SQLFusion - Questions abound regarding Attorney General Michael Bryant\'s choice of commissioner and mandate for the Cornwall Inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse

From: "Sylvia"
To: "Normand Glaude"
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Inquiry
Your Honour,

Congratulations on your appointment as Commissioner for the long-awaited Cornwall inquiry.

Before proceeding, I will situate myself.

My name is Sylvia MacEachern. As a Roman Catholic writer and researcher I have covered Cornwall events for over ten years. In those years I attended many of the Project Truth-related preliminary hearings and sat through most of the Project Truth trials. Inevitably, through the many hours spent in courtrooms in Cornwall and, initially, in Ottawa, I have met and came to know many of the victims and their families. The plight of "Cornwall" has now become very near and dear to my heart.

When it became apparent that justice would not be wrought in the courtrooms, I too looked to an inquiry as the final means whereby the persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up could be brought to light and measures taken to ensure that no child in Cornwall, particularly the boy-child, is knowingly left at the mercy of such men. I also have high hopes that the inquiry will address the problems which are unique to male victims of sexual abuse and the difficulties which they encounter in and out of the courtroom because of their gender.

Now, to the point of this e-mail.

I have several questions:

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

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 sex 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 three questions:

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

b) Does this mandate permit you to inquire into the role played by "the Church" in relation to allegations of sexual abuse?

3. And, last, but by no means least, my final question:

Are you the Normand Glaude who was born 5 November 1954 in Sudbury to Aurele Glaude and Aline Emma Robineau?

I do hope and pray that you can allay my fears and concerns and anxiously await your response.

Yours truly,
Sylvia MacEachern

28 April 2005: Email to Justice Glaude 10:24am

From: Sylvia
To: Glaude, G. Normand Regional Senior Justice (OCJ)(JUS)

Thank you, Your Honour.

Now I must have my say.

I have been asking questions for over a week now and getting the run-around at every turn. My e-mails to Mr. Bryant went unanswered. Mr. Brownell's office was incapable of assisting in a meaningful way.

All I wanted was answers to a few simple questions and seems not a soul was capable of answering.

Unfortunately my conversation with you on Tuesday past fell into the same category. I was truly astounded at your evasive response to my question regarding your family background, and your suggestion that my concerns in that area could be dealt with by my questioning your bias at the start of the inquiry. In light of past experience in Cornwall in such matters, that, I think, is leaving it a little too late.

And I was shocked that you chose not to address or respond to my concerns re the mandate, at least sufficient to affirm or quell my fear that it is so broad that it fails to identify the very problems which prompted the inquiry. You told me that you supposed I would just have to try to seek standing to raise those issues!

My shock turned to anger when I was advised by Mr. Brownell's office yesterday that the Attorney General's office, in the interests of ensuring a fully independent inquiry, will not field any questions regarding you or the inquiry, and that you want to address such questions yourself - but, it seems, only after you get your office set up etc.

This is all a far cry from the openness which was touted by the media following the announcement of your appointment. I am left to wonder why the change? Is it because questions are being raised about the scope of the mandate? or is it because questions are being raised regarding your Cornwall connection? or, is it both?

I feel that we have been duped. People trusted that, at the very least, promises of a commissioner with no Cornwall ties would be met. Why then was there no mention of your Cornwall family roots at the Press Conference? The victims, their families and friends, and the Dunlops, - all of whom have suffered so much for so long - pinned their hopes on this inquiry and dared to trust in the very system which had previously betrayed them at every turn. It was unthinkable not to be open and honest about something which is known to be of vital importance to the very people who demanded this inquiry.

I just can't believe this happening. People will be aghast when they find out. If ever there was a way to create further disillusionment with "the system" in further erosion of trust in the judiciary this is definitely it.

Enough.

I will now await response to my e-mail, which, I must now assume, will arrive after you have established yourself in Cornwall.
Sylvia

21 April 2005: Email exchange with Brownell's office

From: Carter-Edwards_Craig
Date: April 21, 2005 8:32 AM
To: Sylvia

Good morning, Sylvia,

Jim Brownell worked hard to bring this situation to the attention of the Premier and the Attorney General, but it was the Attorney General's office who established the requirements of the community in regards to a commissioner, appointed the commissioner and drafted the terms of reference for the inquiry. If you want more detail, I can contact the Attorney General's office for you. The same holds true for further information on the commissioner himself - I did a Google search but didn't find his CV on line, but could ask the AG's office. What I can tell you is that, after working so hard to see this inquiry realized, Jim Brownell is pleased with the result and impressed by the appointment of Justice Norman Glaude.

I hope this proves helpful. I also want to reiterate that the people of Cornwall and the victims in particular see Monday's announcement as a positive thing. If there's anything else I can help you with, you know how to reach me.

Sincerely,

CRAIG CARTER-EDWARDS
Legislative Assistant
Office of Jim Brownell, MPP
Stormont - Dundas - Charlottenburgh
Parliamentary Assistant, Ministry of Health (Public Health)
(416) 327-4311

****

From: Sylvia
Date: 21 April 2004, 10.28am
To: Carter-Edwards_Craig

Good Morning Craig,

Yes, I realize that many people worked very hard to bring this inquiry to fruition. That is why I want to get a few things squared away in my mind before the process begins. After all that the people of Cornwall have put up with over the past ten-plus years, and all the dashed hopes, it would be a terrible shame to learn after the fact that the inquiry really has no teeth, or, for that matter, that the commissioner might be in some sort of conflict.

Regarding the issue of teeth, as I stated before, I have concerns. I don't know if those concerns are well-founded and am therefore approaching those whom I believe are in a position to either confirm or allay my fears.

As for the issue of Justice Glaude, I appreciate Mr. Brownell's faith that he is the right man for the job. However, I recall all to well that many people had faith that Justice Collin McKinnon was the right man for the job and had no Cornwall connections, and look at the mess that ensued there. Therefore, I believe it is understandable that I and others would like to know more about Mr. Justice Normand Glaude's CV. I too did a search with every search-engine I could find and came up with next-to-nothing. However, I did find a Normand Glaude, born in Sudbury, whose family hails from the Cornwall area. Is this the same Normand Glaude? I am trying to find out.

In conclusion, yes, since I have had no response from the AG's office, I will gratefully accept your offer to contact that office to get answers re my questions, and a CV.

Thank you so much,

Sylvia

20 April 2005: Email exchange with Brownell's office:

From: Carter-Edwards_Craig
To: sylvia (XXXX.XX)
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:28 PM
Subject: Inquiry Mandate questions

Hello, Sylvia

I just talked to Jim and he didn't have immediate answers to your questions. He suggested - and I agree - that you should contact the Attorney General's office. If anyone will be able to help you out with the intricate details it will be them.

Hope that helps. Anything else I can do, let me know.

Sincerely,

Craig Carter-Edwards

***

-----Original Message-----
From: Sylvia [mailto: XXXXX ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:41 PM
To: Carter-Edwards_Craig
Subject: Re: Inquiry Mandate questions

Thanks Craig,

I must admit that I am disappointed, and perhaps both surprised and concerned that Mr. Brownell is unable to answer my questions.

I did decide to send an e-mail off to Mr. Bryant's office as well. To date, no response.

There is one other thing you could help me with. I am trying to get a CV on Justice Glaude which would provide details such as DOB, religion, membership in various organizations, charitable work, and law firms with which he was affiliated.

Could you please e-mail it me as a PDF or text file?

Sylvia

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."

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

27 April 2005: Email to Brownell's office 2:19pm

From: Sylvia
To: Craig Carter-Edwards

Hi Craig,
Sorry I unloaded on you. I am furious. And I do fully expect that Mr. Brownell and everyone who has anything to do with this fiasco will act to ensure that it is called to a halt before more of our precious dollars are thrown down the drain.

Mr. Justice Glaude has family in Cornwall. That is a far cry from ensuring there are no Cornwall connections. We have dealt with similar non-existent conflict of interest before and in the end it cost the tax payers a fortune and allowed an accused molester to claim his Charter rights to a speedy trial were violated.

When I asked Justice Glaude if he was the son of Aurele Glaude and Aline
Robineau, he slowly said "Perhaps." I was dumbfounded. Then he asked what difference that would make. Really! That's what he said. I said I understood efforts were made to ensure there were no Cornwall connections. He said his grandfather died 35-years-ago. I mentioned that he had other family there. He then told me that he supposed I would just have to question his bias at the start of the inquiry!!

Bad enough. But when I raised the question of the mandate, he said he
supposed that then I would perhaps want to request standing to address those issues. That was it.

This is from the commissioner. I couldn't believe it. I still can't.

Now you tell me he is going to address these issues himself - but only after he gets squared away in his office!!

This is an outrage. Why was this man chosen? And what onus rests with
those who chose him? I am sure Mr. Brownell is less than pleased: this,
after all, reflects poorly on him too - even if he had no part in the selection process.

The poor victims and citizens of Cornwall know nothing of this. I had
hoped that my fears would be allayed and there therefore was no need to
unsettle them. They have had more than enough to deal with. Now, they must
be told. They will be devastated. This is another kick in the face. I can't believe we're here again, and everyone in cahoots protecting him and keeping the information under wraps. Where is the transparency? I have found not a shred. It has been like pulling teeth to get one shred of information.

I am now going to start the distasteful task of informing the victims et al that they have been duped - again. I would appreciate whatever assistance Mr. Brownell and your office can give me in getting this charade of an inquiry drawn to a halt.
Sylvia