlying issues which motivate First Nations people to engage in these kinds of actions. The other main issue is how to prevent violence when these actions do occur. Whatever the reason for the occupation, there are appropriate and responsible ways to respond, and there are inappropriate ways to respond. As the results of the events at Ipperwash make clear, the hawkish response in that case – both by police and politicians – was in the latter category.

True, Dudley would not have died if the occupation did not happen, but that does not mean that he should have died or needed to die. There are many possible outcomes that may arise when people engage in occupations. Death should not be one of them.


6. GUNS GUNS GUNS

Several parties, especially the OPPA, rely on various witnesses to continue trying to justify the inflammatory proposition that the occupiers had firearms and were willing to use them, or more generally that the occupiers were lawless, violent, alcoholic thugs. The chorus of guns, guns, guns is simply not founded on fact. What it does do is simply perpetuate stereotypes and stigmatization of First Nations peoples.

One explanation for these desperate after-the-fact attempts to reconstruct the occupiers as villains is that there is in fact no adequate and responsible justification for the deployment of violence against the occupiers that night. Nobody claims that the occupiers were all angels, but the bottom line is they were not the ones doing the shooting or going on an offensive attack – that was the police. Many of the police officers involved turned out to
not be angels either.

The OPP’s (lack of) actions speak louder than any words

More important than the story now being advanced after the fact is what the OPP actually did over the course of September 4-6, 1995, as it received supposed intelligence and information about guns and gunfire. If the OPP truly believed and was truly concerned that there was a threat from firearms in the Park, then why did the OPP not take any appropriate steps to address its concerns before the evening of September 6? There is no evidence of any evacuations of cottages or any other properties near the park or army camp until after Dudley George was shot. Roads were never closed to prevent the passage of traffic or to isolate the occupiers (except after the CMU was deployed). Checkpoints were not moved in response to such “reports.”

If the OPP really had suspected a serious risk of guns before September 6, it would have taken some counteraction. As Sgt. Korosec himself said about what would have happened if he had ever been confronted by a native holding a gun: “he’d probably be a dead native by now.”

Most tellingly, why would a CMU be sent marching into a small cul-de-sac in formation where the officers would be “sitting ducks”?

The OPP accordingly and rightfully did not take any of these reports as causing a serious concern, because they were truly not an issue.

Events prior to September 4, 1995

Some parties, especially the OPPA, have put forward evidence about supposed reports regarding events involving guns prior to September 4, 1995, including accusations about Dudley George holding and using firearms. All of these are of questionable objectivity and reliability.

We adopt the other Aboriginal parties’ submissions about this issue and the irrelevance of these events. We add that it is significant that Carson did not deem these particular incidents important enough to consider when decisions were being made during September 4-6. Also, Speck’s opinion was that Captain Howse (one of the witnesses) was being antagonistic, and most of the supposed statements about guns at the Base before September 1995 only surfaced over a year later, after the conviction of Kenneth Deane (presumably to assist with Deane’s appeal). These statements cannot be viewed as credible at all, particularly since only memory was used and in most cases only the “odd” person had their notes, if any.

The imaginary gun butt

Neil Whelan says he saw a gun butt in a native’s vehicle’s trunk in the park on September 4. His story simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Whelan admitted that he saw the gun butt from 40 to 50 feet away for a split second. He only informed Constable Japp (who did not mention it in his statement or notes), and did not inform any of the other officers on the ground until significantly after the incident. First, this raises obvious questions in terms of his supposed concern for officer safety (if he had such concern, and had actually seen a gun butt, he would have reported it). Second, given Whelan’s admitted distance from the object that he saw admittedly only for a split second, he may easily have been mistaken as to what he saw, or assumed he saw.

Whelan states that he informed Korosec about the supposed gun butt, and Korosec said he immediately informed Carson. However, Carson’s very detailed notes of that conversation with Korosec clearly make no mention of the supposed gun butt. While the supposed incident was mentioned in the scribe notes much later in the evening, it was likely made up or inflated by Whelan similar to his self-serving and incredible testimony regarding the picnic table incident during the night of September 5, and his
“mistake” about whether the fire was inside or outside the Park on the evening of September 6 despite the number of other observations he made.


The supposed automatic gunfire

As detailed in our previous submissions, the supposed rounds of automatic gunfire on the night of September 5 were likely nothing more than fireworks, and we do not intend to repeat that analysis here. Instead, we will examine in detail the evidence of Larry Parks and Steven Lorch, which simply did not stand up to cross-examination.

We submit that Steven Lorch is either mistaken or simply made up hearing the automatic gunfire in order to assist with the appeal of Kenneth Deane. He had extremely limited experience upon which to determine whether what he actually heard was automatic gunfire or something else; he could provide no detailed specifics about time or distance; and he was not aware of any sightings, reports, or physical evidence to support the presence of automatic weapons. In addition, his notes conspicuously have no mention of any incidences that night, nor did Lorch discuss his alleged observations with any of his fellow officers that night or ensure they were noted. Constable Marissen’s statement (who was at the same checkpoint at the same time) makes no mention of gunfire and explicitly says “There were, however, no problems.” The first reference Lorch ever made to this supposed automatic gunfire was clearly after Kenneth Deane was convicted.

The most logical explanation for these facts is that Lorch is either mistaken or made up this information in order to assist with Kenneth Deane’s appeal.

Larry Parks’s assessment is similarly suspect. He had very limited and dated experience, and he was also not aware of any other sightings, reports, physical evidence or subsequent investigation of automatic weapons to support his assessment. He also discounted the idea that what he heard could have been firecrackers even though he reported Natives going to a campfire minutes before his gunfire report. On September
4th, Parks had inflated an incident involving small strobe firecrackers into one involving “flares”, indicating that his “observations” could not be counted on as reliable.

Finally, George Hebblethwaite testified that sounds of automatic or semi-automatic gunfire were “commonplace”. This aspect of his testimony is simply not credible as he made no records as to when he heard automatic gunfire, nor did he report it up the chain of command. Given the significance that such sounds would potentially have for both police and public safety, it is almost impossible to believe that he heard those sounds and did nothing to notify or report them.

Tina George’s uncertainty about the date

Submissions have been made regarding Tina George’s evidence about the date on which target practice occurred. We submit that when one looks at the totality of Tina George’s evidence, it is completely unclear what day Tina George may have been referring to. In particular, Tina George completely denied hearing any gunshots or similar sounds on either September 4 or 5. Counsel then had the following exchange with her:
Q: I anticipate that the Commission will hear evidence of -- that there were reports of gunshots being heard in or around the Army Camp or Park area during the evening of September 5th, 1995. Now, if that evidence were to come forward, would that refresh your memory or change your evidence? A: Pardon? Q: Would that -- if that evidence comes forward, would that refresh your memory or change your evidence concerning whether or not you heard gunshots that night? A: If they gave me a date and I was there, yes, it would refresh my memory.

George Speck’s notes refer to “throwing fireworks” (Ex. P-1160, p. 31), and Trevor Richardson’s notes indicate that he was initially told that the incident involved fireworks (June 8, 2006, p. 288-290; Ex. P- 1671, p. 14). It was only the next morning that Parks told Richardson that flares were involved (Ex. P- 1671, p. 18).

Tina George, Jan. 19, 2005, p. 171-172 [emphasis added]. Q: Okay. Perhaps I should just -- let's -- I'll rephrase the question. We anticipate that there will be evidence later on in this Inquiry that individuals heard gunshots the evening of Tuesday, September the 5th in or around the Park or Army Camp area? A: I can't be sure on the date. Q: Did you hear gunshots one of those evenings? A: One evening I heard gunshots, yes. Q: All right. And was that either the Monday or Tuesday?
A: It's possible. Q: Possible? A: Yeah.

We submit that this exchange clearly shows that Tina George was very uncertain about the date at this time and may have been confused or misunderstood the question. It is thus understandable why she corrected her testimony the next day to be clear that it was not during September 4-6, 1995. We accordingly submit that she was mistaken about the date and that the correction was appropriate.

Wright: “We’ll Do Our Talking With Guns”

Several parties quoted Wright’s testimony that an occupier said “We’ll do our talking with guns” on September 6. We submit that this is yet another way by which Wright exaggerated and manipulated the situation to create conditions that would justify “amassing an army” to confront the occupiers.

Marg Eve accompanied Mark Wright on the day in question and was part of that particular conversation. In her statement of September 15, 2006, she stated that someone she recognized as Dudley George said that: “this is only going to be resolved with guns, it was going to be settled with guns.” This statement is significantly different from Mark Wright’s account and interpretation of the comment. The occupiers were committed to keeping their Reserve lands, and would not be removed again except through force, or specifically, at gunpoint. In other words, a reasonable interpretation of the alleged comment is that the guns referred to were police guns, not native guns. Since the occupiers did not actually have guns in the Park, Marg Eve’s account is more consistent with reality than Mark Wright’s.

In any event, the actions of the Wright and Eve indicate that they did not regard what was said as a real threat, as Wright maintained. They stayed at the fence attempting to talk to the occupiers for several more minutes rather than leaving.

The make-believe firearm in the maintenance shed

The OPPA relies upon a grainy still photo extracted from a video that purports shows a person holding a firearm in the maintenance shed. When the video containing that frame is played, it is totally unclear whether there is any firearm in the individual’s hand. This is likely the assessment that Officer Chris Martin made at the time while viewing the video, and that is the real reason why he did not notify the Command Post about a
person holding an object in the maintenance shed.

Some people who have seen the famous grainy Polaroid of a “Sasquatch” believe in the existence of the Sasquatch. You see what you want to see. The OPPA sees a gun. We see a flashlight. We believe it is more likely that somebody walking around at 2:51 a.m. in the dark of night (which is the time of the still) would be holding a flashlight rather than a handgun. We also think the object looks much more like a flashlight than a gun.
The Inquiry has heard evidence that some of the occupiers had flashlights. The Inquiry has not heard any reliable evidence that any of the occupiers had guns in the Park.

The “sounded like one gun shot” radio transmission

The OPPA also refers to reports of gunfire at 18:27.95 However, the transcript of that radio transmission is very illuminating: “Just heard what sounded like one gunshot and if it was, it’s a small caliber. [emphasis added]” From the transcript itself, it is apparent the officers themselves are not sure about what they heard, and it could have been anything
(including fireworks or firecrackers or a vehicle backfiring). What is more interesting is that the OPP did not do anything with respect to officer or public safety (e.g. moving checkpoints, evacuations, closing roads). In all likelihood it had no impact on the OPP’s action precisely because firearms were not an issue at the time and the OPP knew that, based on what had happened with the occupation so far.

The night of September 6

Other aboriginal parties have gone into great detail in their final submissions about the fact that the occupiers were not armed on the night of September 6th, and we do not intend to repeat those submissions here. We add the simple observation that no police officer, no police equipment, no police vehicle, and no object whatsoever on the police side of the skirmish was ever hit by a bullet. If the occupiers, many of whom are hunters, had actually fired at police, it is unfathomable that they would have failed to hit anything at all, especially given the number and the formation of the police officers. None of the police even heard bullets going by or hitting any object behind them or beside them.

As for the shotgun labeled the “Bastard Blaster”, the evidence is that it was not in the Park at all during the period of September 4-6. Abraham David George testified that he last used that firearm during the winter of 1995 and that it had then been stolen. In any event, when it was found in somebody’s garbage can on Kettle Point miles from the Park, several days after Dudley was shot, it did not even appear to be a functioning weapon, as it had no trigger and had packaging tape wrapped around it. This object had absolutely no role or connection to the events that occurred at Ipperwash. The OPPA’s attaching some importance to this weapon is desperate and inflammatory.

Ken Deane: Dudley had a gun

The OPPA has submitted that Dudley George had a gun or alternatively that Kenneth Deane mistook what Dudley was holding a gun. These assertions simply do not accord with the evidence.

In order to accept that Dudley was armed, the Commission would have to accept an incredible combination of implausible things:100
• That Dudley George left an area of safety to go to an open area on the roadway;
• That Deane either was unable to or chose not to use his flashlight device or laser light features before or after Dudley was shot;
• That immediately after seeing Dudley assisted back into the park, he turned to his right and spoke to Hebblethwaite with regard to a head count;
• That Deane walked 20 metres but did not have time to get a message over the communication system regarding muzzle flashes or danger from the sand berm;
• That Deane watched Dudley move from the position where he was shot to a location closer to the CMU apparently still with the ability to fire the supposed rifle;
• That Deane did not fire his rifle again to prevent Dudley from posing any threat since he did not know how seriously he injured Dudley;

• That despite the severe injuries sustained by Dudley, Dudley’s next priority after being shot was to dispose of the supposed weapon he was carrying;
• That having made this decision, Dudley moved towards police officers instead of towards the park;
• That despite Dudley’s severe injuries, Dudley was able to throw the rifle into the field or ditch;
• That the rifle was thrown into an area where Klym and Beauchesne happened to be;
• That after the threat was over, Deane sent a message over the communication system without any reference to shooting a man with a rifle or that the rifle was thrown in the ditch;
• That despite his responsibility to ensure the safety of fellow officers and the CMU, Deane would not warn them about the rifle;
• That Beauchesne was not the least bit concerned when Deane asked him if he saw the guy with the gun and that Beauchesne was disinterested in this subject;
• That Deane did not say anything to Hebblethwaite about Dudley being on the roadway with a gun, even though he spoke to Hebblethwaite no more than 15 seconds after he saw Dudley being helped into the park; and
• That Deane decided to wait to ask such questions until he met a short time later with Beauchesne.

It simply does not add up.

As for whether or not Deane was mistaken as to what Dudley held was a gun: Deane has always maintained that he saw a gun to the point of being able to describe its features in fair detail. This stands in stark contrast to the facts and Hebblethwaite’s testimony both at Deane’s trial and at the Inquiry. The inescapable conclusion is that Deane could not have been mistaken, and the entire story of Dudley having a gun was concocted
ex post facto in an effort to disguise the fact than an unarmed man had been shot.

However, Deane cannot be held solely to blame. He and his fellow officers should never have been placed in that situation where violence was an inevitable consequence, and where death was foreseeable.


7. THE FANTASY THAT EVERYTHING WENT PERFECTLY

The gist of the submissions of the police parties and some of the political parties is that things were going appropriately and according to plan. John Carson on the night of September 6th went so far as to say “we’ve got one 10-92 [arrest] so far here, things are going good.”

Mike Harris testified that in hindsight he does not believe that he would do anything differently on September 4 to 6. This raises the question, if everything went perfectly, how did an unarmed man end up being shot by an OPP sniper?

In its Part I submissions, the OPP admits few mistakes, and maintains that the deployment of CMU was a reasonable option. However, in its Part II submissions, the OPP outlines several changes that it has undergone and is undergoing with respect to what we consider to be several key issues in this Inquiry, including the issue of political interference. If no significant mistakes were made, what was the impetus for all of these changes that were made after Dudley’s death? Actions speak louder than words, and we say that the changes, while laudable, show that the OPP realized that some things had gone wrong and took quick steps to address them.

Similarly, the Province’s actions speak volumes with respect to the issue of political interference. Larry Taman’s creation of the “nerve centre” on September 7, 1995 instituted buffers by segregating political aides from the civil servants. If the former Interministerial Committee was working properly and there was no inappropriate political interference in the
process, why was it necessary to reconstitute that structure and remove the political members of the committee so quickly? Actions speak louder than words, and we say this change indicates a recognition by Taman and other senior civil servants that the old structure failed under the weight of inappropriate political interference by Deb Hutton and her boss.

The actions (or inactions) of Mike Harris and his government also speak volumes. A great tragedy occurred. There was a compelling need to have some kind of investigation into the issue. However, unlike the OPP and the civil servants who realized that errors were made and took steps to make changes, Harris and his government took the opposite approach, and refused any kind of independent investigation as long as they were in
power.

Everything did not go perfectly. An unarmed man was shot. The failure to ensure an appropriate investigation in such circumstances called for, and calls for, an answer. The answer is that Harris and others in his government had a consciousness of guilt. This is dealt with further in Chapter 9, below.


8. THE NEED TO CRITICALLY ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE

It has been eleven years since Dudley’s death. People’s memories fade, but more importantly, with the passage of time, many people naturally interpret events in a way that is most favourable to their interests. Caution must be exercised when reviewing evidence that is self-serving, especially given the passage of time. The evidence heard at this Inquiry cannot always be taken at face value – a critical approach to the evidence is required, and the truth cannot be determined otherwise.

Significant efforts are made in the submissions of many of the political and police parties to explain away the plain meaning of contemporaneous documents and recordings. In doing so, they rely on the testimony of individuals whose own actions are being scrutinized. For example, Stan Korosec and Mark Wright tried to explain away the various extremely aggressive comments they made during phone calls.

In Stan Korosec’s case, his explanation was that his comment about wanting to “amass a real fucking army to do those fuckers big time” was out of character, and uttered when he had just been disturbed from his sleep. That explanation is very self-serving and needs to be critically analyzed. Korosec’s guard was down after just being disturbed, and it is
more likely that he revealed a little bit of insight into his hidden views when ordinarily he would be more guarded.

Similarly, Mark Wright tried to explain away his aggressive, militaristic, anti-native comments. Such comments are embarrassing when put to the person who uttered them over ten years after the fact. Many people would naturally tend to reinterpret such comments in a way that is favourable to them. In Mark Wright’s case, those attempted explanations should be rejected in favour of the plain meaning of the comments, which were a window into his mind.

It has been apparent at the Inquiry that witnesses will often given self-serving evidence, particularly when the questions relate to what was going on in their conscious or subconscious mind. There is documentary evidence that there was political pressure on the police originating from the Premier’s Office, and it cannot be denied that the OPP was receiving such pressure. However, when anyone was asked whether they were
influenced by such pressure, they naturally denied it, as expected.

There are many possible reasons for this. They may not have been conscious of being influenced. They may already have held views or intentions which were consistent with the political pressure, and which had merely been held in check, and therefore the release of that restraint simply felt natural. They may have been alive to the fact that they were
being influenced, and that it was wrong to succumb to political pressure, but have been also aware that it was impossible for anyone to prove such hidden reasons. They may consider that they were not influenced because their views or intentions were already consistent with the political positions being communicated to them. Thus, the denials by police that they were politically influenced are inherently unreliable, and in our view, the
Commissioner needs to look at other evidence, including documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence, to determine the question of whether there was actual conscious or subconscious influence.

For similar reasons, claims by Mike Harris, Deb Hutton, and others that they did not influence the police are self-serving and inherently unreliable. They certainly know that the only for anyone way to conclusively prove what was in their mind is to draw an admission from them directly, and so there was no incentive when giving evidence before this Inquiry to be forthcoming if indeed it had been their intention to put pressure on the
police. In our view, the Commissioner needs to look at other evidence, including documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence, to determine the question of whether political pressure was exerted.

In short, evidence that is self-serving needs to be carefully and critically analyzed. Conversely, evidence that goes against a witness’ self-interest tends to be credible.

For example, Charles Harnick’s evidence about what the Premier said in the Premier’s Dining Room meeting is extremely credible. He had nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by giving that evidence and admitting that he had previously misled the Legislature to cover for the Premier.

Similarly, many First Nations witnesses readily admitted negative conduct – throwing rocks or firecrackers, smashing a windshield, interactions with officers, etc. They had nothing to gain by giving this kind of self-incriminating evidence, and, although memories fade and some details are lost, these First Nations witnesses’ evidence had the ring of truth. Thus, when every one of the occupiers gave evidence that there were no
guns in the Park, that evidence had the ring of truth.

Mike Harris in particular reviews a great deal of oral evidence in his final written submissions to this Inquiry in a detailed, although selective, manner. What those submissions lack, for the most part, is any kind of critical analysis of the evidence. Many of the other political and police parties take a similar approach. The danger with this kind of approach is that not all evidence is equal, and is not equally credible. A critical
analysis is essential, and the question of the degree to which evidence is self-serving is a key part of this analysis.


9. THE COVER UP

Inherent in the political use of violence by the state against people within its borders is a degree of comfort on the part of its perpetrators that they have tools to cover it up and will probably never be held to account. We see state authorities using violence to achieve political objectives all too frequently – in places like Darfur, in Burma (aka Myanmar), in China (e.g., Tiananmen Square), in Zimbabwe, in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, in South
Africa during the apartheid era, etc. The political use of violence tends to be more common in countries that do not have an open political process, but even a democratic country like Canada is not immune. Sadly, most examples of this include violence against indigenous peoples – Oka, Neil Stonechild, residential schools, forced displacements and dispossessions (such as at Stony Point), ... and Ipperwash.

There was political violence used against the Ipperwash Park occupiers in September 1995 – state forces marching against, beating, and shooting at First Nations people in a land dispute, in significant part as a result of the political position of the government. Then there was the cover-up.

There was a denial of a public inquiry for eight years. There was a refusal of any kind of independent investigation. There was a campaign of misinformation. There was a failure to disclose documents (like the infamous Ron Fox tapes). There were lies in the Legislature.

The terms of reference of this Inquiry require examining the events surrounding the death of Dudley George, and in some cases the conduct of parties after the shooting is important. The politician parties to this Inquiry all deny being part of the chain of causation in the death of Dudley George. Nevertheless, they demonstrated their consciousness of guilt by the roles they played after the fact in covering up the truth.

Thus, when a party such as Robert Runciman claims that at all relevant times, he “governed himself professionally, cautiously, dispassionately and in complete good faith throughout,” such claims must be measured both by that party’s conduct before the shooting and the party’s conduct after the fact. This section deals with the latter.

It is apparent from the submissions that some of the parties continue to try to hide the truth or deflect attention away from the truth through straw man arguments or by trying to redirect responsibility (as discussed above). Fortunately, these attempts are now subject to the scrutiny of an open public Inquiry. Before we got to this Inquiry, though, the cover-up went on and on.

The campaign of public misinformation

The OPPA in its submissions now claims that Dudley George did indeed have a gun when Ken Deane shot him, and that the occupiers fired guns at the police on September 6, 1995. This falsehood has already been dispelled by the Courts, but not before it had done a great deal of damage. This claim – that officers were fired upon and returned fire – was part of a cover-up that began just hours after Ken Deane shot Dudley George. This
must be put into context.

One of the first things John Carson did after the shooting was to work on getting a press release out which told the OPP’s version of events. In Carson’s words, “we probably have a window of opportunity here to kind of set the record as straight as we can before SIU puts the gloves on us.”

What the OPP did with its window of opportunity was to put out to the public a false and inflammatory press release. It said: On Wednesday 6 September 1995 at 7:55 p.m. a disturbance was reported to the OPP where Police had removed a number of picnic tables and two tents from the public roadway yesterday. A private citizen’s vehicle was damaged by a number of First Nations people armed with baseball bats. As a result of this, the O.P.P Crowd Management team was deployed to disperse the crowd of First Nations people which had gathered at that location.

Thus, within hours of the shooting, the public was told a wildly distorted version of the facts that had little resemblance to reality. The OPP has now admitted that it got its facts wrong, more than a decade after the fact.

The press release goes on to give an altered version of the confrontation in the sandy parking lot, referring to the bus and car coming out of the park. Then came the most awful untruth:

Occupants of those two vehicles fired upon the Police officers and
subsequently Police officers returned fire.

This was the impression of the incident that the public had for years. It greatly stigmatised the native occupiers and all First Nations people. It took years before the public began to accept the truth – that the occupiers were unarmed. Now, the OPPA in their submissions are attempting to resurrect this falsehood. It is important to lay this falsehood to rest once and for all. This falsehood has already caused enough damage.

The misinformation that “police officers who were responding to a confrontation were fired upon and they opened fire” was repeated over and over again by government authorities, and it became the official line of the government. The myth even became the official position taken by Canada before the United Nations – a position that Canada has never retracted even after Justice Fraser’s decision in April 1997 convicting Ken
Deane for his role in killing Dudley George.

In his decision, Justice Fraser stated:

There were no Crown witnesses or defence witnesses that saw any weapons in the hand of the First Nations people except for Sergeant Deane and except for Constable Chris Cossitt... Rather than scrutinize Constable Cossitt’s testimony for any grains of truth that might fall out, I have dismissed it entirely as being clearly fabricated and false... I find that
Anthony O’Brien (Dudley) George did not have any firearms on his person when he was shot ... [and] that the story of the rifle and the muzzle flash was concocted ex post facto in an ill fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot.”

Fortunately, all of the parties other than the OPPA have accepted this as the truth (or at least, they do not claim otherwise). This was and is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. As Justice Fraser stated in his reasons for sentencing Ken Deane, “The decision to embark on this ill-fated mission was not Sergeant Deane’s.” Dudley’s family tirelessly sought for an answer to that question – who put Sergeant Deane there in the first place,
and why? As bits of information slowly came out, the trail appeared to lead all the way to the Premier. And the Premier seemed to do everything he could to prevent the truth from coming out.

Refusal to investigate

As the public learned more and more of the truth, there were strong requests from a vast number of national and international human rights and civil liberties organizations, political representatives and parties (including the federal Minister of Indian Affairs), aboriginal organizations, religious groups, municipal governments, newspaper editorials, and many individuals from municipalities, all calling for a public inquiry into the death of Dudley George.

Harris never did call a public inquiry into Ipperwash. He and Harnick and other members of the government steadfastly refused all demands for an inquiry by the opposition parties. Further, neither Harris nor any member of his government, including Robert Runciman, arranged for any kind of independent investigation whatsoever into the matter which could have looked at the role that political influence may have played in the police
operation at Ipperwash.

When it was someone else who was alleged to be involved in political pressure on police, Harris’s party, and Robert Runciman in particular, was quick to condemn the action and call for a full independent investigation. Runciman, in his submissions, states: “While in opposition, he had been particularly critical of a former Solicitor General [Joan Smith] for violating this policy” of interference by the Solicitor General in the operational affairs of the police. Part of Runciman’s criticism at the time was that Ms. Smith did not take steps to cause an independent investigation into the allegations.

When it was he and the Premier who were facing allegations of political interference after 1995, Runciman did the exact opposite of what he had preached a few years earlier. This double standard brings into question his self-serving claim that he “governed himself professionally, cautiously, dispassionately and in complete good faith throughout.”

In 1989, when then-Solicitor General Joan Smith went into a police detachment to inquire about the well-being of a person in custody, Robert Runciman was highly critical of her and accused her of political interference with the police. He demanded an independent investigation, and then demanded her resignation. He was also outspoken about his
view that the Premier had not taken the proper steps to ascertain the facts of the situation.

Some time after the shooting of Dudley George, perhaps a year or so, Robert Runciman became aware that the OPP officers at Ipperwash were receiving information that there was strong political pressure connected with the Premier and himself. He agreed it would be inappropriate if the OPP felt they were getting significant pressure from politicians. However, unlike the position he took six years earlier, he did not agree that he or the Premier had a responsibility to inquire about the details surrounding those allegations. In 1989, he had a fundamental problem with the fact that the alleged wrongdoer was deciding whether and how to investigate the allegations against herself.

In 1995, he had no problem with being able to make the call about whether he, as an alleged wrongdoer, would or would not launch an independent investigation into the allegations against himself and the Premier. In 1989, it was about doing the right thing. In 1995, when the finger was pointed at Harris and himself, it was about loyalty and
friendship and avoiding scrutiny.

At root, Harris’s denial of a public inquiry, and Runciman’s denial of any kind of independent investigation in circumstances that clearly called for one, indicate a consciousness of guilt. Mike Harris and his government had something to hide. He desperately did not want to be held to account or have the truth to come out. Obviously, he denied it when asked, but it is the inescapable conclusion.

Prior to the 2003 election, the official party line for why the Harris government would not call in inquiry was that the matter was before the courts. This remained the party line even after all of the criminal trials
had run their course, after all of the other investigations had concluded, and when the only matter that remained before the courts was Sam George’s lawsuit which he had always unequivocally stated he would
drop if an independent public inquiry were called. The facts speak for themselves. The official party line was a sham.

Misleading the Legislature; misleading the Inquiry

Without any independent investigation, it was left partly to members of the Legislature to seek answers about Ipperwash. Unfortunately, a great deal of the information that Harris and members of his government gave to the public through the Legislature was misleading and incomplete. So far, former Attorney General Charles Harnick is the only one that has been willing to admit it.

Harnick’s submissions claim that the candour of his evidence was remarkable, particularly given his testimony that Mike Harris had stated in a loud voice: “I want the fucking Indians out of the Park.” The flip side of Harnick’s point is that he had misled the Legislature on that same issue several years before. Harnick courageously told the Inquiry the truth, under oath, despite how agonizing it was for him to be forthcoming. He
admitted providing untruthful answers to the Legislature on the same point, where he was not under oath. He had done so to cover up the fact that Mike Harris did wrong. It had been about loyalty and friendship to Mike Harris, not about telling the truth. It is our submission that Harnick’s evidence must clearly be preferred over the self-serving evidence of Mike Harris, who denied making the comment.

Mike Harris also gave misleading information to the Legislature. He just did not come clean about it the way Harnick did. ALST’s submissions describe his failure to reveal the existence of the Premier’s Dining Room meeting and the fact that Harris and Hutton were not “shocked” to learn that OPP officers were in attendance there.1 Other comments which Harris made to the Legislature include:
• “None of the meetings were our meetings or her meeting or my office meeting or the cabinet office meeting or the Premier’s office meeting.” (June 18, 1997)
• “We’ve made public, certainly, all of our role in this.” (June 18, 1997)

• “You make up imaginary files. You make up imaginary involvement. There were no files, there were no records, because we had no involvement.” (Feb 5, 1997)
• “[T]hat is a matter for the OPP to deal with... we would not have offered any opinion.” (May 29, 1996)

With the evidence that this Inquiry has heard about the Premier’s Dining Room meeting, we now know that these statements, and others, were false and misleading.

Harris and Hutton rely to a large extent on the self-serving evidence that they themselves gave before the Inquiry. They were not forthcoming or candid on many points. There was a cover-up in the Legislature, and Harris, Hutton, and to a lesser extent, Runciman and Hodgson are still attempting to cover up the truth.

The evidence strongly conflicts with the suggestion that there was any “consensus” at the Premier’s Dining Room meeting to treat the matter as an emergency and get an emergency injunction. The evidence indicates that it was Harris alone who made that decision. The evidence strongly conflicts with the suggestion that Harris and Hutton were oblivious that an OPP officer was present in the Dining Room meeting. This has been covered by ALST’s submissions. In fact, as stated in our submissions, the
inevitable conclusion from the evidence is that Fox was summonsed to the meeting at Hutton’s request. The evidence strongly conflicts with the suggestion that Harris and Hutton were being honest when they said they did not know who called the Premier’s Dining Room meeting.

It is remarkable that neither Harris nor Hutton have taken responsibility for calling that Dining Room Meeting in the first place. One or both of them must have. It could not have been convened by anyone outside the Premier’s office, and Harris and Hutton were the ones inside the Premier’s office who were dealing with the matter. This raises the question, why would they hide even that seemingly innocuous fact that they convened
this meeting? The circumstances suggest that this was to downplay their role in creating a crisis, influencing the OPP and, ultimately, in part causing Dudley’s death. Specifically, it was to hide the fact that the Premier was knowingly giving implicit direction to an OPP liaison officer at that meeting. It was to cover up the fact that responsibility for the political use of violence against Dudley and his people lay partly at Harris’s own feet.


10. ADDITIONAL ISSUES

There are a significant number of points made in the submissions of other parties that we believe warrant a response. Unfortunately, practical limitation require us to only focus on what we see as the main ones, as set out above, and a few other miscellaneous points, which follow.

There was no conquest

It wouldn’t be so bad if people just misunderstood the occupiers’ motives. However, some people still misunderstand actual history, even after many days have been spent at this Inquiry dealing with the historical causes of the Ipperwash situation.

One of the most glaring historical errors which is unfortunately still perpetuated in some circles is that there was a conquest of First Nations in Canada. The submissions of Deb Hutton, for example, state that “First Nations maintain collective rights (which are based on traditional occupation and use of land prior to the conquest) with respect to land which has not been surrendered to the Crown.” This may be consistent with Deb Hutton’s views,139 but it is not consistent with reality. As stated by the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples:

There was no conquest. Early in the contact period the relationship was
one of peaceful coexistence and non-interference. It was mainly after
Confederation that Canada began to appropriate large tracts of land to
house the ever-increasing influx of settlers and that the process of
colonization and domination of the aboriginal population began. No one
asked them whether they wanted to be British subjects or Canadian
citizens. They were simply herded into small reserves to make way for development and at Confederation were assigned to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

There is a fundamental difference between the idea that there was a conquest and reality. Further, the vast bulk of Hutton’s submissions about historical issues (at paragraphs 34-38) are substantially incorrect, legally and historically. Her submissions omit the fact that the Provincial government owes fiduciary duties for First Nations (and that they are not merely citizens to be treated the same as anyone else). They ignore that the Crown has obligations to fulfill treaty obligations. They mischaracterize the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution as not addressing the validity of surrender of any piece of land (if a surrender was invalid, rights to the land were not extinguished and would be protected by s.35). They mangle the actual meaning of s. 88 of the Indian Act. Overall, Hutton’s
submissions are fundamentally deficient on many points, especially those dealing with First Nations issues.

1942 Appropriation of Stony Point reserve

Marcel Beaubien suggests that the “Federal Government’s occupation of the Stony Point lands and the creation of Canadian Forces Base Ipperwash was a legitimate action under the War Measures Act.” We strongly disagree. The appropriation of unceded Treaty reserve land, which was guaranteed to the members of the First Nation and their posterity in perpetuity, was neither legitimate, fair, nor just. It was a breach of the Treaty and probably was not even authorized under the War Measures Act, given that the land which was appropriated had never been ceded to the Crown. The Federal Government could have expropriated private lands nearby, but there was an ulterior motive for appropriating the Stony Point reserve, which was to dispossess “a few straggling Indians” and forcibly
relocate them at Kettle Point. That was not consistent with the spirit of the War Measures Act, and was quite hypocritical, given that Canada was going to war in part to battle a racialist ideology.

1937 Burial Ground evidence

Marcel Beaubien claims that the Band Council Resolution of 1937 and the
correspondence between the federal and provincial governments that followed “are not evidence of the actual existence of a burial ground, but rather evidence only that the Band asked, through the Federal Government, that the “Old Indian Burial Ground” be marked out and fenced off so that it would be protected.” The distinction that he is
trying to make is entirely unclear to us.

The Province of Ontario also asserts that: “The evidence at this Inquiry with respect to the existence ... of any alleged burial site is inconclusive.” To the contrary, there is clear evidence of burial grounds in the Park. Obviously, the Band Council would not have passed a BCR seeking that a burial ground in the Park be protected if there was no burial ground, or evidence thereof, in the Park.

The Province of Ontario claims that: “Prior to September 12, 1995, provincial government officials who were involved in the Ipperwash events were not aware of the 1937 correspondence.” This is not accurate. Daryl Smith was involved as a media person for MNR in the Ipperwash situation in September 1995, and he is the person who located the 1937 correspondence in the province’s archives many years earlier. Since Daryl Smith sent the information to the Park superintendent, it is also possible that former Park Superintendent Don Matheson (now deceased) may have known about it. In any event, Don Matheson was generally aware of the oral history of old burial remains being found during the construction of the pump house, or at least his wife was.

The Province states that there is no evidence that the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation followed up on the 1937 request, and that therefore it would not be fair to conclude that the Province failed to take appropriate action.147 It is apparent that the Province did absolutely nothing. As far as anybody is aware, the burial grounds in the Park have never been fenced off and protected. The Province knew of the existence of the burial ground in the Park, it knew the location (after all, it was found by the Province’s engineer), and knew that the First Nation wanted it fenced off and protected. It is more than fair to conclude that the Province failed to take appropriate action. It is the only reasonable conclusion.

Furthermore, although the Province relies on the 1972 Hamalainen report, which found no evidence of burials in the Park but was highly problematic, it was confronted only three years later with documentary evidence of the burial site. Still, it did nothing. The Province relied, and still relies, on evidence, as faulty as it was and is, that justified its inaction, and ignores strong evidence that its inaction was wholly inappropriate and unjustified.

Raising burial ground grievance in August 1995

The Province of Ontario states that “at no time after the takeover of Camp Ipperwash in July 1995 did a First Nation person or group raise any grievance or issue directly with the Province regarding a land claim or the existence of a burial ground within the Park.”

This is thoroughly misleading.

For example, OPP officers met with Glen George in early August 1995, and the OPP passed along the information to the Province that “they now allege there is a burial ground within the Park boundaries.” There were also several assertions made that the land was “our land,” although sometimes inelegantly expressed.

Other burial ground issues

Ontario says: “the existence of a First Nations burial site does not, however, affect ownership of, or title to, the land on which the burial site is located.” There is no reference cited for this proposition. It is incorrect. At the very least, the existence of a First Nations burial site gives the members of the First Nation a sort of easement over the land, to visit and tend to the graves of their ancestors. Further, the actual burial remains do not pass with a change in title to the land.

The bigger question is how to now remedy a historical injustice that occurred some 70 years ago when the Province failed to take any steps to fence off and protect the burial site, now that the knowledge of the specific location(s) of the burial site(s) has been lost. Much or all of the Park lands must now be considered sacred.

Ownership claim

The Province of Ontario claims that “until the 1990s, there was never any claim or statement, verbal or written, formal or informal of which the Province was aware, that suggested any member of the Kettle and Stony Point band disputed the Province’s right and title to the land comprising the Park. Beaubien makes a similar point. They are both wrong. There was an informal land claim being asserted in the 1970s. At that time, MNR was forewarned to secure a legal and historical analysis of the situation as
soon as possible since “it [was] clear that Indian action on this matter [was] imminent.” The Park issue did not suddenly emerge in 1995. It was a long outstanding issue, which just happened to be overshadowed by an even greater injustice when the rest of the Reserve was appropriated in 1942.

Colour of right

The Province’s and Deb Hutton’s’ discussions about “colour of right” are problematic in many respects. The entirety of these parties’ submissions regarding the issue of colour of right contradicts the position that the Province was actually compelled to take in the past in dealing with the very facts at issue. These parties’ submissions on this point are therefore moot.

The Assistant Crown Attorney in charge of prosecuting the occupiers for forcible detainer concluded in 1996 that there was no reasonable prospect for conviction since the accused had colour of right:

MEMORANDUM

RE: IPPERWASH PROSECUTIONS
Forcible Entry, C.C.C. s. 72(1)
Forcible Detainer, C.C.C. s. 72(2)
Trial: October 21 to November 1, 1996

There are 23 persons charged with the offence of Forcible Detainer, C.C.C.
s.72(2). The Crown is withdrawing all of the charges of Forcible Detainer, C.C.C. s.72(2) for the reason that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

With respect to the Forcible Detainer charges, the Crown is required to establish that the detention or “holding” of Ipperwash Provincial Park was done by accused persons “without colour of right.”

“Colour of right” is defined as an honest belief in the existence of a state of facts which, if it actually existed, would, at law, justify or excuse the act done. The accused have raised the defence of colour of right on the basis that there is a Chippewa burial ground within Ipperwash Provincial Park and that therefore they were justified in being in the Park during the time set out in the charges.

Whether there is, in actual fact, a burial ground within Ipperwash Provincial
Park and whether or not there is in actual fact a valid right of ownership, possession or occupation by the accused persons – these are considerations which are not relevant in determining whether the defence of colour of right is valid. In this criminal proceeding, the issue is whether this belief held by the accused persons is honestly held.

The Crown has confirmed the existence of correspondence made in 1937 ... This documentation gives objective support for the reasonableness and the honesty of the accused’s belief.

Further, it has been clearly indicated by the Provincial Division Judges a
pretrials that this defence will succeed in all instances when it is raised.

Accordingly, this “colour of right” defence is of sufficient significance that the Crown concluded that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown must therefore withdraw all forcible detainer charges.
...
Henry van Drunen
Assistant Crown Attorney

The submissions about “colour of right” are not helpful in dealing with the question of how one responds to occupations when they happen. Here, there was an actual occupation. As pointed out by Henry Van Drunen, there were actual burial grounds in the Park. In addition, another basis for claiming colour of right is that the underlying surrender was, at the very least, morally corrupt. The Province and the OPP formed the view that the occupation was illegal before it even had the full facts about the burial
ground and the land taking, and they responded as they did anyway.

Whether the occupiers did or did not have colour of right was ultimately irrelevant to the response of the Province and the OPP. Ron Fox did try to make the point at the IMC meeting on September 6 that the occupiers were raising colour of right, but his submissions made no impact on the decisions which were ultimately made. Thus, the issue of colour of right is irrelevant except to make the important point that the issue was ignored in the haste of the government to take action against the occupiers.

Handwritten notes of Julie Jai for the September 6, 1995 IMC meeting, p. 3 (Exhibit P536); Handwritten notes of Eileen Hipfner for the September 6, 1995 IMC meeting, p. 3 (Exhibit P636).

Fear of attack on the cottages

It has been 11 years since the occupation. None of the cottages neighbouring the Stony Point reserve have been attacked. Even those cottages that are on the Stony Point reserve lands have not been attacked. The suggestion that the occupiers were going to take the cottages next160 was rooted in paranoia rather than reason, and there is no basis for parties to continue to raise this as an issue.

Beaubien’s press release and fax

Contrary to Beaubien’s suggestion, his inflammatory press release of September 5, 1995 was not simply “done in order to get [Bill] King’s attention.” It was drafted with the intent of being sent out, and it would have been sent out if Beaubien did not receive a call back from King. The press release confirms that Beaubien was indeed irate, as Wade Lacroix suggested to John Carson that morning, and highlights the force with which
Beaubien wanted some action taken against the occupiers.

The same can be said for the constituent’s letter advocating violence and aggression, which Beaubien forwarded to King on Sept 6 under a cover letter that said he “totally” agrees with the constituent. That context is important for understanding the tone of Beaubien’s comments to Carson and Linton in the Command Post on September 6, just hours before the shooting.


Automatic gunfire reports

Contrary to the suggestion of the Province, the report of gunfire on the night of September 5th was operational police information. It was raw police intelligence that was unconfirmed and unverified and subject to interpretation. It was not appropriate for this information to be shared with the IMC group through any channel. Nor was it necessary.

The Province claims that the possible presence of guns in the park was important and significant information for MNR since it raised a public safety issue. However, there was in fact no public safety issue that affected MNR’s jurisdiction since the park was closed, and, in any event, the police were exclusively responsible for ensuring public safety.

Part of the problem was apparently that the line between the OPP and MNR was extremely blurred, and the OPP saw itself as working on MNR’s behalf rather than as being a neutral party.

Wright exaggerating the dented fender incident

The OPP claims that Mark Wright was not the source of the misinformation regarding the Gerald George incident. To the contrary, Wright was involved in inflating and exaggerating the Gerald George incident to the Command Post, and particularly to Inspector Linton. Linton’s statement explicitly states that Wright is the one who informed him of the supposed striking of a women’s car by 8-10 male First Nations people. Further, Linton tells Carson about this incident using these terms in his initial
call with him at 20:20.170 This gross mutation of the facts occurred very quickly after the incident, yet persisted without correction or comment from anyone else right up until at least Linton’s conversation at 21:48 with Parkin. At the very least, Wright did not correct the misconception of a women or not, much less the number of people involved.

The claim that Carson was reasonable to deploy CMU

Many parties have submitted that Carson was reasonable in deploying the CMU on the night of September 6. However, this submission assumes that Carson was the one who actually deployed the CMU, when in fact it was Wright and Korosec who actually gave the order to “suit up in CMU hard tac” and even initially deployed the CMU without any authority of the Incident Commander (although the Incident Commander later ratified
the deployment of CMU). We do not intend to repeat our original submissions here regarding this issue, but this perspective is reinforced by the fact that one can hear Wright start his phone call with Tim McCabe prior to Linton and Carson finishing the call in which Carson finally convinces Linton to use ERT.

Sequence is key

One of the very important things to keep mind is the order in which specific detailed events occurred, particularly during the night of September 6, 1995. Some submissions gloss over the specific timing and order in which things occur, and we submit that timing is at the heart of understanding what happened at Ipperwash, particularly on the night of
September 6. As part of the timing, it is also important to note that there is a 7 minute adjustment that generally needs to be performed for telephone call in order to synchronize them with the scribe notes and the radio transmissions. Our submissions account for this discrepancy, but others do not, and it is important that the Commission be aware of this discrepancy when reviewing the arguments and trying to reconstruct what happened, especially in the critical period between 7:50 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.

One specific detail that requires correction is at page 329 of the submissions of Mike Harris. The call that is incorrectly stated as having begun at 7:42 p.m., actually took place at 9:48 p.m.

“Use guns if you have to”

Harris states that Bob Watts received a call from Leslie Kohsed-Currie around 11:00 a.m. on September 6. That was not Ms. Kohsed-Currie’s evidence. She stated that the call was around 1:30 or 2:00 in the afternoon – shortly after the conclusion of the Premier’s Dining Room meeting. She informed Watts that Deb Hutton had made a comment: “Get
those fucking Indians out of the Park and use guns if you have to.”

Harris and Hutton argue that no such statement was ever made by Ms. Hutton. However, it is very similar to the comment that Harris made at the Premier’s Dining Room meeting: “I want the fucking Indians out of the Park.” While Ms. Kohsed-Currie attributed the statement to Hutton as opposed to Harris, it does tend to corroborate Harnick’s evidence on this point.

The other alternative is that Ms. Hutton did make that comment. Clearly, she did not make such a comment during the IMC meeting, but she may well have said it before or after the meeting to just a small number of individuals – maybe even in the same room, or maybe in another location altogether. Not everyone who could have heard such a comment, if it was made, gave testimony before this Inquiry. In short, there is no direct
evidence that Ms. Hutton made the comment, but that does not prove she did not make it. It would have been consistent with the Premier’s inflammatory and hawkish views expressed at the Dining Room meeting for her to have said it.

Out in 24 hours

There is conflicting evidence and submissions as to Larry Taman’s note which reads: “AG instructed by P that he desires removal within 24 hrs.” However the document speaks for itself, and whenever it happened to have been made, the message is clear. The Premier wanted the occupiers out of the Park within 24 hours. He was not a patient man when it came to Ipperwash.

The ex parte order sought by McCabe

The Province notes that paragraph 3 of the order sought in the Ipperwash ex parte injunction application is similar to another injunction order known as the Beardmore order. However, the Province neglects to mention the notable differences between the Beardmore order and the order that McCabe sought.

First, the order sought at Ipperwash was worded so that it was broader and applied to all of the Government of Ontario instead of just the Ministry of Natural Resources. In addition, any person in the government could be directed by any minister or deputy minister instead of the Beardmore order that focused on just the Ministry of Natural Resources. These changes raise obvious questions about its intended implementation if it was granted, particularly since the Premier was clearly involved in Ipperwash and had strong views about it.

Second, the Province neglects to mention that the Beardmore order was sought in a very different context than Ipperwash: a roadway to a construction site had been blocked with some logs; almost a month had passed since the blockade had begun; the Province had sat down with the protestors to discuss their grievances and provided funding; and a
written agreement was reached. The agreement was not adhered to, the Ministry attempted one more time to work it out, and then the ex parte injunction was sought (with wording limited to the Ministry of Natural Resources). Ipperwash is different on almost every account, and one has to wonder why a more expansive order than Beardmore was sought for Ipperwash, particularly given what was going on within the government at
Queen’s Park in Toronto.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

August 16, 2006
Murray Klippenstein

Vilko Zbogar

Basil Alexander

Andrew Orkin

Tim McCabe, Sept. 29, 2005, p. 40-43.

KLIPPENSTEINS
Barristers & Solicitors
160 John St., Suite 300
Toronto, ON M5V 2E5

Murray Klippenstein
Vilko Zbogar
Basil Alexander
Tel: (416) 598-0288
Fax: (416) 598-9520

- and -

ANDREW ORKIN
Barrister & Solicitor
103 Glenfern Ave.
Hamilton ON L8P 2Y9

Tel: (905) 522-7929
Fax: (905) 522-0884

Counsel for the Estate of Dudley George and Members of Dudley George’s Family