table of contents · 2008-04-08 · 2.10 land surrenders at kettle point and stoney point reserves...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Inquiry Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.1 Two-Part Mandate; Two-Part Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1.2 Principles Governing the Inquiry and Additional Goals . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1.3 Approach to the Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2. Process of Part I of the Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.1 Commission Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.2 Rules of Procedure and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.3 Standing and Funding Applications and Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2.4 Location for Evidentiary Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2.5 Broad Public Access to Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2.6 Disclosure and Management of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2.7 Issues of Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.2.8 Identifying and Preparing Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.2.9 Summonses and Search Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2.10 Notices of Alleged Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2.11 Hearing Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2.12 Evidence/Examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2.13 Confidential Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.2.14 Commissioner’s Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.2.15 Closing Submissions and Replies in Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.2.16 Aboriginal Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.4 Organization of this Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. HISTORY OF STONEY POINT AND KETTLE POINT . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.1 Expert Testimony at the Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.2 The British Conquest and The Royal Proclamation of 1763 . . . . . . . . . 212.3 The Treaty of Niagara – The British Offer Two Wampum Belts . . . . . . 222.4 Burial Grounds and Totemic Identity of the Anishnabek People . . . . . . 232.5 The Huron Tract Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.5.1 Early Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.5.2 The 1819 Provisional Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.5.3 The 1825 Provisional Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.5.4 The Signing of the Huron Tract Treaty in 1827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.6 The Early Administration of the Huron Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.7 The “American Indians” Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.8 Federal Government Attempts to Assimilate

First Nations People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.9 Separation of Stoney Point and Kettle Point from the

Sarnia Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

v

2.10 Land Surrenders at Kettle Point and Stoney Point Reserves . . . . . . . . . 372.10.1 The Surrender of the Shoreline at Kettle Point Reserve . . . . . . . . . . 372.10.2 The Surrender of the Shoreline at Stoney Point Reserve . . . . . . . . . 41

2.11 Stoney Point Beachfront Purchased by the Ontario Government:Establishment of Ipperwash Provincial Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2.12 Kettle and Stony Point Band Seek Protection of theBurial Site in the Provincial Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.13 The Appropriation of Stoney Point Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.14 Desecration of the Burial Site at Stoney Point Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572.15 Attempts at the Return of the Stoney Point Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3. LIFE AT STONEY POINT PRIOR TO THE APPROPRIATION BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.2 The Stoney Point Reserve Before the 1942 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . 653.3 Children of Former Stoney Point Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703.4 Grandchildren of Former Stoney Point Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4. THE 1942 APPROPRIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.2 Were There Alternative Suitable Sites for the Military Camp? . . . . . . . 754.3 The Forced Relocation in Spring 1942 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774.4 First Nation People Serve in the Canadian Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5. EFFECTS OF THE APPROPRIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835.2 Soldiers Return from War and Economic and

Emotional Hardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835.3 Desecration of the Burial Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855.4 Friction Between Stoney Point and Kettle Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6. MAY 1993–JULY 1995 — OCCUPATION OF THE MILITARY RANGES AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896.1 May 1993 — Occupation of the Ranges at CFB Ipperwash . . . . . . . . . 896.2 Summer 1993 at Stoney Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966.3 Marcia Simon’s Teaching about the Past and the

Traditional Sense of a Warrior Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986.4 Interactions Between the Occupiers and the Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996.5 July 1993 — Toll Collection Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996.6 August 1993 — Incident with Kevin Simon’s Dwelling

and Possessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006.7 August 23, 1993 — Helicopter Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016.8 September 1993 — March to Ottawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

vi • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

6.9 Winter 1993–1994 at Stoney Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036.10 Efforts for the Return of the Army Camp — Announced

Return in 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046.11 March 1994 — Tribute to Clifford George and Dudley George . . . . . 1056.12 Summer 1994 — OPP Policy and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066.13 1994 Creation of Operation Maple by the Military and

the Arrival of Captain Howse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076.14 1995 — Growing Frustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086.15 July 1995 — Cross-Cultural Awareness Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126.16 June 1995 — Campaign and Election of Michael Harris and

the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146.17 June–September 1995 — Ministries and Offices in the

Ontario Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196.17.1 The Structure of the Provincial Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196.17.2 The Role of Deputy Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206.17.3 Executive Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216.17.4 Cabinet Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226.17.5 Ministry of the Attorney General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226.17.6 The Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1236.17.7 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246.17.8 Ministry of the Solicitor General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

7. OCCUPATION OF THE ARMY BARRACKS, “THE BUILT-UP AREA” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277.1 Stoney Point People Decide it is Time to Reclaim

Their Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277.2 Concrete Plans to Occupy the Army Barracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307.3 The July 29 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307.4 The Military Contacts the OPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347.5 The Military Contacts a First Nations Negotiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357.6 July 30, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417.7 July 31, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1437.8 “Outsiders” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467.9 The Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Band Meeting –

August 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467.10 The Band’s Press Release and Letter to the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497.11 Captain Smith Becomes the Military Liaison Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1517.12 Did the Occupiers have Firearms at the Army Camp? . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527.13 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) Learns of the

Occupation at Camp Ipperwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527.14 The August 2 Interministerial Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1537.15 Premier Harris and Cabinet Ministers Apprised of

Army Camp Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

TABLE OF CONTENTS • vii

7.16 Activities of Police and MNR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1627.17 The OPP Arrest Kevin Simon: A Case of Mistaken Identity . . . . . . . 1667.18 Undercover Police in Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1687.19 MPP Marcel Beaubien Voices His Concerns on West Ipperwash

to Cabinet Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1697.20 The OPP Meet with Marcel Beaubien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707.21 Letter Written by Councillor Gerald George to the

Forest Standard Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

8. OPP PREPARE FOR PARK OCCUPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1758.1 Confirmation First Nations People Plan to Occupy

Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1758.2 The OPP Planning Meeting — August 29, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1768.3 August 30 to August 31, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1788.4 The Development of Project Maple — September 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . 1798.5 MNR Activity on September 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1828.6 Project Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1838.7 Intelligence under Project Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

8.7.1 Expert Testimony on Police Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1858.7.2 Weaknesses in Intelligence under Project Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

8.8 September 3, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

9. SEPTEMBER 4, 1995: THE OCCUPATION OF IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1939.1 Plans to Assume Control of the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1939.2 Reasons for Entering the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1959.3 The OPP Continues Its Preparations for a Possible

Occupation of the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1969.4 Confrontation with Roderick and Stewart George Before

the Park Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1979.5 Trees Felled on Matheson Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019.6 First Nations People Enter Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019.7 Incident Commander Notified of Park Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2039.8 Escalation of Events at Ipperwash Park: Flares and

Damage to a Police Cruiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2049.9 The Decision to Serve Notice of Trespass on the Occupiers . . . . . . . . 207

9.10 Attempt by MNR/OPP to Serve Legal Documents on the Occupiers Fails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

9.11 Loss of Containment of the Provincial Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2139.12 Occupiers at the Park on the Night of September 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

10. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21710.1 September 5, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21710.2 The OPP Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

viii • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

10.3 Chief of Kettle and Stony Point Does Not Support Park Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

10.4 Concerns of the Mayor and the Town of Bosanquet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22110.5 Request for a Private Line at the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22310.6 OPP Surveillance and Protective Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

10.6.1 Surveillance from the Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22510.6.2 Video Cameras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22710.6.3 Boat Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22710.6.4 Light Armoured Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22710.6.5 Nomex Fire-Retardant Suits and Night Vision Glasses . . . . . . . 229

10.7 Inspector Carson Informs His Command Team of “Political Heat” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23010.7.1 Local MPP Marcel Beaubien Discusses Occupation with

Staff Sergeant Lacroix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23010.7.2 Staff Sergeant Lacroix Informs Inspector Carson of

Concerns of Provincial MPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23010.7.3 Inspector Carson Briefs His Command Team on Political

Pressure at Queen’s Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23110.8 Ontario Government Officials Notified of Occupation

of Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23210.9 The September 5 Interministerial Committee Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . 233

10.10 Why Was a Facilitator/Negotiator Not Appointed by the IMC? . . . . 24510.11 Inadequate Understanding by Political Staff of Colour of Right . . . 24610.12 Briefing of the Minister of Natural Resources Post–IMC

Meeting and MNR Press Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24710.13 MPP Beaubien Informs Bill King of the Premier’s Office

of His Plans to Issue a Press Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24810.14 Telephone Conversation between Ron Fox and

Inspector Carson after the IMC Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25010.15 Incident Commander Shares with OPP Officers Call from

Fox Post–IMC Meeting and the Views of Politicians . . . . . . . . . . . . 25210.16 MNR Park Superintendent Invited to Command

Post Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25510.17 Purpose of Police Checkpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25710.18 Reaction of the Aboriginal People to the Increased

Police Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25910.19 Plans to Initiate Dialogue with the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

10.19.1 Who Should Negotiate with the Aboriginal People? . . . . . . . . . 26210.19.2 Attempts to Communicate with the Occupiers Fail . . . . . . . . . . 265

10.20 Work Done by Ontario Government Officials after the IMC Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

10.21 The TRU Team Arrives on the Evening of September 5 . . . . . . . . . . 26910.22 Altercation with Police: The Picnic Table Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

TABLE OF CONTENTS • ix

10.23 Police Make Threatening Remarks to Dudley George . . . . . . . . . . . . 27410.24 Aggressive and Culturally Insensitive Remarks by

OPP Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27610.25 Reports of Gunfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28010.26 Intelligence at Ipperwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28310.27 Call Between Superintendent Parkin and Inspector Linton . . . . . . . . 28510.28 Extent of the Occupation — Intentions of the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . 28610.29 Reaction of Government Officials on the Night

of September 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

11. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995: BEFORE 7:00 P.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28911.1 Inspector Carson Learns of Picnic Table Incident and

Reports of Automatic Gunfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28911.2 Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) Leader Shares Information

about Automatic Weapons with the TRU Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29111.3 Mayor of Bosanquet Visits OPP Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29311.4 Removal of Picnic Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29411.5 Continued Attempts to Obtain Armoured Vehicles and

Other Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29811.6 Is the Telephone Line Recorded? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30011.7 Contact with Inspector Hutchinson in Gustafsen Lake . . . . . . . . . . . 30011.8 Missed Opportunities in Intelligence Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30111.9 Captain Smith Offers His Assistance to the OPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

11.10 Chief Superintendent Coles and Superintendent Parkin Visit the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

11.11 Call between Ron Fox and Mark Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30711.12 Preparations for the Injunction: Communication Between

MAG Lawyer and Inspector Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30811.13 Attempts to Communicate with the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31111.14 Mark Wright’s Attempts to Communicate with the

Park Occupiers Fails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31511.15 Bonnie Bressette Visits Ipperwash Park on September 6:

“Everybody has a right to have a sit-in or a protest …. It’s to create an awareness” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

11.16 MNR’s Presence at the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32211.17 MPP Beaubien Appears at the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32311.18 Reaction of Occupiers to the Perceived Increased

Police Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32611.19 Vince George’s Concerns about Possible Burial Grounds

in the Park and Helicopter Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33011.20 Chief Tom Bressette Notified of Alarming Comments

from the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

x • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

11.21 Mark Wright Stops Residents from Marching to Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

11.22 Inspector Carson Leaves the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

12. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — GOVERNMENT MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THE IPPERWASH OCCUPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33712.1 Seeking Direction from the Attorney General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33712.2 The September 6 IMC Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

12.2.1 Status Reports from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Solicitor General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

12.2.2 No Negotiations with the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34312.2.3 Who Will Be the Spokesperson for the Government

on the Occupation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34412.2.4 An Injunction – With or Without Notice to the Occupiers? . . . . 34612.2.5 Possibility of First Nations Burial Grounds in the Park . . . . . . . 34712.2.6 Tension in the Local Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34912.2.7 Heated Exchange – Separation of Government from

Police Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35012.2.8 Facilitator Not Appointed: Reliance on the OPP as the

“Communicator” – Another Missed Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . 35112.2.9 Frustrations and Concerns of the IMC Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

12.2.10 Conclusions Reached by the IMC Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35512.3 “AG Instructed by P That He Desires Removal

Within 24 Hours” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35612.4 The “Dining Room” Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

12.4.1 Offensive Comments Heard by Attorney General Harnick . . . . 36012.4.2 Premier Harris is Cautioned about the Separation of Police

and Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36412.4.3 Deputy Solicitor General Hears Offensive Remarks from

Minister of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36512.4.4 Seconded Police Officers at the Premier’s Dining

Room Meeting – Was the Premier Critical of the OPP? . . . . . . 36712.4.5 Seconded Police Officers at the Premier’s Dining Room:

Perception of Political Interference in Police Operations? . . . . . 37112.4.6 Exchange between Minister Hodgson and the Seconded

Police Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37512.4.7 Was There a Comment about the Holocaust and, if so,

in What Context? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37712.4.8 What Was Decided at the Dining Room Meeting? . . . . . . . . . . 378

12.5 Mr. Fox Shares His Views of the Premier’s Dining Room Meeting with the OPP Incident Commander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38012.5.1 Ron Fox Calls Inspector Carson at the Command Post . . . . . . . 38012.5.2 The Effect of the Call on the Incident Commander . . . . . . . . . . 38712.5.3 Ron Fox is Chastised by His Superiors for Inappropriate

Language and Criticism of the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

TABLE OF CONTENTS • xi

12.6 Christie–Taman Exchange — Instructions to Proceed Immediately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

13. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — MISCOMMUNICATION AND POOR INTELLIGENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39313.1 Encounter between Mark Wright and First Nations People . . . . . . . . 39313.2 Whose Car Was Damaged, By Whom, and How? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

13.2.1 The Altercation between Stewart George and Gerald George . . . 39713.2.2 Gerald George Reports the Incident to the Police . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

13.3 Detective Constable Dew Reports Weapons and “Women and Children” Leaving the Army Camp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

13.4 Inadequate Intelligence: A Serious Failing at Ipperwash . . . . . . . . . 40813.5 Occupiers Prepare for the OPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41113.6 Mark Wright Conveys “Escalating Events” to Carson and

Complains Linton is “Waffling” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41313.7 Inspector Linton Instructs the CMU Commander and TRU

Team Leader to Report to Forest Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41713.8 Inspector Carson Tells Inspector Linton Not to Deploy TRU . . . . . . 41813.9 TRU Instructed Not to Proceed to Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

13.10 Mark Wright Tells MAG Lawyer: “They’re coming out for a fight down to the road so we’re [taking] all the marines down now” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

13.11 John Carson Returns to the Command Post: A Decision is Made to Mobilize the CMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

13.12 TRU Told Imitation AK-47s, Mini Ruger 14s, and Other Weapons Possibly at the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

13.13 CMU Assembles at the Command Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42913.14 Inspector Linton Notifies MAG Lawyer of Trouble at

Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43413.15 Inspector Linton Tells Superintendent Parkin:

Tonight’s the Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434

14. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PRECIPITOUS ACTION: CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE OPP AND THE FIRST NATIONS OCCUPIERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43914.1 The CMU Commander and His Team Drive to TOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43914.2 The Decision to Send the CMU Down East Parkway Drive . . . . . . . 44014.3 The Incident Commander and TRU Leader Arrive at TOC . . . . . . . . 44314.4 CMU Officers Congregate at TOC to Prepare for

Their Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44414.5 TRU Officers Assemble at TOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44514.6 The Sierra Teams Are Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44814.7 Cecil Bernard George Returns to the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44914.8 Briefing before CMU is Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450

xii • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

14.9 CMU March Down East Parkway Drive Toward Ipperwash Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

14.10 Anxiety of First Nations People as They Watch the Police Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

14.11 The CMU Arrive at the Sandy Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45514.12 Cecil Bernard George Walks into the Sandy Parking Lot:

“Punchout” by the CMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45914.13 Altercation between the OPP and Cecil Bernard George . . . . . . . . . 46414.14 The Bus and Car Emerge from the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46814.15 The OPP Shoot at the Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47214.16 The OPP Shoot at the School Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47414.17 Dudley George is Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47514.18 First Nations People Run to Dudley George after He is Shot . . . . . . 47814.19 Officers Ordered to Return to TOC after Dudley is Shot . . . . . . . . . 48114.20 CMU and TRU Return to TOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48114.21 Call between Ovide Mercredi and Mark Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48314.22 No TRU Transmissions of the Confrontation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48414.23 An Aboriginal Protest is Different from a Soccer Crowd:

Lack of Understanding of Aboriginal History and Culture . . . . . . . . 48614.24 Responsibility for the Decision to Deploy the CMU and TRU . . . . . 487

15. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — PURSUIT AND ARREST OF MARCIA SIMON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49315.1 Arrival at Payphone in Northville and the Arrest of Marcia Simon . 495

16. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — NICHOLAS COTTRELLE IS TRANSPORTED BY FOREST AMBULANCE TO STRATHROY HOSPITAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50116.1 OPP’s Contact with Ambulance Dispatcher and Forest

Ambulance Prior to Injuries Sustained by the Occupiers . . . . . . . . . .50116.2 Popping Noises: Ambulances Dispatched to Highway 21 and

Army Camp Road to Transport Nicholas Cottrelle to Hospital . . . . . 50416.3 Forest Paramedics Hide in Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50716.4 The Ambulance Trip to Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51016.5 Patients from Ipperwash Begin to Arrive at Strathroy Hospital . . . . 51116.6 Arrival of Nicholas Cottrelle at Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51216.7 Police Presence at Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51316.8 Presence of Foreign Particle in X-Ray of Nicholas Cottrelle . . . . . . 51416.9 Gun Residue Tests Performed on Nicholas Cottrelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515

17. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — CECIL BERNARD GEORGE IS TRANSPORTED BY ST. JOHN AMBULANCE TO STRATHROY HOSPITAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51717.1 St. John Ambulance Volunteers are Dispatched to Ipperwash . . . . . . 517

TABLE OF CONTENTS • xiii

17.2 The OPP Give Instructions to the St. John Ambulance Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

17.3 Banging Noises and the Arrival of Cecil Bernard George in the MNR Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520

17.4 The Trip to Strathroy Hospital — Fear Cecil Bernard George No Longer Had a Pulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523

17.5 Cecil Bernard George is Treated at Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . 52517.6 The St. John Ambulance Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52817.7 Interaction between Cecil Bernard George and

the OPP at the Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52917.8 Dr. Marr’s Assessment of Mr. George’s Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

18. SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 — UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO RESUSCITATE DUDLEY GEORGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53318.1 Dudley George is Transported to Strathroy Hospital by

His Siblings and a Teenager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53318.2 Arrival at the Farmhouse of Hank Veens – Unexpected

Flat Tire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53518.3 Arrival at Strathroy Hospital and the Arrest of Carolyn George,

Pierre George, and J.T. Cousins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53718.4 Anthony “Dudley” George at Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54618.5 Arrival of Dudley George’s Brother Sam and Other Relatives . . . . . . 55018.6 Autopsy of Dudley George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55118.7 Review of Medical Care Provided to Dudley George . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

18.7.1 Transport to Hospital: Time Elapsed and En Route Care . . . . . . . 55418.7.2 First Aid and/or Care En Route to Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55418.7.3 Factors that May Have Affected Dudley George’s Chance

of Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

19. SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 — THE HOURS FOLLOWING THE CONFRONTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55919.1 The Hours Following the Confrontation: High Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . 55919.2 Events at Strathroy Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

19.2.1 Arrest and Detainment of Carolyn George, Pierre George and J.T. Cousins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

19.2.2 Arrest and Detainment of Nicholas Cottrelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56819.2.3 Arrest and Detainment of Cecil Bernard George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

19.3 Change in Command of the Ipperwash Police Operation . . . . . . . . . . 57119.4 First Measures to Restore Calm by the Aboriginal Parties . . . . . . . . . 57219.5 The March from Kettle Point Plaza to the Army Camp . . . . . . . . . . . . 57319.6 March to the Tactical Operations Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57519.7 Loss of the Crime Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57719.8 Fight for Public Sympathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57819.9 A Meeting of the Parties — De-escalation Commences . . . . . . . . . . . 581

xiv • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

20. THE WEEKS AND MONTHS FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF DUDLEY GEORGE — THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATUS QUO, BUT NO RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58520.1 Change in Police Tactics, Infrastructure, and Priorities

after the Shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58520.1.1 Change in Incident Command for Project Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58620.1.2 The Changed Role of Inspector John Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58720.1.3 Renewed Focus on Resolution through Peaceful

Negotiation – De-escalating the Tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58820.1.4 Repair of the Information Flow and Processing

Functions within Project Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

20.2 The Role of the Aboriginal People in De-escalating the Tensions . . . . 59420.2.1 The Role of the Aboriginal Peacekeepers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59520.2.2 First Nations Investigation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59720.2.3 Joint SIU/CIB/First Nations Investigation

of the Crime Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59820.2.4 Voluntary Surrender of Certain Occupiers under

Existing Arrest Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

20.3 Injunction Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59920.3.1 September 7 Court Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59920.3.2 Chain of Events Leading to the Government Decision

to Withdraw the Request for an Injunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602

20.4 Government Response to the Events of September 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60520.4.1 Transformation of the Interministerial Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 60520.4.2 Restricting Information Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60920.4.3 The Official Government Stance: No Negotiations

until Occupation Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61020.4.4 “Revelation” of Burial Ground Documents by Canada . . . . . . . . . 61620.4.5 Park Management Issues as Winter Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

20.5 Summary of the De-escalation of Tensions and the Development of a Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622

20.6 Summary of Related Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62320.6.1 Related Criminal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62420.6.2 R. v. Deane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62420.6.3 R. v. George (Warren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62620.6.4 R. v. N.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62720.6.5 R. v. George (Cecil Bernard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62820.6.6 R. v. George (Abraham David) and R. v. George (Stacey) . . . . . . . 62920.6.7 Special Investigations Unit Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62920.6.8 The Coroner’s Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63520.6.9 Civil Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636

20.7 The Impacts of the Events of September 6, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63620.8 Cultural Insensitivities and Racism: Barriers to a

Timely Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642

TABLE OF CONTENTS • xv

20.8.1 Whitehead and Dyke Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64520.8.2 Other Offensive and Racist Verbal Communications . . . . . . . . . . 64720.8.3 Motion by the OPPA, OPP, and Province of Ontario to

Preclude Admission into Evidence of OPP Disciplinary Records Related to the Ipperwash Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

20.8.4 Commemorative Mugs and T-Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65120.8.5 Mugs and T-Shirts (with Feather Symbol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65520.8.6 Second T-Shirt (Anvil, Arrow, and TRU Symbol) . . . . . . . . . . . . 65820.8.7 Conclusion – The Racist and Culturally Insensitive

Comments and Memorabilia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66120.8.8 MNR Ipperwash/Pinery Park Policing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66320.8.9 OPP Response to Culturally Insensitive and

Racist Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66520.8.10 MNR Response to Culturally Insensitive and

Racist Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66720.8.11 The Political Response to Cultural Insensitivity

and Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .668

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6971. Order-in-Council 1662/2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6982. Commissioner’s Ruling Regarding the OPP Disciplinary Files,

August 15, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

xvi • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Inquiry Mandate

In 1995, Mr. Dudley George was shot during a land claim occupation and protestby Aboriginal people in Ipperwash Provincial Park and died of his wounds. Eightyears later, in November 2003, the Ontario government established the IpperwashInquiry, pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act.

I discuss the purpose of public inquiries and the process of the IpperwashInquiry in detail in Volume 3 of this report. In this chapter, I describe more brieflythe purpose of public inquiries and the process of conducting the investigation, orPart 1 of the Inquiry.

The mandate of the Ipperwash Inquiry, as set out in the Order-in-Council was

1. to inquiry into and report on events surrounding the death of DudleyGeorge; and,

2. to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of violence insimilar circumstances.

In broad terms, there are two types of public inquiries. One is an inves-tigative inquiry, which examines and reports on a specific incident or seriesof events. Often, an element of public controversy is attached to the matter beinginvestigated. Investigative inquiries are established to conduct an independent, comprehensive, and transparent review of the events. Unlike a civil or criminal trial,an inquiry is intended to uncover the truth rather than to establish liability. The purpose, in other words, is to find out what happened — to look back.

The other type of public inquiry focuses on the development of public policy in a specific area of public concern. Often, the need for such an inquiry arises from undesirable events or circumstances. In these cases, the inquiry servesas a means through which the contributing factors can be fully considered. Withinthat context, the inquiry may make recommendations for measures to preventrecurrence or for systemic improvement — in other words, to look forward.

Thus, a public inquiry can be an opportunity to look back or to look for-ward. It can also be both. An inquiry can be called to uncover the truth about a specific matter and, at the same time, to propose policy reform. The Ipperwash

1

Inquiry was established to meet both of those objectives — to conduct an inves-tigation and to examine policy.

However, all public inquiries serve a further purpose. A public inquiry alsoinforms the public by presenting evidence that, until that point, may only have beengiven in private, if at all. It provides a forum for citizens and groups to participatein the resolution of issues and the development of future policies and strategiesconcerning matters and events in which they may have a stake. In other words,what distinguishes a public inquiry from other types of investigations and policyreviews is that it is public: conducted in public view and with the participation ofthe public.

11..11..11 TTwwoo--PPaarrtt MMaannddaattee;; TTwwoo--PPaarrtt PPrroocceessss

Part 1 of the Inquiry followed the evidentiary hearing model. It was a fact-finding process through which I would make findings, based on the evidenceheard, regarding the events surrounding the death of Dudley George. Part 2 wasa policy-based review to fulfill the broader part of the mandate of the Inquiry;namely, to make recommendations on measures to avoid violence in similar circumstances. The two parts of the Inquiry were conducted simultaneously.

In this volume (Volume 1), I report on the facts and findings arising fromthe investigation. Volume 2 explores the policy issues underlying the events ofSeptember 1995 and contains my recommendations for avoiding violence in the future. The inquiry process is described in Volume 3, and Volume 4 is anexecutive summary, which includes all of my recommendations stemming fromthe Inquiry.

11..11..22 PPrriinncciipplleess GGoovveerrnniinngg tthhee IInnqquuiirryy,, aanndd AAddddiittiioonnaall GGooaallss

The principles that governed this Inquiry were similar to those of other publicinquiries: thoroughness, expedition, openness to the public, and fairness. To getat the truth, and to meet the tests of impartiality and independence, the Inquiryhad to be thorough. To inform the public and to restore public confidence, theInquiry had to be conducted in an open forum, thereby ensuring that it would be transparent and open to public scrutiny. To ensure fairness, procedural safeguards had to be put in place and the Commission and the parties had toobserve them. And finally, although the principles of thoroughness, openness tothe public, and fairness were to be paramount throughout, the Inquiry had tobe as expeditious as possible.

Throughout the process, my explicit and primary goal was to fulfill the two-part mandate as set out in the Order-in-Council. However, I also hoped to achieve

2 • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1

two additional goals through the Inquiry process. The first was to further publiceducation and understanding regarding the issues surrounding the shooting death of Dudley George. The second goal was to contribute to the healing ofthose affected by the tragedy.

It should also be noted here that in light of the broad mandate of the Order-in-Council, I also committed to addressing the considerations of section 20 ofthe Coroner’s Act in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of time and effortby the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario, which had the power to call aninquest into the circumstances of Mr. George’s death.

11..11..33 AApppprrooaacchh ttoo tthhee IInnvveessttiiggaattiioonn

In most investigative inquiries, the complexity of the task may not be apparent atthe outset. Carrying out the investigation is not the difficult part. The difficultylies in defining the task — articulating the “what” of it. Beneath an apparentlystraightforward set of circumstances might lie a multitude of matters which meritinvestigation.

The first part of my mandate was to investigate and report on the events surrounding the death of Dudley George. How narrowly or broadly I interpretedthe requirement to investigate the events “surrounding” the death of DudleyGeorge was critical.

The narrowest interpretation might have led me to investigate only the sequenceof direct events and decisions in the immediate vicinity of Ipperwash ProvincialPark, during the hours on September 6 immediately preceding the shooting inwhich Dudley George was killed. On the other hand, the broadest interpretation ofevents “surrounding” his death might have led me to an extensive investigation ofthe events and decisions which, in the years, decades, and even centuries before,might have directly or indirectly led to tragedy. Neither of these extremes wouldhave been satisfactory. Nonetheless, defining the scope of the investigation was farfrom simple. In my view, the task was made more difficult by the number of yearsthat had passed. In the years following the death of Dudley George, more and different issues and interests meriting consideration arose, beyond the facts of theshooting, which might not have arisen immediately after the event.

My decision regarding the scope of the investigation had an impact on manyof my subsequent decisions, including my decisions on which individuals andorganizations should be granted standing, which witnesses should be called to testify, and the extent to which examination and cross-examination by counselwould be helpful or relevant.

Although the precise limits of the investigation were not easy to define, com-mission counsel and I recognized at an early stage that the investigation would have

INTRODUCTION • 3

to take into account some of the history and circumstances of the Aboriginalpeople claiming title to Ipperwash Provincial Park. We began the investigation bycalling two experts to provide an overview of the systemic or historical circum-stances which may have contributed to the actions and decisions under investiga-tion. Although many of these circumstances pre-dated the events that gave rise to calling the Inquiry, or could have appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction ormandate, my view was that they would shed light on and provide context forwhy those events occurred. I believed that this was the appropriate starting pointfor the parties and the public.

Following the historical overview of the land and the Aboriginal people,spanning the years from 1763 and the Royal Proclamation to 1942 and the appropriation of the Stoney Point Reserve for military purposes by the federal gov-ernment, the investigation of the events “surrounding” the death of Dudley Georgemoved to 1993 and the occupation of the federal army camp and barracks. Thefocus of the investigation then narrowed significantly, to the summer of 1995,and in particular the Labour Day weekend in September 1995 when Mr. Georgewas killed, and also to examining some significant and relevant events in thedays and weeks following the shooting.

Another challenge was to define the perspectives to be sought in the courseof the investigation.

Commission counsel began by grouping the seventeen parties with Part 1standing, and the witnesses to be called, into three broad categories of interests:Aboriginal, Ontario government, and OPP. This was intended to assist in determin-ing the sequence of the witnesses and the order of cross-examination by the parties. Additional witness categories included emergency personnel directlyinvolved with the events of September 1995, local cottage-owners, and federal government officials.

However, simply identifying these broad categories of interests did not dimin-ish the complexity of the task. For example, there was not only one Aboriginal perspective on the events surrounding the death of Dudley George. Six parties had interests broadly defined as “Aboriginal,” all of which required exploration.Seven parties fell into the category of the Ontario government and two parties represented the separate management and association interests of the OPP. It wasa challenge throughout to maintain the balance between the need to proceed efficiently and the need to elicit evidence which added details to the investigationor helped me test or verify the evidence of others.

In making these decisions, I was always mindful of the less tangible, but inmy view, equally important attribute of a public inquiry; that is, healing. While


my main task was to conduct a thorough investigation, the process offered anopportunity for points of view to be shared, sometimes for the first time. Thissometimes had a cathartic effect and I thought it was important for us to encour-age this.

1.2 Process of Part 1 of the Inquiry

11..22..11 CCoommmmiissssiioonn CCoouunnsseell

Soon after my appointment, I appointed commission counsel. The primary respon-sibility of commission counsel is to assist the commissioner in carrying out hisor her mandate by representing the public interest at the inquiry and ensuringthat all perspectives bearing on the public interest are brought to the commis-sioner’s attention. Commission counsel provides advice to the commissionerthroughout the inquiry and conducts and supervises the investigation from begin-ning to end.

In a public inquiry, an effective investigation requires considerable planningand preparation before the hearings can begin. I worked with my lead counsel,Derry Millar, to establish our team of lawyers and investigators. We chose a legaland investigative team that collectively had the knowledge, skills, and experi-ence to deal with the issues we expected to cover in the Inquiry and to accomplishour objectives.

11..22..22 RRuulleess ooff PPrroocceedduurree aanndd PPrraaccttiiccee

Subject to fairness, a commissioner has broad discretion in conducting a publicinquiry in a manner that best meets the mandate. This discretion extends to defining the rules that underlie the conduct of the inquiry.1 Typically, these rules,commonly known as rules of procedure and practice, are developed early in theinquiry process so that the public and participants will know the “rules of thegame.”2 They address procedural matters such as the granting of standing andfunding for interested parties, the disclosure of documents, and the calling ofwitnesses. The rules may also address practical matters such as the location andschedule of inquiry hearings and other activities.

We modeled our Rules on those of similarly structured public inquiries andin keeping with the general principles I had articulated for the Inquiry. Commission

INTRODUCTION • 5

1 For example, Public Inquiries Act, supra note 5 at c.P.41.s.3.

2 A Handbook on Public Inquiries in Canada, supra note 4 at 69.

counsel invited the parties with standing to comment on the draft Rules and weposted the final version on our website.

11..22..33 SSttaannddiinngg aanndd FFuunnddiinngg AApppplliiccaattiioonnss aanndd DDeecciissiioonnss

To be thorough and to obtain all relevant information and perspectives, publicinquiries invite potential parties (interested individuals and groups) to apply forstanding in the inquiry. Our Notice of Hearing, which was published in a numberof national and local print media and on our website, invited applications forstanding in one or both parts of the Inquiry. I assessed all of the applications for standing, and applications for funding from parties granted standing, againstthe test for standing and funding set out in our Rules. I heard the applicationsover four days in late April 2004, in the small town of Forest, Ontario, which isnear Ipperwash Provincial Park.

I granted standing in the fact-finding phase to parties who demonstrated “an interest which is directly and substantially affected by the subject matter” in Part 1 of the Inquiry, or to parties who represented “distinct ascertainableinterest and perspectives … essential to the discharge of the Part 1 mandate.”3

Seventeen parties met the criteria for standing in Part 1.Seven of the seventeen parties granted standing in the evidentiary hearing

phase of the Inquiry applied for funding, on the basis that without it, they wouldnot be able to participate in the proceedings. Funding covered counsel fees andreasonable disbursements such as travel and accommodation expenses, as setout in the Ministry of the Attorney General’s fee schedule for outside counseland the guidelines for disbursements established by Management Board ofCabinet. In accordance with the Order-in-Council, I recommended to the AttorneyGeneral that these seven parties be granted funding to make possible their partic-ipation in the Inquiry and he accepted my recommendations.

11..22..44 LLooccaattiioonn ffoorr EEvviiddeennttiiaarryy HHeeaarriinnggss

The principle of public accessibility informed one of my earliest decisions regard-ing the Inquiry: where to hold the evidentiary hearings. With the benefit of inputfrom counsel, staff, and the parties, I decided that the Inquiry should be heldnear the community most affected by the events being investigated. Accordingly,the hearings were held in the auditorium (Kimball Hall) of the Forest MemorialCommunity Centre, near Ipperwash Provincial Park.


3 The entitlements and obligations of parties with standing are set out in sections A.II (Part 1) and B.II(Part 2), Appendix 2, Rules of Procedure and Practice.

11..22..55 BBrrooaadd PPuubblliicc AAcccceessss ttoo HHeeaarriinnggss

The technology available today affords great opportunity to ensure public accessto the proceedings of a public inquiry. Our website was designed to offer cur-rent and complete information on all aspects of the Inquiry.

The website provided information on the parties with standing. During the evi-dentiary hearings, we also posted hearing schedules, transcripts of testimony,and my public statements and decisions on motions. The transcripts were postedon our website the same evening as the testimony was heard, and they were therefore available to counsel to assist them in preparing for the next day.

The website also included a “feedback” link to allow visitors to the site to convey their views and to share or seek information. In terms of public access,however, the addition of a link from our website to a live webcast of the hearingshad the greatest impact. It became possible for interested individuals, anywherein the country and beyond, to see and hear the proceedings of the Inquiry in realtime. I am grateful for the assistance of counsel for the Estate of Dudley Georgeand George Family Group for helping us to make this service available.

The webcast offered other benefits to the Part 1 process. Commission coun-sel and other commission staff could follow the proceedings, even when otherresponsibilities or cost considerations made it impractical for them to travel toForest. The same advantage applied to counsel for the parties with standing.

In view of the importance of public access to the proceedings of a publicinquiry, we also arranged for broadcast-quality taping of the hearings, from startto finish, by a local audiovisual company. This served as a pool feed for the elec-tronic media covering the hearings.

11..22..66 DDiisscclloossuurree aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff DDooccuummeennttss

A public inquiry is afforded wide-ranging investigative powers. Among themis the power to collect or require disclosure of documents, and if necessary, tocompel the production of documents through a summons or a search warrantfrom the court.

Parties with Part 1 standing were required to provide all relevant documents(defined broadly to include materials in written, electronic, audio, video, anddigital form, as well as photographic or other visual materials such as maps and graphs) in their possession or to which they had access. The Commissiontreated documents received from parties or other sources as confidential untiland unless they were made part of the public record.

More than 23,000 documents were scanned into the Inquiry database, assignedan Inquiry document number, and made available to the parties in electronic

INTRODUCTION • 7

format. Where appropriate and relevant, we had audio materials transcribed andmade available to the parties. Counsel for the parties with standing were requiredto sign a confidentiality undertaking with respect to documents.

11..22..77 IIssssuueess ooff PPrriivviilleeggee

During the hearings, the Inquiry dealt with many documents that were the subjectof a privilege or privacy claim. A protocol for handling documents that were thesubject of any kind of privilege or privacy claim was included in our Rules.4

Where a party asserted privilege of any kind, I directed the party to disclosethe subject documents, in unsevered form, to commission counsel for review,with an explanation of the grounds on which privilege or privacy was asserted and the basis for the assertion. The review of these documents took place in thepresence of counsel for the party asserting privilege, if requested by the party. Onthe few occasions where a party asserted privilege, I issued a summons5 to the party to produce documents.6

In the course of reviewing documents over which privilege was asserted,commission counsel first considered relevance. If the document was not rele-vant and helpful to the discharge of the mandate of the Inquiry, then the documentwas returned to the party. If the document was deemed potentially relevant, butcommission counsel agreed that the claim for privilege had been properly assert-ed (and not waived at law), then the document would either be returned in its entirety or maintained with the privileged sections severed (where feasible). Two options were available in the event of disagreement between commission counsel and a party regarding the validity of the privilege claimed (assumingrelevance had been established): I could either order production of the subjectdocuments for my inspection and ruling, or I could direct that the issue be resolvedon application to the Regional Senior Justice in Toronto or his designate.Fortunately, no disputes arose which required this form of adjudication.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing phase of the Inquiry, and inaccordance with Rule 35, all parties were requested to return the electronic copyof the database, including any copies of any documents not made exhibits orbelonging to the party. Only those documents made exhibits or those referred to during the hearings are part of the public record of the Inquiry. The originalsof all documents disclosed over the course of the Inquiry were returned to the


4 Rule 32, Appendix 2, Rules of Procedure and Practice. Note that section 11 of the Public Inquiries Act(supra note 5) precludes admission of privileged matters into evidence.

5 Appendix 8(a), Summons to Witness to Attend and to Produce Documents.

6 Public Inquiries Act, supra note 5 at sec. 7(1)(b).

parties. In keeping with the archiving requirements of the Province of Ontario, the Inquiry retained copies in its electronic database, which was transferred to theArchives of Ontario at the conclusion of the Inquiry.

11..22..88 IIddeennttiiffyyiinngg aanndd PPrreeppaarriinngg WWiittnneesssseess

In carrying out its investigation, a public inquiry is empowered to call witnessesto appear and testify under oath, and to produce documents identified by thecommission. Without this authority to compel testimony and to produce docu-ments, inquiries would be required to rely on the willingness of individuals tovolunteer information. This could make it difficult, if not impossible, to uncoverthe truth.

The principles of fairness and thoroughness informed the selection of wit-nesses, and witnesses were called to testify if they could provide relevant andhelpful information. However, this did not mean that all possible witnesseswho had relevant and helpful information were called. The challenge through-out was the need to balance efficiency with ensuring that the investigation wasthorough and fair.

Prior to testifying, one or more commission counsel and one or more of ourinvestigators interviewed each witness and a transcript of key witness interviewswas made. Given the number of years that had passed since the events in question,witnesses were given copies of documents from the Inquiry database before the interviews, when possible, to help refresh their memories. Information fromone witness sometimes led to interviews of further potential witnesses. Also, onoccasion, members of the public offered suggestions with respect to relevant witnesses. We considered each of these, and pursued the line of inquiry if wedeemed it to be potentially helpful or relevant.

Under the Rules, witnesses called to testify at the Inquiry had certain proce-dural rights. For example, they had the right to be accompanied by counsel during the interview and to be represented by counsel when they testified.7 Severalwitnesses availed themselves of this right.

11..22..99 SSuummmmoonnsseess aanndd SSeeaarrcchh WWaarrrraannttss

Pursuant to the Order-in-Council, the Inquiry was empowered to issue sum-monses8 to witnesses in accordance with Part II of the Public Inquiries Act.9

INTRODUCTION • 9

7 Rules 19 and 23, Appendix 2, Rules of Procedure and Practice.

8 Appendix 8(b), Summons to Witness to Appear.

9 Supra note 5 at sec. 7(1).

Pursuant to Part III of the Act, the Inquiry was also empowered to seek search war-rants from a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On occasion, I issueda summons to a witness where the witness did not testify voluntarily, or when a witness requested a summons for other legitimate reasons such as to justify absence from work. It did not prove necessary to execute any search warrants.

The power to summons witnesses derived from a provincial statute, and whileI had the power to issue summonses to individual employees or former employ-ees of the federal government, I could not through them obtain documents relating to the areas of intended examination. These documents are in the controlof the relevant Minister of the Crown in Right of Canada and, as a provinciallyappointed commissioner, I did not have jurisdiction to compel a Minister of theCrown in Right of Canada, in his or her official capacity, to appear and producedocuments.10 Although invited to do so, the federal government did not applyfor standing in the Inquiry and was not subject to the obligations set out in theRules. However, the federal government cooperated in providing documents.Also, the federal officials we called as witnesses testified voluntarily and gave evidence on matters relevant to the Inquiry involving Indian and Northern AffairsCanada and the Department of National Defence.

11..22..1100 NNoottiicceess ooff AAlllleeggeedd MMiissccoonndduucctt

Fact-finding, a key aspect of most public inquiries, carries with it the possibili-ty that the evidence heard will affect individual or organizational reputations,particularly if the commissioner makes a finding of misconduct. The PublicInquiries Act affords legal protection to anyone who may be found by an inquiryto have been involved in misconduct. Subsection 5(2) of the Act provides thatno finding of misconduct against a person may be made in the commissioner’sreport unless the person had received Notice of Alleged Misconduct (sometimesreferred to as a “5(2) Notice”) and had been given an opportunity to respond tomatters described in the Notice.

To minimize anxiety on the part of a recipient, commission counsel, as apractice, started interviews by informing the potential witness of the statutoryobligation of the Inquiry to issue Notices of Alleged Misconduct where warrant-ed, and by explaining the meaning of “alleged misconduct” in accordance with the statute. Equally important, my counsel also informed the potential witnessof what the Notice did not mean; that is, receiving one did not represent any prejudgment of my findings (if any) concerning the witness. In drafting theNotices therefore, we were careful not to use language that might be confused withpotential findings of civil or criminal liability. Notices were delivered in confidence


10 Keable, supra note 3.

to the persons or parties to whom they related and, whenever possible, we issuedNotices before the individual gave his or her testimony, either directly or throughcounsel if the witness was represented. It is important to point out here, as did theCommissioner of the Walkerton Inquiry, currently the Associate Chief Justiceof Ontario, the Honourable Justice Dennis O’Connor, that where I use termssuch as “fault,” “responsible,” and “accountable,” I do not intend, in this report,to reach any conclusions of law. Accordingly, readers should attach the normal,non-legal meaning to words of this nature.11

11..22..1111 HHeeaarriinngg SScchheedduullee

Before the hearings began, and while the initial document analysis and the witness interviews were still in progress, commission counsel was already devel-oping an overall framework for the hearings. Once again, the challenge was to develop an approach that would balance the need to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the death of Dudley George with our obligation toexplore only what was necessary to meet the mandate of the Inquiry.12 Throughoutthe hearings, commission counsel gave considerable attention to the hearingschedule, taking into account the need to achieve this balance, as well as a logi-cal sequence for the witnesses and the likely time required for each.

We notified counsel of the witness schedule weekly and posted the scheduleon our website. We began with a hearing week of Monday through Thursday,with two weeks of hearings followed by a one-week adjournment. The adjourn-ment week allowed counsel for the parties to prepare for the witnesses sched-uled for the next two-week session and to attend to other matters. It also allowedtime for me and for commission counsel to address other inquiry business, includ-ing meetings related to the policy phase of the Inquiry, and to prepare for futurewitnesses. After several months, we adjusted the timetable by adding anotherhearing week to the cycle, so that the adjournment week followed three consec-utive weeks of hearings. As time went on, hearing hours were added to eachweek. By the final month, we heard evidence every day, with only a few excep-tions, in order to meet the ending date we had already announced.

11..22..1122 EEvviiddeennccee//EExxaammiinnaattiioonnss

Before each witness testified, commission counsel compiled a binder based on a comprehensive review and analysis of relevant documents in the Inquiry database and on the interviews our investigators and counsel conducted with the

INTRODUCTION • 11

11 The Honourable Dennis R. O’Connor, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, Part 1, at 37, (Toronto: Queen’sPrinter for Ontario, 2002)

12 Appendix 14(n), Commissioner’s Remarks, Final Day of Evidentiary Hearings, June 28, 2006.

witness. The binder included an outline of the anticipated evidence from the witness and all relevant Inquiry documents. Five copies of the binder were made:one for me, one for commission counsel conducting the examination-in-chief,one for the second commission counsel assigned to the witness, one for the registrar, and one for the witness. In accordance with the Rules,13 commissioncounsel gave parties with standing an outline of the witness’s anticipated evi-dence and a list of the documents likely to be referenced or filed as exhibits. Wedisclosed Inquiry documents to counsel for the parties electronically, which gavethem electronic access to these documents in the hearing room.

Commission counsel called each witness and led the examination. In view ofcommission counsel’s responsibility in a public inquiry to instil confidence inthe impartiality of the inquiry in the parties and the public, it was important thatthis questioning be carried out fairly and even-handedly. On a number of occasions,counsel for a witness examined his or her own witness, after commission coun-sel’s examination, to bring out issues in chief not led by commission counsel.Following commission counsel’s examination, counsel for the parties had theopportunity to cross-examine the witness in an agreed-upon sequence. I madeit a practice to canvass counsel for an estimate of the time needed for cross-examination. Counsel cooperated throughout in estimating and adhering to whatI considered to be reasonable times. Following the cross-examinations, commis-sion counsel re-examined the witness.

11..22..1133 CCoonnffiiddeennttiiaall HHeeaarriinnggss

The Inquiry hearings were generally open to the public. However, pursuant tothe Public Inquiries Act (and also as set out in the Rules),14 there were provi-sions for conducting hearing in private, if necessary, at my discretion.

There was one instance of in-camera proceedings during the Inquiry. Thisinvolved certain tapes of telephone conversations, which had not been made public and which commission counsel intended to introduce and did subsequent-ly introduce through a witness who had been part of the conversation. Counsel forsome of the parties brought a motion for the early public disclosure of thesetapes. The motion was argued in public, but I heard the portion of the motionthat dealt with the specifics of the conversations in camera so that the contentof the tapes would not be disclosed prematurely.15


13 Appendix 2, Rules of Procedure and Practice, Rule 37.

14 Rules 40 to 47, Appendix 2, Rules of Procedure and Practice.

15 Appendix 13(b), Commissioner’s Ruling on a Motion by the Chiefs of Ontario and the Estate of DudleyGeorge and George Family Group, October 12, 2004.

A witness could request that measures be taken to conceal his or her identi-ty. If I found that a compelling reason existed, I could grant “confidentiality”status to the witness. Such measures could include referring to the witness by non-identifying initials rather than by name in the transcript, in other publicrecords, and in my report.

There was one request for confidentiality regarding the identity of a witness.In the case of one OPP off icer, counsel for the Ontario Provincial PoliceAssociation requested that the officer’s face not be photographed or webcast.The officer was involved in sensitive police work, which would have been jeop-ardized otherwise, and I agreed to the request for that reason. The parties fully supported my decision.

11..22..1144 CCoommmmiissssiioonneerr’’ss SSttaatteemmeennttss

I made public statements from time to time when I felt it necessary to conveymy views or expectations regarding the progress of the Inquiry to the media, tothe public, and to counsel for the parties.16 Among other things, I expressed myviews on the purpose of public inquiries, the principles guiding the IpperwashInquiry, my expectations with respect to procedure, and the process. I repeated-ly returned to the theme of balancing fairness and thoroughness with efficiency,including cost-efficiency. The text of these statements was part of the transcriptof the day’s proceedings and was also posted separately on our website. Together,these statements provide a chronology of the progress of the Inquiry.

11..22..1155 CClloossiinngg SSuubbmmiissssiioonnss aanndd RReepplliieess iinn PPaarrtt 11

On March 30, 2006, I informed the parties that the hearings would be complet-ed by June 29, and I described the procedures for closing submissions and replies.I invited all parties with standing in Part 1 to submit written closing submissionsand, if they wished, to also make submissions orally. Parties also had the optionof replying to the submissions of other parties with Part 1 standing.17

I asked the parties to file written submissions, in both a hard copy and elec-tronic format, and to distribute them electronically to the other parties who participated in the hearings within one month following the conclusion of theevidentiary hearings. If the parties in Part 1 chose to reply to submissions by otherparties with Part 1 standing, they were to deliver the written replies within two

INTRODUCTION • 13

16 Appendix 14, Commissioner’s Statements.

17 Appendix 15(a), Memoranda to Parties with Standing re Closing Submissions Process: from LeadCommission Counsel to Counsel for Parties with Standing in Part 1 and Part 1 and 2, May 19, 2006.

weeks of that date, filing and distributing them in the same manner as the sub-missions. We posted all written submissions and replies on the website on the firstday of the oral submissions. In the interest of fairness, I directed parties not topublish their submissions or replies before that date.

Once the parties choosing to make oral submissions had advised theCommission of their intention, we determined and circulated the order of presen-tation. I advised the parties that I would not allocate the unused time of one partyto another party, and that at the conclusion of each party’s submission, I would callthe next party scheduled.18

All parties with Part 1 standing chose to make oral submissions, and I assignedeach a maximum of either one or two hours to do so, depending on the nature andscope of the party’s interest or perspective. They divided the time as they chose:to address the main points of their written submissions and/or to reply to thesubmissions of other parties. I heard oral closing submissions over the course offour days, August 21-24, 2006, in Forest.

At the conclusion of our investigation into the events surrounding the deathof Dudley George, we had a database of 23,000 documents. The investigationlasted 229 hearing days (followed by the four days of oral closing submissions),during which we heard testimony from 139 witnesses, catalogued 1,876 exhibits,and produced over 60,000 pages of transcripts.

11..22..1166 AAbboorriiggiinnaall TTrraaddiittiioonnss

One of the procedural adjustments I made to the conventional public inquiryprocess was to add a traditional opening to our hearings for standing and fundingto acknowledge the importance and significance of the traditions of AboriginalPeoples. At the hearings, Aboriginal witnesses were offered the choice of beingsworn to testify while holding an eagle feather, a symbol of truth, or while plac-ing a hand on a bible.

To formally mark the conclusion of the hearings and as a symbolic conclu-sion of an important chapter in the events surrounding the death of Dudley George,we arranged a closing at Kimball Hall to bring together those who participated in the process. I invited Elder Lillian Pitawanakwat to conduct a traditional cer-emony, as she had done at the opening of the hearings on standing and funding.At the closing, Aboriginal drumming groups representing three of the partieswith standing at the Inquiry, the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation,


18 Appendix 15(b) Memoranda to Parties with Standing re Closing Submissions Process: from LeadCommission Counsel to Counsel for Parties with Standing in Part 1 and Part 1 and 2, July 14, 2006.

the Residents of Aazhoodena and the OPP, performed together, as they had donespontaneously at another Inquiry event, the Indigenous Knowledge Forum organ-ized by the Inquiry in September 2005. In my view, this was a meaningful and symbolic event.

1.3 Acknowledgements

As is the case with any public inquiry, I owe considerable gratitude to a verylong list of individuals who contributed to or participated in the investigativephase of the Inquiry. Although I acknowledged them by name and in some detailin the Inquiry Process volume of this report, I want to reiterate here my heartfeltthanks to all of them for their dedication, professionalism, and skill. However, Iwould like to mention again a few people who were key to the investigation phaseof the Inquiry and to writing this volume of my report.

I am deeply appreciative of the exceptional leadership ability of my leadcommission counsel, Derry Millar, and I am grateful to commission counselSusan Vella and Don Worme. Each of them performed their duties with skill andprofessionalism throughout. They were assisted by associate counsel KatherineHensel, Megan Ferrier, and, for a shorter time, Jodie-Lynn Waddilove and RebeccaCutler. The counsel team had invaluable help from our investigators: lead inves-tigator RCMP Inspector Rick Moss, retired RCMP officer Jerry Woodworth,and Detective Sergeant Anil Anand of the Toronto Police Service.

The experience and skill of my senior legal analyst, Ronda Bessner, wereinstrumental in assisting me to analyze the large volume of evidence heard and inpreparing my report. Erin Stoik, Suzanne Sinammon, Julia Milosh, and DeirdreHarrington helped her at various times.

I also appreciated the cooperation of the parties, their counsel, the press, andthe community for their contribution to the process and outcome of the Inquiry.While the process was challenging, and at times particularly demanding, I hopeeveryone involved found the experience to be as rewarding as I did.

1.4 Organization of this Volume

This report begins with a history of Stoney Point and Kettle Point. Knowledge ofthe historical context is essential to understanding the reasons the Aboriginalpeople decided to occupy Ipperwash Provincial Park. This historical overviewcan be found in Chapters 2 to 5. The ancestors of the Kettle and Stoney Pointpeople as well as what life was like on the Stoney Point Reserve are described.These chapters also review the historical relationship between the Aboriginal

INTRODUCTION • 15

people and the government, as well as the effects of the appropriation of theStoney Point Reserve by the federal government in 1942 to establish an armytraining camp.

There were several attempts by Aboriginal people over subsequent decadesto negotiate return of the Stoney Point Reserve but the Department of NationalDefence maintained that it needed the camp for military training. After decadesof growing frustration, the former residents of the Stoney Point Reserve and theirdescendants decided to occupy the military ranges of Camp Ipperwash in May1993 – described in Chapter 6. Meanwhile they persisted in their efforts for thereturn of the land.

In 1995, the occupiers’ frustration increased because of the military’s per-sistence in remaining on the land. At the end of July 1995, the Stoney Point people decided it was time to reclaim the army barracks which was done on July 29, 1995. This occupation is discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 7 also discuss-es the reaction of the military, Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation, the OPP, andthe government to the occupation of the army barracks and the potential occupa-tion of Ipperwash Provincial Park after July 29, 1995 and during August 1995. Italso includes the convening of a meeting of the provincial government’sInterministerial Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies, placing undercover OPPofficers in the park, the OPP meeting with MPP Marcel Beaubien and the activ-ities of the MNR.

Chapter 8 deals with the planning by the OPP at the end of August 1995 andearly September 1995 for the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park. The chap-ter describes the meetings held to develop the operation plan “Project Maple”to respond to the potential occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park by Aboriginalpeople.

Chapter 9 examines the events that occurred on Monday September 4, 1995,when the Aboriginal people occupied the park.

Throughout the day on September 5, 1995, other Aboriginal people arrivedat the park to support the occupiers. There was also an increase in police presence.That evening there was an altercation between police and occupiers over picnictables the occupiers had brought into the sandy parking lot outside the park.These and other occurrences that day are documented in Chapter 10. Chapter 10also examines the activities of the OPP and politicians and the InterministerialCommittee meeting on September 5, 1995.

Chapters 11 to 18 examines the events of September 6, 1995: the day DudleyGeorge was killed in a confrontation between the police and the Aboriginal occupiers.


Chapters 11 and 12 chronicle events during the day and early evening ofSeptember 6, including the removal by the police of picnic tables from the sandyparking lot, unsuccessful attempts by the OPP to communicate with park occu-piers. Chapter 11 also reviews the activities at Queen’s Park of the responsible ministers and civil servants and the Interministerial Committee meeting onAboriginal Emergencies. It examines the meeting held in the Premier’s diningroom attended by the Premier, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, theMinister of Natural Resources, their deputy ministers, political aides and sec-onded OPP officers.

The events of the evening of September 6, including the confrontation betweenthe police and occupiers during which Cecil Bernard George was arrested andinjured and Dudley George was shot and killed, are examined in Chapters 13and 14.

Chapters 15 to 17 details the stories of some Aboriginal people, includingMarcia Simon, Nicholas Cottrelle and Cecil Bernard George, immediately follow-ing the confrontation with the police.

After Dudley George was shot, his brother, sister and a teenager transportedhim to the hospital. Chapter 18 describes this drive and the arrest of the car occu-pants upon arrival at the hospital. Dudley George was “vital signs absent” whenhe arrived and could not be resuscitated. The findings of the autopsy and themedical care provided to him are examined.

Chapters 19 and 20 provide an overview of the events that occurred duringthe hours, days and weeks following the confrontation. I review the testimony ofsome of the Aboriginal people and police officers that spoke about the emotionaland psychological impact of these events. Chapter 20 concludes with a review of theinvestigation into the inappropriate and culturally insensitive memorabilia that wasprocured and purchased by a number of police officers following the confrontation.

I conclude this volume with a summary of the answers to some of the moreimportant questions raised by the events of September 1995, including the futureof the land.

INTRODUCTION • 17

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF STONEY POINT AND KETTLE POINT

2.1 Expert Testimony at The Inquiry

Joan Holmes was called as an expert witness in Aboriginal ethno-history andAboriginal–government relations at the Part 1 evidentiary hearings. She was alsoretained by the Inquiry to write a report on the history of Kettle and Stony Point1

First Nation and the related reserves.By way of background, Ms. Holmes has a master’s degree in Northern and

Native Issues as well as a degree in Anthropology. In her twenty-one years ofexperience, her work has concentrated on the historical relationship between the Crown and First Nations. Ms. Holmes has testified as an expert witness in court proceedings and has acted under joint retainers for First Nations and the federal government.

Ms. Holmes is the author of many historical research studies on First Nations.She has examined the history of the Anishnabek2 and Ojibway communities in theareas of Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Bruce Peninsula, and Manitoulin Island.The relationship of these communities with the British Crown before treatieswere entered into has been a focus of her studies. Ms. Holmes has also examinedtreaty negotiations between these First Nations and the Crown both before and after Confederation. The different approaches of the Crown and First Nationspeople to the treaties, and the reserves that were lost as a result of surrender orexpropriation, has been the subject of her work.

Ms. Holmes has studied the legislation prior to the Indian Act in 1876. She hasalso written on the development of the Indian Act, as well as the policies andpractices of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Ms. Holmes was retained by the Commission to provide historical back-ground on Kettle and Stony Point. She was asked to begin in the pre-treaty period and canvass the major events of First Nations people in this geographic

19

1 When “Stoney” is used in relation to the Stoney Point Reserve, it is spelled with an “e.” When “Stony” isused as part of the name for the Indian Act Band Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, it is spelled withoutan “e.” In this report, “Kettle and Stony Point” refers to the people who resided at the t