Sylvia MacEachern 
2 December 2004

Dear Mr. Bryant,

First, thank you for traveling to Cornwall to allow residents and
victims an opportunity to provide input to the terms of reference
for the inquiry. 

I also thank you for listening to my brief input. Unfortunately I 
had not anticipated an opportunity to speak, nor was I aware that
I could have applied for standing to speak in advance, 
consequently I was unable to address and articulate the following
matters which I believe have relevance to the terms of reference
and scope of the inquiry.
 
1. "Cornwall" is more than a local issue. It would be wrong to 
present it as such. Roman Catholics across Canada and the United
States are keenly interested and troubled by the events in Cornwall
and are anxious to see the truth unfold. Likewise, countless
non-Catholics have followed the unfolding saga and are equally 
anxious to see the truth unfold. All are aware that this could happen
in their own backyard and have a vested interest in both the inquiry
and its outcome. 

2. Unfortunately, there is little understanding of the unique, 
devastating and long-term effects of sexual abuse of young males. 
The inquiry should therefore have the ability to determine what the 
prevalent attitudes were/are toward pederasty and male victims of 
sexual abuse and make recommendations for improvement. Crown 
attorneys and judges must be educated to understand the issue of 
pederasty and to deal competently and compassionately with male 
victims of sexual abuse.

3. Perry Dunlop is integral to this inquiry. His ability to pursue his 
chosen career is gone, and, in many circles, his reputation is 
destroyed. Unfortunately even Crown attorneys jumped on the band 
wagon to paint Perry Dunlop as foe vs friend. For many, that raises 
the obvious question: Was there a conspiracy to achieve this end and 
thereby discredit and/or silence Perry Dunlop? I can not imagine how 
the inquiry could proceed without a mandate to probe this dimension 
of the Cornwall saga.

2. It is my understanding that findings of misconduct can be acted 
upon only if they fall within the mandate of the inquiry. Therefore 
there are a number of institutions whose personnel and actions 
throughout the past number of years must be included in the scope 
of the inquiry. Those which come to mind, and in no particular 
order, are:

a. Cornwall Police Services
b. Ottawa Police
c. OPP in general, Project Truth in particular
d. Correctional Services
e. Children’s Aid Society in Cornwall
f. Offices of the Ontario Attorney General
g. Offices of the Ontario Solicitor General
h. Viatorian order of priests who operated the Classical College in 
     Cornwall
i. Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall
j. Judiciary

I will elaborate briefly on my reasons for including the offices of the 
Attorney General and the judiciary.

I include the offices of the auditor general in order to ensure that,
apart from obvious questions regarding the past Attorneys General 
dealings with Perry Dunlop, the past actions of various Crown 
Attorneys within Cornwall is addressed, as well as the manner 
whereby Crowns were assigned to the Project Truth trials, the conduct
of those Crowns, and their ability to deal with male victims of sexual
abuse. I will limit my observations here to the recent Leduc pre-trial 
motions where observers felt that the Crown was working for/with 
defence, and where  court transcripts were stacked with erroneous 
information simply because the Crown did not attempt to set th
record straight.

As for the judiciary, as I said on Monday last, I believe that it is 
imperative that the inquiry is mandated to inquire into the judiciary. 
It goes without saying that the role and conduct of justices Colin 
McKinnon and James Chadwick during the first Leduc trial raise 
serious questions regarding judicial involvement in the persistent 
talk of cover-up. However, I would add that those perceptions had 
already started to take root when, despite strong witnesses and 
irrefutable evidence, presiding judges at Project truth trials rendered
a verdict of "not guilty" or, the unbelievable, "not guilty enough." 
Furthermore, and going further into the past, there are serious 
questions raised regarding the obstruct justice charge leveled against 
a former Crown Attorney, and the subsequent absolute discharge 
granted by the sitting judge. 

In conclusion, I trust that you will give my belated input consideration.
Yours truly,
Sylvia MacEachern