Bob Runciman on the Ipperwash Inquiry Report
Ontario MPP Bob Runciman, who was Solicitor General in charge of the OPP at the time of the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation in 1995, will join us Friday at 9 a.m. EDT for an online discussion on the Ipperwash Inquiry report and the role of government in native land disputes.
Prior to that, Mr. Runciman was Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and has served as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. He was also Chair of Cabinet, Chair of Cabinet's Environment Committee and co-Chair of Justice and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Runciman was the Solicitor General in charge of the OPP at the time of the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation. He testified at the Inquiry that he stayed out of police operations during the occupation and had urged his colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Runciman began his political career as a municipal councillor in Brockville. Before his election to the Ontario Legislature, he was employed in production management in the chemical industry. He has significant experience in labour relations as both a union president and contract negotiator.
Mr. Runciman also worked as a reporter for two Eastern Ontario daily newspapers. His business experience has included ownership of a weekly newspaper and commercial printing business. Mr. Runciman is married to the former Jeannette Bax. They have had three children: two daughters, Sue and Robin, and one son, Bill (deceased). They are the proud grandparents of Iylish, Cassandra and Nick.
Angus Frame, globeandmail.com: Hello Mr. Runciman and than-you for joining us. There are a number of reader questions waiting for you but before we get to those I wanted to give you an opportunity to make an openining statement of sorts in response to the Ipperwash report. What did you think of the findings?
Bob Runciman: I have no problem with the findings as I understand them. I've only had the opportunity to read the Exec. Summary, so I'll reserve final judgement.
gran2006 skipper from Hamilton Canada writes: Mr Runciman,
Good Morning.
What would you do differently today to avoid the violence of Ipperwash?
Bob Runciman: As I understand the report, miscommunication, intelligence failures, etc. we're the root causes of what resulted in Mr. George's death. I believe the OPP in the intervening yrs have made a significant # of changes as a result of what happened at Ipperwash and Judge Linden's findings may necessitate more. In hindsight obviously you would do things differently but we were acting with the information we had at the time.
Gail Cooper from Toronto Canada writes: Mr. Runciman: It has been almost a decade since the shooting of Dudley George. To date, the underlying cause of this tragedy - the federal government's failure to keep its promise to return the land to the Natives after expropriating it for wartime use - has still not been addressed. The land remains in federal hands. What on earth does it take for governments to honour such agreements? When they do not, what recourse does anyone have?
Bob Runciman: An interesting question. The report cites former fed. Native Affairs Minister Jean Chretien pressing for a turnover of the property, to no avail. Yet, when he was PM (for 13 yrs.!) nothing happened. Certainly raises questions about his sincerity. Its difficult to comprehend their reluctance to return the property to the rightful owners.
Jack Frost from Windsor Canada writes: The Liberals launched this investigation along with the mantra that Mr. Harris had orchestrated the events which lead to the regrettably killing of Duddly George. Now in Linden's report we have this :
'Although Premier Harris was critical of the police, I do not find he interfered with or gave inappropriate directions to the police at Ipperwash ... the premier did not inappropriately direct the OPP on its operations ... or enter the law enforcement domain of the police.
Do the Liberals not owe Mr. Harris an apology for what could amount to slander and libel?
Bob Runciman: The Liberals in my view, have continually played politics with a tragic death and they continue to do so. We recently witnessed Mr. McGuinty implying that members of the PC and NDP parties were racist for raising questions about what appeared to be a LIberal slush fund. They play dirty.
K R from Toronto Canada writes: In light of the report, does Mr. Runciman think his former government and Mr. Harris should apologize to the George family.
I'm happy that Mr. McGuinty stood up and apologized on behalf of Ontarians, but an apology from the governing party and premier at that time would make a lot more sense.
Bob Runciman: My leader, John Tory, in a formal response from our Party, supported the apology. This was followed by a statement in the legislature to the same effect. With respect to Mr. Harris, I'll leave those decisions to him. He's now a private citizen.
Keith Summers from Toronto Canada writes: Mr. Runciman, would you support the devolution of responsibility for aboriginal issues from the federal government to the provincial governments? The issues/land claims/disputes are invariably local, never national. Wouldn't a provincial response be more 'responsive'?
Bob Runicman: I'm not opposed to considering that but I'm not sure what the implications might be. I know that, in the Caledonia situation, the occupiers have indicated that they prefer to deal with federal officials, nation to nation as they see it. I would also be concerned about a patchwork approach to what are truly serious problems facing First Nations peoples, problems that in my view would justify the establishment of a Royal Commission to meet head-on.
James Kennedy from Canada writes: Many people, including an editorial in the National Post, are saying that the resolution of Ipperwash demonstrates that violent disruption works and non-violent protest and negotiations do not. I think this is a very unfair characterization and fails to recognize the essential truth. Canada is to blame here. We have been the ones that have deliberately used violence rather than fulfill our duty to mitigate and resolve these land disputes. In the case of Ipperwash it was not even a dispute. It was a broken promise. We have broken the laws. Our democracy is not working. Our democracy is failing miserably. The way we have treated the first nations of this land wipes out all the good that this piece of paper called Canada has ever done in this world. It is a damned shame, and it continues to be a damned shame. There are few other words to describe it.
Bob Runciman: There's no question that this is a complex issue. If you've toured some of the northern communities and witnessed the serious social problems, it is very apparent that the status quo is not working.
K R from Toronto Canada writes: What does Mr. Runciman think of Harris' racial slur, which was confirmed by the commissioner as being said by Harris?
Bob Runciman: I can only say that I didn't hear it. Commissioner Linden, in his finding, suggests that the comment may have been made just prior to the "Dining Room" meeting. There's no doubt that the allegation fuelled much of the rhetoric around the charges that the govt. directed the OPP.
Steve Smith from Toronto Canada writes: Why was no blame placed on the occupiers/indians?
Bob Runciman: A good question. I can only surmise that the Commissioner felt that the occupiers frustration over the failure of the fed. govt. to return land seized during the 2nd World War, made their actions understandable and in his view, forgiveable. My concern with this is the interpretation placed on the findings and what the implications might be for police responding to things like rail blockades and the enforcement of court injunctions. I think govt. has a responsibility to clarify this for all Ontarians, not just policing organizations.
K R from Toronto Canada writes: What is your opinion though? Do you think Mr. Harris should apologize? The commissioner did confirm that he did say a terribly racist comment, is one not owed at least for that? Don't you think Mr. Harris is hurting your party by not apologizing? He clearly said a horrible racist comment, and as the premier of that time - not a private citizen, he was representing your government and your party.
Bob Runciman: I thought I did answer earlier. I indicated that I did not hear the remark. Every other attendee, with the exception of Mr. Harnick, testified they did not hear the remark and Mr. Harris denies making it.
gran2006 skipper from Hamilton Canada writes: Did Mike Harris heed your encouragement to stay out of police operations?
Bob Runciman: Yes. I don't think there's any doubt that the so-called "Dining Room" mtng. resulted in the allegations of political interference. Commisioner Linden emphasizes this indicating that police should not have attended that kind of mtng. I don't believe Mr. Harris knew police had been invited and as Solicitor General, I didn't know. They were invited by my Deputy.
Angus Frame: Thank-you Mr. Runciman for joining us this morning and my apologies to the reader questions that we were unable to address today. Before we wrap up, do you have any final words or thoughts on the Ipperwash report or the next steps in establishing better relations between governments and the First Nations people?
Bob Runciman: As I indicated, I haven't read the detailed report, but I think the rec"s on a dedicated ministry and a land claims officer would be a step in the right direction. I also think stronger involvemnt by First Nations leadership to discourage activities such as rail and highway blockades, would significantly improve the climate.
