From:	Sylvia [XXXX.XX]
Sent:	April 19, 2005 12:18 PM
To:	Michael Bryant
Cc:	Michael Bryant
Subject:	Questions Regarding Cornwall Inquiry

S MacEachern

XXXXX


19 April 2005

Dear Mr. Bryant,

Since attending yesterday's press conference with your welcome announcement 
of the commissioner and mandate of the inquiry I have obtained and read a 
copy of the mandate.

I now have deep concerns regarding the direction this inquiry will take and 
therefore its ability to finally ferret out the truth and thereby give some 
peace to the victims and comfort and true "closure" to the citizens of 
Cornwall.

I will limit my concerns to the following two dimensions of the mandate 
which are troubling, and, after each, pose my questions:


1. According to the mandate, the Commission shall inquire into and report on 
"allegations of historical abuse of young people in the Cornwall area."

The particular allegations of sexual abuse in Cornwall which eventually 
prompted this inquiry were not all historical, i.e., the Leduc allegations 
were not historical and, in fact, according to the allegations, Mr. Leduc, a 
lawyer and canon lawyer, was actively molesting young lads while allegations 
of a paedophile ring and cover-up were erupting all around him.

My question, therefore, is:

will this word "historical" prohibit Justice Gaude from inquiring into the 
non-historical sex abuse allegations in Cornwall which are integral to the 
sex abuse allegations which have beset Cornwall and prompted the demand for 
an inquiry?

2. According to the mandate, "allegations of abuse of young people have 
surrounded the City of Cornwall and its citizens for many years" and the 
Commission is mandated to "inquire into and report on the institutional 
response of the justice and other public institutions, including the 
interaction of that response with other public community sectors, in 
relation to: (a) allegations of historical abuse of young people in the 
Cornwall area, including the polices and practices then in place to respond 
to such allegations."

While this is certainly broad, it is also noticeable vague. There is no 
mention of the things that have been gnawing at the heart of Cornwall for 
years: paedophile ring, cover-up, Project Truth. Indeed, the mandate fails 
to identify, and thereby conspicuously side-steps, the very problem which is 
at the root of the Cornwall scandal and public discontent, namely, 
allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up involving many prominent men, 
including, among others, Roman Catholic clergy, police, businessmen, lawyers 
and judges.

I do hope I am proven wrong, but it seems to me that inquiring broadly but 
vaguely into allegations of sexual abuse is one thing, while inquiring into 
sexual abuse allegations in the context of concurrent allegations of a 
paedophile ring and well-orchestrated cover-up is quite a different matter.


Therefore, in this regard, I have two questions:

(a) Will this presumably broad but vague mandate actually restrict Justice 
Gaude and ensure that he is incapable of pursuing evidence and testimony 
related to allegations of cover-up and a paedophile ring - because he is not 
specifically mandated to do so? and,

(b) Does this mandate permit Justice Glaude to inquire into the role played 
by "the Church" in relation to allegations of sexual abuse.

I anxiously await your response, hoping that it will allay my fear that this 
mandate effectively neuters an effective and efficient inquiry.

Yours truly,

Sylvia MacEachern