0001     [NB: This document is in the electronic form originally provided by the professional court recorder--FC]

          1   FERREL MARVIN CHRISTENSEN, affirmed at 10 a.m., examined

          2       by Mr. Kozak:

          3   Q   Dr. Christensen, what is your full name?

          4   A   Ferrel Marvin Christensen.

          5   Q   Marvin, M-A-R-V-I-N.

          6   A   That's right.

          7   Q   What is your date of birth?

          8   A   December 16, 1941.

          9   Q   Where do you live?

         10   A   In Edmonton.  Do you need a street address or --

         11   Q   No.  And how long have you lived in Edmonton?

         12   A   Since 1971, with many breaks.

         13   Q   Okay.  So I take it from that answer that you first

         14       came to Edmonton in 1971, but on occasion you've

         15       lived elsewhere since then?

         16   A   I've taken many breaks, but -- some sabbatical-type

         17       breaks, but others paid without leave.  Quite often,

         18       I'd say.  I don't have the details, but over the

         19       years, many times.

         20   Q   Are you married?

         21   A   No.

         22   Q   Have you ever been?

         23   A   I have not.

         24   Q   I'm sorry, that was no?

         25   A   No.  I do have a voice problem.  My stomach may --

         26       there's a breath problem, so just remind when we I

         27       don't speak properly.


          1   Q   Well, if I don't, the court reporter will, I'm sure. 

          2       She's not shy.

          3            Do you have any children?

          4   A   I do not.

          5   Q   And do any of your family members, siblings,

          6       perhaps, or other relatives live in the Edmonton

          7       area?

          8   A   No.

          9   Q   Do you have family members that live elsewhere?

         10   A   Immediate family, I guess you mean?

         11   Q   Yes.

         12   A   Family of origin?  Yes.  Yes, I do.  I'm originally

         13       from the US, and all of my immediate family

         14       members -- all of my family members are there.

         15   Q   What part of the United States?

         16   A   Most of my family is living in Utah, in the area of

         17       Salt Lake City, and some in California.

         18   Q   What is your present occupation?

         19   A   I'm a retired professor.

         20   Q   All right.  So you have no occupation that provides

         21       income other than the pension that you get as a

         22       retired professor from the University of Alberta; is

         23       that correct?

         24   A   That's correct.

         25   Q   I can't imagine that you're idle.  What are your

         26       hobbies, interests, projects, pursuits these days?

         27   A   Pretty well I spend all of my time, since taking


          1       early retirement, working in groups like ECMAS and

          2       MERGE.  In fact, that's the major part of the reason

          3       that I took early retirement was to do that kind of

          4       efficacy work for justice and that sort of thing.

          5   Q   Are you currently working on writing any other

          6       books?

          7   A   Not seriously.  I collect notes on various book and

          8       article ideas over time, but nothing of book length

          9       that would be called serious, no.

         10   Q   So I take it then that you still have an ongoing

         11       interest and involvement with ECMAS?

         12   A   Yes, I do.

         13   Q   And ECMAS is an acronym that stands for

         14       Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society?

         15   A   That's correct.

         16   Q   And you also mentioned the organization MERGE.  You

         17       have an ongoing and active involvement with that

         18       organization today?

         19   A   That's correct.

         20   Q   And that stands for Movement for the Establishment

         21       of Real Gender Equality?

         22   A   Right.

         23   Q   Are you currently a professor emeritus at the

         24       University of Alberta?

         25   A   Yes.  That gives me certain privileges, and they may

         26       call on me from time to time to sit on committees,

         27       but they haven't done much of that.


          1   Q   All right.  Well, I was just about to ask you what

          2       that title and position conferred upon you.  Can you

          3       describe that?

          4   A   The use of certain facilities at the university: 

          5       library, Internet service, and just that general

          6       sort of thing.  At one time they were giving -- my

          7       former department was allowing some space for

          8       emeritus professors, but they've run out of space. 

          9       That's been terminated, or mostly terminated.

         10   Q   So you have access to an office that you can call

         11       your own there?

         12   A   Not that I can call my own, no.  I get some mail

         13       there.

         14   Q   So is it the case that you're offered shared office

         15       space with other people of similar designations from

         16       your department?

         17   A   There was at one point, but the reason I'm not sure

         18       is that I haven't ever bothered to use it; but I

         19       think it's been pretty well terminated.  If I were

         20       to go in on an ad hoc basis, I'm sure they would

         21       find something for me, but there's nothing permanent

         22       as there once was.


         24   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, before I forget to ask you

         25       about this, when I asked about what things that the

         26       designation of professor emeritus conferred upon

         27       you, I think part of your answer was that you were


          1       asked to provide advice or sit on committees or

          2       asked for your input on certain things, and then I

          3       think you said something like:  That was once the

          4       case, but it no longer happens?

          5   A   I didn't mean that to reply to sitting on

          6       committees.  I meant that to reply to the shared

          7       office space.

          8   Q   Oh, I see.  So your department still asks you to sit

          9       on certain committees?

         10   A   Well, they've done so once since I retired, so it's

         11       not often.

         12   Q   And you retired in what year?

         13   A   In 1995.[My error; should have been 1996.]

         14   Q   What committee did they ask you to sit on?

         15   A   It was a master's thesis committee, just examining

         16       the thesis itself.

         17   Q   Do you remember the subject matter of the thesis?

         18   A   Actually, this was a committee not from my own

         19       department but for another department, some kind of

         20       Literature Department.  They've changed all the

         21       names, and I'm not sure, but it was a -- it was a

         22       thesis of a woman who had written on the subject of

         23       pornography, and so it was sort of a natural.

         24   Q   Do you remember the title of her thesis?

         25   A   I don't remember that, no.

         26   Q   Do you remember her name?

         27   A   I do remember her name but only because she writes


          1       free-lance for the Edmonton Journal.

          2   Q   And who is that?

          3   A   Karen Virag.

          4   Q   All right.  And did she receive her master's degree?

          5   A   Yes.  That's my understanding.  I'm quite certain.

          6   Q   So since your retirement in 1995, your own

          7       department has never involved you or asked you to be

          8       involved in committee work?

          9   A   That's correct.  If I can clarify that?

         10   Q   Yes.

         11   A   I was not involved in a lot of thesis committees

         12       even during my career because philosophy of science,

         13       which is my main specialty, is not a major area

         14       dealt with by that department.

         15   Q   That department being?

         16   A   Philosophy, sorry.  And that's, in fact, one of the

         17       reasons I was able to take a lot of leave.  I wasn't

         18       needed for that kind of thing as much, and I was --

         19       I worked in administrative work in ways that could

         20       be more flexible to arrange, so . . .

         21   Q   And so is it fair to say that your involvement in

         22       things related to the department of philosophy at

         23       the University of Alberta since your retirement has

         24       remained essentially the same since 1995?

         25   A   Essentially, very little involvement.  That's fair

         26       to say.

         27   Q   What I'm getting at is I just want to get your


          1       confirmation that suddenly things that you were once

          2       involved in, you were no longer invited to be

          3       involved in after the publication of the article in

          4       question.

          5   A   M-hm.

          6   Q   Is that --

          7   A   That wouldn't apply to the department.

          8   Q   All right.

          9   A   The people there know me well, so it would not

         10       apply.

         11   Q   Now, based on your date of birth and your date of

         12       retirement, I take it that you chose to retire

         13       early?

         14   A   Yes, at 55.

         15   Q   And I believe you said that in part your decision to

         16       retire early was based on your desire to have an

         17       increased role in organizations such as ECMAS and

         18       MERGE?

         19   A   That's correct.  If I can clarify, I enjoy teaching,

         20       always, but I've had the feeling that there is a lot

         21       of injustice in the world, and I'd rather spend my

         22       time working on things that seemed more important to

         23       me.  Even though teaching has its own importance, I

         24       see greater importance in certain other things that

         25       I think need to be done, and so maybe that's

         26       optimistic, but, in any case, that was part of my

         27       reason for retiring.


          1   Q   All right.  Now, you've said that that was a part of

          2       your decision?

          3   A   M-hm.

          4   Q   The implication is there was something else that led

          5       to that decision as well.  What was that?

          6   A   The university made a very lucrative offer.  They

          7       wanted -- at that particular time, they wanted to

          8       get rid of the higher paid, older professors, and

          9       they made a good financial offer to help us to make

         10       that decision.  I did some calculating and realized

         11       that I wouldn't be much worse off financially that

         12       way then if I went at 65, and that helped.  That was

         13       the other part of the decision.

         14   Q   Those are two components to your decision.  Were

         15       there any other factors that played a role in your

         16       decision to retire early?

         17   A   I don't believe so.  Nothing that would have been

         18       major that I would have remembered.

         19   Q   Okay.


         21   MR. KOZAK:              Dr. Christensen, you've provided

         22       me with a copy of your curriculum vitae this

         23       morning.  Because it's not currently a part of your

         24       production, I propose to mark that as Exhibit D-3. 

         25       Do you have any objection, Mr. Willis?

         26   MR. WILLIS:             No objection.

         27                           EXHIBIT D-3:



          2   Q   MR. KOZAK:          When did you prepare Exhibit 3?

          3   A   D-3?

          4   Q   D-3, yes.

          5   A   It originally was -- well, it's been an ongoing

          6       production.  It was a c.v. that I used over the

          7       years and added to for my professional reasons, and

          8       it hasn't really been updated for any other purpose

          9       besides those professional purposes.

         10   Q   All right.

         11   A   So it's prepared over a long time, and it mostly

         12       ended when I retired, except I have one publication

         13       that was relevant that didn't actually appear until

         14       three years later, and so it has been subsequently

         15       added.

         16   Q   All right.

         17   A   But it's pretty well as it stood back in 1995 except

         18       for that and changing my phone numbers at the top

         19       there.

         20   Q   And what publication are you referring to, the one

         21       that was added?

         22   A   It would be the one at the very end in the journal

         23       Philosophia, at the very end of my article

         24       publication list, on the second page.  It says

         25       Research and Publication, and then Articles, and

         26       then at the very last of the articles, you notice a

         27       1998 date on there, whereas everything else is


          1       before, up until 1995.

          2   Q   The reason I was asking about the update process is

          3       I noticed from your Affidavit of Records that in

          4       describing a curriculum vitae, and I don't know if

          5       it is the one you produced today, there is a

          6       reference to resumes that you forwarded, I assume

          7       yours, but that could be wrong, and then an updated

          8       resume.  Do you recall if Exhibit D-3 is the updated

          9       resume that was referred to in your Affidavit of

         10       Records?

         11   A   No.  It wouldn't quite be.  I'm sorry, but I don't

         12       remember two versions mentioned before.  But this is

         13       not quite the same because in this one I finally

         14       added that last article which I had overlooked

         15       before when I sent a copy to my lawyer.

         16   Q   I see.

         17   A   And also I noticed that the -- I should get rid of

         18       my work phone number from that c.v. because I no

         19       longer work there.  So this is a little different

         20       from the one that I originally sent my lawyer.  I

         21       don't remember offhand why there would be mention, a

         22       reference to updated before.  Offhand, I don't

         23       recall.

         24   Q   All right.  Well, if in looking back at that issue

         25       it becomes apparent as to what things had been

         26       updated that led to you producing Exhibit D-3, can

         27       you advise me of those updated items on your resume


          1       through your lawyer, please?

          2   MR. WILLIS:             Subject to relevance.

          3   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

          4   MR. WILLIS:             We'll undertake to do that.

          5   A   If I understand the question, I've just mentioned

          6       the two changes that I've made in this document

          7       vis-a-vis the one I originally gave him.

          8   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Yes.

          9   A   I've just advised you on those.  There aren't any

         10       others.  But what I'm not sure about is why I would

         11       have said something about an update before.  That I

         12       don't recall, but I could certainly advise on that

         13       matter.

         14   Q   All right.  Well, if you could provide that

         15       information to your lawyer, he will then assess its

         16       relevance and respond to the undertaking that you've

         17       just given me.

         18   A   If I could think what it might possibly be, but I

         19       would certainly do that, yes.

         20   Q   Well, your memory may be refreshed once you actually

         21       review the content of the email which attaches the

         22       resumes.  I don't want to ask you about those things

         23       because that may be such a matter of

         24       solicitor/client privileged communication.

         25   A   I see.

         26                           UNDERTAKING NO. 1:





          3   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, getting back to D-3, you've

          4       had an opportunity to go through this document very

          5       carefully, and you've satisfied yourself that this

          6       accurately describes your post-secondary education

          7       and academic positions held, your teaching

          8       experience, your research and publications, your

          9       professional activities, your grants and awards and

         10       professional organizations in which you have been

         11       involved?

         12   A   Yes.  Well, it's a professional c.v.  It doesn't

         13       involve other parts of my life.

         14   Q   Yes.

         15   A   In any great degree.

         16   Q   And as a professional c.v., that's why it would not

         17       have made any reference to your ongoing work with

         18       MERGE or ECMAS?

         19   A   It does make a very brief, vague reference; but, no,

         20       it wouldn't.  It doesn't make a lot of reference.

         21   Q   Now, the answer to my next question may, in part, be

         22       found in Exhibit D-3, but since I've just seen it

         23       for the first time I'm going to ask you anyway. 

         24       During your tenure as a professor at the

         25       University of Alberta, professor of philosophy, was

         26       your primary academic focus on pornography?

         27   A   No.


          1   Q   Not at all?

          2   A   As an academic thing, I can safely say, no, I never

          3       taught the subject, the information that I had

          4       researched, in any of my classes, even though, of

          5       course, people there knew the research I had done. 

          6       So as an academic matter, it was not a part of my

          7       work.  My work in the department, sorry.  It was

          8       certainly part of my academic work, but not

          9       anything -- it was not reflected in teaching classes

         10       and that sort of thing, except I did mention that

         11       one, the case of sitting on the master's committee.

         12   Q   Right.

         13   A   That's the only thing that comes to mind.

         14   Q   When was that, by the way?  When did you sit on the

         15       master's committee that reviewed Ms. Virag's thesis?

         16   A   It was fairly soon after I retired, as I recall.  It

         17       would have been 1996 or '97, I would think.

         18   Q   And while I appreciate that the names of other

         19       departments have changed over the years, it was a

         20       Literature, English Department, I assume?

         21   A   Yes, not English.  But as my memory -- my memory is

         22       a little slow.  It kind of comes to my mind that it

         23       was Comparative Literature, but I wouldn't swear to

         24       that.

         25   Q   And is it your understanding that you were asked to

         26       participate in this committee because it was

         27       generally known at the university that you had an


          1       academic interest in the issue of pornography?

          2   A   Fairly widely known, I would say.

          3   Q   All right.  And do you recall the names of the other

          4       committee members?

          5   A   I don't remember them now, and it would be difficult

          6       to recall them at this date.  They were people I

          7       didn't know particularly well or knew hardly, and so

          8       it would be difficult for the names to come back to

          9       me.

         10   Q   Do you know who it was that asked you to participate

         11       on the committee?

         12   A   It may have been the chair of the department, but it

         13       was certainly someone who was prominent in the

         14       department.  This would be on the records.  I could

         15       find out these things, if you felt it important.

         16   Q   All right.  Well, I would like you to undertake to

         17       use your best efforts to find out who the other

         18       committee members were; and if it's available,

         19       provide to me through your lawyer a copy of the

         20       master's thesis that you reviewed.

         21   A   A copy?

         22   Q   Yes.

         23   MR. WILLIS:             Well, we can undertake to make

         24       inquiries and try to determine the names of the

         25       committee members and the date that the committee

         26       met.  As to the master's thesis, we can't undertake

         27       to provide that; but, informally, we will, in fact,


          1       make an inquiry.

          2   MR. KOZAK:              All right.

          3                           UNDERTAKING NO. 2:



          6   Q   MR. KOZAK:          When did you first become

          7       interested in the subject matter of pornography?

          8   A   It would be more accurate to speak of my interest in

          9       sexuality as an academic subject, and that goes back

         10       quite a long way.

         11   Q   I assume that your academic interest in the subject

         12       matter of sexuality came after your human interest?

         13   A   Yes, that's a fair assumption.

         14   Q   All right.

         15   A   I think it might be most helpful to say that

         16       academically the interest developed during the

         17       1970s, as I became aware of the existence of a great

         18       deal of scientific and academic research on the

         19       subject, and in the -- so, I guess, sometime in the

         20       1970s, and then developing strongly through the

         21       1980s is the time period of that interest and that

         22       research.

         23   Q   Have you ever described yourself as a proponent of

         24       pornography?

         25   A   I don't think so.  Defender, certainly, but I'm not

         26       sure that proponent would . . .

         27   Q   All right.  But you would agree that you're a


          1       defender of pornography?

          2   A   Yes, pornography per se, in general.

          3   Q   Yes.

          4   A   Not every -- not every kind of thing that could be

          5       described as pornography, certainly not.

          6   Q   Is it fair to say that your academic interest in

          7       human sexuality, and, as a category of that,

          8       pornography, that that academic interest is linked

          9       to some childhood memory or experience that you have

         10       involving self-hatred over sex?

         11   MR. WILLIS:             Excuse me, don't answer that

         12       quite yet.  When you suggested to the witness that

         13       he had described -- when you asked him whether he

         14       described himself as a proponent of pornography, in

         15       my submission, as the witness couldn't recall

         16       expressly the use of that word, if you have any

         17       evidence that would refresh his memory, you're

         18       obliged to produce it to him.  Brown v. Dunn.

         19   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.  Well, I don't have any

         20       evidence of that.

         21   MR. WILLIS:             Thank you.

         22   MR. KOZAK:              And I think his answer was quite

         23       clear that he has described himself as a defender of

         24       pornography.

         25   MR. WILLIS:             Oh, I'm only wanting to make

         26       sure that if you had something in which he had used

         27       the word "proponent" or if you had information that


          1       he had, that you would provide it to him to refresh

          2       his memory, that's all. 

          3   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.  I would be obliged to do

          4       that if I intended to put it to him at trial, for

          5       certain.

          6   MR. WILLIS:             Thank you.

          7   Q   MR. KOZAK:          So getting back to my question,

          8       I think my question, in a rambling fashion, was your

          9       academic interests in human sexuality and

         10       pornography, would you say that it can fairly be

         11       linked to childhood experiences that you had about

         12       self-hatred or self-loathing regarding sex?

         13   A   If I may, there's a long story there, so a simple

         14       answer is difficult to give.

         15   Q   I'll take the long story.

         16   A   It was linked to many things, certainly my awareness

         17       of myself as a sexual being from a very early age,

         18       and the emotional distress that I felt from an early

         19       age about -- over my sexuality had a lot to do --

         20       has had a lot to do with my lifetime concern about

         21       how people treat sexuality.  It's a long story. 

         22       I've tried to tell part of it in the document that

         23       we've given you.  So the answer, yes, there is

         24       certainly that kind of link, among many other links.

         25   Q   Yes, but there's no doubt that you suffered as a

         26       child over these issues?

         27   A   There is no doubt.


          1   Q   And that suffering, is it fair to say, arose because

          2       of guilt or anguish you felt because you thought

          3       your attitude towards sex or sexuality was deviant?

          4   A   Deviant would be the wrong word.  I was told that my

          5       sexual feelings were very, very bad.  At that age, I

          6       wouldn't have understood the idea of deviance.

          7   Q   Right.

          8   A   Except as the moral:  You are evil; Satan is

          9       influencing you.  Yes, I was -- in an otherwise

         10       fairly heavy childhood, this was an item that caused

                  [Transcription error: should be 'happy', not 'heavy'--FC]

   11       me -- was a matter of great distress, yes.

         12   Q   All right.  And you're quite right.  You've provided

         13       information to me through your lawyer that uses the

         14       word "evil".

         15            Were you told that your need to see little

         16       girls' genitals was evil and that you were in danger

         17       of damnation as a result?

         18   A   I was told, to be a little more precise, that people

         19       who have those kinds of feelings are evil, and so I

         20       did a very good job of hiding my own personal

         21       feelings.

         22   Q   Reading from your document which is entitled

         23       My Case, which was provided to us through your

         24       lawyer, at page 5 -- your lawyer will have a copy

         25       for you there, Dr. Christensen.

         26   A   I have my own marked copy that I would prefer to

         27       use, if that's all right.


          1   Q   Yes.  Page 5, and near the top of the page appears

          2       the passage: 

          3            "I was sent the message that I was evil, and

          4            in danger of damnation, because of my

          5            powerful-felt need to see little girls'

          6            genitals and my fantasies about doing it."

          7       "It", I assume, refers to the act of copulation.

          8   A   No.  No, you should not assume that.

          9   Q   All right.  What is "it"?

         10   A   To seeing little girls' genitals.

         11   Q   All right.  So doing "it", refers to the act of

         12       seeing little girls' genitals?

         13   A   That's correct.

         14   Q   All right.  And you were made to believe that your

         15       need was evil?

         16   A   That was certainly what I was led to believe.

         17   Q   Okay.  And no amount -- I believe you say in your

         18       letter: 

         19            "No amount of self-hatred or crying prayer

         20            made those desires go away."

         21   A   You understand, I've made this admission painfully. 

         22       This is not --

         23   Q   Yes.

         24   A   -- something one likes to talk about.  I felt it

         25       important to say, and the answer is:  Yes.

         26   Q   No, I understand that these things are not easily

         27       discussed, whether in written form or in an


          1       Examination for Discovery.

          2            But I assume and ask you whether then as an

          3       adult you then came to believe that those desires

          4       were healthy and normal?

          5   A   Yes.  As I grew up, in the later teens and into

          6       adulthood, I became aware of a much wider picture of

          7       the world than I had been taught at that age, and

          8       certainly -- and it was a great relief to me to

          9       receive that kind of understanding and be able to

         10       reject what had been taught to me.

         11   Q   Those teachings, those childhood teachings, did they

         12       come primarily from your parents or from the clergy

         13       or from other sources?

         14   A   Primarily in church and school.

         15   Q   All right.

         16   A   My parents were frightened to death to talk about

         17       such subjects.

         18   Q   And what church was that?

         19   A   May I -- is this relevant and important?

         20   MR. WILLIS:             You should answer that.

         21   A   All right.  Yes.  Properly [I said 'popularly'] known as the

         22       Mormon Church.

         23   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, your realization in your

         24       teen years that these desires or needs were normal,

         25       was that as a result of you putting some distance

         26       between yourself and the church?

         27   A   No.  It was a result of learning about things that I


          1       hadn't been allowed -- or hadn't learned about

          2       before, hearing about the Kinsey Report, for

          3       example, although I never saw it then, just

          4       gradually hearing about and learning about things. 

          5       It was a long process.

          6   Q   And returning to something that I speculated on

          7       earlier, that realization as you became a teenager,

          8       and I would say a continuing realization as you

          9       became an adult, obviously that had some impact on

         10       you, and, in part, led to your later interest in the

         11       subject of human sexuality and pornography.  Is that

         12       a fair assessment?

         13   A   I lost track of the question.  Could you repeat it,

         14       please?

         15   Q   Well, your early childhood experience --

         16   A   M-hm.

         17   Q   -- the association of evil with your need to see

         18       little girls' genitals, your realization as a

         19       teenager that that wasn't evil, are all of those

         20       linked to your later return academically to the

         21       issue of human sexuality and pornography?

         22   A   Yes.  Yes.  Very strongly linked.

         23   Q   All right.

         24   MR. WILLIS:             Do you want to enter this

         25       document to which you've referred?

         26   MR. KOZAK:              I don't know.

         27   MR. WILLIS:             I feel that you should because


          1       you've referred to it and quoted from it on the

          2       record, so I'd ask that it be entered, otherwise we

          3       risk some confusion at a later stage in the

          4       proceedings because there are a number of different

          5       versions.


          7   (ADJOURNMENT)

          8   MR. KOZAK:              Mr. Willis, you have provided to

          9       me a 42-page document entitled My Case, and I had

         10       referred to a passage or perhaps two or three

         11       passages in that document.  You have suggested that

         12       we mark it as an exhibit, and I have no objection to

         13       doing that for the purpose of identification, but I

         14       would like to reserve my rights and yours, of

         15       course, to determine at a later date what use can be

         16       made of that document, because it isn't a document

         17       in your production.  It is a somewhat unusual

         18       document in the sense that it's difficult to

         19       categorize because it is similar to what one might

         20       expect in terms of a written brief on certain issues

         21       that arise out of a lawsuit.

         22   MR. WILLIS:             I agree.  Let us enter it

         23       subject to all those qualifications, for example, as

         24       to when we can come to an agreement about what the

         25       Court ought to know about the circumstances under

         26       which it was provided and so on and so forth.  So

         27       subject to the qualifications that you've placed on


          1       the record, I am in agreement with entering it.

          2   MR. KOZAK:              All right.

          3                           EXHIBIT D-4:

          4       DOCUMENT ENTITLED MY CASE 

          5   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, from things

          6       that you have written, including Exhibit 4, I have

          7       concluded that you began to study scientific and

          8       ethnographic literature on human sexuality in or

          9       about 1980; is that accurate?

         10   A   Not highly accurate.  It would have been more like

         11       the middle '70s, but not until very close to 1980

         12       did I really get -- put a lot of time into it.  That

         13       would be a better way to describe it.

         14   Q   Before the break, we had talked about the link to

         15       this adult interest with childhood experience.

         16   A   M-hm.

         17   Q   Was there something in the mid '70s that occurred

         18       that focused your interest, that compelled you to do

         19       more reading and research?

         20   A   Just learning about the existence of this kind of

         21       research grabbed my interest very greatly, though,

         22       as I said, it was a while before I began putting a

         23       lot of time into it.

         24   Q   Now, in Exhibit 4, you make a reference to -- and I

         25       think this is where I came up with the 1980 period. 

         26       You say that you had been studying these issues for

         27       about ten years prior to the publication of your


          1       book.  By "studying", what exactly did you mean? 

          2       What forms of study were you referring to?

          3   MR. WILLIS:             You're referring to the passage

          4       in the last paragraph on page 3?

          5   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

          6   MR. WILLIS:             All right.  I'm just drawing

          7       that to witness's attention, if that's all right.

          8   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

          9   A   Yes.  You're asking what forms the study took,

         10       basically, is that --

         11   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Yes.

         12   A   To be as concrete as possible, I simply began

         13       reading a lot of the scientific and scholarly

         14       literature on the subject.  For a prime example of

         15       that, I would sit in the library or other places

         16       where the literature was available and go through

         17       each volume of such journals as the Journal of Sex

         18       Research and the Archives of Sexual Behavior and

         19       various other books that dealt with those kinds of

         20       issues in an academic or a scientific way.

         21   Q   All right.

         22   A   I believe at one point, I looked at every article in

         23       those two journals up to that day.  I just went

         24       through all of the bound volumes at one point; and

         25       though I didn't read them all, I certainly looked at

         26       -- read the abstracts from all of them and scanned

         27       some of them, read some others to try to get my


          1       education as thorough as possible.

          2   Q   So it was a self-education then?

          3   A   That's correct, not entirely on my own, because at

          4       some point in the early 1980s, as I recall, I became

          5       acquainted with a professor at the University of

          6       Hawaii, which is where I was spending many, many

          7       months time over the years, who has a small

          8       sexuality institute, and I used his resources, and

          9       this had a lot to do with the directions my research

         10       took was my dealings with him, so it was not in any

         11       official way like taking classes, but it was

         12       certainly dealing with a recognized expert that I

         13       spent a lot of my time.  I also corresponded with

         14       other recognized experts; although in his case, I

         15       was right there with him.

         16   Q   All right.  And who was that?

         17   A   His name is Milton Diamond.

         18   Q   You make reference to some of his work in your text,

         19       I believe.

         20   A   I do.

         21   Q   Do you remember the names of other recognized

         22       experts with whom you corresponded?

         23   A   John Money.

         24   Q   M-O-N-E-Y?

         25   A   Right.

         26   Q   Yes.

         27   A   I went to a couple of meetings of the Society for


          1       the Scientific Study of Sex.  At one of those

          2       meetings I read a paper that I had written, and I

          3       went to one other conference, whose name I would

          4       have to look up, held in the Netherlands, and at

          5       those meetings I certainly met lots of people who do

          6       this kind of research, but I wouldn't remember a lot

          7       of their -- I didn't have a lot of contact.  You

          8       mentioned specifically correspondence, and I'm --  I

          9       would not have had very much correspondence with

         10       anyone other than those two gentlemen.  Some, but it

         11       would be difficult to remember, just what, and it

         12       wouldn't have been very much.

         13   Q   All right.

         14   A   Most of my contact with other experts would have

         15       been at these conferences in those years.

         16   Q   What years do you mean?  Can you give me a frame of

         17       reference?

         18   A   Years which I went to those conferences?

         19   Q   Yes.

         20   A   It may be mentioned in the curriculum vitae.  Oh,

         21       okay, here, the Case for Pornography was the title

         22       of my address at the 10th International Conference

         23       on Sexology in Amsterdam in 1991.

         24            In 1988, I read a paper called Defining Sexual

         25       Sophistry at a meeting of the Society for the

         26       Scientific Study of Sex in San Francisco.  I went to

         27       another conference, I believe it was in 1984,


          1       possibly 1985, another meeting of the Society for

          2       the Scientific Study of Sex, which was held in, I

          3       believe, in Flagstaff, Arizona.

          4   Q   You didn't present a paper in Flagstaff?

          5   A   No.  Sorry, Flagstaff . . . I'm not good at these

          6       names.  I better retract that.  Actually, I don't

          7       think it was Flagstaff.  It was right out of

          8       Phoenix, and Flagstaff is someplace else.  No, it

          9       wouldn't be Flagstaff.  No, I do correct that.

         10   Q   Scottsdale?

         11   A   Scottsdale.  Okay, that rings a bell.  I think it

         12       was Scottsdale.

         13   Q   And when you attended meetings of the Society for

         14       the Scientific Study of Sex, did you pay your own

         15       way?

         16   A   That might be alluded to in my c.v.  I believe I did 

         17       pay my way to the -- to the -- no, I'm sorry, my

         18       memory is very unclear.  I apologize.  But let me

         19       look and see if there's anything about that in --

         20       there's a section in here where there are research

         21       grants, travel grants.  No, it's not listed there,

         22       so I guess the answer is that I did pay my own way,

         23       except for the one in Amsterdam, and for that I was

         24       given a stipend by -- it should be in here

         25       someplace.  It would be under Grants and Awards, a

         26       stipend by the American Foundation for Gender and

         27       Genital Medicine and Science.  That stipend paid my


          1       way.

          2   Q   I'm sorry, is that a reference in Exhibit 3?

          3   A   Yes.  At the -- close to the end of the final page.

          4   Q   Oh, yes.

          5   A   It refers to the Book of the Year Award.

          6   Q   Yes.  Now, while I think of it, in Exhibit 3, you

          7       have listed a number of articles and where they were

          8       published.  Do you have copies of those articles? 

          9       Have you retained copies of your own articles?

         10   A   I can't be totally sure.  I should have most of

         11       them.  To answer the latter question, I certainly

         12       try to keep copies of my own articles.  Sometimes

         13       things get lost.

         14   Q   Yes.

         15   A   But I should have copies of most of them, is the

         16       best answer I can give right now.

         17   Q   Well, I would ask you to undertake to provide copies

         18       of the articles, book reviews, refereed papers and

         19       invited papers that you've listed in Exhibit 3, to

         20       your lawyer, to be forwarded to me with an

         21       appropriate bill for photocopying.

         22   MR. WILLIS:             May I make a proposal?

         23   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

         24   MR. WILLIS:             First of all, I don't know that

         25       you're interested in McTaggert's theory of time, so

         26       perhaps I could restrict -- we could restrict the

         27       undertaking to articles that relate to pornography,


          1       directly or indirectly.

          2   A   Sexuality.

          3   MR. KOZAK:              Yes, let's make it wider,

          4       sexuality.

          5   MR. WILLIS:             All right.  Sexuality.

          6   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

          7   MR. WILLIS:             Secondly, how about if I send

          8       the whole pile to you in trust, and then you can

          9       have made whatever copies you want and send it back? 

         10   MR. KOZAK:              That would be fine.

         11   MR. WILLIS:             Thank you.

         12                           UNDERTAKING NO. 3:



         15       LISTED IN EXHIBIT 3.

         16   Q   MR. KOZAK:          So returning then to an earlier

         17       question, that is, what forms of study you

         18       undertook, most of it was self-learning through your

         19       review of articles, periodicals, books of that

         20       nature; correct?

         21   A   Yes.  I think if I can add something to that.  I

         22       look at the bibliography of my book.  It gives a

         23       pretty good idea, although it certainly doesn't list

         24       all of the sources that I consulted.  It gives a

         25       sample of them that should be helpful.

         26   Q   Right.  You were invited to present papers where you

         27       had interaction with other academics, and you would


          1       have learned things from your interaction with them?

          2   A   That's correct.

          3   Q   You took no formal course of study or anything of

          4       that nature on these issues?

          5   A   That's correct, on sexuality issues.

          6   Q   On sexuality issues?

          7   A   Per se.

          8   Q   You worked closely with Milton Diamond and his

          9       sexuality institute in Hawaii?

         10   A   Yes.

         11   Q   And you had an ongoing interaction with John Money?

         12   A   Yes.

         13   Q   And what is Mr. Money's position?

         14   A   He was a professor at Johns Hopkins University

         15       before he took retirement.  It seems to me that he

         16       had other links to -- I don't know whether it would

         17       be the medical school at Johns Hopkins, but he was

         18       certainly a professor and some kind of position with

         19       the medical institution of some kind.

         20   Q   All right.

         21   A   I'm sorry about my memory on this, but that's as

         22       well as I can remember it.

         23   Q   Now, you shared an academic interest with both

         24       Mr. Diamond and Mr. Money.  Would you describe them

         25       also as friends?

         26   A   Well, I didn't have enough interaction with

         27       Mr. Money that I could use that description.  I


          1       think you could say that I spent enough time with

          2       Mr. Diamond -- Dr. Diamond, that you would call us

          3       friends.  On occasion we would go to dinner together

          4       with his wife or something of that nature, so, yes.

          5   Q   Yes.  You mentioned that you corresponded with both

          6       of these gentlemen on issues relating to sexuality;

          7       is that correct?

          8   A   That's correct.

          9   Q   And do you still do so?

         10   A   I still correspond with Dr. Diamond.  Again, I had

         11       much less correspondence with Dr. Money, and I

         12       haven't corresponded with him for quite some years.

         13   Q   Have you corresponded with Dr. Diamond regarding

         14       issues that are raised in this lawsuit?

         15   A   I have.

         16   Q   And have you produced your correspondence to him or

         17       his correspondence to you in that regard?

         18   A   No, I have not.

         19   Q   Subject to any objection that your lawyer might

         20       have, I would ask that you undertake to provide me

         21       with copies of your correspondence both to and from

         22       Dr. Diamond.

         23   MR. WILLIS:             We'll take that under

         24       advisement.

         25   MR. KOZAK:              All right.

         26                           UNDERTAKING NO. 4:





          3   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, I've been going through the

          4       categories of study, and I guess the last question I

          5       have for you in that regard is:  Did you participate

          6       in any focus groups or discussion groups in terms of

          7       studying the issue of sexuality?

          8   A   Discussion groups?

          9   Q   It's a vague question because I don't really know

         10       whether or not people who share an academic interest

         11       will ever decide:  Let's all go to a known

         12       destination and brainstorm; how do we get our views

         13       on this subject known to the world at large? that

         14       kind of thing.

         15   A   At one point -- maybe if I could back up just a

         16       little here and make clear, I indicated earlier that

         17       I spent a lot of time away from my teaching job

         18       here; and, in fact, during the 1980s, just about

         19       every year I took a half year off; and disliking the

         20       climate here as I do, I went to a nice, warm place,

         21       Hawaii --

         22   Q   Yes.

         23   A   -- where, again, I had access to some very good

         24       libraries.  The university library there is

         25       marvelous for ethnology, the study of other

         26       cultures, and so I spent a lot of time going there. 

         27       And at one point, I don't remember exactly when


          1       during the 1980s, the -- Dr. Diamond had weekly

          2       seminars, and different people would speak, or

          3       different subjects would be discussed at these

          4       seminars.  I don't remember anything else offhand

          5       that fits your description that would be anything

          6       very formal, other than the conferences and that

          7       kind of discussion.

          8   Q   The seminars that you've described are the weekly

          9       seminars that were arranged by Dr. Diamond, did

         10       John Money ever address that group?

         11   A   No, no.  That was a little local Hawaii group. 

         12       John Money was --

         13   Q   Far away?

         14   A   -- in Baltimore.

         15   Q   Yes.  Did anybody in your department at the

         16       University of Alberta share your interests in the

         17       topic of sexuality?

         18   A   Not to the extent of doing much of anything about

         19       it, that I was aware of.

         20   Q   So you're not aware of anybody else from your

         21       department that did any writing or studied the topic

         22       to any great degree?

         23   A   Not in my department.  There were informal

         24       discussions over time, certainly, but that's all.

         25   Q   Those were informal discussions between you and

         26       other members of your department?

         27   A   That's correct.


          1   Q   Do you know if anybody else from your department

          2       shared your views in a general sense, the ones that

          3       you've expressed in your book?

          4   A   That's a pretty vague question, I'm afraid.

          5   Q   You're right.  You don't have to answer it.

          6   A   Certainly, they shared some of my views.  They're a

          7       pretty liberal bunch, so it's safe to say that they

          8       shared my views in general, but the discussion

          9       wouldn't have been in any sort of detail.

         10   Q   Yes.  Well, and that's a good response to an unfair

         11       question, because even if they shared your views,

         12       you wouldn't necessarily know it.

         13   A   That's correct.

         14   Q   Let's get to the book.  Did you author a book

         15       entitled Pornography, The Other Side?

         16   A   Yes.

         17   Q   It was published in 1990; is that correct?

         18   A   Yes.

         19   Q   And can you describe the sequence of events that led

         20       to the idea for the book and its eventually being

         21       published?

         22   A   Yes, I can.  It's a very complicated sequence, but I

         23       think I can make it fairly coherent and brief.

         24   Q   Even to the point where I can understand it?

         25   A   You'll have no trouble understanding it.  Given the

         26       kinds of concerns that I had in regard to justice

         27       about sexuality, what I've labeled my interest in a


          1       sane and humane attitude toward sexuality.  As I've

          2       also said, I became alarmed during the course of the

          3       1980s at what seemed to me arguably was a very

          4       strong sort of backlash against earlier sexual

          5       liberalism of the late '60s and '70s, and, in

          6       particular, it focused on pornography.  There was a

          7       growing movement during the 1980s, both from left

          8       and right ends of the political spectrum attacking

          9       pornography, and that's the reason pornography, as

         10       opposed to some other aspect of sexuality, sort of

         11       became a focus of my own.  I became interested in

         12       the research that was being done to see if there

         13       were harmful effects, and I just gradually got

         14       looking to more and more of this research, being

         15       more and more concerned about the attitudes that

         16       seemed to be becoming more prevalent in society, and

         17       I just began writing my ideas down, and over time

         18       the ideas developed into articles, which we've

         19       mentioned, and eventually into the book.  I hope

         20       that's a fair answer to your question.

         21   Q   Yes, it is.  The articles that you've described are

         22       the ones that you've undertaken to produce through

         23       your lawyer?

         24   A   That's correct.

         25   Q   And for the purpose of the record that we're making,

         26       the book that you authored which you've described is

         27       the Defendant's document production B3; is that


          1       correct?

          2   MR. WILLIS:             Correct.

          3   Q   MR. KOZAK:          When you wrote the book,

          4       Dr. Christensen, did you know that the subject

          5       matter was the source of continuing controversy

          6       within society?

          7   A   Yes, indeed.

          8   Q   It was then, it still is now; would you agree?

          9   A   It is less so now, in my perception, than it was

         10       then.  There was, as I said a moment ago, there was

         11       a very strong movement against pornography in the

         12       1980s.

         13   Q   Yes, I accept the fact that controversies ebb and

         14       flow with time, but my question is:  Today, is the

         15       subject of pornography still controversial.

         16   A   The question seems quite vague to me.  It is to a

         17       degree controversial among many people.  Whether

         18       it's all that controversial for a majority of

         19       people, that would be trickier to answer.

         20            I hope that doesn't seem evasive, but it's a --

         21       when you say it is controversial, well, even whether

         22       the earth is round is controversial in some

         23       quarters, or used to be anyway.  So controversy, if

         24       you mean -- I'd have to have a clear idea of how

         25       many people you think are involved in the

         26       controversy, or something like that.  Yes.

         27   Q   Well, I appreciate that you can't give an informed


          1       opinion on how controversial it is, but if you were

          2       to look at a number of subject matters on a

          3       spectrum, pornography, I think you would agree, is

          4       something that might well divide opinions within a

          5       room of people, or a city or a country, for example?

          6   A   Again, I find that as vague as the word

          7       controversial; but, yes, to -- certainly, to some

          8       degree, it is a subject of controversy.  Now, how

          9       big that degree is, is what's bothering me about the

         10       question.

         11   Q   All right.  Are the contents of your book

         12       controversial?

         13   MR. WILLIS:             Don't answer that.  It calls for

         14       an opinion from the witness.

         15   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Well, did your publisher,

         16       Praeger, consider the views which you expressed in

         17       your book to be controversial?

         18   A   As opposed to the subject itself?

         19   Q   Yes.

         20   A   Because they agreed to publish it, they apparently

         21       didn't find it objectionable.

         22   Q   That's not my question.

         23   A   No, I realize that, but I'm having trouble with the

         24       question.

         25   Q   Well --

         26   A   They knew there would be controversy over it.

         27   Q   Yes.


          1   A   I think that's fair to say.

          2   Q   All right.

          3   A   Whether they considered it controversial in the

          4       sense -- do you see what I'm getting at?

          5   Q   Yes.  They knew that the words that appear in your

          6       book would be controversial when they published

          7       them?

          8   A   Yes, certainly.  In fact, I can add something

          9       because I don't want to seem evasive here.  I had

         10       difficulty getting it published because there are

         11       people in some publishing houses that find it very

         12       distasteful, or else they thought that other people

         13       would, so that's a precise enough point to make, I

         14       think, without getting into the question of what

         15       constitutes controversiality.  They said, well, yes,

         16       there are some people who very strongly objected to

         17       it; and, in fact, I wrote it in the first place

         18       trying to change minds.  Obviously, I was addressing

         19       a controversy.

         20   Q   Yes.

         21   A   I hope that clarifies my stand.

         22   Q   Yes.  I think that's very fair.  And I was about to

         23       ask you whether or not you encountered any

         24       difficulty in having it published because of the

         25       subject matter and the controversial nature of the

         26       topic of pornography.  Many mainstream publishers, I

         27       assume, would not have been interested in it.


          1   A   That is a concrete enough statement that I can agree

          2       to.

          3   Q   And my question about how Praeger viewed this, in

          4       part, relates to the introduction to the book that's

          5       found on the dust jacket.  Now, who wrote the

          6       introduction to the book on the dust jacket?  Do you

          7       know?

          8   A   As I recall, they took certain things I said and

          9       changed them for their own purposes.  That's about

         10       the best answer I can give to that.

         11   Q   Having never published a book, I don't really know

         12       the process, so I'm curious.  Do they propose some

         13       text for the introduction and the dust jacket and

         14       then send it to you for review and approval?

         15   A   I don't recall for sure, but I don't believe so.

         16   Q   You don't believe so?

         17   A   I believe that I suggested some things, and then

         18       they decided, and I didn't -- was not asked for

         19       final approval on the dust jacket, but I can't swear

         20       to it either way.  It's just been too long to

         21       remember those precise details.

         22   Q   Well, let me ask you if you remember whether when

         23       you first read the dust jacket, was that when you

         24       first got a copy of the book?

         25   A   I believe so.

         26   Q   When you first read that dust jacket, were you

         27       shocked and disappointed at what it said or how it


          1       described your book?

          2   A   No.  No.  I might have felt it could be a little bit

          3       more elegant, but, no, I wasn't shocked.

          4   Q   You certainly didn't think that it misrepresented

          5       what the book was about or misled prospective

          6       purchasers?

          7   A   No.  No.  It was -- as I hinted, the wording was

          8       taken originally from my -- from my own introduction

          9       but just shortened and so it wouldn't have been

         10       seriously different from what I would have said

         11       myself.

         12   Q   The reason I've asked is because you will see from

         13       the inside introduction, inside the front cover

         14       appear the words: 

         15            "F. M. Christensen presents the other side

         16            of this debate in what will surely be one of

         17            the most controversial books on the

         18            subject."

         19   A   M-hm.

         20   Q   So you would agree with that description?

         21   A   "One of the most controversial books," again it has

         22       the vagueness that I worried about.  It would

         23       certainly be a controversial book.  "One of the most

         24       controversial books," that I . . .

         25   Q   You don't disagree with that?

         26   A   Well, it's -- the problem is that I find it not very

         27       clear again, or not very testable, or -- if that's a


          1       better word.

          2   Q   On the back of the book, on the dust cover, again

          3       those same words appear at the top, albeit in a

          4       slightly different order.  I'm talking about the

          5       very back.

          6   A   Oh.

          7   Q   Those words appear again?

          8   A   That's right.

          9   Q   And then I wanted to ask, who is Karen DeCrow, do

         10       you know?

         11   A   Oh, yes.  She, at one time, was president of the

         12       National Organization for Women, in the

         13       United States.

         14   Q   She's an attorney?

         15   A   An attorney.

         16   Q   Yes.

         17   A   And a person who I was aware was quite liberal in

         18       her attitudes towards sexuality, in general, and

         19       pornography, in particular, and that's why I asked

         20       her to write a -- some kind of not analysis but

         21       endorsement of the book, if she liked it, for the

         22       purposes of publicizing it.

         23   Q   All right.  So you had suggested to her or you had

         24       suggested her name to your publisher as somebody who

         25       might read the book and provide a comment that could

         26       be included on the dust cover?

         27   A   I believe that's the way it went, yes.


          1   Q   And the same can be said for the comment that was

          2       solicited from Dr. Money?

          3   A   That's correct.

          4   Q   Ms. DeCrow describes, I think, the subject matter of

          5       the book as a "hot potato"?

          6   A   M-hm.

          7   Q   Does that convey the controversial nature of the

          8       subject matter?

          9   A   In the time, certainly, it does.

         10   Q   Yes, and you've already said that you view it as a

         11       topic that's less controversial today than it was in

         12       the 1980s?

         13   A   There's been a huge difference.  I don't know if

         14       others would have noticed it the way I did, but one

         15       has only to look at what's on television today, and

         16       remember that in the 1980s the Playboy channel was

         17       kept out of Canada, and one realizes that there's

         18       been a huge change.

         19   Q   Yes.

         20   A   But certainly not a total -- it's not complete.

         21   Q   Would you agree, Dr. Christensen, that the title

         22       itself is controversial in that it begs some

         23       response?

         24   MR. WILLIS:             Well, again, don't answer that. 

         25       Mr. Kozak, I would ask that you pose your questions

         26       in such a way as to avoid calling for an opinion or

         27       a conclusion from the witness.  I know that -- I


          1       know what you're driving at, and I'm not objecting

          2       to that, but the form of question, I'd ask you to

          3       give some care to that.

          4   MR. KOZAK:              Fair enough.

          5   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Who is Martha Sedgewick?

          6   A   Martha?

          7   Q   Sedgewick.  Do you know that name?  It appears to me

          8       that she may have been the one that designed the

          9       jacket.

         10   A   Oh, I have no idea.

         11   Q   So you didn't have any input on that?

         12   A   On the design, no.  No.

         13   Q   Did you have any role to play in the approval of the

         14       design?

         15   A   No.

         16   Q   So you had no idea what it was going to look like

         17       until you saw it?

         18   A   That's correct.  If I might anticipate what you're

         19       getting at, it did -- that red streak did bother me,

         20       in fact.

         21   Q   It did?

         22   A   It did.  It looked a little bit, just a little bit,

         23       sensationalistic.

         24   Q   Well, I was going to ask about that because, you

         25       know, my view is that it was meant to convey that

         26       the white lettering of the title, The Other Side,

         27       and the small portion of the text below the red line


          1       also in white lettering meant that your views were

          2       very much in the minority?

          3   A   Okay.

          4   Q   I take it that didn't occur to you?

          5   A   That did not occur to me.

          6   Q   And you've never talked to Ms. Sedgewick about --

          7   A   No.


          9   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, if you could turn to your

         10       preface in the book.

         11   A   M-hm.

         12   Q   You describe the aim of the book to be "Brief and

         13       Convincing".

         14            Now, would you agree that your intention as

         15       stated was that this book was to be a polemic

         16       treatise and not an academic treatise?

         17   A   No, I would not agree with that description.

         18   Q   And so you intended this to be a body of work within

         19       an academic spectrum that would convince academics?

         20   A   I believe the preface says I regard it as an

         21       academic book but not directed to other academics as

         22       many academics --

         23   Q   Yes.

         24   A   Directed to a general intelligent public.  Does that

         25       capture your . . .

         26   Q   Well, I think that helps me.  In other words, you

         27       wanted to educate a broader spectrum of people about


          1       issues of importance that related to pornography?

          2   A   That's correct.

          3   Q   And while your intention was to base that approach

          4       on scientific research, your intended audience was

          5       more general than the academics who had been writing

          6       on the subject?

          7   A   That's correct.

          8   Q   And that's perhaps why I described it as a polemic

          9       treatise.  Perhaps I'm being unfair in that

         10       description.

         11   A   If I may, I thought you said polemic rather than

         12       academic, and I am certainly taking a strong

         13       position.

         14   Q   Right.

         15   A   And if that fits your description of polemic, then

         16       it's polemic; but it's very much based on scholarly

         17       work and scientific evidence as, I trust, it shows

         18       all the way through it.

         19   Q   Well, one of the definitions of polemic is a strong

         20       controversialist.  You've taken -- or an aggressive

         21       controversialist.  You've taken a strong position in

         22       the book.  The strong position is aimed at

         23       convincing a broad spectrum of people --

         24   A   Right.

         25   Q   -- to have a reevaluated look at pornography; is

         26       that accurate?

         27   A   That's accurate, yes.  If I may add something


          1       though.  Again, a word like "polemic" may have

          2       different meanings to different people, but it was

          3       very important to me that I not just give my own

          4       view --

          5   Q   Right, your thoughts.

          6   A   -- but that I present all of the arguments and all

          7       of the best arguments that I could find on the other

          8       side.  I believe I was able to argue against them

          9       successfully, but it was not polemic in the sense of

         10       ignoring other points of view, and -- but as

         11       addressing them very seriously with evidence and

         12       argument.  If one still wants to call it polemic

         13       because I took a strong position, then I'm happy

         14       with that, but I have to put that gloss on the word.

         15   Q   I understand.  I wanted to ask you about your

         16       association and involvement with some of the

         17       organizations you mentioned earlier, but I'd like to

         18       start with CAPE, C-A-P-E.  That's an acronym, I

         19       assume?

         20   A   Yes.

         21   Q   I know that it's a divorce or was a divorce equality

         22       organization, but that's all I know about it.  What

         23       did the acronym stand for?

         24   A   Children and Parents Equality.


         26   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Was that a local organization?

         27   A   Yes, just here in Edmonton.


          1   Q   And when did it start, do you know?

          2   A   Yes.  The reason I remember is that it was almost

          3       exactly the same time as MERGE was founded in early

          4       1987.

          5   Q   And what was its genesis?

          6   A   Just a number of individuals who were convinced that

          7       there's serious injustices occurring in divorce, and 

          8       wanted to do something about it, particularly

          9       concerned with the idea that in normal circumstances

         10       both parents should remain serious parts of their

         11       childrens' lives after divorce.  I hope that's

         12       enough to -- it's very much the same as ECMAS since

         13       then.

         14   Q   Were you involved in CAPE right from its origins?

         15   A   Not from the very origins.  I learned about it soon

         16       after it was founded and started going to its

         17       meetings.

         18   Q   What was your interest in the issues that you've

         19       described for CAPE?

         20   A   It came sort of sideways from my original interests. 

         21       We haven't discussed it here yet, but one of my

         22       other strong interests over the years has been

         23       equality between the two genders, and as I began 

         24       getting into researching that subject, I realized

         25       that in terms of numbers of people affected,

         26       equality in divorce is a very major gender equality

         27       issue.  Obviously, never having been married or had


          1       any children, I didn't have a personal interest in

          2       the subject, but all of my life I've had strong

          3       interest in justice issues generally, and this one

          4       became very important to me because of its

          5       connections to gender equality, and things just sort

          6       of developed from there.

          7   Q   Yes.  That's why I was somewhat puzzled, because my

          8       limited experience with organizations of the type

          9       you've described, ECMAS and CAPE, is that the

         10       predominant theme of the members is they've all been

         11       affected in some fundamental way by divorce or

         12       custody issues, and because you've never been

         13       married and never had a child, yet you had to have

         14       some other connection, so it is the equality between

         15       the two genders that first focused your interest on

         16       the disparity with which men and women are treated

         17       in the divorce arena?

         18   A   That's correct.

         19   Q   How far back did your interest in these justice

         20       issues go?

         21   A   I'm sorry, "these justice issues" being.

         22   Q   That was a bad question.  You said earlier you had

         23       always been interested in interests relating to

         24       justice.

         25   A   M-hm.

         26   Q   And I just don't know where in your life that

         27       interest first developed.


          1   A   Well, if I can give a fairly personal answer --

          2   Q   Yes.

          3   A   -- to a personal question, anecdotal?  Years and

          4       years ago when my father was alive, he, in

          5       reminiscing about my childhood, he said that in many

          6       ways I was more like a little man than a little boy

          7       because, I mean, I was a happy enough child in most

          8       respects, but I was very concerned about issues,

          9       adult issues, and issues of -- and those being

         10       mostly what's right and wrong in the world.  It just

         11       seemed to come more naturally to me, for whatever

         12       reason.  And so if that answers your question, it is

         13       something to do with my basic personality.  Caring

         14       about equality, injustices, it goes back as far as I

         15       can remember, and being more concerned about that

         16       than many of my age mates would have been, for

         17       whatever reason.

         18   Q   All right.  That does answer my question.  I was

         19       wondering if your interest in justice and its

         20       manifestations and your participation in these

         21       organizations was event driven, whether there was

         22       some event that led you to believe that the world

         23       was cruel to divorced father's, for example?

         24   A   Well, no event, what I take to be your question,

         25       certainly no event in my own life, just simply

         26       learning about the events in a lot of other people's

         27       lives and saying:  Oh, my goodness, I never dreamed


          1       it was that bad.

          2   Q   Yes.

          3   A   So . . .

          4   Q   So who first told you about CAPE?

          5   A   I learned about it in an article in the newspaper

          6       and called Peter Kertesz, I think was his name, the

          7       founder of CAPE, and said:  We may have some common

          8       interests here, and it sort of developed from there.

          9   Q   And how do you spell his surname?

         10   A   K-E-R-T-E-S-Z, I believe.

         11   Q   In early 1987 or shortly thereafter when you first

         12       learned more about CAPE, do you know how many

         13       members it had?

         14   A   I couldn't recall with any accuracy.  They were

         15       certainly few.  It was not a huge group.

         16   Q   Would few be fewer than 15?

         17   A   Depending on what stage you look at.  Part of the

         18       difficulty is saying what you mean by "members",

         19       whether they have to be dues-paying, signed-up

         20       members, and that information I wouldn't have ever

         21       bothered with; but when CAPE was having regular

         22       monthly meetings, they would be attended by probably

         23       15 or 20 people most of the time.  When they had a

         24       special meeting, they might have gotten up as high

         25       as 40 or 50.  I hope that's helpful, but that's

         26       about all I know.

         27   Q   Yes.  That's helpful.  Were you a member of CAPE?


          1   A   Yes.

          2   Q   So that suggests to me that you paid regular dues to

          3       be a member?

          4   A   That's my memory of it, yes.  It's been a long time,

          5       but I believe so.

          6   Q   And that, presumably, gave you the right to attend

          7       and the right to vote?

          8   A   Yes.

          9   Q   And that right to vote would be on issues regarding

         10       the direction of CAPE or whether to take a public

         11       stand on certain issues, or whether to lobby or

         12       advocate for change, those types of things?

         13   A   Those things go with membership in general.  I don't

         14       have any firm memories of any votes on any subject,

         15       but, yes, that would follow.

         16   Q   And was there an executive or guiding mind of CAPE,

         17       other than Peter Kertesz?

         18   A   Oh, yes.  After I -- when I -- after I met him, I

         19       met some of the others, executive members.  There

         20       was a gentlemen named George Moss, whom I recall,

         21       but I'm probably not going to be able to remember

         22       any of the other executive members. 

         23   Q   How would you describe your role and interaction

         24       with other members of CAPE?  Were you there to

         25       learn?  Were you there to help?  Were you there

         26       to --

         27   A   All of the above, I would say.


          1   Q   Anything else?

          2   A   I'm not sure what you might have in mind, but that

          3       covers quite a bit.

          4   Q   Did you counsel members of CAPE on issues relating

          5       to custody or access?

          6   A   I don't believe I would have done anything that you

          7       could call counseling.  Certainly at that stage I

          8       didn't have a lot of information myself.  I was

          9       learning, but I had no expertise to offer anyone

         10       else.

         11   Q   Was there a lawyer that you can recall that was

         12       involved with CAPE?

         13   A   Yes.  Early on Susan Lynham was involved.  I don't

         14       recall how long it lasted, but she got some early

         15       publicity for them.

         16   Q   So you can't recall how she was involved, whether

         17       she addressed meetings, for example?

         18   A   I remember one highly publicized meeting, or as well

         19       as they could publicize it or get media coverage,

         20       but whether -- it had quite a number of people, and

         21       they had several speakers, one of whom was MLA

         22       John Gogo, Susan Lynham was another, and there

         23       were -- oh, yes, and the head of the Maintenance

         24       Enforcement Program spoke at that meeting.  That was

         25       probably the only meeting I'm going to remember from

         26       CAPE because all of the others were just the little

         27       monthly things where people came and told their


          1       stories and talked about what they might do to get

          2       publicity and try to get the system changed, and

          3       that sort of thing.  That meeting was prominent

          4       enough that it stands out in my mind.  I'm not sure

          5       exactly when it happened.  It was probably about

          6       '88, or maybe as late as '89.  '88, I'd guess.

          7   Q   You said that the organization was formed in early

          8       1987.  Do you know when it ceased to exist?

          9   A   I don't know when they stopped reregistering every

         10       year, but it was pretty well dead by about 1992,

         11       which is why when others came along and began to set

         12       up an organization, there wasn't one for them to

         13       join already, the others coming along.  They started

         14       a group that eventually evolved into ECMAS, and that

         15       was beginning in 1992, as I recall.

         16   Q   Were there stated objectives or articles of

         17       association or a mission statement of CAPE that you

         18       recall?

         19   A   I don't recall.  I would hope so and assume so. 

         20       They registered with the province, but I don't have

         21       any memory of that.

         22   Q   Did you ever serve on the executive of CAPE?

         23   A   No.

         24   Q   Based on an earlier answer you gave me, I take that

         25       an important objective of CAPE was to raise public

         26       awareness of the issues of gender inequality with

         27       respect to maintenance and access?


          1   A   Gender inequality is a major issue in these kinds of

          2       groups.  There's certainly many other issues of

          3       divorce reform, but that's one that everyone is

          4       aware of, and that's why there was a connection with

          5       my interests, initially, even though I became

          6       interested in the other issues for their own sake as

          7       I got involved.

          8   Q   I see.  Did George Moss or Peter Kertesz ever become

          9       a member of MERGE?

         10   A   I don't believe so.  No, I don't believe.  No, I

         11       don't believe so.

         12   Q   They were formed at about the same time I think you

         13       said?

         14   A   That's correct.

         15   Q   Do you know if there was any overlap in terms of

         16       membership?  Well, obviously, you were a member of

         17       both.  Anyone else?

         18   A   A little, but not very much.  In case this is

         19       enlightening, there's been much more -- much more

         20       overlap between ECMAS and MERGE than there ever was

         21       between MERGE and CAPE, in recent years, at least,

         22       but I don't remember much in the way of overlap,

         23       although we certainly -- people in both groups were

         24       aware of the other group, and there would have been

         25       a certain amount of collaboration.  My memory is --

         26       this memory is very fuzzy, in general, so I'm afraid

         27       I can't offer more than that.


          1   (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:50 A.M.)

          2   (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 1:15 P.M.)

          3   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, you acknowledge

          4       that you are still affirmed, and you're under an

          5       obligation to tell the truth?

          6   A   Yes.

          7   Q   Thank you very much.  When we broke, I had been

          8       asking you primarily about organizations in which

          9       you were involved, and I think I finished all of my

         10       questions with respect to CAPE.  And subject to your

         11       correction, I think you said that organization had

         12       its origins in about 1987 and went until about 1992;

         13       is that correct?

         14   A   '90 or '91.  I'm really not totally sure.  It was --

         15       it was pretty well dead by the time the first

         16       stirrings of ECMAS came along.  I don't know the

         17       time exactly.

         18   Q   Well, that's actually helpful to me, because while

         19       it's not important for me to know the date that it

         20       ceased to function because, you know, that can be a

         21       practical date or a theoretical date, in your mind,

         22       it was pretty well over and done with by the time

         23       ECMAS --

         24   A   Yes, definitely.

         25   Q   -- became active?  And is it your recollection that

         26       there was a hiatus or a vacuum between the death of

         27       CAPE and the birth of ECMAS?


          1   A   Yes, to some degree, although I couldn't recall

          2       exactly how long it was, but I do know that when the

          3       founders of what became ECMAS -- originally, they

          4       had a different name.

          5   Q   Yes.

          6   A   When they were discussing setting up their

          7       organization, I suggested:  Look, we've got this

          8       organization that has all of its organizational

          9       papers filed with the province, why don't we just

         10       talk to the people who had been having those

         11       meetings and sort of take over from them, take over

         12       their organization, as it were.  I don't know

         13       whether it would have been practical to do that, but

         14       they weren't interested, they wanted to use another

         15       name.

         16   Q   Was there an earlier name for what became ECMAS or a

         17       proposed name?

         18   A   There was, and it was something with the word "men"

         19       in the title, and it sort of evolved over time. 

         20       They decided that, no, we wanted a more

         21       gender-neutral name, and so it wasn't for some --

         22       later on they changed it to ECMAS, and I don't

         23       recall exactly when that happened.

         24   Q   And when you say "they", you're talking presumably

         25       about the executive of ECMAS?

         26   A   Well, the founders.  They would have had some sort

         27       of -- it was a while, a couple years before there


          1       was any -- they registered with the province, and so

          2       there was organization, but it was less formal until

          3       they finally reached that point.

          4   Q   So ECMAS was initially constituted as an informal

          5       organization?

          6   A   M-hm.

          7   Q   And then over the course of time, perhaps a year or

          8       two, there was some thought actually carried out

          9       that they should formalize their structure and get

         10       the necessary documents filed with the government so

         11       that they could become an actual society?

         12   A   That's right.

         13   Q   And was that part of your initiative?  Was that

         14       something that you believed should be done?

         15   A   No, no, I had no -- very little contact with them at

         16       that point.  It was just sporadic.  I sort of got

         17       more involved as time went on after they got better

         18       organized and it just looked as if they were going

         19       to be a going concern, so . . .

         20   Q   Who were the founders of ECMAS?

         21   A   Phil Buller, B-U-L-L-E-R, is the only one whose name

         22       I really -- I remember, the only person I can

         23       remember.  I can't picture the others anymore.

         24   Q   Okay.  And would there be records of who the

         25       founders were?

         26   A   There ought to be.  ECMAS has not been terribly good

         27       ever about keeping records, and so I would assume


          1       so, but that might be a false assumption.

          2   Q   You're still a member of ECMAS though?

          3   A   That's correct.

          4   Q   And as a member, do you have access to ECMAS

          5       records?

          6   A   It's all very informal.  I would presume so, but

          7       it's not as if the issue has ever come up, except

          8       that when the big change in leadership occurred back

          9       in '99, thereabouts, I was -- I suddenly got very

         10       much more involved to try and help the new leaders

         11       take over and get going, and so I recall at that

         12       point bringing out a big box of records that they

         13       had inherited and raising some questions about what

         14       was in it and so on, but that's about all there is

         15       to that memory.

         16   Q   You have no reason to believe that if you asked for

         17       records, ECMAS would say:  No, you're not entitled

         18       to them?

         19   A   Oh, no.  No, certainly not.

         20   Q   Do you know when ECMAS was formally constituted?  I

         21       know that there was a period of time when it --

         22   A   By that you mean registered with the province?

         23   Q   Yes.

         24   A   For a long time I didn't.  Actually, what I knew

         25       about it I learned from reading one of your

         26       Statements of Claim here, Counterclaim or something

         27       like that.  It gives a 1994 date.  I hadn't been


          1       particularly aware of that date before then, so. . .

          2   Q   You have no reason to believe that date is

          3       inaccurate though?

          4   A   No.  No reason to believe it's accurate or

          5       inaccurate, but it would just be on the reason that

          6       I'd expect you to have had a good reason to put in

          7       there, so . . .

          8   Q   And your involvement predates that 1994 registration

          9       date, assuming that it is correct?

         10   A   Yes.  Again, it was rather -- quite sporadic

         11       involvement, but there was a little, yes.

         12   Q   And were there any issues or initiatives that ECMAS

         13       engaged in that were significantly different than

         14       those that you outlined for CAPE?

         15   A   Not really.  Same basic -- you know, the standard

         16       issues:  custody, access and maintenance, and so,

         17       no, I wouldn't have ever noticed any difference.

         18   Q   I asked you about the founders.  You gave me

         19       Mr. Buller's name as the only one you can remember. 

         20       That would have been the initial foundation --

         21   A   Right.

         22   Q   -- I'll say the less formal constitution?  In 1994,

         23       were there others that were guiding your

         24       organization that you can remember?

         25   A   Not that I can remember.  Phil Buller still would

         26       have been at that date; but, again, memory is too

         27       fuzzy, and my involvement was not great enough to


          1       have really clicked on the names.  At some point, I

          2       began going to their meetings, and I can't tell you

          3       what that date was.  It may have been more like '95

          4       or '94, probably sometime around there, and I have

          5       these vague memories of those meetings, but I

          6       couldn't tell you very much about it now.

          7   Q   Where did ECMAS operate?

          8   A   Where?

          9   Q   Where did it operate:  Edmonton, Calgary, both,

         10       outside the province?

         11   A   Oh, it was initially just Edmonton, not outside the

         12       province.

         13   Q   So initially just Edmonton.  That suggests that at a

         14       later date it expanded?

         15   A   That's right.

         16   Q   Where did it expand?

         17   A   Again, I don't have a lot of personal knowledge of

         18       this because I wasn't involved.

         19   Q   Yes.

         20   A   But there was -- it expanded into Calgary and

         21       Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, as I recall.  I think

         22       it's Fort McMurray.  I don't remember Alberta

         23       geography as I should, but someplace up north, at

         24       one point when they were -- when they were really --

         25       things were really going well.  The branches in

         26       Lethbridge and the other place never did work out

         27       well.  They just -- there's not enough people, I


          1       guess; and contrary to what was said in the article,

          2       there being current branches at the time when the

          3       Laframboise article was written, there were no

          4       current branches in Lethbridge or the northern city.

          5   Q   Fort McMurray?

          6   A   I guess it was Fort McMurray.  Okay.  I'm sorry, I

          7       really embarrass myself on Alberta geography.  When

          8       I leave Edmonton, I tend to go --

          9   Q   To Hawaii?

         10   A   -- to someplace warm.  Anyway, so there were really

         11       just the two branches for some years working --

         12       effectively, doing things.

         13   Q   Now, how did ECMAS advertize or tell people about

         14       its existence?

         15   A   Well, it certainly tried to get media publicity,

         16       which was often very difficult.  The group didn't

         17       have a lot of money, so they couldn't exactly pay

         18       for it.  I'm just trying to think now, anything more

         19       specific than that comes to mind.  Nothing is really

         20       coming to mind about the specific things they might

         21       have done, although it may come back to me later.

         22   Q   Well, I'm just trying to get a sense of how a parent

         23       with a custody, access or maintenance issue would

         24       come to know about the existence of ECMAS.  Would it

         25       be referral by lawyer, or would it be billboard,

         26       posted on a lamppost or --

         27   A   Not billboards, that's expensive.  A lot of word of


          1       mouth and some media coverage.  There was a period

          2       when we got some pretty good coverage, and -- but I

          3       don't have -- after an initial period of not being

          4       able to get very good coverage, but I don't remember

          5       other kinds of publicity.  Maybe other things will

          6       come back to me later, but word of -- I'd say word

          7       of mouth and some news coverage, go on radio

          8       programs.  I know that there was always attempts to

          9       do that, but that's, you know, that's about as well

         10       as I can describe it.

         11   Q   My experience with media coverage is that it tends

         12       to be event focused.

         13   A   Right.

         14   Q   And so if there was a court case that raised some

         15       interesting or novel point of law involving custody,

         16       maintenance or access, the media might cover that

         17       court case.  Is that the type of thing that ECMAS

         18       would seek the press out on in order to provide a

         19       comment or a perspective?  I just -- you know, I

         20       just think that if you invite the media to attend a

         21       meeting of ECMAS, they're not going to go -- they're

         22       not going to publish, so --

         23   MR. WILLIS:             Don't answer that for a minute. 

         24       I'm not sure of the propriety of the form of your

         25       question here.  Are you asking what the witness

         26       understood ECMAS to be doing at that time or what it

         27       understands it's policy to be or --


          1   MR. KOZAK:              No, it wasn't aimed at policy. 

          2       I was just trying to understand how ECMAS made

          3       people in need of their services aware of their

          4       existence.

          5   MR. WILLIS:             All right.

          6   MR. KOZAK:              By way of example, until this

          7       lawsuit, I didn't know about the existence of ECMAS,

          8       so I was speculating to myself that had I been a

          9       parent in need of whatever services ECMAS was able

         10       to offer, how would I know they exist?  How did they

         11       get word out?  That's what I'm trying to find out.

         12   MR. WILLIS:             All right.  Carry on.

         13   A   Well, one of the things that was done, not so much

         14       earlier as sort of in the late '90s, was to have

         15       public demonstration, especially after

         16       Ann McClelland became the Justice Minister.  Quite 

         17       a few public demonstrations were held during that

         18       period, at her office usually, and that's the sort

         19       of thing the media does like, and so we got some

         20       pretty good coverage for that.

         21            You asked about court cases.  I don't remember

         22       any court cases as having been part of media focus.

         23   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Well, did the profile of ECMAS

         24       ever reach the status where if there was a custody,

         25       access or maintenance issue, the press would seek

         26       out a spokesperson from ECMAS to comment?

         27   A   To some extent that happened during the period when


          1       Caroline Van Ee was president.  I remember her

          2       mentioning that, and sometimes people from the press

          3       would call her.

          4   Q   I'm sorry, that was Caroline Manning?

          5   A   Sorry, Van Ee, V-a-n, E-e.

          6   Q   Now, I've been asking you about the origins of

          7       ECMAS.  I want to ask you a few questions about the

          8       nature of your involvement and how it changed over

          9       time.  So with that introduction, when did you first

         10       become a dues-paying member of ECMAS?

         11   A   I don't have a clear memory of that.  Probably

         12       sometime around 1995, but I wouldn't want to be held

         13       to it.

         14   Q   Would you have a record of that?

         15   A   Well, it may well be this old box would have old

         16       slips and things of that nature.  I haven't checked

         17       on it, but I would guess that there's still some

         18       kind of record or other around.  I just didn't sort

         19       it out.

         20   Q   Do you have access to that box of records?

         21   A   They would offer it to me, I'm sure, if I wanted to.

         22   Q   All right.  Well, I'll ask you to undertake to check

         23       those records to determine when you first became an

         24       official member of ECMAS.

         25   MR. WILLIS:             We'll do that.

         26                           UNDERTAKING NO. 5:



          1       MEMBER OF ECMAS.

          2   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Now, what were the dues, do you

          3       remember?

          4   A   As long as I can recall, it's been $25 a year.  I

          5       always thought that was too high.  My memory is

          6       somewhat blurry, so I'm not quite sure how far back

          7       that goes.

          8   Q   That's still the present assessment today?

          9   A   That's correct.

         10   Q   And from the commencement of your becoming a member

         11       of ECMAS in 1995 until the present day, have you

         12       consistently been a member each year?

         13   A   That's right.  The word -- the phrase "each year"

         14       might be a little off because sometimes it's

         15       sporadic.  You don't remember when you last

         16       re-signed up, and so you do whenever you do remember

         17       it, but that's pretty accurate otherwise.

         18   Q   And is there an application process to become a

         19       member, or is it merely a requirement that you pay

         20       the $25?

         21   A   I remember often enough getting a receipt for

         22       payment.  I think they were less scrupulous about

         23       having forms to fill out and sign your name to, but

         24       I could -- my memory could be off on that.  It's

         25       more a matter of paying it and getting a receipt.

         26   Q   I guess my questions was:  There are no

         27       qualification criteria, other than paying your dues?


          1   A   It's pretty informal, the group has always been.  If

          2       I may add, it became a little more formal more

          3       recently when I suggested that they update the

          4       bylaws.  Part of it was made necessary by my

          5       recurring suggestions about doing something to get a

          6       charitable status, and -- but it's -- overall, you

          7       have a group of people who have little

          8       organizational experience, and everything has been

          9       very informal, to give a general answer to your

         10       question.

         11   Q   That's a general answer.  My poorly framed question

         12       was aimed at trying to ascertain whether or not some

         13       people might be excluded?

         14   A   Oh, I see.  I don't remember anyone ever being

         15       excluded.  I remember -- I know that from time to

         16       time somebody will come along who seems a little

         17       extreme, and -- but I wasn't close enough to the

         18       inner workings of ECMAS to know whether any decision

         19       was ever made to exclude anyone.  I would doubt it,

         20       based on the informal knowledge I had, but I

         21       couldn't say for sure.  A very sort of tolerant

         22       group of individuals has always been involved in

         23       running ECMAS and they wouldn't -- the people, as I

         24       know them, wouldn't have been interested in

         25       excluding anybody for any but the most extreme

         26       reasons, which wouldn't have come up, as far as I

         27       know.


          1   Q   So you're not aware of any instance where an

          2       applicant was refused membership to ECMAS?

          3   A   I'm not aware of any such.

          4   Q   Are you aware of any instance where a member of

          5       ECMAS was asked to turn in their membership or their

          6       membership was revoked?

          7   A   No, I'm not.

          8   Q   Now, you responded to a question earlier by saying

          9       that there was a change in leadership in 1999?

         10   A   Right.

         11   Q   Up until that point in 1999, was ECMAS still guided

         12       by Phil Buller?

         13   A   No.  He had left sometime earlier because he had

         14       moved to Calgary.

         15   Q   So who took over that lead role of guiding ECMAS

         16       after Phil Buller left?

         17   A   This was at some point in the mid '90s, I'm guessing

         18       1996, something like that, the president was

         19       Caroline Van Ee, and the vice president was

         20       Brian St. Germain.  And they were the -- pretty well

         21       the guiding lights.  There were others involved, but

         22       I probably wouldn't -- I know I wouldn't remember

         23       the names of other board members.  They were the

         24       real key persons at that point, and from that point

         25       until 1999 when they both resigned from the board.

         26   Q   So Caroline Van Ee and Brian St. Germain filled the

         27       vacuum created when Phil Buller left Edmonton to


          1       move to Calgary?

          2   A   Yes.  I don't know all the details, whether -- I

          3       would imagine that one or both of them may have been

          4       on the board while he was still president, but I

          5       don't know those details, but they certainly -- they

          6       certainly were the ones who took over as the prime

          7       movers when he left the city.

          8   Q   And from whenever that date was in the mid 1990s

          9       until sometime in 1999, to the best of your

         10       knowledge, Caroline Van Ee and Brian St. Germain

         11       were the president and vice president of ECMAS?

         12   A   To the best of my knowledge, I'm quite sure that's

         13       true.

         14   Q   What happened in 1999?

         15   A   Well, that's when they both decided to resign from

         16       the board.  People do get burn-out in a situation

         17       like this, and they had been working hard for a long

         18       time.

         19   Q   Right.  Can you give me an idea of approximately how

         20       many members ECMAS would have had in the mid 1990s,

         21       say at the point when Phil Buller left Edmonton?

         22   A   I would -- I really couldn't.  It's never very

         23       large.  Sometimes they would talk about all the

         24       people who had come to ECMAS and had been involved

         25       in some way or other, but the members who actually

         26       paid dues to join was always -- was always pretty

         27       small.  A few dozen, I would think, but, again, I


          1       can't swear to that --

          2   Q   Right.

          3   A   -- because this is just impressions that I've had.

          4   Q   But if I suggested that it would never be, say, more

          5       than 40, would you agree with that?

          6   A   I would think that's very likely true.

          7   Q   And we're talking about dues-paying members?

          8   A   Yes.

          9   Q   If people were interested in ECMAS and wanted to

         10       attend meetings without paying dues, were they able

         11       to do so?

         12   A   Oh, yes.  Yes.  Most of those who attended meetings

         13       were not members because most of them came and went

         14       and didn't stick around to be members.

         15   Q   So was that a little unwieldy to have many people at

         16       meetings who were not members?

         17   A   No.  It might be worthwhile to say something about

         18       the nature of the meetings we're talking about.

         19   Q   All right.

         20   A   The way it was done back when Brian and Caroline

         21       were -- they would have their board meetings

         22       something like 6 o'clock in the evening, and then at

         23       7 o'clock they'd have a meeting for anybody else who

         24       wanted to come, members and visitors, and, in fact,

         25       they had a general presentation that they would make

         26       for people who hadn't been there before telling them

         27       what ECMAS was all about.  And the discussion in


          1       those meetings would be -- would revolve around what

          2       kinds of things can we do to change the system?  How

          3       can we make the public aware of what we have to say,

          4       and so on.

          5   Q   I see.  Now, I take it though that only dues-paying

          6       members were entitled to elect the executive?

          7   A   I have always assumed that.  That's pretty standard.

          8   Q   And do you remember when Caroline Van Ee and

          9       Brian St. Germaine were elected to the executive?

         10   A   No.

         11   Q   Is it possible that you were at that meeting but

         12       just don't recollect it?

         13   A   I think I was probably not at that meeting.  At that

         14       point I was not attending very many meetings,

         15       certainly not regularly attending, so I doubt very

         16       much that I was there.  I just sort of began getting

         17       involved while Phil Buller was still presiding over

         18       it and then just gradually got more and more

         19       involved over time.

         20   Q   Was it during Caroline Van Ee's and

         21       Brian St. Germain's tenure that ECMAS increased its

         22       public awareness by attending public demonstrations?

         23   A   I think so.  That's the way I remember it, because

         24       that was the same time after Ann McClelland became

         25       Justice Minister, and that provided something to

         26       have demonstrations about that would get media

         27       attention.


          1   Q   And what was the mechanism at ECMAS for a

          2       dues-paying member to become a member of the

          3       executive?

          4   A   Okay.  Well, this would have been -- I think this

          5       was pretty standard.  You have an annual general

          6       meeting, and they have elections then.  Did I

          7       misunderstand the question?

          8   Q   No.

          9   A   That was the mechanism.  What I do remember, and

         10       I've stated this in document 4, is that it was very

         11       often difficult to get people to run for office and

         12       just to be in those positions, so it was generally a

         13       matter of whoever wants it were chosen by

         14       acclamation, as I remember it.

         15   Q   Did the bylaws prescribe a mechanism for election of

         16       officers?

         17   A   I don't remember offhand.  I dealt more with writing

         18       some new bylaws.  I certainly have read the old

         19       bylaws, but I don't remember very much about them. 

         20       They're available.  That's not -- it wouldn't be a

         21       problem.

         22   Q   I wonder if you could undertake to provide me with

         23       copies of the bylaws of ECMAS for the period of time

         24       following Phil Buller's departure from Edmonton to

         25       Calgary?

         26   MR. WILLIS:             We will undertake to make

         27       inquiries and provide them if we can get them.


          1   MR. KOZAK:              Yes, that would be fine.

          2   A   It was simply a copy of those bylaws was what you

          3       wanted?

          4   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Well, I suspect there will be

          5       more than one set of bylaws, because I have gleaned

          6       from your testimony that there were bylaws and that

          7       you revised them.

          8   A   Two separate sets.  Two separate sets of bylaws

          9       there were -- there are.

         10   Q   Yes.  Okay.  Any sets of bylaws that governed the

         11       conduct of ECMAS after Phil Buller's tenure, that's

         12       what I want you to undertake to use your best

         13       efforts to produce.

         14   A   The bylaws themselves?

         15   Q   Yes.

         16   A   That should not be difficult.

         17   Q   All right.  Thank you.  

         18                           UNDERTAKING NO. 6:



         21       EDMONTON TO CALGARY.

         22   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Do you remember approximately

         23       when you undertook the revision to the bylaws?

         24   A   Fairly closely.  It was during the year before the

         25       big disputer election that a lot of this case is

         26       about, and it was shortly before that annual general

         27       meeting that the final meetings were held in which


          1       the ad hoc committee sort of agreed on the bylaws. 

          2       So it would have been in, as I say, the year before

          3       that.  That particular annual general meeting in

          4       2001 was the time that I got involved in it myself. 

          5       It may have been as much as eight or nine months

          6       before that I sort of started, but I'm not sure.

          7   Q   All right.  So the date of the publication of the

          8       article was April 17th, 2001 --

          9   A   Right.

         10   Q   -- I believe.  So your testimony is that your

         11       involvement in revision to the bylaws would have

         12       occurred in the calendar year 2000?

         13   A   Yes, and into the beginning of 2001, more so the

         14       beginning of 2001, because that's when we really got

         15       looking at it closely and trying to get the job done

         16       in time for the AGM.

         17   Q   And when was the AGM?

         18   A   I believe that was the 13th of March.  12th maybe. 

         19       It was a -- sorry, I don't remember which day for

         20       sure.  It was held on a Monday, which is when all

         21       the meetings were held at that time, so it would be

         22       easy to double-check it, but I'm sure I've got it

         23       written down some places.

         24   Q   But it was March of 2001?

         25   A   That's correct.

         26   Q   What series of events led to you undertaking a

         27       revision of the bylaws or being asked to do that?


          1   A   Just seeing that it needed to be done, if ECMAS was

          2       going to do such things as get a charitable tax

          3       status, and the fact that I had some experience with

          4       that sort of thing, not a huge amount but certainly

          5       more than others in ECMAS, that led me into that.

          6            A general background point that I find with

          7       other things we've said here.  Having taken early

          8       retirement, I was putting in lots more time in the

          9       volunteer-type activities than other people have,

         10       and so I could volunteer for a lot of things that --

         11       just because no one else was doing it, so . . .

         12   Q   And what other experience did you have in terms of

         13       the designation of entities as being charitable?

         14   A   I was involved -- I'm not going to be able to recall

         15       dates now, but it goes back I believe sometime in

         16       the early '90s, I made application to get a

         17       charitable tax status for an entity known as the

         18       Gender Issues Education Foundation, a charitable

         19       foundation, and I mean very little.  It was set up

         20       at roughly the same time as MERGE had been, the idea

         21       being that it could, as a research foundation, it

         22       could get its -- get a tax number at some point,

         23       whereas if MERGE itself did not, then MERGE wouldn't

         24       have to worry about running afoul of being too

         25       political.  I had to sort of just -- you didn't ask

         26       much about MERGE before, but --

         27   Q   I will.


          1   A   -- this may be helpful.  MERGE was meant to be an

          2       activist organization, and GIEF was meant to be a

          3       research foundation.

          4   Q   I'm sorry, MERGE was meant to be what kind of a --

          5   A   An activist, lobbying and public awareness and that

          6       sort of thing, and so whereas MERGE would have

          7       regular members and elections, GIEF would simply be

          8       privately held with the board members, but no

          9       members in any other sense.

         10   Q   Now, did your revisions to the bylaws of ECMAS

         11       result in it obtaining charitable tax status?

         12   A   No, they haven't gotten around to that.  We keep

         13       working on it.

         14   Q   All right.

         15   A   But I have to be political here.  A lot of things

         16       were influenced by this article as well.  Not in the

         17       sense that the application has been made and turned

         18       down.  I don't mean that.  I mean that everything

         19       has been turned upside down, and it's gone very

         20       slowly on this front, as well as others since then.

         21   Q   All right.  Just so that I'm clear, it isn't the

         22       case that you've applied to CCRA for charitable tax

         23       status, and they've said:  No, we read the article

         24       in the Post?

         25   A   No, no application -- well, I have to be careful now

         26       because I haven't been involved in this lately.  The

         27       application may, in fact, have gone in by now


          1       finally, recently, but whether it has actually gone

          2       in officially or whether there is still some last

          3       minute tinkering with documents, that I'm not sure

          4       of.  In fact, this question came up at the last

          5       ECMAS meeting, and the person who had been handling

          6       it, mostly recently, was not at that meeting and

          7       couldn't answer that question, so . . .

          8   Q   So I take your earlier answer to mean you've been

          9       distracted from that objective because of the issues

         10       arising from the publication of the article and the

         11       litigation?

         12   A   That's correct.

         13   Q   Now, this may become apparent once you produce the

         14       revisions to the bylaws, that is, the two sets of

         15       bylaws, but what aspects of bylaws were deficient in

         16       terms of your plan to obtain charitable tax status? 

         17       Can you recall offhand?

         18   A   No.  No, I don't recall offhand, but my memory might

         19       be jogged if I went back and look at the revised

         20       bylaws, and I don't remember at the moment.

         21   Q   When you proposed to amend the bylaws, given the

         22       fact that you were a member but not on the executive

         23       of ECMAS, what did you do?  Did you approach the

         24       executive and make that proposal?

         25   A   Just volunteered.  I'll help out, so . . . I was

         26       anxious to get any help I can, so.

         27   Q   Did there have to be a discussion or a vote on that


          1       proposal?

          2   A   I don't remember for sure.  Since you're making this

          3       distinction between the board members and the

          4       regular members, one thing that might be of use to

          5       put on the record.  After Ms. Van Ee and

          6       Mr. St. Germain left, the practice that they had had

          7       of having board members -- board meetings separate

          8       from the general membership meetings was abandoned,

          9       and there was just a general meeting, and everything

         10       was done there, and even though I complained about

         11       it sometimes, they would have the group, whoever was

         12       present at that meeting, make decisions, and

         13       sometimes I would say:  You're aware this should be

         14       made by the board?  And they would say:  Stop

         15       worrying about those things.

         16   Q   All right.  So at some point in 1999 then, it almost

         17       became a less formal, rigid approach to governance?

         18   A   Very much so.  I think I mentioned someplace in what

         19       I've written as document 4 that for that first year

         20       there was no president.  We had two people sharing

         21       the office of vice president but nobody had been

         22       willing to be president, and that gives some flavor

         23       of the fact that things were not really done

         24       formally in quite a few ways.

         25   Q   When you say "that first year", are you referring to

         26       the first year following the departure of Ms. Van Ee

         27       and Mr. St. Germain?


          1   A   That's correct.

          2   Q   And who were the two vice presidents in that period

          3       of time?

          4   A   Elsie Cable, and I may not remember the other one's

          5       name right now.  He moved down to Calgary later on. 

          6       I would recognize his name, but it's not coming to

          7       me right now.

          8   Q   The situation where you had two vice presidents,

          9       when did that end?

         10   A   After the first year, another person was prevailed

         11       upon to become president and ended the following AGM

         12       the following year.

         13   Q   So that would have been March of 2000?

         14   A   No.  The -- when -- about the time that Van Ee and

         15       St. Germaine departed, the annual general meetings

         16       were being held in November, and that formal time

         17       was never really changed.  What happened in the year

         18       2001 was that it had just gotten put off, put off

         19       repeatedly from November, and the decision was made

         20       to make it in the spring of the year when the new

         21       bylaws were adopted in March of 2001, but it had

         22       been supposed to be in November of each year, and it

         23       just wasn't that year.  For a variety of reasons, it

         24       got put off from the time it was officially supposed

         25       to occur.

         26   Q   So my chronology has Ms. Van Ee and

         27       Mr. St. Germain --


          1   A   St. Germain, yes.

          2   Q   -- leaving in March of 1999; is that correct?

          3   A   No, it would have been November.

          4   Q   Oh, sorry, November of 1999.

          5   A   Oh, let me get this -- wait, I may have been stating

          6       this date wrong.  It may have been November of '98. 

          7       I think it was '99 because it was mostly the '99

          8       calendar year.  Sorry about this, but I'll have to

          9       recalculate here.

         10            Mr. Bouvier was president in the calendar year

         11       of 2000, and so he would have been elected in

         12       November of '99.  So it actually had been November

         13       of 1998 when Van Ee and St. Germain resigned.  I

         14       keep thinking calender year '99, but it might have

         15       just been -- evidently, now that I'm thinking about

         16       it more carefully, it was actually just before that

         17       calendar year that they actually left their offices,

         18       even though I've been thinking in terms of the

         19       calendar year as basically the -- '99.  I hope

         20       that's not confusing.  I should have -- I should

         21       have thought about that a little more carefully

         22       before using those dates.

         23   Q   Well, just to recap, Van Ee and St. Germain resign

         24       in November of 1998?

         25   A   I believe that's correct.  Before the calendar year

         26       '99, it would have been.

         27   Q   At that point in time there is no president, and


          1       there are two acting vice presidents or jointly

          2       appointed vice presidents?

          3   A   Co-vice presidents or something along those lines. 

          4       Yes.

          5   Q   Co-vice presidents, Elsie Cable and a gentleman

          6       whose name you can't remember who moves to Calgary

          7       at some point?

          8   A   That's right.

          9   Q   And that continues past November of 1999 when you

         10       would ordinarily have addressed the issue, and is

         11       addressed in March of 2000?

         12   A   No, I believe that in November of '99, we had the

         13       election at which Mr. Bouvier was elected.

         14   Q   Okay.

         15   A   I can't be totally sure it was November.  They might

         16       have put it off by a month or something like that,

         17       but it was roughly November '99 when Mr. Bouvier was

         18       elected, and we had a regular president.

         19   Q   And who was the vice president?

         20   A   The vice president . . .  Bouvier.  I don't recall

         21       for some reason.  At the moment I don't recall. 

         22       It's odd.  It will come back to me at some point,

         23       but I guess it's conceivable that we didn't even

         24       have one, but I'd have to check that.  It obviously

         25       would be available information, but I'm embarrassed

         26       to say I don't recall.

         27   Q   In any event Mr. Bouvier's term was the one that


          1       went from approximately November of 1999 through to

          2       March?

          3   A   Through to November of -- sorry, you're right,

          4       through to March of 2001.

          5   Q   Right.  Okay.  And that was at or about the time

          6       that the bylaws were being revised?

          7   A   It was during that year but especially toward the

          8       end of that period that the work was completed.

          9   Q   Now, at the meetings that you've described, did you

         10       have somebody take minutes?

         11   A   At the meetings for?

         12   Q   ECMAS.

         13   A   For the general monthly meeting for ECMAS?

         14   Q   Yes.

         15   A   It would have been fairly sporadic.  The first year

         16       of Mr. Bouvier's tenure, there wasn't a regular

         17       secretary.  There was a person that they tried to

         18       get to be secretary who just wound up not showing up

         19       and really getting into the job.  And so there

         20       was -- if I'm remembering correctly, for pretty well

         21       all of that first year of his tenure, there was no

         22       secretary for ECMAS.

         23   Q   That must have produced some problems.

         24   A   Yes.

         25   Q   Did it lead to any disputes over things that had or

         26       hadn't been decided or details of decisions made at

         27       past meetings?


          1   A   Not any major disputes.  I would imagine there would

          2       be some disagreements, but I don't remember any

          3       major disputes.

          4   Q   Were minutes ever kept of the ECMAS meetings, even

          5       what we'll call the executive meetings that

          6       Ms. Van Ee and Mr. St. Germaine had?

          7   A   That I don't know the answer to.

          8   Q   In the box of documents that you've described, the

          9       ECMAS documents, have you ever seen minutes of

         10       meetings?

         11   A   I never looked at that box long enough to get any

         12       kind of a memory now about what was in it, just --

         13       it was quite full of a lot of things, but I

         14       didn't --

         15   Q   I'll ask to you undertake to provide copies of

         16       minutes of ECMAS meetings, if they exist. 

         17   MR. WILLIS:             We'll undertake to provide

         18       whatever minutes Dr. Christensen may have in his

         19       materials.

         20   MR. KOZAK:              All right.

         21   A   It wouldn't be my materials.  It would be ECMAS's. 

         22       I have nothing like that.

         23   MR. WILLIS:             Okay, sorry.  But we'll make an

         24       inquiry, and this too will be subject to relevancy.

         25   MR. KOZAK:              Right.

         26   A   Maybe I should add, at the March 2001 meeting, we

         27       did elect a secretary who was very competent, and


          1       she kept minutes from that date.  I don't know, I

          2       really don't think she missed any months from that

          3       date until the last election when she resigned. 

          4       Those minutes I do know about.

          5   MR. WILLIS:             Let me make it a larger

          6       undertaking.  Whatever we get, I'll turn over to

          7       you.  If it's irrelevant, so be it.

          8   MR. KOZAK:              Sure.

          9   MR. WILLIS:             I'll have to look at them anyway

         10       there's no way of avoiding looking at them, so you

         11       might as well suffer the --

         12   MR. KOZAK:              Same punishment.

         13   MR. WILLIS:             -- pain of looking at irrelevant

         14       documents if I have to.

         15   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Well, and just so that we're

         16       certain about what it is I'm looking for, I

         17       recognize that sometimes formal minutes are kept,

         18       and I think those are the minutes that you've

         19       described following the meeting in March of 2001?

         20   A   Yes, we had a good secretary, and she kept minutes

         21       of those years, yes.

         22   Q   But sometimes people keep notes of meetings that

         23       might not otherwise be labeled minutes but

         24       nevertheless they're a reflection of what went on

         25       with some greater or lesser degree of accuracy.  I

         26       would like those included in the undertaking.

         27   A   Everything that we can find?


          1   Q   Yes.

          2   A   M-hm.

          3                           UNDERTAKING NO. 7:


          5       AVAILABLE.

          6   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Were any nonparents ever members

          7       of the executive of ECMAS?

          8   A   The executive?  I doubt it, but I don't know for

          9       sure.  We certainly had people who were there as

         10       grandparents rather than as parents.

         11   Q   Yes.

         12   A   But, well, in the case of Ms. Van Ee, for example,

         13       she was in a situation that's not uncommon in the

         14       group, a second wife who suffers from problems with

         15       her formerly divorced husband, and so if by parent

         16       you mean parent of who is in the organization

         17       because of a parenting role, in her case it was

         18       because of her husband's parenting role.

         19   Q   Right.

         20   A   But it would be unusual, and I don't know of any

         21       offhand, no.

         22   Q   All right.  Approaching the issue in a different

         23       way.  Would anything in the bylaws preclude a

         24       nonparent, however defined, of being a member of

         25       executive?

         26   A   I'm virtually certain that there's nothing in the

         27       old or new bylaws that would do that.


          1   Q   Okay.  Now, your role in ECMAS, that is, as a

          2       member, you attended meetings?

          3   A   Yes.

          4   Q   Is that correct?  What other things did you do for

          5       the organization?

          6   A   On that basis, all sorts of things that came along. 

          7       For example, I can remember doing the legwork to

          8       help set up one meeting that we had at City Hall

          9       because I had done it, had set up meetings at

         10       City Hall for MERGE in the past.  I had that

         11       background experience, and so helping to get

         12       speakers for that particular meeting.  I hope that

         13       sort of example helps you.

         14   Q   Yes.  Can you think of other things, that is, for

         15       example, did you undertake lobbying efforts?

         16   A   Lobbying efforts for ECMAS, specifically . . . I

         17       belonged to certain ECMAS committees.  I did some

         18       lobbying.  Okay.  There was -- one that does come

         19       back into mind.  In the year after Van Ee and

         20       St. Germain resigned from the board, he served for a

         21       while as a chair of a committee dealing with custody

         22       and -- not maintenance, custody and access issues;

         23       and as a member of that committee, I was in on

         24       discussions in his home in which we talked about

         25       what would be presented to a government minister

         26       here in Alberta, and so I was involved in that.  I

         27       didn't go with them on that particular occasion to


          1       talk to the minister.  That was done by

          2       Mr. St. Germain and I think by some others as well,

          3       but I was involved in helping with discussions,

          4       presenting my ideas.

          5            And I think maybe this may get to what's behind

          6       your question, in terms of knowledge of the subject. 

          7       I think this may have been my biggest role in ECMAS

          8       because of my -- by that -- by that stage, the late

          9       '90s, I had had years and years of reading

         10       literature on ECMAS-type issues and was able to pass

         11       that information along to people who didn't have

         12       that kind of background.  So my background in the

         13       legal issues, legal not in a very narrow sense, but

         14       at least in a broad sense, is fairly significant, I

         15       would say.

         16   Q   Well, what kinds of things would you say to people? 

         17       I mean, I appreciate that you have a wealth of

         18       knowledge based on I'm sure extensive readings on

         19       issues of interest to ECMAS, but I guess I'm trying

         20       to put it into a context.  I'm a single parent, I

         21       have custody and maintenance issues.  I come to a

         22       meeting.  What types of, you know, knowledge or

         23       years of review of literature would you be able to

         24       tell me about that would assist me with my problem?

         25   MR. WILLIS:             Don't answer that hypothetical.

         26   Q   MR. KOZAK:          What information did you give

         27       people who actually asked you for that?


          1   A   That's okay?

          2   Q   It's not hypothetical.

          3   MR. WILLIS:             If you can think of specific

          4       instances, I think it's very appropriate for you to

          5       put them on the record.

          6   A   Instances.  Okay.  I might have trouble with

          7       instances.  Maybe it will be helpful to mention that

          8       until the time when Ms. Van and Mr. St. Germain

          9       left, ECMAS was limiting itself to public awareness

         10       and lobbying efforts.  Many people who would come to

         11       the general meetings would tell parts of their

         12       individual stories, but the meetings were not set up

         13       to give them help.  That was not their purpose. 

         14       And, in fact, Mr. St. Germain, in particular, would

         15       discourage getting into individual cases, saying: 

         16       Well, that's not what we're here for.

         17   Q   MR. KOZAK:          M-hm.

         18   A   And so since you're asking about helping

         19       individuals, it's important to point out that that

         20       really wasn't done, except in a most informal way at

         21       the time that they were in charge of the group.  And

         22       my particular contributions would have been more

         23       along -- even then when it was more along the lines

         24       of the general problems rather than anything like

         25       help for an individual.

         26   Q   Right.

         27   A   I'm going by the way you asked the question.  This


          1       is -- so to give an example of that, I could point

          2       out, well, I understand, though I don't know the

          3       laws themselves, I understand that British Columbia

          4       and Alberta have laws in which unwed fathers have

          5       fewer rights than is the case in other provinces. 

          6       And so this kind of subject could come up, but in

          7       terms of helping individuals, that really wasn't

          8       happening at that point.

          9   Q   Okay.  Now, you ended your answer by saying "at that

         10       point", and from that I assume that it did start to

         11       happen later because I know from what you've

         12       written, for example, that ECMAS, although it

         13       originated as a lobbying and public awareness group,

         14       that focus changed after Mr. St. Germain left, and

         15       it become, I suppose, more focused on a weekly

         16       support group meeting and also looked at a telephone

         17       help line that was sponsored jointly with MERGE.

         18   A   M-hm.

         19   Q   That type of thing.

         20   A   Yes.

         21   Q   So how did your role change?

         22   A   Well, that was my suggestion, that we start trying

         23       to offer some individual help.  And as I think I've

         24       also written in there one reason that happened is

         25       that we began to become aware of people who had

         26       represented themselves in court, and because I'd

         27       heard so many stories about people who had give up,


          1       who couldn't -- just abandoned their kids and got

          2       out because they were beaten down by the way the

          3       system works, sort of lights went on.  Wow, let's

          4       share this information.  There was one person in

          5       particular who was very enthusiastic about the help

          6       he had gotten through the group from another

          7       individual in the group, neither one of them on the

          8       board, but they made contact in the group, and he

          9       said:  Here's how I did it.  Suddenly, I thought: 

         10       Wow, this sounds very promising.  We had this one

         11       person who feels he's learned a lot of things about

         12       filling out the forms and making applications, and

         13       it sounded very promising to me, so it was at that

         14       point that I suggested to him that he be involved in

         15       sharing a support group to give individual help.

         16   Q   Who was that person?

         17   A   His name is James Haiden, H-A-I-D-E-N, and he always

         18       goes by the nickname Jiggs.

         19   Q   And when the lights went on for you, what did you do

         20       about it?  Did you advise the then current members

         21       of the executive that this was a change in focus

         22       that might well benefit many members of ECMAS?

         23   A   Well, I wouldn't have called it a change in focus. 

         24       I would have called it an addition.

         25   Q   Right.

         26   A   It was something in addition that we're doing.  I

         27       thought it would be very good partly because people


          1       who -- I mean this is a struggling organization. 

          2       Part of my reasoning, but only part, was that those

          3       who came along and got help in that way, some of

          4       them might stick around, be more likely to stick

          5       around to help with the public education and

          6       lobbying efforts.  Two reasons for feeling this was

          7       a good thing to try.

          8   Q   Getting back to my question.  When the lights went

          9       on, you presumably raised this with the executive?

         10   A   Yes, I did.  It would have been very informally, and

         11       I don't remember any details, but . . .

         12   Q   And at that time, did the bylaws contemplate this

         13       type of activity?

         14   A   As I remember, nothing -- well, the bylaws at that

         15       time were pretty sparse.  They didn't say a lot. 

         16       And so, no, I'm virtually certain that there was

         17       nothing close to that in the bylaws.  Not much of

         18       anything else, really.  They were very short bylaws.

         19   Q   The bylaws would not have excluded that type of --

         20   A   No, no, I'm quite sure not.  Well, sorry, I got to

         21       be more careful here.  The bylaws may well have

         22       spoken of the lobbying type of role, and maybe by

         23       virtue of not mentioning any other kind of role it

         24       could be thought of as excluding that, but I don't

         25       remember the wording of the bylaws.

         26            Oh, if I may, in fact, this -- now my memory

         27       works.  The link with your earlier questions comes


          1       back.  You asked earlier what was deficient about

          2       the bylaws that I would want to change them for

          3       charity status, and, of course, if under the old

          4       bylaws you were not being charitable --

          5   Q   Right.

          6   A   -- you were not helping people, then you certainly

          7       couldn't have gotten the charitable status.  So

          8       actually I feel a bit foolish for not thinking of

          9       that before, but now that it comes back to me, yes,

         10       that was the -- that was the big reason.  Now,

         11       that -- I mean, as a strictly lobbying group, you're

         12       not going to get charitable status.

         13   Q   Right.

         14   A   And if your bylaws specifically say that you're

         15       there trying to help individuals, then you can

         16       qualify for charitable status.  Yes, that was

         17       certainly the reason that -- I mean, there were

         18       many, many other things that I thought might be

         19       changed while we were at it, but that was the

         20       fundamental reason, actually.  I'm sorry I didn't

         21       answer your question before, but that's the answer.

         22   Q   We have answered it.  But, of course, that's the

         23       focus of CCRA when they look at an application, is

         24       it not?

         25   A   Oh, indeed, yes.  It should be doing something

         26       charitable.

         27   Q   I wanted to ask you a few questions about MERGE. 


          1       Perhaps it would be less confusing if we just

          2       completed the chronology on ECMAS though.

          3   A   M-hm.

          4   Q   So in March of 2001, there was a delayed annual

          5       general meeting, that is, ordinarily it would have

          6       been in November of 2000?

          7   A   Yes.

          8   Q   Had Mr. Bouvier indicated that he was not interested

          9       in being president of ECMAS?


         11   MR. KOZAK:              I'll mark these as the next two

         12       exhibits.  The first is six pages entitled ECMAS

         13       Annual General Meeting, March 12th, 2001.  That's

         14       Exhibit 5.

         15                           EXHIBIT D-5:


         17       MARCH 12, 2001

         18   MR. KOZAK:          The next document is an eight-page

         19       document entitled ECMAS Annual General Meeting,

         20       March 12, 2001. 

         21                           EXHIBIT D-6 :


         23       MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001.

         24   MR. KOZAK:              Next, a ten-page document

         25       entitled Public Relations Committee.


         27   Q   MR. KOZAK:          I want to ask you about MERGE. 


          1       I'm not finished with ECMAS --

          2   A   M-hm.

          3   Q   -- but I'm finished for the moment with ECMAS. 

          4       MERGE is an organization which I gather you were

          5       most closely involved with of the three that we've

          6       discussed?

          7   A   I've been the president of MERGE since the

          8       beginning.

          9   Q   And when was the beginning?

         10   A   In 1987.

         11   Q   And, again, the objectives or purposes for MERGE

         12       were what?

         13   A   Roughly, generally speaking, equality between the

         14       two sexes.  There was a general statement that we

         15       adopted in '87 giving its mission and so on, and if

         16       you'd like a copy of that, that would be --

         17   Q   Yes, I would.  If you could undertake to provide me

         18       with that.

         19   MR. WILLIS:             All right, so undertaken.

         20                           UNDERTAKING NO. 8:


         22   Q   MR. KOZAK:          You've been the president of

         23       MERGE since its inception?

         24   A   Yes.

         25   Q   And how often does MERGE meet?

         26   A   It's -- over the years, it's been usually quite

         27       sporadic.  There was a period in earlier years when


          1       we were meeting monthly, and we were having speakers

          2       come and video tapes and this, that and the other

          3       for several years; and then since that time, it's

          4       been quite irregular, depending on a lot of

          5       different things.

          6            In very recent years, we've had some special

          7       committees that did most of the meeting, and only

          8       occasionally would there be a general meeting; but

          9       the general answer is that it's been quite irregular

         10       for most of MERGE's history.

         11   Q   All right.  Are minutes kept of MERGE's meetings?

         12   A   Generally, no.  The exception would be the annual

         13       general meeting where, of course, you have to have

         14       them for the powers that be.  If there had been

         15       minutes of other meetings, it would have been fairly

         16       rare, and I don't recall any such.

         17   Q   And as the president of MERGE, are you also the

         18       keeper of the records?

         19   A   No.  We have a secretary treasurer who keeps the

         20       main ongoing records.

         21   Q   And who is that?

         22   A   His name is Dan Mason.

         23   Q   How long has Mr. Mason been the secretary treasurer?

         24   A   I'm not certain.  It seems something like six or

         25       eight years, but don't quote me on that, but it's

         26       been quite a while now.

         27   Q   Have you had an annual general meeting in each of


          1       the years that MERGE has existed?

          2   A   Yes, we have.

          3   Q   And how many members are there in MERGE today?

          4   A   Well, today, we just had the annual general meeting

          5       recently, and the number would pretty well be those

          6       who signed up and paid their dues at that time. 

          7       MERGE, like ECMAS, has been on hard times the last

          8       couple of years, and so it would probably be about a

          9       dozen.

         10   Q   A dozen.  How many would it have been in 1999, your

         11       best recollection?

         12   A   Probably never have been over two dozen because

         13       MERGE, like ECMAS, has never made a big deal of

         14       getting people to sign up.  We have lots of people

         15       come and get active.  And then what we've done in

         16       MERGE is sort of wait -- not bother people with

         17       being formally members until the annual general

         18       meeting, and then we'd say:  Okay, you need to be a

         19       paid-up member to vote, and that was a convenient

         20       way of handling that problem, not having to deal

         21       with it all the time, even though it obviously is

         22       not too good for showing lots of people on your

         23       membership rolls.

         24   Q   What is the annual membership fee to be a member of

         25       MERGE?

         26   A   $10.

         27   Q   Now, when you say in recent years MERGE has fallen


          1       on hard times, or words to that effect, does that

          2       reflect less of a general concern about gender

          3       equality issues?

          4   A   Certainly not less of a concern.

          5   Q   To what do you attribute the falling on hard times?

          6   A   My being unable, as I see it at least, to go out and

          7       do the kinds of lobbying that I was doing so much

          8       before.  My name has been dragged through the mud,

          9       and it makes it very difficult to approach people

         10       under special circumstances with the issues that I

         11       was used to approaching people with.

         12   Q   All right.  So you attribute the hard times that

         13       MERGE is experiencing at least in part to the

         14       publication of the article on April 17th, 2001?

         15   A   That's correct.

         16   Q   And when you gave that answer, you said at least my

         17       feeling that, words to that effect, in other words,

         18       that is your perception?

         19   A   To correct that, my perception that I really can't

         20       be approaching people the way I once did because of

         21       what they might already have heard about me, or

         22       which might be told to them about me soon after, and

         23       so on.

         24   Q   Yes.

         25   A   That's what I -- there have been people, and I think

         26       I mentioned this in the document, who got off

         27       connection with me.


          1   Q   Yes.

          2   A   But I think a bigger influence is people that I've

          3       been afraid to approach because of knowing what's

          4       being said out there.

          5   Q   All right.  Well, I'd like to address that.  First

          6       of all, in one of your documents, you refer to the

          7       fact that you had a scheduled meeting with the

          8       Chief Justice, and that he declined to meet with you

          9       after the publication of the article?

         10   A   He sent a letter cancelling the meeting.

         11   Q   Yes.  And in that letter, what did he say about the

         12       reason?

         13   A   I couldn't tell you the exact words, but we could

         14       read it if we want to see.

         15   MR. WILLIS:             I think we sent you a copy of

         16       it.

         17   MR. KOZAK:              Yes.

         18   A   It was something very brief:  In light of this

         19       article, the meeting is cancelled.  Not those words,

         20       but something close to that.

         21   Q   MR. KOZAK:          And I'll come back to that

         22       letter.  What other evidence do you have that this

         23       article adversely affected your ability to take the

         24       message out to people, lobby, so to speak?

         25   A   Well, the other person that I specifically mentioned

         26       was a woman whom I had worked with in regard to the

         27       issue of domestic violence.


          1   Q   Yes, and her name was?

          2   A   Sheila -- I'm really terrible on names anymore.  I

          3       hope it will come to me, but it's not coming yet.  I

          4       can certainly get it for you.

          5   Q   It's mentioned in your --

          6   A   It is mentioned in there --

          7   Q   Yes.

          8   A   -- but not by name, no.

          9   Q   Perhaps you could undertake to advise me of the name

         10       when you think of it.

         11                           UNDERTAKING NO. 9:




         15   MR. WILLIS:             Yes.  There's actually a

         16       sequence of letters from the Chief Justice which are

         17       referred to in the letter we provided you.

         18   MR. KOZAK:              Right.

         19   MR. WILLIS:             But there are three of them. 

         20       I'm not sure where the original is of the letter we

         21       already provided you with, but there is the letter,

         22       and its two precursors.

         23   A   Okay.  I didn't remember there being that many.

         24   MR. KOZAK:              Those are all in your

         25       production, I assume?

         26   MR. WILLIS:             You know, I'm not sure if they

         27       are.


          1   MR. KOZAK:              I think I've only seen the

          2       last --

          3   MR. WILLIS:              I'm not sure if they are

          4       because I don't know that Dr. Christensen realized

          5       that they were.

          6   MR. KOZAK:              I think I've only seen the last

          7       letter.

          8   MR. WILLIS:             I don't think the first two are

          9       in our production.  I don't think any of them are in

         10       our production.  We provided you with a copy of the

         11       last one, but I don't think its in our production.

         12   MR. KOZAK:              Right.  It was at our meeting in

         13       Toronto.

         14   MR. WILLIS:             That's right, but the first two

         15       I hadn't actually seen until quite recently.

         16   MR. KOZAK:              Right.

         17   MR. WILLIS:             But they are not in themselves

         18       relevant, but they're relevant to the interpretation

         19       of the last one.


         21   Q   MR. KOZAK:          I'm focusing for the moment on

         22       specific instances where you feel that the reception

         23       that you would get from --

         24   A   M-hm.

         25   Q   -- somebody that you wanted to speak to perceptively

         26       changed after publication of the article on April

         27       17th, 2001.  You've listed the planned meeting with


          1       the Chief Justice?

          2   A   Right.

          3   Q   You've referred to a proposed meeting that you were

          4       going to have with somebody by the name of Sheila.

          5   A   Not to a proposed meeting, no.  Someone that I met

          6       with --

          7   Q   Yes.

          8   A   -- and had a very good relationship with and who

          9       suddenly stopped answering my messages after that

         10       event.

         11   Q   All right.  And did she tell you that she stopped

         12       answering your messages because of the article?

         13   A   No.  She didn't tell me anything because she didn't

         14       answer.

         15   Q   So you've made the assumption that it was based on

         16       the fact that the article was published?

         17   A   Inference, high probability would be a good

         18       description, and, again, because of her -- because

         19       of the good relationship we had before.

         20   Q   All right.  Anybody else?

         21   A   Well, there certainly had been others who -- mostly

         22       people that I've contacted since those events and

         23       seemed to have developed some sort of rapport with

         24       who suddenly lost interest.  Now, there I'm not

         25       going to be so quick to draw an inference because

         26       there could be many reasons, but somebody you don't

         27       know very well to begin with, it's harder for you to


          1       say what they would have done.  You don't know them. 

          2       So, yes, there have been quite a few instances of

          3       that kind, but I can't very well appeal to them as

          4       evidence because of the fact that there could have

          5       been other reasons for their suddenly losing

          6       interest in communicating with me.

          7   Q   All right.  So in terms of what you've referred to

          8       as evidence of a perhaps altered reception to the

          9       efforts that you would otherwise make, you can list

         10       those two examples.

         11   A   These are the two that I feel confident in

         12       presenting as examples.  Others, I can't have that

         13       same confidence.  As I indicated in my writings,

         14       most people will not tell you these things.  They

         15       will find -- if you ask them, they'll find some

         16       excuse, and so one doesn't press the point.

         17   Q   Have you asked anybody?

         18   A   Usually.

         19   Q   Have you asked anybody the specific question?  When

         20       you say people will not usually tell you these

         21       things --

         22   A   M-hm.

         23   Q   -- have you ever asked anybody:  Has your perception

         24       of me changed, or your willingness to hear my views

         25       on these subjects changed as a result of reading

         26       that article?

         27   A   I believe I have a few times.


          1   Q   All right.  And has anybody answered in the

          2       affirmative to that question?

          3   A   I don't believe so.

          4   Q   Right.  So the response that you've gotten to the

          5       specific question has always been a reaffirmation in

          6       their belief that existed prior to the publication

          7       of the article?

          8   A   Well, these would be not all the people that I knew

          9       well at all before the article.

         10   Q   Yes.

         11   A   But simply along the lines of:  No, no, no, no, that

         12       really wasn't it, is the response I've gotten a

         13       couple of times.

         14   Q   Yes.

         15   A   And that's about as much as I can say, I think.

         16   Q   Is it fair to say that what you do know after the

         17       publication of the article is that you're fearful

         18       that people's perception has changed, and that

         19       affects your willingness to go out and lobby on

         20       behalf of say MERGE or ECMAS?

         21   A   I've certainly been fearful to approach new

         22       people --

         23   Q   Yes.

         24   A   -- that I think might have heard my name because of

         25       the kind of work that they're in, if they're social

         26       workers or government people and so on.  And as a

         27       consequence, I have done -- I thought I'd done a


          1       great deal is to try to get others associated with

          2       ECMAS -- sorry, with MERGE, and GIEF, to do the

          3       approaching, to sign the letters and that sort of

          4       thing, instead of me, whereas things I would have

          5       done much more in the past.  But it has -- it's been

          6       a case-by-case situation; but certainly when

          7       somebody who it seemed to be very likely to have

          8       heard or will hear after about what has been said

          9       about me, I definitely will try to get someone else

         10       to approach them or else just give up on the idea. 

         11       That definitely is the case, so . . .

         12   Q   So would you describe your role with MERGE or GIEF

         13       as more of a background role as opposed to a

         14       front-line role in lobbying?

         15   A   Now, certainly, yes.  Now, certain other persons

         16       have been signing key documents going out.  For

         17       example, on complaints to the Human Rights

         18       Commission, of which we've had a couple in the last

         19       year, this time around others have always done the

         20       signing and been up front, competent other people,

         21       but otherwise people who are so busy that I probably

         22       wouldn't have asked them in the past, and I'm lucky

         23       to have them now.

         24   Q   So what is your concern about signing a Human Rights

         25       complaint?  I mean, I'm just -- I'm puzzle as to how

         26       your concern over the article would manifest itself

         27       in that fashion?


          1   A   I guess I'm not sure why it would be puzzling.  If

          2       you have lost credibility in the eyes of people who

          3       do this kind of thing, it's apt to hurt you. 

          4       There's a -- whether it's a -- in a Human Rights

          5       situation, as well as any other, where there's an

          6       awful lot of political influence, not just the pure

          7       application of principles.

          8   Q   But again, you have no, I'm going to use your word 

          9       "evidence", that that would in some way preclude you

         10       or operate against you in a Human Rights forum?

         11   A   Just the evidence that I think we all have of

         12       knowing what it means to seriously lose your

         13       credibility, to be seen as a person who is fighting

         14       for justice while being very unjust, and fight for

         15       principals while be unprincipled, I think we all

         16       know enough about the human condition, at least if

         17       we've lived as long as all of us here have, to know

         18       that when a person's name is harmed, it's going to

         19       have this type of effect, in general, even if one is

         20       not in a situation to predict in a particular case

         21       where it's going to happen.

         22   Q   Well, I know, Dr. Christensen, that you've spent a

         23       great deal of time and effort and thought in terms

         24       of your analysis of the impugned article and the

         25       meanings that you say come from the article.  I

         26       guess what I'm interested in is, has anybody ever

         27       said to you that as a result of reading that article


          1       they think that you are unjust or unprincipled or

          2       unethical or any of those negative things?

          3   A   No, no one has said that to me directly.

          4   Q   And has anybody said that they've heard that about

          5       you from somebody else?

          6   A   Yes, that has happened to me.

          7   Q   And who was that?  Who told you that?

          8   A   I should have written this down at the time, but I

          9       remember about whom it was said, who said some

         10       rather hash things about me, a person whom I have

         11       never met, whom I've talked to very briefly on the

         12       telephone, said about the person who did the

         13       reporting, this person said:  They should not be

         14       dealing with a person like me, but I do not remember

         15       the name of the person who told me that.  I really,

         16       really should have written that down.  It was

         17       someone, I believe, at a support group meeting or

         18       someone connected with the ECMAS support group.

         19   Q   All right.  And who was the speaker that said these

         20       things about you?

         21   A   Is this appropriate to --

         22   MR. WILLIS:             Yes.

         23   A   It's hearsay, but I was told that -- I'm having

         24       trouble with my memory right now, a certain woman

         25       lawyer said this about me, Hodgkinson.

         26   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Terry Hodgkinson?

         27   A   Terry Hodgkinson, yes.  And to be fully clear, I


          1       should add that what was reported to me was -- had

          2       no detail, it was just that I was the sort of person

          3       that one should not be dealing with at all.  It was

          4       something very negative, but certainly no mention of

          5       the article or no reasons given other than that

          6       general assessment as it was told to me.

          7   Q   All right.  So you don't remember who told you about

          8       this statement by Terry Hodgkinson.  If you do

          9       remember, will you undertake to provide me with that

         10       name through your solicitor?

         11   A   I will certainly try.  It's not likely that I will

         12       think of it, but it's possible.

         13   Q   All right.  I'll ask you to undertake to use your

         14       best efforts; and if you think of it, please provide

         15       me with the name through your counsel.

         16                           UNDERTAKING NO. 10:



         19       TERRY HODGKINSON.

         20   Q   MR. KOZAK:          But your present recollection is

         21       that it was a negative comment that was nonspecific

         22       and not linked to the publication of the article?

         23   A   No mention of that, just simply -- and my impression

         24       was that nothing more than that was said, just that: 

         25       He's a terrible person, you shouldn't be dealing

         26       with him.



          1   Q   MR. KOZAK:          So no one has, since the

          2       publication of the article on April 17th, 2001, told

          3       you that as a result of reading that article, they

          4       think that you're unprincipled or unethical or bad?

          5   A   No, that's correct.

          6   Q   On one occasion, a person whose name you can't

          7       remember right now, told you that Terry Hodgkinson

          8       said that you were a person that one should not be

          9       dealing with, but it wasn't linked to the article,

         10       and it wasn't more specific than that?

         11   A   That's the way it was told to me, yes.

         12   Q   That was after the publication of the article,

         13       however?

         14   A   Oh, yes.  That was within the last year, as I

         15       recall.

         16   Q   And no other instances of people relaying negative

         17       comments to you?

         18   A   That specifically related to the article, that's

         19       correct.

         20   Q   Any other negative repercussions of the article that

         21       -- now, I appreciate you've given me a document

         22       which I haven't read, and I will read it, dealing

         23       with Dr. Soble.  That was you turning down a request

         24       for a paper or some participation on an issue for

         25       fear that issues arising from the article would have

         26       a negative impact on that group?

         27   A   Yes.


          1   Q   Is there anything else you can think of?

          2   A   Of this kind of -- this specific sort of thing, I

          3       don't believe so.  It's conceivable that I could

          4       think of something else later on, but I've thought

          5       about it already without coming up with anything,

          6       but that specific -- well, no, I could mention one

          7       other thing, but, again, it's speculation, as long

          8       as you really want all of these names and so on. 

          9       Among the persons who have indicated -- or are no

         10       longer willing to communicate with me since this

         11       event with whom I had great communication before are

         12       Senator Anne Cools.

         13   Q   Yes?

         14   A   And M. V. [ MP] Roger Galloway.  I have brought both of

         15       them to the province in the past at their expense

         16       but for MERGE events, and we had a very good

         17       relationship for years; but since this whole event,

         18       they have not been willing to communicate with me.

         19   Q   And they haven't specifically pointed out the

         20       article as the reason?

         21   A   Well, they haven't pointed out anything.  They just

         22       indicated displeasure or -- displeasure in

         23       Senator Cools' case; simply not replying in Roger

         24       Galloway's case.

         25   Q   All right.

         26   A   And so you don't really get -- I've often thought,

         27       especially in the case of Mr. Galloway, writing a


          1       letter -- well, sorry, I guess I did write him a

          2       letter in which I hinted that maybe the reason he

          3       was doing this was these events, and he didn't reply

          4       to that.  So I guess -- sorry, some things are a

          5       little slow coming back to my memory, but mostly

          6       because he didn't reply, I don't have any concrete

          7       evidence for the reason, but the timing is such that

          8       it really couldn't plausibly be anything else.

          9   Q   Well, that's a conclusion that you've reached?

         10   A   That's a conclusion that I've reached, yes.

         11   Q   Now, that letter that you've mentioned, is it part

         12       of your production?

         13   A   To Roger Galloway?

         14   Q   Yes.

         15   A   It is not.  It would make sense to put it in there,

         16       I guess, given the other things you've been asking

         17       for.

         18   Q   Well, I'll ask you for your undertaking to provide

         19       us with a copy, if it's something that you're citing

         20       as evidence of a changed attitude towards you that

         21       relates to the publication.  I think that should be

         22       part of your production.

         23   A   It should still be available on my computer, so it

         24       shouldn't be a problem.

         25                           UNDERTAKING NO. 11:


         27       MR. GALLOWAY.




          3   ----------------------------------------------------------


          5   ----------------------------------------------------------


          7   Certificate of Transcript


          9            I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the

         10       foregoing pages are a true and faithful transcript

         11       of the proceedings taken down by me in shorthand and

         12       transcribed to the best of my skill and ability.

         13            Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of

         14       Alberta, this 25th day of September, 2003.






         20                      _________________________________

         21                      D. L. Ragan, CSR (A)

         22                      Official Court Reporter











                                    INDEX OF EXHIBITS




              NO.                     DESCRIPTION                     PAGE    



              D-3     CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. FERREL MARVIN             

                      CHRISTENSEN                                        9


              D-4     DOCUMENT ENTITLED MY CASE                         23


              D-5     SIX PAGES ENTITLED ECMAS ANNUAL GENERAL           

                      MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001                           92



                      GENERAL MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001                   92





                                  INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS



              NO.                     DESCRIPTION                     PAGE   



              1      If IT BECOMES APPARENT AS TO WHAT THINGS HAD       



                     RESUME.                                            11



              2      PROVIDE THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE            


                     THESIS.                                            15



              3      PROVIDE ARTICLES, BOOK REVIEWS, REFEREED           


                     DR. CHRISTENSEN HAS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 3.           29










              4      PROVIDE COPIES OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S                



                     (UNDER ADVISEMENT)                                 31



              5      ADVISE WHEN DR. CHRISTENSEN FIRST BECAME AN        

                     OFFICIAL MEMBER OF ECMAS.                          64





                     DEPARTURE FROM EDMONTON TO CALGARY.                72




                     IF AVAILABLE.                                      84



              8      PROVIDE THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR MERGE.           93



              9      PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE WOMAN WITH WHOM         


                     THE ISSUE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.                    98



              10     PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO TOLD         


                     TERRY HODGKINSON.                                 106



              11     PROVIDE A COPY OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S LETTER TO      

                     MR. GALLOWAY.                                     109





              Undertakings listed in this transcript are provided for your 

              assistance only.  Counsel's records may differ. Please check

              transcript to ensure that all undertakings have been listed

              according to your records.





                            JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON




                                   No.  0103-14569








                                  FERREL CHRISTENSEN






                                       - and -













                              EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY




                              FERREL MARVIN CHRISTENSEN





           B. J. Willis, Esq.              For the Plaintiff



           F. S. Kozak, Esq.               For the Defendants

           P. L. E. Eastwood, Esq.


           D. L Ragan, C.S.R. (A)          Official Court Reporter/





                                  Edmonton, Alberta

                                 16th September, 2003