Harris Contradicts Todres Testimony on Hodgson

I read some of the media coverage on Ipperwash. What’s being given out for public consumption is pretty sparse and misinterpreted for brevity’s sake because you pretty well have to pay attention to all of the testimony.

Harris’s testimony is in on live web cast over the next couple of days via the Ipperwash Inquiry’s website. In this instance you can see his face and body language. Watching him you can see him fidget in his seat and fidget with his glasses.

So far, Harris has contradicted himself on a number of issues especially when it came to the notes that were attributed to him when it came to the notes taken at the Inter-Ministerial Committee meeting by his executive assistant Deb Hutton.

He conceded that he was very confident that Ms. Hutton could speak for him at this IMC meeting. When Harris was asked if he told Ms. Hutton to speak on his behalf at the IMC meeting stating Ipperwash was "not an aboriginal issue it’s a law and order issue", he said she shouldn’t have spoken on his behalf on this point.

It seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Harris and the government didn’t have much concern about Constitutional rights or Part II of the Charter when applying it to Ipperwash. IMO those that should have been concerned should have been the Ministry of the Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Native Affairs.

If the press is going to be responsible they should read Harris’s testimony and compare it with other testimony about what was said at the IMC meetings that was attributed to Deb Hutton.

To me it sounds like Mr. Harris is fudging his testimony because he’s not consistent and at times contradictory. From his testimony it appears that Deb Hutton is attributing a lot of negative positions to Harris but Harris didn’t brief her to do so.

Harris recalls someone spoke on behalf of the OPP at the dining room meeting – either the Minister of the Solicitor General, the Deputy Solicitor General or someone from his or her office. He said he didn’t know who it could have been because there were some individuals he didn’t know in that meeting.

Beforehand, Harris didn’t know there were OPP officers acting as OPP officers within the government bureaucracy and he still doesn’t believe they were OPP officers. His rationalization on seconded O.P.P officers is interesting (or bizzare?) because he uses the fact that he is no longer a teacher because he was ‘seconded’ by the Ontario public to be Premiere of the province.

Marcel Beaubien’s testimony showed ignorance of his legal obligations with respect to the Constitution and the appearance of conflict of interest with his relationship with the O.P.P.
So far out of all the testimony I have trusted Chris Hodgson’s – he sounded confident and judging by the sound of his voice – appeared to be honest and telling the truth.

Chris Hodgon’s categorically denied that he said he wanted the natives "out of his fucking park" attributed to him by Elaine Todres. Chris Hodgson seemed very aware and respectful of the native community.

Harris did not confirm Elaine Todre’s testimony that attributed the above statement to Chris Hodgson and testified that Chris Hodgson said nothing at the meeting, including "get the fucking natives out of my park".

Since I wasn’t able to listen to Elaine Todres' testimony I read it instead. What I read was a lot of sophistry - information that appeared talk around the question. As far as I was concerned her testimony was filled with a lot of hot air.

It is also very clear that the Federal Government was negligent in this crisis because they told the province, the MNR, that the natives had no land claims but somehow found the documentation after the shooting.

It also very clear that Harris didn’t even think nor was it brought to his attention to consider, negotiations or to have someone ask the protesters what they wanted or why they were occupying and blockading the park. On this issues he’s coming across as an airhead.

In today’s testimony he still used language that identify the natives as dissidents and occupiers as if he still doesn’t understand the government’s Constitutional responsibility – even before they did a thorough investigation to find out if there was a land claim and speaking to the native. It appears that he doesn’t understand what an ex-parte injunction is – an injunction used only in emergency situations.

It was assumed to use an emergency ex-parte injunction even though there was no effort being made to negotiate to settle it peacefully beforehand.