Tomorrow it’s back to back to business as usual at the Weave Shed. Hearings resume at 1 pm; the next witnesses on the roster are Danny Aikman (Deputy Chief) and Daniel C. Parkinson (Chief) from the Cornwall Police Service.
What can we anticipate this week?
Well, if Justice Glaude is not prepared to rule on the motions submitted by the diocese and Father Charles MacDonald we can look forward to two-and-a-half days of fluffy testimony about the structure, policies and practices of the police force, including, I would venture to guess, testimony that – unlike its former Constable, Perry Dunlop – once upon a time the service didn’t understand as they do now the risks posed by sexual predators, or the veracity of a male victim’s allegations, or the damaging effects of sexual abuse.
IF, on the other hand, Justice Glaude rules on the motions, there MAY be room, depending on his rulings and within the confines of the mandate, to go beyond the business of explanations and rationalizations to actually dabble into the Cornwall Police Service “response” to pertinent allegations of sexual abuse. By pertinent I mean those at are at the heart of the Cornwall scandal, and specifically any and all related to Father Charles MacDonald, Ken Seguin, clergy, those men investigated by Project Truth, and those identified by various victims as being part of a paedophile ring.
I won’t hold my breath, but, who know? Hope springs eternal.
But, because of this flawed and toothless mandate, what I am certain that we won’t hear or see, because the mandate doesn’t allow it, is any attempt to connect the dots to get to the bottom of what has been happening in Cornwall.
For example, it is one thing to perhaps hear excuses about how the Cornwall Police Service and former Chief Claude Shaver did or did not respond to allegations of sexual abuse, and how the service did or did not interact with Children’s Aid Society, or the bishop, or other diocesan officials.
But that doesn’t answer the burning questions which have been plaguing Cornwall, questions which must be answered if this inquiry truly hopes to bring closure and healing. I firmly beleive that to make any sense of the mess the police “response” must be put into its proper context, and to be put into conext the right line of questioning must be pursued. The followng are just a few of the burning questions which come to mind:
1. Was former Chief Claude Shaver a close friend of Ken Seguin?
2. Did Shaver frequent the home of Ken Seguin in Summerstown?
3. Was Shaver a close friend of former Crown Attorney Malcolm MacDonald?
4. Did Shaver attend social functions at the Malcolm MacDonald’s summer residence on Stanley Island?
5. Was former Chief Shaver a close friend of the former bishop, Eugene Larocque?
6. Was Shaver a close friend of Father Charles MacDonald?7. Did Shaver know Ron Leroux socially?
8. Did former Chief Shaver know Jacques Leduc socially?
9. Did former Chief Shaver travel to Fort Lauderdale, Florida in the company of any or all of the above?
10. Did Shaver spend time in the Birch Avenue area in Fort Lauderdale?
11. Did Shaver ever spend time at the Saltaire Hotel in Fort Lauderdale?
12. Was former Chief Shaver a close friend of Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald?
13. Did Shaver and Murray MacDonald socialize together in the company of any or all of the above?
We have repeatedly been told that this inquiry will leave no stone unturned. If that is the case, then those are the types of questions which demand scrutiny, inquiry and answers. If the answer to the above questions is yes, THEN the question for the inquiry becomes: what impact did Claude Shaver’s friendships with any or all of the above have on his response and that of the Cornwall Police Service to those allegations of sexual abuse which are relevant to the Cornwall scandal? I believe the public and the Leduc victims also have a right to know what impact Claude Shaver’s friendship with Colin McKinnon may have had on the response of both the Cornwall Police Service and the judiciary to allegations of sexual abuse. Therefore the following questions should also be pursued:
14. When and by whom was Colin McKinnon first retained as legal counsel for the Cornwall Police Service?
15. How many legal actions or threats of legal action did Colin McKinnon handle on Shaver’s behalf? why? and against whom?
16. Which members of the Cornwall Police Service, if any, were/are socially acquainted with Justice Colin McKinnon?
And finally, there must be an active pursuit of the manner in which the Cornwall Police Service – and the judiciary for that matter – handled the death threats against Perry and Helen Dunlop’s little girl.
Will we hear any of this? Again, I won’t hold my breath, but, who know? Hope springs eternal.
****
A few days ago I posted a 1997 article from the Standard Freeholder which was essentially an SOS for foster families, gays and lesbians included, put out by Ian McLean, one of the CAS witnesses who testified before the Easter recess. I said at the time I would comment.
I’ve decided I don’t need to comment, the article speaks for itself.
And that’s enough for now,
Sylvia