More Ipperwash Testimony

Once again the Commissioner and the Province’s counsel are frustrating the questions that are allowed to be asked of Harris. Counsel for the George Family Estate and Aazhoodena wants to clarify Harris’ direction given to his staff and what he understood about the intent of the press releases but he wasn’t allowed to ask or rephrase the question.

Peter Rosenthal will be writing a submission with respect to the questions that are allowed or not allowed to be asked.

Harris has stated that a number of newspaper articles didn’t accurately represent what he said but did nothing to have his viewpoint or that of the Conservative Common Sense Revolution clarified by a letter to the editor of the newspaper to correct the mistakes that he felt was made.

Harris could not provide a name of a staff member to whom he asked to make the correction. He had concerns about a news report. He was asked if he requested a staff member to write a letter to the editor? His response was that he didn’t recall

He did agree with a report that stated he objected to the NDP government shutting out stakeholders out of land claims in their secret land claim process. That report when on to cite case law and a Supreme Court decision in 1923 that supported his common sense revolution regarding land claims.

My Opinion:

What are needed are land claim decisions that were brought before the courts and the S.C.C. and presented to Harris that do not support his legal viewpoint and ask him to comment on it. (I’d like to know who gave him the legal viewpoint)

What should also be brought forward are video clips of Harris’ speeches to prove exactly what he said so there is no misunderstanding as to what a reporter accurately or didn’t accurately report.

Since Harris nor his staff did nothing about correcting inaccurate understandings of the Party’s position then they conceded that the reports were accurate as far as I’m concerned.

It seems that according to Harris – everyone was incorrect at interpreting his meaning except himself.

It was brought up to Mr. Harris that the reasons the government did not seek another injunction was because the legal advice given to them was that they would have to justify their position in doing so before a judge and as there was already violence and a death that they would have problems getting it.

Mr. Rosenthal put to Mr. Harris is that the reason they did not pursue an injunction again is because of that judicial scrutiny that would criticize the governments and the O.P.P's actions already taken on Ipperwash.

Harris disagreed with Rosenthal’s induction not because they were afraid of scrutiny but because there were criminal investigations and a civil suit ongoing and he felt that these venues would bring about appropriate information.

The crux here Mr. Rosenthal was trying to highlight is judicial scrutiny and fear of it. So with respect to Harris’ answer there is a problem with the rationale – cancel the civil suit in favour of an inquiry to which the government did not want. Fear of judicial review and fear of an inquiry is equal.

But the problem may be more a fear of cost of an inquiry than with its judicial scrutiny on the actions of the government.

What was not brought up was the fact that the Federal government did not provide land claim documentation to the provincial government before the provincial government took its stance on Ipperwash. The federal government brought up the documentation after Dudley George was shot and killed.

So there is an issue with patience. Why didn’t the provincial government wait to see what the federal government could provide?