Harris Ipperwash Testimony

Update: this is a summary in my words for today's testimony February 15 '06

Harris’ testimony today he is coming across arrogant and indifferent. He is denying he told the Attorney General and Deb Hutton that he wanted the "occupiers" out of the park within 24 hours or as soon as possible or at least it wasn’t asked of him.

Harris had evidence in front of him from notes taken by Julie Jai a lawyer for ONAS and notes by Larry Taman taken on the morning of September 6th that indicated it was on the direction of the Premiere that he wanted the natives out of the park within 24 hours.

Harris told the inquiry that he "didn’t have near enough evidence to make a decision" on what the individuals knew about his directives. He is ignoring the evidence that is in front on him and is not commenting on it. Instead, he is taking the position as if he were the judge for this inquiry stating he needs more evidence.

With respect to the questioning:

I would have asked him did you or did you not tell Deb Hutton that you wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24 hours and asked her to relate that to the IMC meeting?

I also would have asked him did you or did you not tell the Attorney General on the morning of the 6th or prior to that you wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24 hours?

If he denied saying 24 hours ask the questions again with "as soon as possible".

So far he is denying giving any directives to individuals but the notes taken down are attributing him as giving direction. Therefore, if he didn’t give direction then the Attorney General relayed information to his deputy incorrectly. This would also mean that Deb Hutton relayed information to the IMC meeting incorrectly identifying Harris’ direction.

Harris himself said yesterday that he had every confidence in Deb Hutton to speak on his behalf at these meetings.

Harris admits that it is a serious concern that O.P.P discussed and understood they had directives from the government. The evidence used was the taped conversation between Inspector Fox and Inspector Carson – which is well known as part of it had a lot of media air play.

When Harris read in a newspaper report that there were O.P.P officers in the dining room meeting he had an assistant – Deb Hutton – to inquire whether or not the news report was correct. He found out the news report was correct but did not find out why they were there.

Harris testified that he trusted Deb Hutton to be accurate in any representation she gave of him and that of the office of the Premiere. Yet in his testimony today he wouldn’t respond on what his stated positions to Deb Hutton or anyone else was at the time - but what his speculation and assumptions were of these individuals.

His testimony is similar to Elaine Todres in that whatever they said didn't answer the question. They have to fill it in with irrelevant facts or sophistry instead of answering directly. Peter Rosenthal the counsel for the George Family Group and Aazhoodena had to keep re-asking Harris the questions to remind Harris that he wanted to know what he [Harris] knew at the time - not what his speculations were of other individuals.

Answers like these were consistently objected to by other counsel in past testimonies and accepted by the Commissioner but it doesn't seem to be consistent this time around.

For those interested they can go to the Ipperwash Inquiry website to read these testimonies to see what they said with respect to direction given by Harris before the dining room meeting on September 6th.