Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 378
Q. So that’s the document, as opposed to the June 1 st document,
that you saw during the course of the discovery process. Am I right
A. The one that I would have seen during the discovery process
would be the one, as you’ve described that Mr. Whittle presented, I
believe here in Vancouver, during discovery. So I’m just not - - I
believe it to be the P-38 document, but it would be whichever one
that was produced at that time.
Q. All right. Well, part of the reason for my question is you refer
to it in your evidence and I was searching for the reason why P-38
wasn’t included in the white binders. And whatever the case is, we
now know that - - your memory of the situation as it exists today.
Okay
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now sir, however you choose to characterize it, I take it that
you as the Regional Director General were unaware, you were
unaware of the existence of this material prior to late ’06, early ’07 is
that right
A. I may have heard the title of it, but I certainly had never sent
he document during my - - I don’t recall seeing the document during
the period that I was Regional Director General.
JUSTICE: Excuse me, Mr. Sali, you said “this material”. What
are you talking about
MR. SALI:
JUSTICE:
Either of the documents.
Thank you.
MR. Sali:
Q. Would that be true, Mr. - -
A. It would be the same answer, yes.
[1408] This evidence is disturbing. The Sterling Wood Report is an important document. Mr.
Sewell testified that he first saw this document, either the final report or the draft report, during the