[I made
electronic copies of the first two discovery documents, computer discs not
having been provided, by scanning the paper original using
optical-character-recognition software, then fixing the occasional
recognition-error by eye. All of the discovery documents contain various
tongue-slips or stenographic errors; but in all important cases, I believe, the
context makes the correct wording clear. (Yet note: less than a fourth of the
wrongdoing covered in "My Case" came up in discoveries)--FC]
1
DONNA LAFRAMBOISE, sworn, examined by Mr. Willis:
Q Ms. Laframboise, are the following statements correct? You are
the Donna Laframboise who is one of the defendants in Queen's Bench Action No.
0103 - 14569, and you are also produced as a former employee of the Defendant,
The National Post Company?
A Yes.
Q Ms. Laframboise, just to begin, by cleaning up some housekeeping
matters that we've discussed off the record, during the course of this
examination, I will be at times, asking you to undertake to do certain things.
For example, to obtain certain documents, and your counsel and I have agreed
that it will be understood that the undertakings will include an undertaking to
make inquiries of the Defendant, The National Post Company, and that when those
undertakings are fulfilled, The National Post Company will make it clear
whether they are simply --whether they simply form part of the information that
you are providing as an employee, or whether they will be binding on The
National Post Company. Fair enough?
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
Those requests for undertakings will be understood to include a request by Ms.
Laframboise, to ask The National Post to obtain whatever documents that you
think
2
exist
and should be produced.
MR. WILLIS: Right. Off the record.
(DISCUSSION
OFF THE RECORD)
Q Now, Ms.
Laframboise, I would just like to begin by cleaning up some questions of
document production. Now, first of all, if I can refer to what has been
referred to in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim as "the
article". Off the record here.
(DISCUSSION
OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: Back
on the record.
Q You have provided
me, Mr. Kozak, with an unsworn, unfiled copy of your Affidavit of Records. Do
you now have a sworn, filed copy?
MR. KOZAK: No,
but we will provide you with that today.
MR. WILLIS: As
well, you had mentioned to me that you had drafted a reply to our Statement of
Defence to Counter-claim that you had anticipated providing me with some time
earlier this week.
MR. KOZAK: Yes,
it will be provided today as well. It will not be filed perhaps until later
today, but it will be in the same form as the one I have provided to you today.
MR. WILLIS:
Fine, and the same will go for the Affidavit of Records?
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
3
MR. WILLIS: Okay.
Now, if I could refer you to Item 13 of your Affidavit of Records, it's a
photocopy of an article from The National Post. Is this a true copy of the
article to which you refer in Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Defence and
Counter-claim filed in these proceedings?
A I'm sorry. I think it is at Tab 13, but it's
got
Number
19 on the top.
Q Well, I think in
your Affidavit of Records, it's listed as Number 13, is it not?
MR. KOZAK: It's at Tab 13. The
document
number is N00119.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you. Ms.
Laframboise,
again, I haven't really looked at these newly numbered documents yet, but as I
understand it, each document has been given it's own little stamp, and
ultimately it will speed things up.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: But in any event, that
document, at Tab 13, numbered N00119. Is
that a
true
copy of the article referred to in Paragraph 7 of your Statement of Defence and
Counterclaim?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, don't answer
this for a minute, because your counsel and I have had some discussions about this,
4
but I
think you can answer it -- probably he'll let you answer the first couple of
questions. I understand there were previous drafts of this article prepared by
you. Correct?
A Yes.
Q How many?
A I don't know.
Q Would you
undertake to search your records and produce copies of those drafts to me
through your solicitor?
MR. KOZAK: Mr.
Willis, as indicated, we will produce any drafts that are available that don't
disclose the substance and nature of advice obtained from Ms. Laframboise's
lawyer. At the time, his name was Stewart Robertson. We will object to produce
those drafts that reveal the nature of legal advice obtained from Mr.
Robertson.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
That's in
accordance
with our previous discussion and we'll exchange case law and discuss that.
Might I ask you, however, to make sure that you actually have those previous
drafts here, because in the nature of things, it may simply be that the only
way to decide it is to show it to a judge, because you may not be able to
convince me of your reasons for not producing it without revealing things that
you don't want to reveal?
5
MR. KOZAK: Yes, I can confirm that
we
have those drafts in our priviledged production, so we have them here.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you. Now, as I
look
at the format in which the documents have been produced, there arises this
question. Did you have a file in your own filing system that referred
specifically to this article? In other words, it contained all the materials
that you used to prepare this article?
A Several files.
Q Alright, and are
those files identified in your production?
A I don't know.
Q Can you just --
we can go off the record if you like.
A No, I don't
think they are identified as such.
Q Could you
undertake to make inquiries and find out what happened to them, and if it is
possible to unpack your Affidavit on Production so that we can see which
documents came from which file, if you would undertake to do so.
A I can try.
UNDERTAKING NO. 1
Q Just accepting
that you don't have those files before you, did you have a standard practice of
preparing files or keeping things together when
6
researching
an article?
A An article of this
size, files in this case, and in many other cases, all went in a particular
bankers box.
Q And did you have
your own system for organizing materials for an article of this size, and if
so, what was it?
A I would have
manilla file folders, and I would put in this case, there was a file folder
from -- of material to do with Bob Bouvier, for example. A file to do with
various people -- interviews that I conducted. Another file for [Tim] Adams.
MR. WILLIS: Off
the record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: Back on the record.
Confirming
our discussion off the record, I understand that when this litigation
commenced, you provided all the documents that you understood you were to
provide to your
A Yes.
Q And I understand
that at this point, you can't remember what you did with your original files,
including the manilla folders. Correct? Whether you sent them to the lawyers or
whether you removed them and threw them away or what you did.
7
A Yes.
Q So you'll
undertake to make your best efforts to inquire, refresh your memory and advise
me through your solicitors, as to -- let me make this a two part undertaking.
What happened to your original filing system in the first place and secondly,
how your original filing system relates to the production that we have, to the
extent you can do
it.
A Sure.
UNDERTAKING NO. 2
Q Thank you. Now,
I understand that you left The National Post some time in September of 2001. Is
that correct?
A That's correct.
Q When you left,
did you take with you all the materials that you had used in the preparation of
what I'll simply refer to as "The Article"?
A Those in my possession that I would have had
copies
of. I took those.
Q Did you have a complete copy of all the hard
copy
materials that you had used to prepare the
article?
A I would expect so.
Q Alright. You're
not sure?
A No.
Q I wonder if I could ask you, of course as
discussed earlier in conjunction with the gentleman from The
8
National
Post, to determine whether there is any hard copy that was left behind in their
files that you didn't take with you?
A Sure.
UNDERTAKING NO. 3
Q Alright. It's not
clear from the Affidavit of Records exactly what the providence of the
documents are, and that's really what I'm looking to clean up, if that's
alright.
A What do you mean by "providence"? ['provenance']
Q Well, which ones
came from the National Post's file that were still there when you left, and
which ones are copies that you provided. Which ones are both. Now, so we have
that undertaking?
A Yes.
UNDERTAKING NO. 4
Q Okay. But one
thing that you would have left behind you would have been your computer that
would have contained materials that you used to prepare the article. Correct?
A Yes.
Q What kind of
computer did you have?
A An Apple.
Q And what word processing software did you
use?
A I used Microsoft Word.
Q And was this standard throughout The
National Post?
A No.
9
Q Was this a machine
that you brought to The National Post?
A No.
Q How was it that your computer and software
were not the same as everybody else's?
A Most people use a
word processing called Quark. They work directly in that, which goes into the
system.
Q Is that some kind
of acronym? C-o-r-k?
A Sorry. Q-u-a-r-k.
I don't know what it stands for or what the software is called. I prefer using
Microsoft Word because it has things like spellcheck and a thesaurus.
Q But you could
send e-mails, internal memoranda within the National Post with no problem?
A Absolutely.
Q Now, when you
left, did you leave your computer with all that you had -- for example, with
your e-mail still on it?
A Yes.
Q Now,
I notice that your Affidavit of Records does not contain the electronic documentation as part of your production. I would ask you to
undertake to make inquiries and to include any electronic documents you have
and also of course, that remain at The National Post. Can you do that?
MR. KOZAK: Ms.
Laframboise can make
10
that
inquiry to see if that is available. If
it is, we will make it available to you, or at least that portion that falls
into the produceable category.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
UNDERTAKING
NO. 5
MR. WILLIS: I
would ask as well, that you make sure you preserve whatever has been left
behind, and perhaps you will locate any back ups or make a back up and advise
me of exactly what sort of word processing program you have and what
number. The reason I say that is in
anticipation of some questions I'm going to ask. Some e-mails have been
deleted, but my understanding is that in many cases, through retrievable
software, they can be returned. You may
know that such a mighty figure as Bill Gates -- just because it's possible to
retrieve e-mails sometimes. Of course, I'm not suggesting any e-mails were
deleted for reasons other than too much e-mail, but we may be able to get them
back.
MR. KOZAK: Ms.
Laframboise will make that inquiry. She will also make the request of The
National Post that they not do anything that would adversly affect the ability
to investigate as to whether or not electronic records exist and retrieve them.
11
UNDERTAKING NO. 6
MR. WILLIS: Ms.
Laframboise, confirming our discussion off the record, I've referred your
counsel specifically, to save time, to our letter of December 6th, 2001, in
which we made requests about e-mail correspondence with specific individuals,
and ask that you particularly take a look for those documents. Would you
undertake to do so?
A Yes.
UNDERTAKING NO. 7
Q And just to
confirm, there are -- there are persons with whom it appears evident from
inferences that can be drawn from the e-mails that were produced, that you had
e-mail correspondence with. For example, David Shackleton, Adriaan Mak, Cathy
Young, and [the
girlfriend].[As explained elsewhere, certain names are replaced
in all
documents by descriptors like this.]Can you confirm that you did have e-mail
correspondence with these people about the article or matters relevant
to the article?
A Can we
go through them one by one please?
Q David
Shackleton?
A I had
e-mail from him after the article appeared.
Q And you
replied to that e-mail, did you not?
A Briefly. [Actually,
three replies to multiple messages from him.]
Q And we don't have a copy of that reply.
The e-mail was a critique of the article, correct, and then
['We don't have a copy' meaning she
hadn't provided it to us in the lawsuit (more later on this).]
12
you replied to Mr. Shackleton?
A Yes. [Next]
Q So that's the sort of thing I'm driving at.
A Do you want to go through the rest of them?
Q Well, sure. It may
help your counsel. Adrieaan Mak?
A He sent me an
e-mail. I did not reply to him.
Q Cathy Young?
A I've had no e-mail
or other discussions with her about this.
Q [the girlfriend]?
A She sent me one
e-mail and I responded, and I believe that's already in the records.
Q Could you direct my attention to it please?
MR. KOZAK: Referring
you to our document R00141.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
That's [girlfriend]s e-mail to you, but what we're talking about is your reply
to her.
MR. KOZAK: That's
included in the undertaking that you've asked for.
MR. WILLIS: Oh,
alright, but I'm
correct
that the reply to [girlfriend] is not in there. I had understood from your
answer that you thought your reply to her was there?
A Yes, I thought it
was. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. It's not.
13
Q And some other names. Gary Devries.
A I don't remember
having any discussions with him.
Q Jaime Jaimenez?
A No.
Q Tim Randles?
A Not that I can
recall.
Q David McCallum?
A Not that I can
recall.
Q Joe Woodard?
A Not that I can
recall.
Q Alright. It's
possible that there was correspondence, but you just can't recall it at
this
point?
A That's correct.
Q [Source A]? [As elsewhere, the name of a Malenfant ally is here
replaced.]
A Perhaps.
Q Rick Fowler?
A Yes, I think I
received an e-mail from him, and I think it is in here.
MR. WILLIS: Alright,
let's go off
the
record, while you take a look for it.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. KOZAK: R00131.
An e-mail
from
Rick Fowler to Donna Laframboise. You're
again asking for her reply?
MR. WILLIS: That's
right.
A I do not recall. [As noted
elsewhere, she didn't reply to or attempt to contact him.]
14
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q Now, let me just
understand what happened here. Was it
the case that you as a matter of ordinary practice, made hard copies of some of
these e-mails and those were what you took with you when you left the National
Post, or did you specifically print out hard copies of your e-mails when you
left?
A Sorry. What was
the first question?
Q Well, the hard
copies of the e-mails that we have. It strikes me that there are two
possibilities. One is that routinely as
part of your normal practice of researching articles or keeping materials that
you printed out these hard copies and they were sitting there when you left.
A Yes.
Q And you took them
with you.
A Yes.
Q The other is that
when you learned that you were leaving The National Post, that you printed out
the hard copies since you obviously didn't as you say, take your machine with
you?
A No.
Q Those seem to me
to be the only two possibilities, so which?
A The first.
Q Alright. Thank you. Now, did you -- did
you take with you a copy -- a back-up copy of the material
15
on your word processor?
A I got a disk that the Tech people put stuff
from my computer on, so it's possible, but not looked at the disk.
Q Alright.
Would you produce the relevant portions of that disk to me through your
solicitor?
A Sure.
[They later reported that she had erased the
disc.]
UNDERTAKING NO. 8
Q Now, I know that
some newspapers keep a centralized record of e-mail correspondence. Did The
National Post do that?
A I have no idea.
Q Would you
undertake to make inquiries and advise me, and if so, let me know how that
worked?
A Sure.
UNDERTAKING NO. 9
Q Thank you.
Confirming a discussion that Mr. Kozak and I had off the record, there are a
number of what I'll call preliminary redactions of tape recorded interviews
that you had, and those have been produced -- possibly they are number 20 in
your Affidavit of Documents -typed interview notes (redacted). Probably 19 or
20. Transcripts of telephone interviews, (redacted). I'm just trying to find
these -- they are single spaced type written notes that were presumably made by
Ms.
Laframboise in
preparation for writing her article,
16
as
opposed to the more complete transcripts we have later.
MR. KOZAK: That
would be No. 20. Tab 20.
MR. WILLIS: Right,
and that contains for example, a partial, or extracts from your telephone
interviews with someone from The Law Society and with Ms. Malenfant. Correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, as I --
A May I just look at this.
Q Right. As I
understand it, based on my discussions with your counsel off the record, you
have provided to your counsel all the tapes that were in your possession,
including whatever was left that hasn't been taped over, of your telephone
interview with Ms. Malenfant and with the Law Society person. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And again,
confirming our discussion off the record, you're going to check your tapes to
see how much of both of those interviews remains, and if so, you'll provide me
with an accurate transcript. Correct?
A Yes.
Q But I understand
from our discussions with Mr. Kozak that it's possible that after having done
17
your
redaction, that you taped over them?
A Yes.
Q Although I gather
from the fact that the other ones are still in your production, that this would
not have been your normal practice. That normally you keep your tapes?
A No. It's quite
normal to tape over anything that was not controversial that I didn't feel that
I would need later, so I did not expect that the Law Society would come back
and challenge what they had told me, so it was perfectly appropriate for me to
retape that very quickly -- over that very quickly.
Q And with Ms.
Malenfant who was interviewed -- I gather was a fairly lengthy one, since
there's a reference to a second tape, that you felt the same way?
A I think that's
fair to say.
Q Now, the other
thing I wanted to ask you is this. There are some internal memoranda between
yourself and other people in The National Post, but I cannot tell from the
claim of priviledge, whether any of the documents for which priviledge are
claimed are internal memoranda between persons in The Post, neither of whom are
lawyers or legal assistants. What I would ask, Mr. Kozak, is, could you check
your priviledged production, and let me know if you are claiming priviledge for
any memoranda not
18
between
-- pardon me -- where neither party is a lawyer or a lawyer's assistant.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
We will give you that undertaking. At the present time, I don't believe that
there is such a claim of priviledge that's advanced, but I will ascertain that,
and provide you with that.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
Thank you.
UNDERTAKING NO. 10
Q Ms. Laframboise,
you've had a chance to review the Affidavit of Records?
A You mean these big
binders?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q Alright, and as
far as you can tell, is the set of internal memoranda -- that is to say,
correspondence between yourself and other people from the National Post, or
other National Post papers. Is that complete?
A As far as I can
tell.
Q I wonder if you
could just undertake to confirm that? Review and confirm that, and in
particular, one thing that I don't see. I don't see any correspondence between
yourself and reporters from other papers about the article? I'm assuming there
may have been, but I don't see anything in there.
A I don't think
there was any correspondence.
19
UNDERTAKING NO. 11
Q Well, I'm not sure
which is the most -- it may be most efficient to have The National Post look at
your former work station or for you to look at the disk they gave you first,
but that will be included in your previous undertaking. Now, again, another
preliminary matter. Perhaps we could save some time, if you have a resume or a
C.V. that would set out your education and training and work experience and
that sort of thing.
A I'm sorry. I didn't think to bring one.
Q Not at all, but
we're going to be coming back, but I have some idea, thanks to your book, which
I've read hopefully with great profit, of your background and training, but if
you would undertake to provide me with a resume which accurately sets out your
experience and training, then I'll simply defer all those questions until next
time.
A Sure.
Q Thanks, except as it might come up
incidentally.
UNDERTAKING NO. 12
Q Just so that I can
be in the picture, I would like to get some idea of the sort of organizational
structure of The National Post at the time you wrote the article. Could you let
me know sort of what the chain of command was? Who you reported to and that
person reported to? That sort of thing?
20
A On this particular
story?
Q Well, generally
speaking. Perhaps you could just sort of describe your role and the people to
whom you reported to. Who you would
interact with in the preparation of articles generally, and then if this
article differed, you could explain that, and then sort of what the chain of
command is in the preparation of an article of this kind.
A I was very much a
hybrid journalist at The Post, so I did news features. I did weekly column.
Since January, between January and September, and when I was laid off, I was on
the Editorial Board, which meant four days a week, I was writing editorials for
the paper, so who I would report to differed, depending on what hat I was
wearing.
Q Let me ask you,
when did you start working for The National Post?
A I was hired in
May, and the newspaper launched in October.
Q May of--
A '89. No, pardon me. '98.
Q And where had you
been before then?
A I had been a
freelancer.
Q And were you
also a hybrid or did you start out with a more limited function?
A I started out --
probably the closest description would be as a feature writer, in the life
section.
21
Q Perhaps
you could describe the progress of your career generally until you left The
National Post?
A I
think I stayed as a Life body for probably about a year. Pitched
abeds [op-eds] columns to the abed editor -- occasionally wrote those.
Probably about a year later, got a weekly gig for doing that. Continued to
write features, but then was sort of moved over into partly I think it was just
there weren't enough seats for other people and I was kind of the hybrid, and
no one knew where to fit me exactly, so I moved over and sat in the editorial
board section for many months before I actually became an editorial board
member.
Q When
was that roughly? First that you moved and then that you became an editorial
board member?
A I
became an editorial board member in January of last year, and I moved probably
March of the previous year. Physically moved into that section of the paper.
Q Alright.
Please continue.
A I
think that's about it.
Q And
that's -- so from January of 2001, you were a member of the editorial board,
but you also wrote features such as the article which is the subject of this
litigation?
A Yes.
I wrote editorials four days a week. I wrote a column one day a week, and I did
a very limited
22
amount of features. In fact this feature may be the only one since
January.
Q And so
in writing this feature, you do a draft, and then were you obliged to show it
to somebody? Who is the person you would be obliged to show it to?
[As seen next in My Case,
the person described below later denied playing the supervisory role
here attributed to him.
So for a reason noted elsewhere, his name and job-description are deleted.]
A Well, the person that I pitched story to
which is a news editor. Are we
interested in doing this story, and that was [the name and Post position of this
person have been deleted]. Write this
story, and then [deleted]
at some point edited it, and
then we also probably around the same time, had the lawyer for The Post look at
it as well.
Q Was there anyone else other than Mr. [deleted] and the lawyer who looked at the article after you had
written the first draft?
A I sent a copy to Ken Whyte, the editor in
chief. I have no idea whether he looked at it or not. [Next]
Q Did
you have any help? Were there any other resources within the National Post that
you could use to help you write or research the article?
A The
librarian on staff who did some searches of newspaper archives.
Q What
was her name?
A Theresa
Butcher.
Q Anyone
else?
A Not
that I can recall.
Q Alright. Now,
I understand that you had
been on
23
the Board of The
Canadian Civil Liberties
A -- Association.
Q Sorry. That's the organization of which
Allan Borovoi was the long time head?
A Counsel.
Q When were you on the Board of that
organization?
A I think I joined the Board somewhere in the mid
90's. I'm not sure. Probably around '95,
and I still am today. [Back]
Q And
what are your duties as a board member?
A Attend
general meetings. Give input into what our priorities should be focused on
because there's always too many. Too little time, and too little
staff.
Q How
much time did that take while you were working for The National Post?
A Not
much.
Q Monthly?
A I
would say the meetings occur every two to three months, so it would be a few
hours.
Q While
you were a member of The National Post, what other organizations if any were
you a member of?
A None.
Q And
for example, I see in your book that you were a shop steward. Of course a great
qualification for
a left wing
paper like the National Post. What
does that mean? Is that when you were a
24
journalist, or was that an earlier --
A That was while I was a
university student.
Q Okay,
and also you are involved in womens physical self defence. Do you remain
involved with that?
A No.
Q When
you were working for the National Post, were you involved with it?
A No.
Q Were
you affiliated in any way with any organizations that might be relevant to
these proceedings such as womens organizations or mens organizations?
A None at all.
Q Now,
just to let you know where I'm going, in a minute, I'm just going to start
taking you chronologically through the preparation of this article and ask you
to help me understand in detail just how it came to be what happened, but
first, there's just one thing I want to check with you, and get your input on
it. If I can refer you to Paragraph 5 of our Statement of Claim. That contains
the words which the Plaintiff says, taken in the context of the article as a
whole, are defammatory of the plaintiff. First of all, -- and that goes on for
a couple of pages. Have you -- are you
able to confirm that the words set out in Paragraph 5 accurately reproduce the
words that you
25
used in the article?
A I'm
going to have to double check it. Do we have a copy of the article?
Q Right.
That's at Tab 13. Well, why don't I just
do that by way of undertaking, and I'll ask you to just confirm that the words
are accurate, and also the explanatory comments in the square brackets are correct? So for
example, you'll see that in square brackets, it says at one point that the word
"activist" meant and was understood to mean Dr. Christensen. There
are also some indications in square bracket of misspelling of Dr. Christensen's
first name. That sort of thing. Could I ask you to undertake to confirm that
Paragraph S is an accurate extract from the article.
A Yes.
Q And
that the square brackets accurately reflect what they purport to reflect.
A Yes.
UNDERTAKING NO.
13
Q But
in the meantime, I'll just ask you about the article itself. If I could first
refer you to the bottom of the first column which says, "Ferrell
Christensen, for his part, is a professor and narratist ['emeritus'] of philosophy at
the
26
through your solicitor as I think it's Item 2 in your
Affidavit of Records?
MR. KOZAK: Yes. It's actually Document B - 3.
MR. WILLIS: Oh, I'm sorry.
Document B - 3. A copy of Dr.
Christensen's book. Is this
the book that you were referring to?
A Yes.
Q And
this copy I see, appears to be a presentation
copy
from someone named Jeffrey Asher. How long
have you owned it?
A I
received it either in '96 or '97.
Q And
had you read it before you started preparations for the article which is the
subject of these proceedings?
A I
had read part of it. I can probably tell you how far I got. It appears at least
up to page 94.
Q How
do you know that?
A There
are little pencil marks which I tend to make when I read.
Q I
see there's actually some yellow underlining.
And did you make that before or after you started research for the
article? It's after page 90.
There doesn't seem to be any yellow underlining before
page 94, but there's quite a bit afterwards.
A The
highlighting appears to me to be confined to pages 109 to 113, and I made those
after I began
27
work on the article.
Q Okay,
and had you discussed this book with anyone before you began research for the
article?
A Not
that I recall.
Q Now,
if I can now draw your attention to the next column, the beginning of the last
paragraph in the second column. And these contain words which are quoted in the
second last paragraph on page 3 of the Statement of Claim. "Even more
controversially, when discussing the harm he believes society's attitudes
toward childhood sex cause, he equates loving parents, who teach their children
sexual restraint, with pedophiles:" and then there's a quote from a book.
Now, is it -- is it this quote that follows the colon that you intended to
convey amounts to the equation of loving parents who teach their children
sexual restraint with pedophiles, or is there some other part of the book to
which you are referring?
A Partly that quote and partly the commentary
that precedes the quote is kind of synopsis or interpretation of the section in
question. The 109 I think it is.
Q Alright.
Could you refer me to passages in the book -- first of all referring to loving
parents who teach their children sexual restraint, and secondly, any passages
that equate such persons
28
with pedophiles?
A Page
112, the bottom of the second paragraph, the line that reads,"In fact,
given all the harms that (this will continue to see), result from teaching
sexual guilt to children, it would be very appropriate to regard such teachings
as a form of child sex abuse."
Q Well,
help me out here. Is it your -- was it your thought that that paragraph refers
to loving parents who teach their children sexual restraint?
A My
impression from reading this section ofthe book is that teaching children
sexual restraint seems a very negative thing.
Q Well,
perhaps you could -- the passage you've quoted me talks about teaching sexual
guilt to children. And refers to such teachings as a form of child sex abuse.
Can you find any passage that suggests that teaching sexual restraint -- loving
parents teaching sexual restraint would be equated with teaching sexual guilt
to children, amounting to child sex abuse?
A My
read of this section is that Professor Christensen uses those ideas
interchangeably, that any restraint equals guilt.
Q Alright.
Now, where do you get that from? That's what I'm after?
A Right
here, and by reading the section in it's
29
entirety from 109 to 113.
O Alright.
Now, first of all, is there any reference in here to loving parents?
MR. KOZAK: Are you talking about the book or --
MR. WILLIS: In the book. You've
referred to pages 109 to 113. Let me just ask you this
so that we can do this most efficiently. Is there any other portion of the book
that you're relying on or that you relied on in suggesting that Dr. Christensen
equates loving parents who teach their children sexual restraint, with
pedophiles?
A No.
Q Alright,
so it's just pages 109 to 113. Correct?
A Right.
Q So
-- so can you point me to any other passages in these four pages that
you relied on in coming to -- in making that statement?
A Professor
Christensen, and again we're looking at page 112. Again, the first full
paragraph in which reads, -- he suggests, "This and similar tactics by
pedophiles are possible because young people are
prevented from having the sexual knowledge and the sexual contact with peers
that they naturally desire." So if something isn't natural, the
[This
is a manifest wording-error; 'isn't' should be 'is'.]
implication seems to be that it's good and
positive, and so to teach restraint would be to be
30
going against
what's natural and positive. [Back]
Q Alright,
so that in fact, let me ask you to continue. Are there any other passages which
in your view, assist you to draw this inference? Do I understand correctly,
you're not saying that Professor Christensen made this statement, but that it's
a fair inference from the whole of pages 109 to 113?
A Yes.
Q And
when I say "this statement", I'm referring to the passage I've quoted
about the equation of loving parents with pedophiles. Correct?
A Yes.
Q Now,
let me ask you this. You've had some time to reconsider what made that passage,
and do you still stand by it?
A Yes.
Q Are
there any other particular passages in pages 109 to 113 that you can assist me
with as being particularly relevant to the inference that you've drawn?
A Down
at the bottom of page 112, the very last sentence which starts, "More
importantly, there's a serious problem in regard to the photographic making of
such materials. Such materials being referred to as kid porn. Child
pornography." [The
second quotation mark here is plainly misplaced; it should follow 'such
materials'.] It continues, "Given that children are particularly
31
vulnerably
to coersion, protecting them from being pressured or forced into something
which in present social conditions can be highly distressing or even
psychologically damaging is a serious concern." And then it continues on. My inference from that line is
that child porn isn't a problem morally, or legally in itself. It's a problem
if there was coersion when it was produced. That's a pretty startling idea. [The book says that when
children engage in masturbation, nude
self-display or peer
sex-play on their own, in the absence
of coercion, it isn't inherently harmful. But
if it is photographed,
the danger that they will have been forced into it in any given case justifies its
being illegal in general. (Just as speeding is always
illegal even though it doesn't always lead to an
accident.) And the other arguments I gave against child
pornography don't involve coercion.] [Back]
Q Well
context. Let's look at the context of that paragraph and perhaps you can help
me out with that. The passage that you've taken is from the third -- fourth
sentence in that paragraph, and actually, we probably have to look at the
previous paragraph. Now, and maybe I can direct you to this paragraph in page
112. "Finally, what about that special category of pornography that has
caused so much alarm in recent years. That which itself portrays
children?" So now you understand that the paragraph from which you've
quoted, that the topic of that paragraph carries on from the previous one. That
is to say, "pornography which itself portrays children." Correct?
A Yes.
Q Now,
the next sentence. "This is another topic that needs far more treatment
than can be given here, but a few things can be said. Once more,
32
there is no evidence that such materials caused --
that's emphasized -- a sexual interest in children any more than seeing
homosexual pornography produces homosexual orientation." Now, first of all,
do you have any opinion about that statement? Do you agree or disagree with it?
A Well,
there's no footnote to back up the claim that there's no evidence, so I don't
think I would have an opinion one way or another.
Q Alright,
and you're not aware however -- You don't know whether that statement is
correct or not?
A No, I don't.
Q And
you have no opinion on it'?
A No.
Q Alright.
"As for those who already are sexually aroused by children for reasons
that have also been discussed, banning it does not prevent them from being so
aroused." Do you disagree with that statement or do you have an opinion
about that statement?
A No,
I don't have an opinion on that.
Q "Even
something as innocuous as the little girl in the old Coppertone ads has been
reported by numerous pedophiles to be highly sexually stimulating." Do you
have an opinion as to whether that statement is correct or not?
A No.
33
Q "Note
also, that in most of the world throughout history, children have gone naked
until the age at which they begin to internalize their culture taboos." Do
you disagree with that statement?
A No opinion.
Q Alright.
"This is often the case in modern
A No opinion.
Q So
you had no opinion at the time, and you still have no opinion?
A Right.
Q "Moreover,
even the possibility that overtly sexual depictions of children, illicit ['elicit'] child
molestation is somewhat disconfirmed by the fact that no increase in police reports
of such acts occurred in
MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I guess
I'm a bit baffled about what the relevance of the
witness's opinions about statements of fact made by Dr. Christensen has to this
law suit. If you have I think quite
properly asked her to refer to the passages that she looked at and relied upon
in putting words into her articles that are impuned in the Statement of Claim,
but her opinion on the
34
voracity or validity of other opinions expressed in the
book, I don't see as relevant.
MR. WILLIS: Well, I'll
tell you what.
I'll table that. As I've said, I'm going to be going
through chronologically how this article was prepared and some of the very forceful
opinions expressed by the witness during the course of it's preparation. We'll
come back to this, and at that point, I hope I will have dealt with your
objection.
MR. KOZAK: Alright.
MR. WILLIS: Okay, but I'll
rephrase my -- I have no difficulty rephrasing my
questions. Now, I've just asked you about the last question that has a footnote
to it. Did you -- are you familiar with the statement made in the last sentence
starting with "moreover"?
A Am I familiar with it in what
sense?
Q Merely
reference to the research done in
A I'm sorry. I don't understand.
Q There's
a footnote referring to the fact or the suggestion that the possibility that
overtly sexual depictions of children, illicit ['elicit'] child molestation is somewhat discomfirmed by the fact that no increase
in police reports of such acts occurred in
35
you've heard before?
A I've
heard it before.
Q And
do you understand it to be a correct summary of the research to which it
refers?
A I
have no idea. I haven't looked at the research.
Q So
that wasn't a footnote that you checked out for example?
A No.
Q Because
the reference is to -- Kanchinski's (phonetics) article in Comparitive Social
Research
-1985. That
wasn't an article that you read?
A No.
Q So
now we have -- so in this first paragraph, in the discussion about child
pornography --
A I'm
sorry. The first paragraph?
Q The
paragraph that I've referred you to, that we've just gone over that starts with
"finally" and ends with "widespread".
A Yes.
Q There
is -- is there any statement in there that suggests to you any -- any equation
of loving who
teach
their children sexual restraint with pedophiles? Does that paragraph contain
anything upon which you relied in drawing that inference?
A I'm
sorry. I don't remember now whether I would have relied on something in that
paragraph a year ago.
36
Q So
again then, in context now, turning to the next paragraph, the topic sentence
is, "There is something to the idea -- and "is" is italicized --
that if "kid porn were legal, it would send the message to pedophiles that
their desires are socially acceptable." So did you -- is there anything in
there that suggests that loving parents
activities would -- or that there's something that loving parents in some way
can be equated with pedophiles?
A No.
Q Alright.
He then says, "Even that is unlikely, perhaps, in a society where they are
often despised more than murderers." He then goes on to say, "However,
there is a special argument that depiction of sex between adults and children
can be used to give children the impression that such behaviour is socially
acceptable. More importantly, there is a
serious problem in regard to the photographic making of such
materials." Now, do you find
anything in here that suggests that sex between adults and children is natural?
A I
don't find anything in there that suggests that it is wrong morally and
legally.
Q Well
now, if we take you to the last sentence where it says, "That being so --
that is to say there appear to be three articles in this topic paragraph
[The word
'articles' here was clearly meant to be 'arguments'--FC]
37
-- a case where
legal prohibition of this type of pornography can be made." So when the
author is saying, "A case for the legal prohibition of this type of
pornography can be made", did you not understand from that that the author
believed that this type of pornography can and should be legally prohibited?
A Perhaps
but you were asking me about the previous sentence. We weren't there yet.
Q Alright.
Now, when the author says "there is a special argument that depictions of
sex between adults and children can be used to give children the impression
that such behaviour is socially acceptable", did you not clearly
understand from that that the author doesn't consider such behaviour socially
acceptable?
A No, not at all.
Q You
didn't understand that the author found that a valid argument? You see, if you
look down to the context, where a few sentences later, the author says,
"that being so" -- that is to say the three things that he's adduced in the paragraph "a case for the legal prohibition of
this type of pornography can be made", one of the -- things being so, is
that there is an argument that depictions of sex between adults and children
can be used to give children the impression that such
38
behaviour is socially acceptable, do you not in context
understand that the author believes that impression to be a morally wrong
impression?
A No,
I'm sorry. With all due respect, I find it a very confusing passage. I find it very ambiguous in both a rhetorical
sense and a moral sense, as to what he means to be saying.
Q You
find it ambiguous, so that you couldn't say -- when you say you find it ambiguous,
you're not sure for sure what it means?
A I
think that's a fair statement.
Q But
at the time -- would you say that about -- is that your conclusion for the
whole of the portion of the book from page 109 to 113? You find it ambiguous?
A I've
already suggested to you particular passages that I consider particularly
disturbing. That means I think the
entire section is very difficult to understand.
Q Well,
what I'm trying to grasp here is -- now, appreciate that your answers have been
helpful, but the specific question I asked you was for some equation of loving
parents with pedophiles in these passages.
Now, you will agree with me that there is no explicit equation of loving
parents with pedophiles anywhere on pages 109 to 113?
A I
think it's a fair conclusion to draw from --
39
Q You're
not trying to claim that professor Christensen anywhere specifically equates
any kind of parents, loving or otherwise, with pedophiles, in the passages that
you've just drawn to my attention on pages 109 to 113, are you?
A The passage that I've drawn to
your attention --
Q Yes.
A Or the ones that we've just
discussed?
Q The
passages that you relied on and that you've anywhere in pages 109 to 113 --
this is what you've drawn to my attention.
You're not saying that there is any explicit equation of loving parents
who teach their sexual restraint with pedophiles. Correct?
A Correct.
Q In
fact, there is no reference whatsoever to loving parents, is there?
A Specifically those two words,
"loving parents"?
Q That's
right.
A I don't believe so.
Q And
in fact, there is no explicit comparison between the teachings of certain
parents and pedophiles, is there?
A Not explicitly.
Q No,
and but there is a reference to a well rounded sex education?
A Where is that? Sorry?
40
Q Isn't
there. And that's on the bottom of page 111, last paragraph. Now, you'll note
that it says, "to be sure, recreational portrayals of sex by themselves
are no substitute for a well rounded sex education." So did you understand
from that -- and the author goes on to say, "If pornography is the only
source of sexual knowledge young people can get, they can be mislead in various
ways, but if they are denied reliable sources, as is so often the case, they
will go on getting it from questionable ones. It is a teal tragedy." Did
you read that passage?
A Yes, I did.
Q And
when you read it, did you understand that the author thought that young people
should get a well rounded sex education?
MR. KOZAK: I'm sorry. Is your question, did she
understand that Dr. Christensen was putting that forward?
MR. WILLIS: Yes.
MR. KOZAK: Or are you asking her for her belief?
MR. WILLIS: No. I'm asking her whether she understood when
she read that. In fact, I think I
specifically asked her whether she understood that the author was advocating
that children receive a well rounded sex education?
41
A Yes, he appears to be doing so.
Q Alright,
and so such an education, you understood at the time, would involve teaching.
Correct? By someone other than pornographers?
A Correct.
Q Presumably
loving parents.
A Right.
Q Now,
you said earlier in your article that Dr. Christensen -- I think if I can refer
you to the first paragraph in that column. "While childrens' sexuality has
decided moral dimensions for most Canadians, in a section titled Sex and Young
People, Professor Christensen discusses these issues outside of a moral
context." Do you stand by that
statement?
A Yes, I do.
Do you agree -- did you understand that all of the
chapters -- or you'll agree with me, I presume, that everything in a book has
to be read in the context of what is said in the book as a whole. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
did you read the -- obviously you did read the chapter -- the second chapter
called "Sex and Values" about moral beliefs?
A I've read it, but a number of
years ago.
Q So
you didn't re-read it when you were doing this
42
article?
A No.
Q Well, will you -- have you re-read it in
preparation for these
examinations?
A No.
Q
So when you did the article, you didn't
have before you the three principles that Christensen says relate to as he
calls it morality, sexual and otherwise?
A Did I have them before me? I
suppose I did because
they were in the book.
But did I refer to them, no.
Q And
in fact, they weren't present to your mind either, because you had read the
book years ago. Correct?
A Yes.
Q Therefore when you wrote that
Dr. Christensen's
comments in his discussion
about childrens'
sexuality were outside of the moral context, you weren't
thinking of the context provided by Chapter Two, for example? Correct?
A Correct.
Q So when Dr. Christensen says,
"first of all, the
central principle is that values must be based on
needs--"
MR. KOZAK: I'm
sorry. Where is
that passage?
43
MR. WILLIS: Page 21. Second full or
first full paragraph. "The central principle is
that values must be based on needs on what makes for suffering or happiness in
life." That again, you didn't understand that that was Dr. Christensen's
view on questions of moral standards?
A I did not remember that.
Q Alright,
and then second major principle that follows. "That each individual's well
being counts--" That's the next paragraph, first sentence.
"That each individual's well being counts just as
much as any others." You didn't have that in mind?
A No.
Q Now,
we turn over the page to the next paragraph. "The third basic element in
determining what is to be valued or disvalued. One that is crucially relevant
to moral good and bad is that of agency. That is the principle that one is
responsible for the choices one freely makes. What it is good or bad to do
depends among other things, upon how one's actions may affect one's self or
others, and what is moral or immoral as opposed to merely prudent or unwise
depends more specifically on it's probable effects on others." Are you
familiar with John Stuart Mills harm principle?
You see this as a restatement of that?
A I wouldn't go that far because
I would have to
44
review John Stewart Mills.
Q Alright. You haven't done that
for a while.
A No.
Q But,
do you understand that in putting this at the beginning of the book, the author
is setting out the moral context in which all of his discussion is to be
evaluated?
A Perhaps.
Q But
you didn't evaluate the passages from page 109 to 13 in the context of the book
as a whole, did you?
A No, I did not.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
(ADJOURN)
(EXAMINATION RECONVENES AT 1:30 P.M.)
MR. WILLIS: Ms.
Laframboise, you
acknowledge you are still under oath?
A Yes.
Q I
forgot something. When we started out, I forget to mention -- to secure your
recent proposition that you are also a plaintiff by counter-claim, and your
answers in these proceedings will be also be binding on you in that capacity as
provided by the rules of court, and that thereto, you are produced
as an employee of The National Post. Are those
statements correct?
MR. KOZAK: Yes,
they are.
45
MR. WILLIS: Off the record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q Now,
in asking you about the e-mails that are referred to in our letter of December 6th, perhaps
I could just ask for a further undertaking, and that is if you cannot locate
those e-mails either in your electronic records, or in your hard copy, if there
are situations such as the example of Mr. Shackleton, where you can recall that
you did send replies, would you make inquiries of the persons to whom the
replies were sent, and ask if they will provide copies?
MR.
KOZAK: Yes, we'll make
those inquiries. [The reporter then
supplied copies from her own records.] [Back]
MR. WILLIS: Understanding that we can't force them to provide
the copies.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
UNDERTAKING NO.
14
Q Now,
before I get on to the chronological thing that I promised, I just want to
clean up one more thing. Looking at Exhibit 3, Dr. Christensen's book, your copy. I understand you to have said that some years
before you began the research for this article, you can tell from pencil marks
that you read up to page 94. Correct?
A That's right.
46
Q But you didn't have it present to your mind
at the time you read the article for which purpose you were only using pages
109 to 113. Correct?
A That's right. [Here
'read' should obviously have been 'wrote'.]
Q Had you ever read pages 94 to 109, and the pages
after 113? I don't see any pencil marks after that. Had you ever read the rest
of the book?
A No. [Back]
Q Now,
just returning to page 113, to a paragraph to which you referred me as part of
the basis of your inference that the author equated, "loving parents who
teach their children sexual restraint with pedophiles." If I can direct
your attention to the last sentence of that paragraph.
MR. KOZAK: I wonder if I could just interject, and I
apologize for doing that. When you put the earlier questions to her, I
think that you referred to the entire passage from the article which refers to
the harm that arises from those two things that are equated, and I'm just wondering
if -- if you look at the article, you will see that this is a comparison of the
harm that comes from loving parents and pedophiles.
MR.
WILLIS: Well, let me
just -- You are simply saying that -- you're simply wanting me to put the whole
sentence to the witness. "Even more controversially, when discussing the
harm he
47
believes society's attitudes toward childhood sex
cause, he equates loving parents who teach their
children sexual restraint with pedophiles."
MR. KOZAK: That's correct. In
other words, it's the same point that you made
about context when you were asking about
passages
from the book. [Back]
MR. WILLIS: Alright. I understand
that is an argument, but with great respect, did I
not put that entire sentence to the witness? I
think I did.
MR. KOZAK: Yes. This morning,
you did.
MR. WILLIS: Right, so can we not
leave it to the witness who can probably hand us
both change from her I.Q. to make that
argument?
MR. KOZAK: Yes. It's just that
because we've bad a break, you've referred only to the
latter portion of that passage in asking the witness questions now, whereas
this morning, you had put the entirety of the passage to her, and she referred
you to passages in the book.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. You'll see that the nature of my
question would not create a sand bag.
I'm merely trying to refer the witness to this paragraph. I understand now why you want to remind the
witness of the entire context, but
48
I'm not -- I think you'll see I'm not going in the way
that your question causes me to think you feared. Alright, I'm wanting to
direct your attention to the last sentence in the paragraph on
page 113. "That being so,
a case for the legal
prohibition of this type of pornography can be
made."
A Yes.
Q So
you understand when you read that, that the author believed that a case can be
made for the
legal prohibition of child
pornography. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And you understood that the
paragraph that
terminates in that sentence, gave three reasons why the
author believed why such a case could be made. Correct?
A Now
that you've pointed it out, and isolated the three reasons, I understand that
there are three reasons.
Q But
at the time, you're not sure whether you did or not?
A No.
Q You did understand, however,
that the author
believed that a case for the legal prohibition of child
pornography can be made. Correct?
A Yes.
Q There was no ambiguity about
that?
49
A No.
Q And
you understood from the context that the author in no way approved of the
activity of pedophiles, did you not?
A No, I'm sorry. I could say that
a case can be made
for "X" --it's a hypothetical,
intellectual exercise. It does not say anything about what I
believe.
Q You did not understand from the
context of that
passage, that the author disapproved of the
activities of pedophiles. Is that what you're
saying?
A Absolutely.
Q Okay.
Now, Have you -- I think you've indicated that it had been some years since you
had read the
passage up to page 94. Have you
ever read the
other parts of the book? Pages 94 to 109, and then pages
113 to the end?
A No.
I think you asked me that just a few minutes ago.
Q I
mean even in preparation for these discoveries?
A No.
Q Alright.
Now, we're going to come back to this in what I hope you won't find tedious
detail, but in great detail later, but there are some documents I
want to ask you about before. At
the time you
wrote this
article, was there a journalistic code
50
of ethics by
which you personally felt bound? A
written code of
ethics?
A No. [Recall
that she also knew the ethical rule
against improperly granting anonymity.]
Q Was there any kind of a written code of
ethics by which journalists working for the defendant, The National Post, were
bound?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Did you belong to any professional
organizations of journalists that were governed
by any code of ethics?
A No.
Q Had you ever formulated a personal
journalistic code of ethics by which you felt bound?
A No.
Q Even if you had not formulated it in
writing, did you have in your mind, a code of ethics by which you understood
journalists in your position ought to be bound?
A Not in any formal way.
Q Alright. In an informal way, had you ever
-- have you ever had any discussions about any aspects of journalistic ethics
with your peers that resulted in some informal statement of ethics by which you
felt bound?
A I can't recall any such discussions. I did
not go to journalism school, so I suspect those kinds of discussions do happen
very formally there. [Back]
51
Q Now,
we talk about The Ontario Press Council. My understanding is that The National
Post was not a member of The Ontario Press Council. Did you know that?
A At some point I knew that.
Q Did
you know that at the time you wrote this article?
A I
couldn't say.
Q Now,
at the time you wrote this article, did you think that there were any special,
ethical considerations that applied to journalists that wouldn't apply to other
people?
A Nothing
comes to mind.
Q And
nothing came to mind at the time. You don't recall during the course of this
article any discussions with any of your peers or superiors about the ethics of
what you were doing?
A Actually
I had one discussion with a peer.
Q And
when and what was that and please recount what, so far as you can recall, what
was said?
A I
suggested to a colleague of mine on the editorial board that I felt very
reluctant to write this article.
Q Okay.
A And
that I was worried about the damage, potentially, that could be done to the
reputation of a small community group, as well as to the
52
reputation of the broader father's rights movement. And
he advised me --, and but, however, I think also in that conversation, that if
it was a womens' group in which these issues had come to light, that I would
not hesitate to write an article, and so that I felt that it was inappropriate
as a journalist to apply a double standard just because I was sympathetic to
the group in question, and he advised me that I should not apply a double
standard. It was a very casual
conversation one has with one's colleague.
Q When
did this conversation take place, in
relation to when the article was made?
A Some
time during the actual research of the article. It was certainly before it was
finished.
Q And
who was the colleague?
A John
Turleyewart. [Turley-Ewart]
Q Now,
did he read the article before it was published?
A I
doubt it.
Q And
I just want to -- something twigged about -- I think you said one person read the article, Mr. [deleted], and you sent it as well to Mr. Whyte, but you're not
sure whether Mr. Whyte actually read it. Correct?
A That's right, but I expect that [name and
title deleted to help to prevent identifying the person whose name was deleted
here above], and he
53
was the gentleman
who was responsible for liasing with our counsel. [Next]
Q So
let me then ask you, what was the first thing that happened that was relevant
to the preparation of the article, that you can recall?
A I
suppose it was probably a telephone call from Louise Malenfant.
Q When
was that?
A Probably
some time after March 12th. I would
suggest within two, three to four days.
Q Did
you keep any record of that telephone call?
A No.
Q And
what do you recall -- please state what you recall was said by both you and Ms.
Malenfant?
A I
don't recall in any detail, but she would have relayed to me the information
that E.C.M.A.S. had just elected a new Vice President at their annual meeting,
and that this Vice President was a
disbarred lawyer.
Q Alright.
Now, E.C.N.A.S. Do you recall anything else from that telephone call?
A No,
I'm sorry.
Q What
was the next thing that you recall?
A I'm
sorry. I don't recall with any certainty. It was a year ago. There were a lot
of things on my plate. I would have at some point, pitched the story to [name deleted for reasons explained elsewhere].
54
Q Well,
let me refer you to Document S001712 in your production. And that is an e-mail,
more than two weeks earlier, to you, from Louise Malenfant, referring to
Ferrell's book.
A Where
does it refer to his book?
Q If
you look at the first paragraph, it says, "I put this chain in order for
you, instead of you having to start from the bottom. The report editor, Link
Bifield, wrote a recent excellent article on Pedophile Normalization, and since
he is the chief editor, I think he would be interested in Ferrell's book and
his favourite lawyer as well."
Now other than my disappointment at realizing that I must not be the favourite
lawyer, perhaps how is it that you say that the first thing that happened was
March the 12th, when we have a memorandum that refers to Dr. Christensen's book
on February 22nd?
A People send me all kinds of e-mail about all
sorts of things that I thought I might be interested in writing about. I don't
believe I even read that email. And
certainly did not do anything about it.
Q Had
you had any conversation with Louise Malenfant before that?
MR. KOZAK: About?
MR. WILLIS: About --
that resulted in her sending you this lengthy e-mail?
A I
don't recall. I couldn't tell you. As I say I
55
got dozens of e-mails every
day. All sorts of
people about all sorts of things they thought I might be
interested in knowing about.
Q And
you don't recall any previous discussion with Louise Malenfant?
MR. KOZAK: That
led to S00172?
MR. WILLIS: That
led to getting
this e-mail that begins at S00172?
A No, I'm sorry.
Q And
you don't even recall reading it?
A No.
Q Did
you have one of your -- files that said Louise Malenfant for example would
contain your contacts with Louise Malenfant?
A Sorry? What files?
Q Your manila folder files that
you spoke of?
A No.
Q Alright.
So then March 12th, you got a telephone call.
A Some time after March 12th.
Q Alright,
and then if you look at S00178, there is a memo to you from Louise, and that
would be Louise Malenfant, I presume?
A Yes.
Q And
it says, "Hey babe, here is the first installment." So would that be
referring back to some discussion that you might have had some time
56
after March 12th?
A I think that would be a fair
inference.
Q And
then there's a -- and by the way. Is that the way Louise Malenfant usually talked
to you? "Hey babe"?
A Girl talk, occasionally.
Q In fact, she had done things like call you and recite to you lyrics that she had written for songs and
that sort of thing?
A We had telephone conversation once in which
she was telling me that they were going out to picket somewhere, and she had
written a song and recited
it.
Q She recited it or sang it to you over the phone?
A Yes. [Recall Malenfant's denying
ever having told Bouvier such things.]
[Back]
Q When was that?
A Couldn't
tell you.
Q So
you had had a number of informal conversations with her that are not recorded
in the materials that I have from your counsel?
A Sure.
Q And
that was for the purpose of maintaining contact with her as a source, that is
from your point of view?
A Yes.
Q And
from her point of view, she felt sufficiently friendly with you that she could
refer to you as
57
"hey babe" and recite song lyrics to you?
A Some
people are more demonstrative and more affectionate than others.
Q And
she was someone who was demonstrative and affectionate to you over the phone
anyway?
A On
occasion.
Q Now
then, you'll note that the same day, there are more annotated quotes from Dr.
Christensen's book. From 0184 to 189, so pages 178 to 189. Did you read those?
A I
feel pretty confident in saying I read the first e-mail, 178 to 183, but I
couldn't tell you if I read the second one.
Q Alright.
Now, you knew that Ms. Malenfant had formerly been paid by Dr. Christensen to
assist with the efforts of E.C.M.A.S. and Merge. Pardon me. Sorry -- in any
event, you knew that Ms. Malenfant had at one point come from
A She advised me of that.
Q And
how long had you known that?
A I
knew her previous, like before she moved to
Q When
did you first meet her? Before she moved to
58
A No.
Q Sorry. That's what you said.
A I'm
sorry. Before she left
Q When did you first meet her?
A
I met her only once. I first spoke to
her, interviewed her for an article probably in late '98.
Q And that was an article that was published
in The National Post?
A Yes.
Q And when did you actually meet her
personally?
A Probably I'm guessing March or April of '2000.
Q And between the time you first had
discussions with her in 1998, and the time you started writing this article,
how many telephone discussions would you have had with her?
A I can't recall. [Just like the reporter, I long communicated with Malenfant,
and
met her once, before bringing her to
Q Once
or twice a month during that period?
A I'm sorry. I really don't know.
Q In
any event, you knew in March of 2001, that Ms. Malenfant despised Dr.
Christensen, didn't you?
A Well, I don't know what was in her
head. I knew
there had been difficulties between the two of them.
Q Well
actually, if I can refer you to S00172. Now, I know you say you can't recall
reading it when you
59
got it, but you'll see in the first paragraph it says,
"I am well aware of Mr. Christensen's activities as I am told about them
on a regular basis, and while it is no secret that we despise each other
--" etcetera, etcetera.
A Where
is that? Sorry?
MR. KOZAK: 172?
MR. WILLIS: 172, first paragraph. It's about the fifth
line down.
Q So
are you saying that you never read this ever?
A I
don't recall reading it.
Q Alright,
but as we look at these other memoranda, we see that Ms. Malenfant expressed
herself in a similar unbuttoned way. Is it fair to say you did know what was in
her head, and you knew that she despised Dr. Christensen?
A No,
I'm sorry. I don't think it's fair that I knew what was in anyone's head.
Q You
knew at least that she expressed herself in that fashion, so that you knew that
she kept saying that she despised Dr. Christensen or words to that effect?
A No.
Q Well,
when you got these letters, these summaries of Dr. Christensen's book, that you
believe you read, that didn't move you to go back and read your correspondence
from Ms. Laframboise to determine
60
whether there might be some bias, I mean, from Ms. Malenfant, to determine whether there
might be some bias on her part?
A Well,
bias is another issue. How she felt towards him. Whether I knew whether she
despised him I think is a separate matter.
Q My
question is simple. Your answer is helpful, but it's not the answer to the
question that I asked. When you read the summaries of the annotated quotes of
the book, one of which at least you recall reading, that didn't motivate you to
go back, and I'm trying to refresh your memory here.
A M'hmm.
Q That
didn't motivate you to go back and read the email of February 22nd?
A No.
Q And
the second batch of annotated quotes, you didn't -- you're not sure whether you
read those either. That's the ones beginning at 184.
A No.
I can't recall that I read these.
Q Now
then, there is another -- 190, a memorandum to you from Louise, and the
reference is "your classy comments". Now, the problem is I suppose
your classy comments are the ones on page 191, in which you say, "thanks
for your words."
A 199.
Sorry?
Q That's
"to Louise", yes. On 191. Yes. Oh,
I'm
61
sorry. That's not from you. Maybe you can help me out
here. There's a memorandum to you dated Wednesday, March 14th, 2001, and the
subject are "Your Classy Comments". Where are your classy comments?
A Well,
she's forwarding me something else that was called "your classy
comments". See, it's a forward.
She's sending it to me, so someone sent her something with the subject heading
"Your Classy Comments", and she sent it on to me.
Q Alright,
and had you e-mailed her at this point at all?
A I
couldn't tell you. Don't know.
Q And
did you read this group of e-mails now?
MR. KOZAK: Are you asking her whether today she has read
these or --
MR. WILLIS: Well, no. Whether she read them at the time.
We're talking about what went into the making of the article, so you've said
that the telephone call on March the 12th.
MR. KOZAK: She said within two or three days.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
MR. KOZAK: After March 12th.
Q MR.
WILLIS: And now we have
an e-mail on Wednesday, March 14th, which contains a copy of something sent to
Mr. Schneider, and that,
62
Ms. Laframboise read, and then we have a parcel of
things that are forwarded to you from Donna Laframboise. Did you read these?
A Sorry.
From Donna Laframboise?
Q I'm
sorry. From Louise Malenfant. Did you read these?
A I
can't tell you with certainty that I read all of them. As you will note, they
go on at some length. When one gets dozens of e-mails every day, I certainly
can't remember what portions I might have read or not have read.
Q Alright,
so what was the next thing that you recall that was the next thing that you did
or read relevant to the preparation of the article?
A I'm
sorry. I just don't remember. I know this is frustrating for you, but it was
almost a year ago.
Q Well,
that's true, but of course, even before you wrote the article, you were getting
letters from Dr. Christensen warning you about the harm you were going to do,
so it's not as though it wasn't present to your mind that there might be a law
suit even before you wrote the article. Correct?
A Right,
but what does that have to do with my ability to recall each exact step?
Q It's
not as though you haven't thought about it for the past year. You've had an
opportunity to review it and think about it for the entire year, and it's
63
been present to your mind. Correct. So I'm simply asking
you, what's the next thing you can recall?
I appreciate that one's memory can't be perfect, but my question doesn't
require perfection. It's just what's the next thing that you can recall that
you did about the preparation of this article?
A At
some point, I would have started making telephone calls, doing interviews.
Q And
when? When was the first -- what was the first thing you did, and perhaps you
can, with the assistance of the documents you have there, you can refresh your
memory and tell me.
A Well,
the difficulty is that e-mail documents don't tell me what I did on the
telephone, so I'm sorry, but I'm not sure they are going to be of much
assistance.
Q Well
presumably you kept notes, and if there was anything relevant that happened
over the telephone. We have some hand-written notes here. Can you use those to
refresh your memory?
A We
can try it.
Q Would
you do so. I want the next thing you recall, and do whatever you need to do to
refresh your memory please.
A There
are a number of hand-written notes which appear at 21. Tab 21.
Q These
help you to recall what was the next thing
64
you did after your initial -- after your initial
conversation some time after March 12th, and after receiving the e-mails on
March 14th?
A Unfortunately
they don't present a chronology. There are no dates associated with any of
these that I can see.
Q Well,
please give it your best shot?
A At
some point over the next week, I would have made a number of phone calls. Some
of those phone calls would be returned. Some would not, and I would conduct a
series of interviews.
Q And
who did you call? The first thing that happens is as far as I can tell, the
first thing that you read is a series of edited quotes from Dr. Christensen's
book. Correct? That's the March 14th e-mail that we've just
referred to that you -- and you do recall reading the first part of it at
least.
A But
I can't say that that was the first thing I had read.
Q Alright,
but in any event, you read that on or about March 14th when you got this stuff
from Louise Malenfant. Correct, and over the next week, you made a series of
phone calls, didn't you?
A That's
right.
Q And
who did you call first?
A Couldn't
tell you.
65
Q Who
did you call over that week?
A I
called Carolyn Vanee.
Q Now,
when you called her, is that one of the conversations you recorded?
A I
believe so.
Q Tab
33. Now, when you say you called Carolyn
Vanee, if I could refer you to Tab 33, is this the conversation that you were
talking about?
A It
appears to be.
Q When
was this conversation?
A I'm
sorry. I don't know.
Q Can
you check your records and undertake to advise me when the conversation was, as
far as you can tell?
MR. KOZAK: Do you have records that would disclose that?
MR. WILLIS: I believe at some point,
you said, "phone records would bear you out",
in
one
of your letters. I think your letter to E.C.M.A.S., so there would be records
of your long distance calls, would there not?
A Presumably.
Q And
this would have been a long distance call,
would it not?
A Yes.
Q So
could you undertake to check and obtain -- perhaps we could have records of all
your long
66
distance calls.
They won't be that significant, but long distance calls relevant to
these proceedings from roughly March 12th to April 17th. Well, let's say long
distance calls relevant to these proceedings. They are things that should be
produced anyway. Okay.
MR. KOZAK: We will
undertake to use our best efforts to see if they are available. If they are, we
will produce them subject to any claim of priviledge, or any claim relating to
confidential source issues.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you, and if they refresh your memory as to
when these calls were made, that could -- you'll let us know?
A Certainly.
UNDERTAKING NO.
15
Q Alright,
so you are not sure whether this call to Ms. Vanee was the first one, but it
was one that was made in the next week. 14th to 21st?
A That
would be my best guess.
Q And
who else did you call during that week?
A Brian
St. Germain.
Q I
just want to confirm at Tab 32, we have a transcript, and again, can we -- do
we need the same undertaking to try to date that transcript?
MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I'm not sure if you're asking the
witness whether she
67
recalls when this telephone conversation was made. Q MR. WILLIS: And does this transcript
at Tab 32. Is
this, so far as you know, an accurate transcript of the conversation about
which you've just testified -- conversation with Brian St. Germain?
A I
can't speak to how accurate it is, but it is a transcript.
Q Alright.
What we're going to need is an admission from both of the defendants,
plaintiffs by counterclaims that the transcripts you've provided us with are
accurate as far as they know, so would you review these transcripts and advise
me through your solicitor whether so far as you know, they are accurate?
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
MR. KOZAK: Off the record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
UNDERTAKING NO.
16
MR. KOZAK: Back on the record
then. In our discussion off the record, we acknowledge
that there may be inaccuracies in the transcript that are caused by
difficulties in hearing what was said on the tape. We will use our best efforts
then to advise you of any inaccuracies that we're aware of in the transcripts
that
68
we've provided of taped conversations.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
Q Now,
documents -- do you have any memory of -- in which order you spoke to the
people that you interviewed after March 14th?
A I
think that Brian St. Germain and Carolyn Vanee were early in the process, but
that's about all I
can
remember of the order. I was making a lot of phone calls, leaving a lot of
messages. People were getting back to me
at various times.
Q So
in this first week, I mean, obviously you had spoken to Louise Malenfant.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
then Brian St. Germain, Carolyn Vanee.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
then who else in the first while?
A At
some point I spoke to The Law Society of Alberta. I spoke to Bob Bouvier.
Q Alright,
and our information is that that was not until Thursday, March 22nd, at about
10:00 a.m. Is that right?
A I
have a note here which suggests I left a phone message on a Thursday, in the
morning, but that's as much information as I have.
Q Alright.
And who else did you speak to during that first week?
69
A I
spoke to [Tim] Adams, but not because I called him. He called me.
Q Alright,
and --
A That
was very early in the process.
Q And
is that the transcript that we have?
A Yes.
Q That
was very early.
A Within
hours actually of the first calls we made.
Q To
Vanee and St. Germain.
A And
I left a message for Paul Bouvier.
Q What
about the sources who you wished to keep confidential at 19? When did you talk to them? Was that also during the first week?
A I
would suppose so. That would make sense, but I'm not supposed to speculate, so
I have to say I'm not sure.
Q Well,
in part it's not a question of speculating. We're in the balance of probability
here. If you think -- can you say whether or not you probably spoke to these
people between the 14th and 21st?
A Both.
Q Were
there other people who you called during that first week with whom you didn't
speak, whose names you can now recall?
A The
only one that comes to mind is [girlfriend], and then there may have been some others.
Q Now, I mean, I suppose when we
get the electronic
70
record, at least we'll know when you produced the
summaries that are at Tab 20. Can we tell when those were produced? Or will we
have to wait until we can look at your disk?
A No,
I'm sorry. There don't appear to be any dates.
Q Now,
if we look at Tab 21, those seem to be handwritten notes. Are these
hand-written notes of telephone conversations made contemperaneously with them?
A Sorry.
Contemperaneously with?
Q Made
simultaneously or not simultaneously. Did you take these notes while you were
talking on the telephone with people?
A Yes.
Q Now,
is it not your practice to put the date and time of conversations on your
notes? I don't see any dates and times?
A Not
my practice.
Q Never,
have you done that? Is there any reason why you don't do that?
A It's
not particularly important.
Q Now,
for example, if I look at the last page --
MR. KOZAK: What is the number of that page?
MR. WILLIS: That is
page 410. W410. Now, here we have some
things with dates like Thursday, 2:15 on it. You've crossed out a
71
bunch
of things. In fact, there's more crossing
out than text on the page there, but can you tell when
those were made?
A No.
The note, "Thursday - 2:15" would
be a note from myself, probably that that's when I left a message so I would
know to follow up on Friday.
Q Can
we tell which Thursday we're talking about? Like is it -- we say that Monday
was March 12th, so is that Thursday, March 17th?
A Could
be. Could be the next week as well.
Q Looking
at this page, W410, we have Monday, March 12th, general annual meeting, and
then you have some numbers. Bouvier, Adams, and then you have
two numbers for Ferrell Christensen, I see.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
I think you said in the first week you spoke to
Vanee.
You spoke to St. Germain. On the 22nd.
Thursday the 22nd, you spoke to Bouvier. You spoke to --
A I'm
sorry. I don't think I can say that I spoke to
Bouvier on any particular Thursday. We've
established that already.
Q Oh,
I'm sorry. That's alledged in Paragraph 10 of our pleading.
MR. KOZAK: You suggested the day
as being Thursday the 22nd. We are disagreed that
72
there is the word "Thursday" beside Bouvier's
name.
MR. WILLIS: So it looks like we'll
have to wait for your phone records which will tell us
how long the conversations are which will then tell us when you had substantive
conversations. Correct?
A Sure.
Q And
on your tapes, you didn't put, well, it's you know, 2:10, Thursday the 15th.
There's nothing on your tapes that identifies --
A No,
because I might be calling and get the answering machine, so there's no point.
Q Alright.
I think you told me the end of the first week, you also spoke to your unnamed
sources. Correct?
A That's
a safe assumption. Some time in that early time.
Q Alright,
and you also spoke to [Tim] Adams who
called you very early on. Yes?
A That's
right.
Q And
when he called you -- let me just --off the record for a minute.
(OFF THE RECORD)
Q So
Mr. Adams called you and then you called him back. I see that looking at Item
31.
A Yes,
that appears to be the case.
Q When
did you call him back in relation to when he
73
called you?
A Very
shortly afterwards. The same day.
Q Now,
Michael Michael Bearge. Did you call him during that first week as well? ['Mike LaBerge']
A We
called me. I think he called me on the same day Mr. Adams called me, and I
could not talk because I had to leave at four o'clock, and indeed in this
transfer with Mr. Adams, it says I only had thirty minutes, so he called me and
I said I can't talk now.
Q There
is one person that you didn't call of course, in that first week, and that's
Dr. Christensen. Why not?
A Because
the new story was primarly about [Tim] Adams, and Professor Christensen took the
initiative and e-mailed me, so I responded to his e-mail.
Q No,
that's not my question. March 14th, you get this e-mail from Louise Laframboise
which you read
-- pardon me.
Louise Malenfant. You get it from Louise Malenfant which you read, and it makes
these serious allegations about condoning pedophylia and that sort of thing,
but you don't phone -- and you phone all these people, but you don't phone Dr.
Christensen. You wait until he e-mails you, which is when?
A Well,
I think we have the e-mail somewhere.
74
Q Alright.
Thursday, March 22nd, at 1:54 p.m., you get an e-mail from Farrell Christensen.
A Actually
that's when it was sent. I'm assuming that's
Q Fine, so you didn't call him at any time
before that?
A
That's right.
Q Why not?
A
Because the news story was about the
election of [Tim] Adams. That was the focus of my research.
Q Well,
perhaps you can help me here. I'm going to walk you through some of your
interviews, with some of the people you spoke to before you got Dr.
Christensen's e-mail. But let me get
this straight. It was your idea that the news story was about [Tim] Adams.
Correct?
A That's
right.
Q And
you're saying that that's why you didn't bother to call Dr. Christensen even
though you called all these other people?
A The
other reason is that as a journalist, when people are making accusations
against someone, it is certainly my practice to gather as much information from as many different people as
possible, and then to call the person and give them an opportunity to respond.
You don't call them first because then you have to call them back again
75
and again as you speak to new sources.
Q Alright,
well for example, about his book, however, the references about his book. These
are things that you knew about from 1996 on, technically, but at least from
March 14th. You didn't
call Dr. Christensen to ask him about his book?
A No. That was not the focus.
Q Okay.
Well, it's a problem here, because I would like to take you through this thing
in chronological order, but you're not able to help me too much about what it
is. Let's go through them and see if that helps you. Let's start with Carolyn Vanee. Well, why
don't we start with Bob Bouvier, and that is Tab 30. Alright, so right away,
for example, we see at line 4, it says, "Hi there, Donna. I'm sorry I'm
late. I just got off the phone with Michael Bears." Now, that must be
Leberge. Correct?
A Yes.
Q So
we know that you had spoken to Mr. Leberge before you had spoken to Mr.
Bouvier. So let's go back then to 29, and do you now recall that? Do you recall that you just got off the phone
with Mr. Leberge?
A I
don't recall but that's what the transcript suggests, so --
Q Alright. So that we can assume that Tab 29 occurred
76
just before the conversation with Mr. Bouvier? The
conversation with Mike Leberge?
A I'm
wondering if I had more than one conversation with him.
Q Well,
we only have one tape don't we, or do we? Am I wrong?
MR. KOZAK: I believe that we have only one.
MR. WILLIS: Whatever you can do to
refresh your memory, would you -- I already have your
blanket undertaking to help me get the dates straightened around, but if it --
would you make such inquiries as you made to refresh your memory, and let me know?
A Sure.
UNDERTAKING NO.
17
Q Thank you, but for
now, we'll look at this conversation.
Now, it says -- it starts off saying, "M.L. You want to put that
on. Deal. Okay.
Let's start again. We were very
disappointed to hear." When he said, "Do you want to put that
on", he would be referring to your tape recorder? [She never asked anyone's permission,
so ML evidently raised the subject.]
A Yes. In some ways, this was not the fault of
the person who did it, but this is titled "Telephone Interview". From
my perspective, certainly when the conversation began, it was not an interview
77
with Mike
Leberge. I was merely doing him the courtesy of returning his call, so at some
point, he appears to have started to say things that I felt might be useful,
that maybe perhaps I did want to quote, so it appears that we had a discussion
about putting the tape recorder on. [He was "freaked out" over
her exposé plans and already opposed to alleged sins of ECMAS-Edmonton,
yet she called him--only him--without
a recorder running? Then they talked for 28 minutes before he said anything
useful?]
Q Alright. Did you already have the tape
recorder on or you just asked him whether you could put it on?
A I
think the transcript would indicate that I did not have the tape recorder on. [Note the evasive reply. And
again,
the only other time she
talked to an interviewee about audiotaping was when that person brought it
up. So it's very likely
that this interviewee likewise asked if she had been taping/ wished to tape the
conversation, and that
to him, too, she covered up that she had been doing it already.]
Q In this -- one of the difficulties is that
there's a conversation you had before you turned on the tape recorder. Do you
have any notes of that conversation?
A No. As I said, I was merely returning
someone's call. I didn't think it was important to keep. I return numerous
calls every day. [Back]
Q And
there is a discussion with Mr. Leberge, and I guess if we can -- if we can
refer to page 2. Bottom of page 2.
MR. KOZAK: The stamped page number?
MR. WILLIS: 475.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
Q MR.
WILLIS: Now, you say to Mr.
Leberge, "Now if you were to in the next two days, issue a release, not a
general press release, but some kind of statement that were to make it onto my
78
desk that said this is the official position of The
Calgary Chapter re. the matter, we are shocked and appalled, or these are the
steps we've taken, this is our view. It would be useful to quote from something
like that. If you don't want to do that, I can just, you know, quote you saying
what you've said. That's an option." Then you go on subsequently in page
6. That's 479. "Now, whenever this story comes out says
D.L. , which is you--"
A Sorry. Where is that?
Q About
the sixth or seventh quote down on page 479. "It may just drop like a
stone and completely disappear, or it may catch the attention of some other
media outlets, particularly local ones in your province.
A I'm sorry.
MR. KOZAK: Can I just interrupt. Are you sure it's 479?
MR. WILLS: Yes.
A Oh, here. Okay.
Q "So
that may be another reason -- you go on -- why you might consider a formal
statement. You might consider putting that formal statement when the time
comes, on your website, so it is very easy for people to find it", and you
go on to say in your next quote, "You might consider in that statement
79
because the questions being raised are of course about
you know, inappropriate attitudes towards sex with minors. It would be very
useful for me as a journalist to be able to quote what your position is on that
particular topic. What is the position of your organization? Is it appropriate
for people to have sex with minors? Answer: Absolutely not." Were you - -
do I understand you to be making a recommendation to Mr. Leberge that he should
put a formal statement of some kind on his website?
A My
memory of this conversation is that Mr. Leberge called me in a panic because he
had heard that I was writing a negative article about the Edmonton Chapter of
E.C.M.A.S., and that that article would adversely affect the reputation of his
own Chapter in
Q Alright,
and so on page 480, you said, "if I saw this kind of inappropriateness
going on in the womens group, I would call them on it." Now, were you
referring only to Mr. Adams, or were you referring to Dr. Christensen's
alledged views?
A Where
are we?
Q Page
480.
A Well,
I would have to look at this.
Q You
say, "If I saw this kind of inappropriateness going on in a womens' group,
I would call them on it." You go on and say, "Okay, even if they were
80
volunteers with no money -- you say at the top of page
41 -- even if they had the best cause in the world, I would say look, this
really raises questions about their judgment, and if I were to call a womens'
group on it, then you have to do the same says Mr. Leberge. I'll have to do the
same here, say you."
A It
appears from what came before, including the sex with minors quote that you
referred to, that I'm referring to [Tim] Adams.
Q And
not to Ferrell Christensen?
A That's
what it appears to me because [Tim] Adams is being convicted of sexual
interference with a minor, and that was the news story, that he was now elected
to the executive to be a representative of the group. A group which is trying
to help people who are wrongly accused of sexual abuse in child custody
matters.
Q And
of course, so let me see. So the idea is that if someone elects to their
executive, a person who has been rightly accused of abuse in these matters,
then that suggests that the group approves sex with minors. Is that the idea?
Is that -- that's the danger that you seem to be warning about?
A It
suggests that the group does not have a very good judgment about the people --
Q Well in fact, you went further
when you asked that
81
question. Does your group approve sex with minors.
You're suggesting that someone like Mr. Adams on the executive, might --
A It
certainly raises the question. It makes it very difficult for people who are
looking for assistance of those topics.
Q And in the earlier
part of the conversation, you must have said something to Mr. Leberge about
Dr. Christensen too, because he replies, page 5, top of the page, 478. "As
far as Ferrell Christensen is concerned, I'll make my recommendations."
A That's what he's saying.
Q "Okay, first of all, I'm not completely
familiar with all of the Ferrell Christensen stuff." So you must have had an earlier unrecorded conversation with him
because he seems to be responding to something you've said that isn't on the tape.
A Perhaps, or he might have had a conversation
with Louise Malenfant or anyone else. [Back]
Q So
then you go from there to Mr. Bouvier. Now, let's look at the portion, if I can
just -- there's one particular portion that I'd like to refer you to. Okay,
page 493. "D.L. Okay, that's how it looks."
A Sorry,
where?
Q Top
of page 493. "The other problem is that you've also got Ferrell
Christensen B.B. uh huh. D.L.
82
Ferrell Christensen by himself would not be a news
story, but [Tim] Adams and Ferrell Christensen who has said some pretty
disturbing things which suggests he thinks that having sex with kids is not so
bad in his book. You put those two people together in your organization. That
makes your organization look very bad." Now, at the time that you said
this to Mr. Bouvier, again, you had read these pages 109 to 113 in the book. Correct?
A Yes.
That would be a fair assumption, I think.
Q Right,
and you believe you've read the first series of extracts by Ms. Ms. Malenfant.
Correct?
A I can't recall, but that would
seem to make sense.
Q And do you still think today that your
characterization
-- that he, that is Mr. Christensen, thinks that having sex with kids is not so
bad"? Do you think that's a fair characterization of what's said in the
book?
A As we discussed this morning, I think the
message in the book that having sex with kids is very confusing and very
equivocal.
Q Now, you didn't say that, did you? You said,
"He suggests he thinks that having sex with kids is not so bad." My
question is --
A Not so bad.
Q Today, do you think that's a fair summary of
what Dr. Christensen said in his book? You didn't say
83
it's equivocal,
it's confusing.
A
Which suggests
he thinks.
Q Yes. [Note that the reporter uses the word 'suggests'
habitually, not just to express
doubt.]
A
Yes, so yeah, I think I would still
stand by that. The book suggests that he has
certain views. [Next]
Q "Some
pretty disturbing things which suggests he thinks that having sex with kids is
not so bad in his book." And you still say that that's a fair summary of
what is said in the book?
A Yes.
Q Alright.
Now, then we have Mr. Bouvier talking about how he's never heard anything about
that, and then we go on to page 498, and you ask Mr. Bouvier, "What steps
are you guys going to take?"
A Where
is that? Sorry?
Q At
the top of page 498. And so you say, -- you report what you've been saying to
your editor, and you say, "What I've said is that I understand there's
going to be a meeting on the weekend." "Uh huh" says Ms.
Bouvier. "And you know, we should probably give them the weekend to sort
this out." "Uh huh". "Before we write this story, because
we wanted to run this for Saturday." So, now we can pick the date. This
would be -- this then would be Thursday, the 22nd, because you want to run it
for Saturday, the 24th?
A Where
does it say Saturday, the 24th?
84
Q Page 498. D.L. says, "We
wanted to run this for
Saturday, so I bought you some time."
A I don't know which Saturday
we're talking about.
Q Alright. Do you not know when
you wanted to run
this story?
A I don't remember now.
Q Alright. Do you remember when
you talked to Mr.
Bouvier, do you remember now telling him, well, we were
going to run this for Saturday and you're
having a meeting this weekend. Now we've bought you some time." Right?
A Yes.
Q Does
that help you to remember that you were talking to him on Thursday the 22nd?
The story was to run on Saturday the 24th?
A No. Because I know we talked -- if we talked to
him on the Thursday, it's still not clear to me which Thursday.
Q Well, what
about the discussion with your editor where you said -- is that -- by the way, did you
actually have that discussion with the editor?
A Yes. I said, "The story is developing.
Let's give him some time."
Q And that was Mr. [name deleted]?
A [name deleted] and I discussed that with
[deleted] as well. [Next]
Q Alright.
Can you inquire and determine whether
85
they can help us fix the date when you had that
discussion? Maybe they kept some notes?
A I
can inquire.
Q Okay.
UNDERTAKING NO.
18
Q In
any event, we're in the situation where you're buying them some time to have
the meeting on the weekend, and then you say, "But early next week -- you
go on to say -- we are going to write a story that says, here's this
organization. It made a mistake. Here's
what it did to fix the mistake, and then readers are going to decide whether
you've done enough to fix the mistake. Uh huh."
A Sorry.
Where's that?
Q That's
the next -- that's the very next quote from D.L. "Or whether you've really
just made excuses and said, this is all about some personal vendetta of someone
and refused to actually acknowledge that there might be issues of
concern." Of course the personal vendetta -- that's between Laframboise
and --
A No no. Malenfant.
Q Malenfant
and Christensen. Correct?
A Yes.
Q "So
you know I'm a journalist. I write news. If there's no story, I don't waste my
time on it because there's lots of real stories out there."
86
"True" says Bouvier.
"The story is that you guys
elected someone last night - -
A Last Monday night. That would
help us if we had a
calendar, to figure it out.
Q Well,
the Monday night of the election was the 12th. In fact we can see that from
your notes. Your little hand-written
notes that we were just looking at. That shows the election on the 12th.
A Okay. Wait a minute. When I say last Monday night, do I mean this
Monday past or the last
Monday?
MR. KOZAK: Do you want me to get
a calendar?
MR. WILLIS: Sure. That would be
helpful. Thanks.
(OFF THE RECORD)
Q I'm
just going to -- at the price of more discontinuity, just go back to something
we talked about earlier.
MR. KOZAK: Could I just
interrupt.
If you look at 468, that seems to be similar to your
52.1, does it not?
MR. WILLIS: That's right. That's
it. Okay, so those must have just been drafts, culminating
in that.
MR. KOZAK: And we thought that
you were entitled to get both the draft and your
87
final report.
MR. WILLIS: Great, okay, thank you, because I was just looking
at the first one.
Q You
will recall that I had said that I remembered seeing a reference to four
editors having looked at this story, so if I can refer you to your page 469,
this is just something that was troubling me a little bit. It says just below
the middle, in your e-mail to Mr. Bouvier, "Four of The Post's most senior
editors took some part in decisions about whether the stories about E.C.M.A.S.
Edmonton were news worthy, when they should appear in print and how many words
long they should be."
A That's
right.
Q Now, I
think you had told me there were two editors. [the same two names deleted].
A Who had read the piece.
Q Oh, you mean people took part in the
decision without having read the piece?
A Absolutely.
Q And who would those other two people be?
A [a third name deleted]. He was involved in
discussions about when the timing of the piece -- what the timing should be. I
have no idea whether he read it or when he read it. Who would the fourth one be. Whyte, [the
three names deleted]. Yes. [Back]
88
Q So
Mr. Whyte took some part in the decision making?
A About
whether it was a news worthy article, yes.
Q So
he must have read it if he thought it was news worthy?
A No,
no. People are working on articles all the time. An editor says, "What's
this about", and you give them the synopsis.
Q Is
there any record of -- did they have a meeting or something of the kind when
they decided?
A No.
Q Did
they keep a record of -- we don't see any correspondence between Whyte, [name
deleted] --
A --
these conversations happen in the news room, hundreds of them every day. No
one's keeping records.
Q So
there's no e-mails or no notes of conversations between Whyte, [two names
deleted]?
A Not
that I'm aware of.
Q And
you didn't speak -- or [deleted]. Pardon me. You
didn't speak directly with anyone except [deleted]?
A No.
I spoke to [2nd name deleted]. I spoke to [3rd
name deleted], and I also spoke to Ken William.
Q Oh,
when were these conversations, and what was said?
A I
don't know when they were.
Q What
was said then?
A Many
of the conversations were about timing. I was
89
very frustrated at the length of delay between the
original news story and the feature, so many of the conversations were about
that. I certainly talked to [two names deleted here] about "the story's
developing. Let's give them the
weekend." And I, at one point, during -- at the beginning of an editorial
board meeting which was very common for Ken Whyte, as the editor in chief to
participate, you know, he said, "What are you working on?" I
described the story.
Q Now,
the name, [3rd name deleted], I haven't heard
before. I asked you about the hierarchy at The Post, and you mentioned
[deleted] and then Whyte, and subsequently we learned about [deleted]. Who is [3rd name deleted]?
A [position
at the Post deleted].
Q And
would he normally be involved in these decisions?
A I
can't speak to that.
Q Alright,
now, so let's go back then to where we were at with Mr. Bouvier's interview,
and so now, was this an unusual thing for you to do? I mean, here you have this
situation where this men's group has made a mistake, but rather than just
publicize the mistake, you are going to give them the weekend to sort it out.
Was that to help them?
A That
was my intent.
90
Q And
I mean, is that normal, for you to do that? Do you feel you were sort of
inserting yourself into the story by deciding that instead of publishing the
story when you intended, you would help the group?
A It's
not a normal course of events. If I were writing a parallel story about a
women's group, I would have written the story probably much quicker. I would
have pushed for it to be in the paper almost immediately, and I would have
said, any fall out from that story that reflected badly on the womens group,
was well deserved.
Q So
why would you treat the men's group differently from the women's group, or why
did you treat the men's group differently from the way you've testified you
would have treated a women's group?
A Because
I'm one of the few journalists in the country who has written somewhat
sympathetically about men's issues and father's rights issues, and I think that
they do some very good work. I think they are very necessary part of the
community, but they are also dismissed by most journalists and so I was very
concerned that if I wrote an article that put them in a bad light, it would
just add to the prejudices that people already have about men's groups.
Q So
because of this concern, you decided to give
91
them time to have the meeting to decide what to do. Is
that correct?
A I
think that's fair.
Q Although
[Tim] Adams, as I understand it, had already resigned. Correct?
A Except
his resignation had not been accepted.
Q Okay.
A And
he never, by the way, sent me any resignation letter.
Q So
we carry on, and you have quite a bit of discussion about [Tim] Adams. Now, on
Page 17, Mr. Bouvier told you -- that's at 503 -- "I think that associated
with this particular election, there was definitely a coo attempt, and perhaps
you know, I even heard that perhaps that prompted [Tim] to run because you know,
this Louise Malenfant was wanting to take over the organization, and so, um,
you know, perhaps he has no other interest to run other than that. I have not
discussed this with him. I was surprised to see that he ran." Now, of
course, the initial information that you had from Louise Malenfant around about
March 14th. That occurred when on or about March 12th, she failed to get her
candidate elected, and [Tim] Adams got elected instead. Correct?
A I
knew that there had been an election, and she was disappointed with the
results.
92
Q Alright,
so then you said, "So, I'm sorry that we're not talking about something
far pleasant." Does that sound like what you would have said?
A Only
far more pleasant.
Q Yes.
Far more pleasant or something. Again if you could just read these, and if any
of these really affect the sense, you'll let us know. "I wish that were
the case, but you know, as a journalist, I have a responsibility to report the
news, and when you guys had your election, you elected [Tim] Adams. That became
news, and it would be news if the Red Cross elected someone with that kind of
past as their Vice President. It would be news if the Y.M.C.A. elected someone
with that kind of past, because, you know, they're connected to kids. It's news
when you guys do it, so, and as I say, everyone screws up." "Oh
huh" replies Mr. Bouvier. "The only question is, do you fix the
mistake. Do you fix it thoroughly. You know. Do you make the right noises to
the public which suggest that oh my god, we're embarrassed that we've done
this, and you know, we've learned a big lesson, and you know, we didn't --
certainly had no intention of you know, associating ourselves with someone of
this kind of past". And do I understand from this, you are trying to give
Mr. Bouvier some advice about what the organization should do so that it
93
minimizes the damage from the publicity from what you
viewed as a mistake that it had made?
A Mr. Bouvier, I think, if you
look at this
transcript, invites advice.
Q I'm
sorry. At this point, I don't know that he's invited your advice. Maybe you can
refer me to the passage where he invites your advice. My question
was simple. In these passages
here, you're not
just trying to draw him out or string him along. You
were really trying to help the organization. Correct?
A That's right.
Q Alriqht,
and we can -- oh well, we're going to break pretty soon, but if you find that
earlier on in the interview, he had actually solicited your
advice, please draw that to my attention. I want
to be fair to you.
A Sure.
Q And this happened a long time
ago. Alright, so
then --
A Because -- sorry. Go ahead.
Q Carry on. What were you going
to say?
A I just lost it. Sorry.
Q You see, it's right after that,
at page 504, that
Mr. Bouvier says to you,
"And I'm wondering now,
you know, what do we do", he says to you. And then
he goes on later on on 504, and says, "I guess
94
we'll have to meet and we'll have to decide what to do.
What would you suggest?" This is where you reply. "Well, that puts me
in a difficult position because you know, as the journalist reporting the
story, I should not be affecting the story." And then Mr. Bouvier points
out, "Well, the story is affected by your article." And of course,
that's right, isn't it, because you purposely had decided to delay your article
to give these guys a chance to make themselves look better than they would if
you wrote the article right away. Correct?
A Sorry?
What's your question? I forget the first part.
Q I'm
saying, you already were part of the story in the sense, because you were
delaying your story so that the media impact might not be so great if they took
what you viewed as appropriate evasive manoeuvres?.
A I
think I was exercising journalistic discretion.
Q Okay.
I'll accept that as a yes. And now, he's asking you what to do, and you're
saying, this creates a problem because maybe I'm part of the story. He points
out something that you had already realized in exercising your journalistic
discretion. Yeah, well, the story interacts -- it becomes part of it. And you
say -- now you say, "Let's use a hypothetical situation. Okay.
95
Hypothetical situation. We have the Y.M.C.A." So now, you
actually decided to give him advice. Correct?
A He's asked for it.
Q And you're going to give it.
A He's unsophisticated. He's saying, "What do we do?" [Saying it after she demanded to know whether he was going to "fix
it", recall--and
after twice suggesting
emphatically that ECMAS cease to "associate with" Mr. Adams and me.]
Q Okay.
A He
sees me as a friendly person to the movement. I think that's accurate. [What's accurate is that
he was stunned into
submission by her horrid
accusation and all her power to destroy the group. But after he and the rest
got clear that the
accusation about me was false, he firmly objected to her actions; note
especially his
later press release and
their angry exchange over it. She could hardly have forgotten all that.] [Back]
Q Okay,
and so first of all, you talk about this hypothetical Y.M.C.A. situation of
someone with a criminal past they were unaware of. Well, this of course, is Mr.
Adams. Right, and then you carry on with this scenario at page 505, and you talk
about how they ask for the Y.M.C.A./ Adams resignation, and then you carry on,
because you say, "Because it tars our work with young people", and
now you say, "Um, if it turns out that you find out there's another person
in your organization -- I'm reading from page 505 -- who's written a book about
pornography. Now, let me tell you, you know, I'm very much a person who -- who
would agree with what
-- much of what is in Ferrell Christensen's book about
pornography. Okay." So I guess the Y.M.C.A. analogy is wearing a little
thin here, because we're talking about Ferrell Christensen. "I think
96
90 % of it I don't have a problem with. I think he
actually makes some very, very good arguments, but there is, you know, three
percent of it, so 95 or 97 percent of it I would agree with. Three percent of
it, whenever he talks about kids and sex, he says some really disturbing
things." Now, I mean, first of all, you can't really say that you agree
with 97% of the book, can you, because you've only read --
A I
was being generous.
Q Well,
let's say that your reach was exceeding your grasp because you had only read
65% of it at most, and of that, four fifths of that you had read so many years
ago, you couldn't remember it, so you really were -- you were saying something
that couldn't be justified based on what you knew about Christensen's
book. Right? You didn't know whether you agreed with what
percentage you agreed with?
A I
read the first 95 pages, and I don't remember feeling disturbed by those 95
pages.
Q That's all you had left. In other words. You've told me that you didn't
remember anything specifically about those 95 pages.
A No, unless I didn't remember specific parts
that you drew my attention to.
Q
If I were to ask you right now what you
remember
97
about this first 95 pages,
could you tell me?
A I'd say that the analysis is one that is not
common. That challenges denotion that pornography leads to violence against
women. That it harms -- is a harmful source in society and I think that it does
a pretty good job of challenging those ideas.
[She even tries to make her memory of what she read
sound especially robust by adding this last line.
In fact, the book does not discuss causation of violence
until p. 114 --past the part she read:]
[Next]
Q And
of course, you hadn't read after page 94, but you just kind of assumed that the
pages after that were of a piece with the part that you remember having read
and agreed with. Correct?
A I
think that's fair.
Q So
that's as far as we can go. In other words, in terms of the specific things
that are said in those 95 pages, whether you agreed with them or not, you
didn't really know at the time?
A Sure.
Q Okay.
Now, so you're giving Mr. Bouvier advice about what he should do, and you're
saying, "They say, you know what, we're really sorry to lose you, but we
cannot afford to have our credibility tarnished. You're suggesting that sex
with kids is maybe not such a bad thing. We can't have that because we deal
with kids. We're dealing with issues that are directly connected." Then you go on at page 506 and say, "And
you know, we're sorry to lose you but you're a liability to us, and our entire
organization is in danger of being totally
98
tainted
by your presence. But if I were a journalist reporting on the Y.M.C.A. and how
they handled that situation, I would say, you know, they did the right thing.
Uh huh. They had a problem. They fixed the problem, when it came to their
attention. When all of the facts came to their attention, they moved quickly,
and they fixed the problem, and they said that, you know, this should not
happen and this would be something that they would try to ensure would not
happen in the future." So now, here you're not acting as a journalist.
You're acting as an advisor who's committed to the cause of E.C.M.A.S. Is that
correct?
A I think I'm wearing more than one hat. [Next]
[Here the reporter tries at length to deny that she
urged my expulsion from ECMAS.]
Q Right, because what
you say now is going to affect
the
decision that these people make, and you're saying to them that one decision is
one that would cause you as journalist to say, "That's right", and the
other one is one that would cause you as journalist to say, "That's wrong.
That's tainted." Right?
A And they are adults and they can make up
their own mind. [Under threat of seeing their organization destroyed by her
vile false accusation!]
Q M'hmm. You're telling them that if they make
one decision, there's going to be an article that comes out about
"taint". If they make another decision,
99
well maybe you're
going to say -- the journalist would say -- you -- that's right. So you're telling them, and in fact, that's
what you thought was right. You thought they should kick Dr. Christensen out of
their organization on the basis of your interpretation of pages 109 to us of
his book. Correct, because you thought those pages would taint the organization.
Correct?
A I'm not sure I say anywhere that he should
be kicked out.
Q Let me see.
"We're really sorry to lose you, but we cannot afford to have our
credibility tarnished."
A Where is that?
Q There it is. Page 19. 505.
A 505. Are we talking about Professor
Christensen?
Q Yes, we are.
A Okay. And your hypothetical Y.M.C.A.
Q Right.
A Discussion.
Q The hypothetical. Well, now Professor
Christensen is with the Y.M.C.A., but clearly, I mean, I know you're not
fencing with me. You're talking about Professor Christensen, and you're telling
Doctor or Mr. Bouvier that in your opinion, the right thing to do would be to
kick him out of E.C.M.A.S., because otherwise, "Page 506 -- Our entire
100
organization is
being -- in danger of being totally tainted by your presence." Correct?
A Endangered.
Q Right, so you thought it was the right thing
to do to expel Dr. Christensen, and you were recommending that to Mr. Bouvier.
Correct?
A I was recommending that a hypothetical
Y.M.C.A. should take that position.
Q Let me see now. So your use of the name Dr. Ferrell
Christensen at page 505 is just purely hypothetical. It has nothing to do with
E.C.M.A.S. Just this hypothetical Y.M.C.A.? I'm trying to understand your
testimony. Is there any difference between your -- when you use the
hypothetical Y.M.C.A., what's the point of that? Are you not just giving them
straight advice about what you think would be the right thing for E.C.M.A.S. to
do about Dr. Christensen. Right?
A No, I'm sorry. I don't think it's -- I'm not
saying, you should do this. I'm saying
if there was a Y.M.C.A. and they discovered that someone who is very prominent
in their organization had written this stuff in a book, that it would be a good
idea for them to do this.
Q Well, in fact, if they took the view that
the -- that Dr. Christensen -- let's -- yes, we have a hypothetical
organization, Y.M.C.A., but we have a
101
very real Dr.
Christensen and his book. Correct? We
don't have a hypothetical book by a hypothetical person. We have a real book.
Right?
A We have a real book.
Q Yes, and you're not talking about some
hypothetical book or some hypothetical person. You're talking aobut --
A Well, no, I'm sorry. When I start talking
about the Y.M.C.A., I'm talking about a hypothetical Y.M.C.A.
Q Yes.
But in fact, you're actually talking about my client, the plaintiff, Dr.
Ferrell Christensen, who's sitting beside me, and the book that he wrote that
you owned. Right? Now, you're just
applying it to some hypothetical Y.M.C.A. instead of
E.C.M.A.S. Correct? Saying, if Dr. Christensen was in
the Y.M.C.A., they should kick him out because he totally taints the
organization.
A It's an inference from what I've said.
Q Is there any other possible inference
please, that you could point out to me? Well, you can think about that over the
break. If you can think of any other inference other than that E.C.M.A.S.
should kick out Dr. Christensen, I would be most obliged if you could point it
out to me. Any other logical or possible inference. Thank you. Take fifteen
minutes. [This
denial continues on; see pp. 103-116 below, and later sessions.] [Back]
MR. KOZAK: Sure.
102
(ADJOURNMENT) at 3:30 p.m.
MR. WILLIS: You acknowledge you
are still under oath?
A Yes.
Q Oh,
do we have a calendar?
MR. KOZAK: Yes. A 2001 calendar?
MR. WILLIS: Yes. And it shows that
Monday, March 12th, 2001.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: And Thursday was March
22nd.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
A Of the next week.
MR. WILLIS: Right, of the following
week. So Saturday, March 24th.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: Are we able, and by
the way, there's a mark in here about Jaffer last
week
having done something in the Bouvier transcript. You refer at one point to a
mistake
recently made by Jaffer. J-a-f-f-e-r. That's our local
Alliance M.P. who has -- to impersonate him or something.
A No,
I don't --
Q Does that help you?
A Yes.
Q Can we fix the date so that we
know it's Thursday,
103
March 22nd, and that the Saturday was to be --
A Sorry. Which is Thursday, March
22nd?
Q
March 22nd. I'm trying to confirm
that you
originally had planned to have the story go out March
24th.
A Which
is a Saturday. Is that right?
MR. KOZAK: Yes. I'm not
agreeing
with the question. I'm agreeing that
March 24th is a Saturday, 2001.
MR. WILLIS: Understood. We're
just trying to do what we can to fix
the date.
A I
think that's right. March 24th, the
Saturday. We would have tried. We tried
a number of
Saturdays to run this piece. But that would have been
the first Saturday.
Q Alright.
Now, I would like to just
pick up on
where we left at the break. I had asked you
to
agree with me
that in telling Mr. Bouvier or in giving Mr. Bouvier the example of the
Y.M.C.A., you were suggesting to Mr. Bouvier that if the Y.M.C.A. had Farrell
Christensen on it's Board, and Ferrell Christensen, having written the book
that he wrote, the right thing for the Y.M.C.A. to do would be to expel him
because he is a liability to them and their entire organization would be in
danger of being totally tainted by his presence. Correct?
A Yes.
104
Q And I'm suggesting to you that you knew that
the only logical inference that could be drawn from that was that if the
Y.M.C.A. ought to expel Christensen, a fortiori, the E.C.M.A.S. should expel
him too?
A I can think of no other inference.
Q Thank you.
A At this time.
Q Alright. Well, if you do, advise me please.
Now, and then you went on to say on page 506, "An organization that deals
with the problem addresses it, gets rid of the bad elements, the bad apples, is
an organization that you can trust to take care of their problems." Now,
by "bad apples", you were referring to people like Adams and
Christensen. Correct?
A I think I'm going very general here when I
say, "an organization". Many different organizations have problems,
bad apples.
Q Well, just to carry on. You then go to say, "But an organization
that has a problem and refuses to acknowledge that this problem -- refuses to
do anything is an organization maybe people should not be coming to it for
help." Did you not intend to convey to Mr. Bouvier that if the
organization did not in addition to accepting
105
would be that
E.C.M.A.S. was an organization of the second type, but if it did get rid of
those two bad apples, then the story would characterize them as an organization
of the first type?
A I don't think I'm talking specifically about
a story. I am saying that this is an organization maybe people should not be
coming to for help.
Q
Well, and in proceeding with these
consequences of
your parable, or analogy, again, you were
attempting to
give him advice as to what should be done. Correct?
A After he's asked me for advice.
Q Right, and you are also trying to warn him
as to what the story would be if he
didn't follow your advice.
A What the perception of readers would be.
Q
That's right.
A Who read the story.
Q Of course. How the story would play. What
people would think.
A I can write a story. What people think about
it is beyond my control, but I can guess at what they might think.
Q Right, and you can give advice based on
that. Correct?
A True.
Q
And as we go on, we have Mr. Bouvier
making an
106
attempt to defend
Dr. Christensen, beginning at
507. He says,
"you know, Ferrell Christensen was part of E.C.M,A.S. well before
I." "Yeah", you say.
"I came in." I presume that's Mr. Bouvier. "Hearing some of this
information about the book, etc., how it tarnish, you know, I guess a little
bit -- not a little bit -- I'm not very happy about that -- that part of his
life. Um, I've seen it in the two years I've been the group. I've never seen it
ever been associated with any of the issues or any of the things that have gone
on." "Uh huh, uh huh", you say. Mr. Bouvier resumes, "I
guess, you know, to me, it's -- if it's construed that this is going to make us
look bad, then I think that we should address that, and I think that we as a
group need to look at that -- at that book and see if that's -- you know, what
he's saying and whatever, and decide on that information." Of course, you
understood that Mr. Bouvier hadn't read the book?
A Yes.
Q Right. "I don't
think people have addressed the
issue." "Uh huh, uh huh", and Bouvier goes on to
say, "that
they've looked into, you know, people's past. I don't think when people
basically got some job to do, we're going to do this application. We're going
to make this presentation, or we're going to set up this help line or whatever.
We
107
don't really you
know, look at well -- what could this person's past be and should we judge
them? We don't have the time. We don't likely not --, and you said,
"That's understandable." And Mr. Bouvier finished his sentence, and
then said "pardon me", and you said, "That's understandable, but
the moment something comes up, you have to deal with it." Bouvier says,
"right". You say, "You know, otherwise you assume people are
being straight with you. You assume they're decent. You assume that you know
they're of good character, but the moment a question is raised, you have to
address it. Right, and then you have to act accordingly and make a decision
accordingly." Now, as I read that, you intended to convey to Mr. Eouvier
at the very least, that people who read Dr. Christensen's book would think he
was of bad character.
A That would be one possible interpretation.
Q And thus, when in your analogy, refer to
being "totally tainted", the "total taint" had nothing to
do with Mr. Adams. Just Mr. Christensen here. Dr. Christensen. A person of such bad character that he would
write the things that Dr. Christensen wrote at pages 109 to 113, could totally
taint an organization, and so you have to address it and deal with it, and
that's what you were trying to
108
convey to him.
Correct?
A I'm sorry. I'm not sure it's clear -- we're
having a discussion. The discussion in
my view is centered on [Tim] Adams. Professor Christensen is a tangent. We are
going back and forth between the two. I'm not sure that I can say at this point
in time, that in my mind I made those comments, I was only considering one
person rather than the other or both.
Q Well, let's look back at your analogy. You
see, first of all you talk about getting rid of Mr. Adams at page 505. You
specifically separate the two. You talk about getting rid of Mr. Adams because
we can't be associated with someone who's got this kind of record. Then you
talk --
A Where do I separate? Sorry for interrupting.
Q Page 505.
A Okay.
Q First of all, you talk about Mr. Adams. We
ask for the guy's resignation. You say, fourth line down, "We're sorry,
you know, you are guilty of this offence.
You were found guilty. You pled
guilty to this offence, and you know certainly, we believe, you know, people
should be allowed to get on with their lives, but we cannot be associated with
someone who's got this kind of record. Uh huh." Then you go on and say a
few lines further
109
down, "Um,
if it turns out you find out there's another person in your organization",
so you separate the two. We've already got rid of Mr. Adams, but when you're
talking about being totally tainted by your presence, that reference is to no
one but Dr. Christensen. I'm sure you'll
agree. Top of page 506.
A That appears to be the case.
Q Thank you. So now we get down to Mr. Bouvier
attempting to say well, yeah, but we need these people, or words to that
effect.
A Where is that?
Q But you -- you will see this is the part
we're in right now, and I'll start you at page 508 where you're talking about
A Sorry. I haven't found it.
Q Bottom -- very bottom.
A Okay.
Q Bottom of page 508. Turn over to page 509.
Mr. Bouvier says, "Yeah, so yeah. We've got to deal with that I guess. I
don't know what we're going
110
to do. You know,
it's -- then he mumbles along and says, "I don't know how this situation
is related other than you know, somebody can bring up his past and try to
associate." "Yes", you say. "Um" says Mr. Bouvier.
"And because -- you explain -- if it was an offence of armed
robbery." "Yeah" says Bouvier.
"It wouldn't matter".
"Yeah." "If it were break and enter", "uh
huh", "You know, it
probably wouldn't
matter." "Yeah, right", says Mr.
Bouvier.
"But it's an offence. A sexual offence with a minor."
A Which means I'm talking about [Tim] Adams.
Q Right, you are, but just hang on a
minute. "Uh huh, that's why it
matters. Yeah. It's the nature of the offence you go on. It's the nature of
Ferrell Christensen's comments about sex with children. If he was talking about
how you know, Marijuana should be decriminalized, that's got nothing to do with
your mandate." "Yeah, yeah, I guess so", says Mr. Bouvier. You
know, I think that's probably the way people will look at things. You know,
well, I guess it's from my perspective, we have to -- you know, like you say,
it's a bit of a blow you know to -- yeah. Our society -- we're going to lose
two people that you know, contributed quite a bit from what I hear, as far as I
know, did not have anything, you know, did not have anything
111
to do or talk about
these particular things to anybody in the group." "Right" you say. And over to page
24. "So you bring up something kind of unrelated, but I guess it is
related in that we have to show, that we're, you know, an organization that not
condone sex with kids." That's
you. "Yeah well yeah, I guess. You
know -- so forth. There's some people that you know, are pro homosexual and
this and that and some people are really religious," and he goes on like
that. So, here you are trying to convey, are you not, that if Ferrell
Christensen is not expelled, you are at least agreeing with the suggestion that
people will think that E.C.M.A.S. is an organization that condones sex with
kids?
A Sorry. Could you just repeat that?
Q I'm saying, at page 510, you are at the very
least, in completing Mr. Bouvier's sentence, agreeing with the idea or
seconding the idea that the nature of Ferrell Christensen's comments about sex
with children are such that unless he is expelled, E.C.M.A.S. will be viewed as
an organization that condones sex with kids. That's what you were
intended to do, and that's what you meant by that.
Correct?
MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I don't
see any passage about expelling Mr.
Christensen.
112
Am I -- there is
a passage that talks about doing something. Taking action. Is there a specific
passage where you refer to Mr. Christensen being expelled?
MR. WILLIS: Yes. This passage
goes on. It
carried directly on from the Y.M.C.A. analogy where Ms. Laframboise says at
page 505, "We are really sorry to lose you, but we cannot afford to have
our credibility tarnished. You're suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not
such a bad thing." And this carries on directly, I am suggesting to the
witness, to the comment, "It's the nature of Ferrell --" At page 509.
"It's the nature of Ferrell Christensen's comments about sex with
children", and now on page 510, when Mr. Bouvier is saying, well, it's
really tough to lose this guy but we can't afford to be an organization. We
have to do something to show that we don't condone sex with kids."
A I'm sorry. I disagree.
Q Oh really?
A Yes.
The bottom of 509, we have Bob Bouvier talking about losing two people.
The conversation has clearly come back to include [Tim] Adams, and I say -- Bob
Bouvier at the top of 510 says, "So you bring up something kind of
unrelated but I guess it's related in that we have to show that we're,
113
you know, not an
organization that does not condone sex with kids." Well, [Tim] Adams is being convicted of sexual interference with a minor, and we're
clearly talking -- Mr. Bouvier is clearly talking about two people. Mr. Adams
and Professor Christensen.
Q
Yes, and you're saying they both have
to go, otherwise we'll look like an organization that condones sex with kids. It's not enough just to get rid of Mr. Adams
according to you. Got to get rid of Mr.
Christensen -- Dr. Christen in order not to be "totally tainted".
Correct?
MR.
KOZAK: And that's
where I
interjected
because I don't see the passage that talks about expelling those two people. I
see passages that talk about doing something about it.
MR. WILLIS: Well, and that's
where
I referred you
specifically to the passage on page
505 in which the
witness says in recommending what
the Y.M.C.A.
should do about Dr. Christensen,
having already
accepted the resignation of Mr.
A No. At that point, they have not.
Q I'm sorry. Look at page 505. This is the
second time I've been obliged to remind you of what you said. Here we have the
Y.M.C.A. at the top of page
505. HypothetiCal situation. "They elect
someone
114
who's been a
volunteer". That's Mr. Adams. Bottom of page 504, and he has this criminal
past they were unaware of. Now of course that's somewhat different since as
we'll see, everyone was aware of it, but nonetheless, they made an honest
mistake. They say, Oh my God, we made a mistake. We asked for this guy's
resignation. Right. That takes care of Mr. Adams.
A In our hypothetical situation. In real life,
they had not accepted his resignation. That was my source of information. Sorry.
Q -- I know, but you're saying that even if
they ask for
A For the hypothetical Y.M.C.A. to get rid of
Professor Christensen.
Q It was not enough for that hypothetical
Y.M.C.A. to get rid of Mr. Adams.
A That's right.
Q The hypothetical Y.M.C.A. had to get rid of
Dr. Christensen too, otherwise, it would be in danger
115
of being
"totally tainted by his presence", even with Mr. Adams gone. Correct?
You're nodding your head, yes.
MR. KOZAK: Well, I'm --
A I'm deferring to my counsel.
MR. WILLIS: Well, he wants to
object about
something. What?
MR. KOZAK: I want to object to
what I've already
referred to as your use of the word "expel" because what has happened
is you have pointed to a passage where the witness has referred to Dr.
Christensen in a hypothetical, and her earlier point was that there was
discussion about
Mr. Adams. There was then a discussion about Dr.
Christensen, and
in the subsequent pages of the transcript --
MR. WILLIS: Are you objecting -- let
me cut this short
here, because I know you don't intend to coach the witness, but are you
objecting
to my use of the word "expel"? Is that the
objection?
MR. KOZAK: Yes. I don't see it.
I see a
hypothetical that talks about - -
MR. WILLIS: -- Fine.
I'll
restate the question. Right. I will avoid the
use of the word
"expel".
MR.
KOZAK: Alright.
116
Q MR. WILLIS: Now, but let me
ask you this. When you said -- I want to refer you
to page 505. When you said to Mr. Bouvier that
with the -- Mr. Adams' personal
resignation having
been offered and accepted, they then
find out that
Dr. Christensen
is in their organization. You mention him by name, and they then find out that
he's written the book about pornography that he actually wrote. Alright. You then go on to say, "So if
this Y.W.C.A. or Y.M.C.A. finds outs they have a person, you know, this
person's been around. It's never come up as an issue, but now the
Y.M.C.A. has become aware
of it. Uh huh. They
say, you know
what, we're really sorry to lose you." Now, you didn't
mean that they would misplace him, did you?
You meant that they would tell him that he had to go. That they would expel him, they would kick
him out. They would cause him to leave. They would remove him from the
organization, and any other words in Rogers Thesaurus. That's what you meant,
right? You meant to advocate to Mr. Bouvier that Dr. Christensen be expelled
from the organization.
A I think that's a reasonable inference.
Q Thank
you. Now, if we turn to paragraph 10 of The Statement of Claim. If I can refer
you to that. Perhaps your counsel can put that in front of you.
117
Now, if I can just run through the allegations here. It's
alledged that on Thursday, March 22nd, at about ten o'clock a.m., Laframboise
called Bob Bouvier, the president of E.C.M.A.S. at his place
of employment. That's as far as
we know correct,
is it not, subject to checking phone records and so
forth?
A Yes.
Q "She
had not yet made any attempt to contact the plaintiff." That's true, isn't
it?
A No. I dispute that, because I told him right at
the beginning of the transcript that I left a message for him on another phone
number.
Q No,
the plaintiff.
MR. KOZAK: That's Dr. Christensen.
A Oh, okay. Sorry.
MR. WILLIS: Correct?
A Yes.
Q "They
spoke for approximately seventy-five minutes. Is that about right?
A I don't know.
Q Anyway,
we've got the transcript which is a lengthy one. Correct?
A Yes.
Q So that -- at any rate, however
long it was, it was
a pretty lengthy conversation.
Correct? You
haven't actually measured the length of the
118
conversation, but I suppose the phone records will show
that.
A The
transcript is lengthy.
Q "During
the course of that conversation, Laframboise said she expected to publish an
article in The National Post on Saturday, March 24th. That's correct, wasn't
it?
A It
appears to be correct, but I don't think we have March 24th in the transcript
itself.
Q No.
Just a reference to Saturday. "She
suggested to Bouvier that E.C.M.A.S. should, in it's best interests,
disassociate itself from [Tim] Adams and Dr. Ferrell Christensen." Correct?
A I
suggested that the hypothetical Y.M.C.A. would do that.
Q Leaving
Mr. Bouvier to draw the only and inevitable inference that the unhypothetical
E.C.M.A.S. should do the same. Correct?
A Well,
I'm sure he drew the inference, but he certainly did not act on it.
Q Alright.
I'm simply saying that that was the inference -- the only inference you
intended him to draw, that he ought to do that -- that E.C.M.A.S. ought to do
that in it's best interests. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
you recommended -- she recommended that E.C.M.A.S. do so immediately before her
story came
119
out so as to minimize the damage that might be done to
E.C.M.A.S. as a result of her article's exposure of the conduct of Adams, and
the Plaintiff. Correct?
A Well,
I certainly do not talk about conduct of the plaintiff.
Q What
-- would you prefer another word? The
writings of the plaintiff? I would
include writings as under the rubric of conduct. That was certainly intended.
A Sure.
Q Thank
you. "When Bouvier suggested there was no time to investigate her
allegations, Laframboise told him that she could delay her story but not for
long. Her editor, she said, had to have E.C.M.A.S.'s response as to whether it
was going to disassociate itself from Adams and the Plaintiff before the end of
the weekend." Is that correct?
A We
haven't talked about that part of the transcript.
Q Well
let's -- it seems that that was Mr. Bouvier'S recollection, but in any event,
you told him you had bought him some time. You had bought him the weekend, and
that was all you could buy. Correct, so that the action would have to be taken
quickly because you had bought him the weekend.
MR. KOZAK: Well, perhaps the
120
witness should take some time to look at the transcript
rather than relying on her memory of conversations that took place some time
ago.
MR. WILLIS: Maybe I can direct you to the precise part. I
think it's near the beginning. Here it is.
Page 498. "We wanted to run
this for Saturday, so I bought you some time, but early next week, we are going
to write a story that says, here's this organization. It made a mistake. Here's what it did to fix the mistake, and
then readers are going to decide whether you have done enough to fix the
mistake." "Uh huh". "Or whether you've just really
made excuses and said, this is all about some personal vendetta of someone, and
refuse to actually acknowledge that there might be issues of concern." So
I'm suggesting that this allegation in Paragraph 7 says, "When Bouvier
suggested that there was no time to investigate her allegations, Laframboise
told him that she could delay her story, but not for long. Her editor she said,
had to have E.C.M.A.S.'s response as to whether it was going to disassociate
itself from Adams and the Plaintiff before the end of the weekend." I'm suggesting that passage may not be
totally letter perfect accurate, but we do have this. That you told Bouvier
that you had bought E.C.M.A.S. time, but a
121
story was going to come out early the following week,
and they would have to take whatever steps they were going to take immediately.
Is that correct?
MR. KOZAK: Well, Mr. Willis,
would
it not make more sense to refer to the transcript and
ask if Ms. Laframboise used the words, "because we wanted to run this for
Saturday so I bought you some
time?" I don't know if you're
asking her to comment on how fairly the paraphrasing in paragraph
10. I
believe you might have said paragraph 7.
MR. WILLIS: Yeah. It is paragraph
10.
MR. KOZAK: Paragraph 10 accurately
reflects a transcript which she has already undertaken
to check to see if it accurately reflects a statement.
MR. WILLIS: Well, of course, there
are the words that are in the transcript, and then there are things
that the witness may have intended to convey, and if there was -- if in context, the
witness intended to convey something different, from what the bare words of the transcript
suggests --are not prepared to say so, so I'm not trying to put words in the
witness's mouth. As you say, the words are on the transcript, but for example,
the witness says he hadn't read Ferrell Christensen's
122
book. The response was not, "Well, tell you what.
I'll send you a copy and in a couple of weeks you can make a decision. It's not
an easy book to read." The response
was, "I'm sorry. You've got to make
your -- you've got to move fast because
we are -- in fact actually I guess the allegation's a little stronger.
MR. KOZAK: Well, without
belabouring the point, my concern is that you've put a
passage from your pleading to the witness.
MR. WILLIS: Yes.
MR. KOZAK: And it is a cause and
effect type of passage.
When Bouvier suggested that there was no time to investigate her
allegations, Laframboise told him that she could delay her story but not for
long. When I look at the passage where the witness has talked about delaying
the story, I don't see immediately preceding that, a suggestion by Mr. Bouvier
that there was no time to investigate her allegations, and that's why --
MR. WILLIS: Fair. I'll withdraw
the question.
I'll rephrase it. I take your
point.
Q Let
me continue then. Now, during the whole
of that conversation, you were acting in your capacity as an employee of the
National Post. Correct?
123
A Yes.
Q And
now, during that conversation, you didn't actually state in so many words that
you had read Dr. Christensen's book all the way through, but you certainly
intended Mr. Bouvier to think you had, didn't you? When you told him that you
agreed with possibly 97% of it, you intended him to think that you had read a
hundred percent of it, didn't you?
A I
intended to imply that I was familiar with it. The general argument. I'm not
sure I can say I intended specifically to say that.
Q Ms.
Laframboise, you didn't intend him to -- if you didn't intend him to think that
you had read the whole book carefully, why didn't you tell him that you only
read a few pages? Why did you instead
tell him that you agreed with 97% of it?
A I
didn't read only a few pages. I read 95 pages.
Q Fair,
we have that, although you didn't remember them at the time you wrote the
article, and you hadn't re-read them. That's technically correct, but what I'm
driving at, Ms. Laframboise is you knew, at the time, that when you told
someone you agreed with 97% of the book, that person is entitled to infer that
you've read 100% of it, isn't he? And you knew that that was the only
reasonable inference Mr. Bouvier could draw from what you said, did you not?
124
A Perhaps my choice
of words was less precise than it should have been. I can't recall what was in my mind at
that moment when I made that statement.
Q Well
he said to you specifically several times that he hadn't read the book at all.
Correct?
A I
don't know if he said that several times.
Q I
can point them out to you, he did. At
least three times.
A Please
do.
Q Alright.
At page 493, "I have not read Ferrell Christensen's book. I have been
involved with the book." I think
that's probably another transmission error -- "for a couple of years. At no time have I heard anything regarding
his philosophies or anything to do with sex at all." I think he means I've
been involved with the organization E.C.M.A.S." That's "the group"
probably.
A This is at the top.
Q 493.
A I
have not read.
Q Right.
A Okay.
Q So,
at that point, you had already -- this is before you tell him about how you
agree with 97% of it, and then we carry on here. At page 505, you then tell him
there is 95 or 97% of it I would
125
agree with, but whenever he talks about kids and sex, he
says some really disturbing things. Then the following page, 506, he said,
"I've never read the book" shortly after this discussion, and I think
there's one more reference to the fact that he's never read the book. Maybe
I've overlooked
it. In any event, there's two references to it. You knew he hadn't read the
book. You told
him you agreed with
97% of it. I'm suggesting to you that you knew that a reasonable person, any
reasonable person being told that someone agrees with 97% of a book would infer
that you had read it. Read all of
it.
A Yes. [Back]
Q Okay.
Thanks. Now, and then I think the words -- the exact words that you used were
that Mr. Christensen in the book, suggested that maybe sex with kids was not
such a bad thing. Let me find those exact words. In fact I think those were the
exact words you used in several of your transcripts. By the way, did you think beforehand
about what you would tell people about what Christensen said about as you put
it, sex with kids?
A I can't recall.
Q Right.
I think I already addressed you to this passage. Off the record for a second
here.
126
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q Yes,
here it is. At the bottom of page 505, you have the members of your
hypothetical Y.M.C.A. saying to Dr. Christensen,
"You're suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing."
A Sorry.
Where is that?
Q Bottom
of page 505.
A Suggesting.
Q Yes.
A Is
maybe not such a bad thing.
Q Which
is condoning sex between adults and kids. That's what you meant to convey.
Correct?
A In
my view suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing is a rather
accurate representation of the confusion in that section of the book.
Q If
someone suggests that maybe having sex with kids is not such - - sorry. If
someone suggests that sex between adults and kids -- you'll agree with me that
that's what's implied.
A That's
right.
Q Is
maybe not such a bad thing, that person is condoning sex between adults and
kids, are they not?
A No.
They have a very equivocal stance on it.
Q Well
then, but you would go so far as to say that an organization that does not
expel someone with an
127
equivocal stance in this matter would be appearing
to condone sex with kids. That
you say at page
510.
A No, no. Again we go back.
That's after the
conversation has switched back to [Tim] Adams as well.
Q Well,
alright. Tell me. You'll agree with me that you suggested that an organization
would be totally tainted by having someone like Dr. Christensen, by allowing
that person even to remain a member of the
Organization, a person who had
made these
disturbing comments about sex and kids. Because
they're equivocal?
A Sorry. What's your question?
Q My
question is this. You said that -- did you not. You've agreed with me, that in
your opinion, an organization that didn't expel someone like Dr. Christensen
would be totally tainted. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
that's because of his views about sex with kids. Correct?
A His equivocal views about sex
with kids. He is
suggesting that maybe it's not such a bad idea.
He's certainly not declaring,
clearly and
forthrightly that it is immoral.
Q Right.
In fact, you'll agree with me there's a difference between advocating something
and merely
128
condoning it. You were not
suggesting he's
advocating sex with kids, but when you say he's
suggesting that maybe it is not such a bad thing, you are suggesting he's
certainly condoning it, aren't you, or do we have to get the dictionary out and
look up condoning?
A I think we do.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
Let's save
that for another time. Okay. So ten o'clock
tomorrow.
4:30 p.m.
EXAMINATION
ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 7TH, 2002 AT 10:00 A.M.