The Attorney General (AG)

Michael Bryant

Sylvia’s Site

(My blog - join me as I blog the Cornwall Public Inquiry) 

First the Foot-dragging

& then the tortured task of  

Finding the Wrong Man

18 October 2004: Jacques Leduc, - husband, father, lawyer, Church canon lawyer and alleged paedophile – is granted a stay.  According to the judge, Leduc’s Charter rights to a speedy trial have been violated.  The Attorney General did not appeal. 

 Jacques Leduc is free.  His “alleged” victims, on the other hand, have no right to a speedy trial – their fate rests with the office of the Attorney General and the Crown attorneys who are assigned to argue the allegations in court and appeal the decision if they believe it is unjust.  The victims can not choose a Crown, nor can they control the manner in which the Crown and the office of the Attorney General moves a case into and through the court, nor do they have the luxury of a criminal lawyer present in court to represent their best interests. Those saddled with an incompetent or biased lawyer are basically stuck.  They are at the mercy of both the court and office of the Attorney General.

If that’s not the way it is everywhere, it certainly is the way it has been in Cornwall.

With that in mind, we move on to the Ontario legislature (Queen’s Park) where Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government – office of the Attorney General included -  has been procrastinating about getting a public inquiry going to finally find out what as been happening in Cornwall.  It wouldn’t do, they claimed, to have an inquiry while Project Truth cases were still before the courts, and until 18 October 2004 Jacques Leduc’s trial was still before the court.  And then there was the time frame to appeal the stay.

No appeal…... . . . . . . . . 

On 17 November 2004, Michael Bryant, Attorney General for the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government, issued a press release: there would be an inquiry for Cornwall. After years of pushing for a police investigation into allegations of sex abuse, and more years of public pressure to get the police to do their job, and more watching in disbelief as one “alleged” paedophile after the other eluded justice, and more as the Attorneys General of three successive governments (two Progressive Conservative, one Liberal) seemed to do did their utmost to avoid an inquiry, the beleaguered victims and community of Cornwall heaved a collective sigh of relief. 

Finally, finally, there was hope that a small measure of justice might be allotted to those who had suffered so much, and finally – finally – a glimmer of hope that the truth behind the fearful whispers would see the light of day.

Premier Dalton McGuinty was quoted in the press release:  "I have always believed that the people of Cornwall deserved a public inquiry. Now that all the criminal proceedings related to this case are over, residents in the area can be assured that steps are being taken to launch a public inquiry."

Good news, but for the Premier, an interesting flip-flop.  This after all is the same Dalton McGuinty who, first, as leader of the official opposition, had backed an inquiry100%, threw his support behind Conservative MPP Gary Guzzo’s private member’s bill calling for an inquiry (a bill NOT supported by two consecutive Conservative premiers and their Attorneys General), campaigned in Cornwall in April 2003 on the promise of an inquiry,  and then, once in power followed his predecessor premiers’ suit and dragged his heels, going so far as to suggest that a referendum be held to see if the people of Cornwall really wanted an inquiry – this on the heels of a 12,000 signature petition presented by a local citizens group, the Coalition for Action!! 
 
But, no matter.  Finally, finally, the truth would out.

Foot dragging a given, and with the benefit of hindsight on our side, the first inkling that the inquiry might fall short of expectations probably came with “the roundtable.” 

On the 29th of November 2005, Attorney General Michael Bryant arrived in Cornwall to “listen to local views on the public inquiry, including terms of reference.”

Local Liberal MPP Jim Brownell, a proponent of an inquiry, paved the way.  And in came the Attorney General.

In places like small-town Cornwall, that’s pretty heady stuff.  The Attorney General himself was actually coming to talk to the victims and the locals and, more important, to hear them out.

But, not everyone was invited to the listening session.  In fact, of the many decent-sized facilities available to stage a public listening session the chosen venue was, curiously, a very small room. Those invited were screened and squeezed in; others – media included - were literally locked out. Of those fortunate enough to be amongst the chosen few, some had occasion to speak.  Others observed. 

Dick Nadeau, a victim and long-time champion of victim’s rights who has been sued and cited with contempt of court in his battle to expose the truth, was in attendance – oxygen hissing from the tube which has become Dick’s constant companion and lifeline.  Cornwall has taken its toll on his health.  But, he insisted on attending. Like so many, he hoped against hope that someone was finally listening and the truth would finally out.  Within minutes he had had enough.  He was convinced the session was all for show, and he was angry. Tank in tow he left.  He returned.  He left. 

Former Liberal MP Bob Kilger was present.  He specifically asked that the judge be bilingual, a request which came as surprise to the victims and their families – all were quite comfortable speaking in English.  But, no one thought much of it.

Mr. Bryant listened, and promised that an inquiry would be commissioned in short order.
 
It was during this Roundtable session that Alain Seguin, a victim and spokesman for the Coalition for Action, talked to Mr. Bryant personally to relay a message which had particular significance to the group and to the victims:  it was essential that the Attorney General appoint a commissioner with NO connections to Cornwall. 

Given the connections between lawyers and judges and the scandal the request should not have been necessary, and even less demanded given the turmoil and travesty of justice which ensued when a judge with connections to Cornwall took the bench at the trial of local lawyer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc.  But, better to be safe than sorry, and the request was personally put and a promise made:  the judge would have no connections to Cornwall.

Hopes were high.There was word that the commissioner would be appointed by Christmas.  Then word that it would definitely early January. Then late January.  Nothing.

On 22 February 2005, Queen’s Park, Mr. Bryant was questioned about e delay.  On hindsight, his response was telling:

When I met with people in Cornwall, when I met with victims in Cornwall, I heard loud and clear that they wanted a number of qualities and qualifications in a commissioner for a public inquiry. They made it loud and clear that they did not want a commissioner from Cornwall or from that region. They made it loud and clear that they wanted to have a judge with experience particularly in criminal law. They made it very clear that they wanted to have somebody who had never had any contact with this file. They also made it clear that they wanted to have a judge who had all these qualifications and was also fluently bilingual.

I am working very hard and am having conversations with the chief justices of the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court and Chief Justice McMurtry. I expect to have a decision from our potential commissioner within the next 10 days, and I hope to have an announcement within the next couple of weeks.

Note that according to Mr. Bryant the victims asked for a judge who was “fluently bilingual.” 

Not true:  the victims and their families did not ask for a bilingual judge, former MP Bob Kilger did.  And note that Mr. Bryant said that the victims “made it loud and clear they did not want a commissioner from Cornwall or from that region.”

Not true.  Justice Colin McKinnon was not from Cornwall or that region.  The problem was his connections to Cornwall.  That is why the victims made it loud and clear they wanted a commissioner with NO connections to Cornwall.

Another six weeks. 

On 6 April 2004, in response to a question from NDP MPP Peter Kormos, Mr. Bryant explains:

I'm in constant contact with MPP Brownell on this particular issue. As the member knows, when I was in Cornwall, I met with a number of victims, and they made it very clear that they expected the commissioner would be somebody who had a background in criminal law, who would be bilingual, somebody who had no immediate connection geographically to the area, and also somebody who had a background in it but who of course didn't in any way touch the matters.

I've had significant discussions with all of the chief justices of Ontario. I had a discussion today with a justice and a potential commissioner. It is a very serious matter and I know the people of Cornwall want to make sure we get this right. We will get this right, we will have this inquiry and we will see that justice is done in Cornwall.

Note that again Mr. Bryant claims that the victims requested a bilingual judge.  They did not. 

And note that now Mr. Bryant says the victims asked for a judge with  “no immediate connection geographically to the area.”  “Immediate connection.” 

An interesting choice of words.  The victims asked for a judge with NO connections to Cornwall:  period.

But Mr. Kormos wasn’t finished with the Attorney General.  He wanted to talk about the gag orders.  To that end, he asked if Mr. Bryant would lift the “unconscionable” gag orders which the provincial government imposed “upon victims who have settled with the province of Ontario” so that “when your inquiry starts, those victims will have full opportunity to speak to the inquiry and to the public?”  

Mr. Bryant responded that “It is unfortunate that victims would have to hear that complete nonsense.  Contrary to a gag order, this government is the first government with the courage, in the face of years and years of allegations, to finally bring to bear a public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of what happened in Cornwall.”

But, the 16 or so victims who settled with the government were indeed gagged. 

Does Mr. Bryant’s response that Mr. Kormos’ comments are “complete nonsense” mean that the victims will be allowed to talk freely and testify about their allegations? and the settlement?  That of course depends on what interest the inquiry judge has in pursuing the issue in a public forum, including a demand for the release of relevant documents which both the present Liberal and previous Conservative governments have refused to disclose.

We shall see.

Now back to getting the inquiry off the ground.

On the 18th of April 2005 Attorney General travelled to Cornwall.  There, at the City Hall, with local MPP Jim Brownell at his side, he held a press conference.  The Honourable Justice G Normand Glaude had been appointed to head the inquiry, and, to the relief of all, the AG announced that the judge has no connections to Cornwall.

Justice Glaude himself was nowhere to be seen:  apart from a few officials there was a horde of media, and behind the media, Mr. Bryant’s target audience - the victims. 

Well, some of the victims.  Some have had their fill of lawyers, judges, politicians and promises and stay clear, others fear they will be identified as victims and still struggle with a shame which rightly belongs to their molester.

Dick was there.  Again he insisted he was well enough to attend.  There he was, stuck behind the raft of cameras, oxygen hissing, tank in tow.  At some point he had had enough.  He was later found sitting on a bench outside the City Hall, oxygen hissing, angry, and feeling betrayed.

Upstairs in City Hall the listening session continued.

A press release issued by the Ministry of the Attorney General on the 18th had this to say: 

“TORONTO — The Honourable Justice G. Normand Glaude has been appointed to lead an independent public inquiry into the events surrounding allegations of abuse of young people in Cornwall, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today.” 

According to Mr. Bryant, Mr. Justice Glaude filled the required criteria, including “He is bilingual, from outside the Cornwall area” and has a reputation for being “extremely approachable.”

Note that the press release says that Justice Glaude is “from outside the Cornwall area.” 

At the press conference the victims and their upporters were told he has no connections to Cornwall.  And note that Justice Glaude is said to be “extremely approachable.”Another chapter in the Cornwall saga was about to open. 

15 November 2007: Province should pick up future bills 

09 November 2007: “council sounds off; Many city councillors are upset over a controversial Cornwall Public Inquiry” and 07 November 2007 “Another Inquiry Bill For Cornwall Police Service”

04 September 2007: Courtroom expansion final phase set to begin

28 April 2006: Bryant will not get involved in inquiry

Teaching confidence in the face of abuse, The Standard (March 20th, 2007): The One Thing You Need To Know

Following a cabinet shuffle in early November 2007 Michael Bryant was shuffled out of the AG's office and London-Ontario-based lawyer CHRIS  BENTLEY was shuffled in.   

23 October 2008:  Bentley pulls the plug

27 July 2007: Local judge elevated 

26 June 2007: Witness says he intentionally misled investigators in 90s

25 June 2007: Truth and Justice don't stand a chance   

 28 April 2006: Bryant will not get involved in inquiry

 When Hopes Were Still High

He asked for input.  

02 Dec. '04: Email to Attorney General 

If there were nagging questions and doubts about the way things were moving towards the inquiry, excuses were made and Mr. Bryant was given the benefit of the doubt. 

That's the way it was at the 18 April 2005 Press Conference.  The AG announced the appointment of Justice Normand Glaude, assured that the judge has no connections to Cornwall, and unveiled his mandate. 

There wasn't so much as a thought that Justice Glaude had Cornwall conections.  Why would there be?   Mr. Bryant had given his word:  Justice G. Normand Glaude has no connections to Cornwall.

As for the mandate, it wasn't available during the press conference.  Afterwards a very quick glance raised one simple question regarding the use of the word "historic":  a simple answer could have promptly allayed fears that something was amiss. . . . . 

A closer read of the mandate raised more questions.  But still hopes were high that the vague sense that something was amiss could be explained away by someone in the know.  

The following emails were sent: 

02 Dec. '04: Email to Attorney General  

19 April '05: Email to Attorney General 

And then came the first inkling that perhaps - just perhaps - the people of Cornwall had been deceived.  And that raised . . .  more questions 

The ensuing questions, disturbing exchange of emails and lack of answers were later chronicled in a letter to the AG (below)

Taking the Attorney General to Task 

a letter documenting the sham of calling the inquiry "independent" and not subject to "the influence of the government" 

02 May 2005:  

Email to Attorney General Michael Bryant (cc to Premier Dalton McGuinty) 

Dear Mr. Bryant,

On 27 April 2005, eight days after I sent the first of two e-mails to you with questions about the Cornwall inquiry, I received word through Mr. Brownell's office that you have slammed the door shut and refuse to answer such questions.I believe, therefore, that it is now essential that I document, for your information as Attorney General, what has transpired since I first started asking these questions.

19 April 2005: E-mail to you, posing questions regarding the mandate for the Cornwall inquiry.

19 April 2005: E-Mail to Craig Carter-Edwards, L.A. to Mr. Brownell with questions regarding the mandate. This e-mail was sent after attempting to ask Mr. Brownell a question following the Press Conference. I was told Mr. Brownell was unavailable and was advised to send my questions to him via e-mail through Craig Carter-Edwards. I do.

20 April 2005: E-mail from Mr. Brownell's office. Craig Carter-Edwards tells me that Jim Brownell does not have "immediate answers" to my questions, and that Mr. Brownell suggests I contact your office to help me with "the intricate details." Mr. Carter-Edwards offers further assistance if needed.

20 April 2005: E-mail to Mr. Brownell's office. I tell Mr. Craig-Edwards that I have already attempted to contact you. I also take him up on his offer of further assistance: I ask for a C.V. on Mr. Justice Glaude which would provide details such as D.O.B., religion, membership in various organizations, charitable work and law firms with which he has been affiliated.

20 April 2005: E-mail to Justice Normand Glaude at a hotmail address, asking questions about the mandate and his D.O.B. and parents.

21 April 2005: E-mail from Mr. Brownell's office. Mr. Carter-Edwards informs me that Jim Brownell worked hard to bring this situation to the attention of the Premier and you, "but it was the Attorney General's office who established the requirements of the community in regards to the commissioner, appointed the commissioner and drafted the terms of reference for the inquiry."

I am also told that Mr. Brownell was pleased to see the inquiry realized, and impressed with the appointment of Justice Glaude. And, I am informed that the people of Cornwall "and the victims in particular" saw the announcement as a positive thing. And, again, I am offered further assistance if needed.

21 April 2005: E-mail to Mr. Brownell's office. I reiterate that I want to find out if Justice Normand Glaude is the same Normand Glaude whose family
hails from the Cornwall area. I also take up Mr. Carter-Edwards offer of assistance and ask that he contact your office to get answers to my questions, and a C.V.

25 April 2005: Second e-mail to you, basically reiterating my previous questions, but adding one more: Is Justice Glaude's D.O. B. 5 November 1954? I explain that, if so, that would make him the Normand Glaude whose family hails from the Cornwall area.

25 April 2005: E-mail to Mr. Brownell's office telling Mr. Carter-Edwards I am getting frustrated: nothing from him, nothing from you, and nothing from Mr. Justice Glaude. Again I ask about a C.V., or, at the very least, a D.O.B. I also suggest that if he is having trouble getting answers from you, could he please spur you into answering me.

26 April 2005: Phone call to Mr. Justice Glaude: I receive a rather cool reception. Initially the judge seems distressed that I have his hotmail address: he asks where I got it (on the net) and how I knew it was his (it was with his Sudbury office address). He does validate the address, but tells me he never received my e-mail. I, on the other hand, had no message saying the message bounced or the e-mail box was full. Regardless, I am given another address.

Justice Glaude is evasive when ask if he is the Normand Glaude born 5 November 1954 to Aurele Glaude and Aline Emma Robineau. In fact, his response is a slow and prolonged "Perhaps." He then asks what difference that would make. I reply that my understanding was that the commissioner would have no Cornwall connections. He says that his grandfather died 35 years ago. I respond that he still has family in Cornwall. At this, Justice Glaude tells me that he supposes I will just have to question his bias at the start of the inquiry. I question the timing. He confirms: at the start of the inquiry.

I then briefly pose one question regarding the mandate: I say that I am concerned that the mandate is so broad that it is not applicable to the Cornwall situation. Justice Glaude's response? He says he supposes that I might want to ask for standing at the inquiry to address my concerns about the mandate!

26 April 2005: Forward my previous e-mail of 20 April to Justice Glaude at official e-mail address.

26 April 2005: E-mail from Justice Glaude. It is a response attached to my forwarded e-mail. It reads: "Ook at this." Under the text, it reads: "Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld."

27 April 2005: E-mail from Mr. Brownell's office. Mr. Carter-Edwards advises that he has not heard back from your office. He attaches a copy of the Press Release "Commissioner Appointed to lead Cornwall Inquiry" from you webpage. And, he suggests I try contacting Justice Glaude.

27 April 2005: E-mail to Mr. Brownell's office. I tell Mr. Carter-Edwards that I already had the Press Release. I also tell him that I have already contacted Justice Glaude, who, I felt, "was not as open with me as he apparently is with others." Finally I ask that the next time he or Mr. Brownell speak to anyone in your office "please tell them that I would appreciate a response. I think my questions are reasonable and warrant a response."

27 April 2005: E-mail to Justice Glaude. I ask for clarification of his e-mail of the 26th.

27 April 2005: E-mail from Mr. Brownell's office. I was informed by Mr. Brownell's office that "Justice Glaude wants to answer all questions pertaining to his background and the inquiry himself" and presumably would be "better able" to address all inquiries after setting up his office etc. And, apparently in light of Justice Glaude's request, "the Attorney General's office won't be able to answer specific questions relating to himself or the inquiry" and "this is how it must be for this to be a fully independent inquiry, not one subject to the influence of the government."

27 April 2005: E-mail to Mr. Brownell's office. I am angry. I tell him, among other things, that I believe you are circling the wagons and that obviously there is active communication between Justice Glaude and your office.

27 April 2005: Another e-mail to Mr. Brownell's office. I apologize for unloading on Mr. Carter-Edwards. I relate the fact that Justice Glaude has family in the Cornwall area and briefly outline my onversation with Justice Glaude. I also tell him I am about to start the distasteful task of telling the victims et al that they have been duped - again.

28 April 2005: E-mail from Justice Glaude. He apologizes for the previous e-mail and clarifies by telling me that he opened my e-mail at the airport, had intended to acknowledge receipt and tell me that someone would respond next week, and then forward that to his staff "with my customary note let's look at this when I get back" when his flight was called. Justice Glaude explained that he got the latter out, but in his rush garbled the reply to me. He apologises again and advises that my queries will be dealt with upon his return.

28 April 2005: E-mail to Justice Glaude. I tell him, among other things, that I feel we have been duped. I also say that I await his response to my e-mail, which I assume will arrive after he has established himself in Cornwall.

That was last Thursday.

I have had no further contact from Mr. Brownell's office, and no contact directly from you whatsoever. However, despite the lack of co-operation from you and Mr. Justice Glaude I was able to verify independently that Justice Glaude is indeed the Normand Glaude whose Daddy was born and bred in St. Raphaels, and who has family living in the Cornwall area.

I assure you, Mr. Bryant, that I have found it extremely difficult to pick up the phone to let any of the victims know this shocking and unbelievable turn of events. They have suffered so much for so long, and truly had their hopes pinned on your promises. This, I believe, will be more than many can deal with. Once again they dared to trust, and that trust has been deceptively violated. This is truly unconscionable.

You avoided answering my questions for nine days. Justice Glaude would not answer my questions in person. Mr. Brownell's office either would not or could not answer or get answers. And, after all of this, you and Justice Glaude decide that you, who personally chose this man and drafted his mandate, bear no responsibility for your choice of the man or the mandate and are therefore answerable for neither.

Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable.

And all of this in the name of a "fully independent inquiry" which is not subject to "the influence of the government."

I would now suggest that this inquiry is already subject to government influence - and it's not off the ground! Your fingerprints, and therefore the fingerprints of your government, are all over it. You chose the commissioner - without input from the victims or the community. You chose the words for the mandate - without input from the victims or the community. Now you refuse to bear responsibility for either.

It seems logical to me that if you personally err in the appointment of the commissioner there is an onus on you and your Liberal government to immediately rectify the situation. And it seems to me that if there truly are problems with the mandate which will hamstring a commissioner and prevent him from pursuing essential lines of inquiry, then it is also up to you and your government to rectify the situation. People were promised an inquiry which would deal with the issues which have plagued Cornwall and set it apart from every other city or community plagued by child sexual abuse, i.e., allegations of a paedophile ring involving, among others, prominent clergy, lawyers, businessmen, probation officers, and policemen; and, allegations of a cover-up, involving lawyers and individuals in "the Church," the Cornwall Police Service, the OPP, Project Truth, the CAS, Correctional Services, the Attorney General's office, the Solicitor General's office, and the judiciary. That is what people believed they got with the mandate you drew up and referenced at the Press Conference. When I read the mandate, I was not so sure. I am even less sure now that not a single soul, you and the commissioner included, have seen fit to answer my questions and quell my fears.

I trust, Mr. Bryant, that you will address these problems immediately so the inquiry is not reduced to a whitewash and another chapter in the persistent allegations of cover-up.

Before closing I must note that, aside from choosing a commissioner who has strong connections to the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, you simultaneously chose a Roman Catholic who is the same age, was raised in the same diocese (Sault St. Marie) [the latter is incorrect.  Bishop Durocher was raised in the Diocese of Timmins, Ontario], and attended Ottawa University at the same time as the current Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall, Paul-Andre Durocher. Bishop Durocher was also a parish priest in the Diocese of Sault St. Marie from 1982 until 1997, at which time he was appointed Auxiliary Bishop for the Diocese, a position he held until he was appointed Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall in 2002.

Yours truly,

Sylvia MacEachern
[Ed. Note:  Mr. Bryant was advised of the error regarding the diocese in which Bishop Durocher was raised. Bishop Durocher was raised in Timmins, Ontario, which is part of the Diocese of Timmins.    Justice Glaude was raised in Sudbury, Ontario, part of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie.]