[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]


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



exist and should be produced.

MR. WILLIS: Right. 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.


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. 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. 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,



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?



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.


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



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.
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 Ontario solicitors who in turn, provided them to your counsel in Alberta. Correct?

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.



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


A Sure.


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



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.


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.


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.



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



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.


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.



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.


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).]



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.



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.


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.]




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



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.]


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.


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,



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



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



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.


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.




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.


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?



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.



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


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



the Board of The Canadian Civil Liberties Union?

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


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



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



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.


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 University of Alberta, and the author of a 1990 book,Pornography - The Other Side. Now, you've produced to me



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



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



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


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


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


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,



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.



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 Europe where complete nudity for swimming is common for all ages." Do you disagree with that?

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 Denmark during the years when child pornography was legal and widespread." Do you disagree with that statement?

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



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 Denmark.

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 Denmark during the years when child pornography was legal and widespread. Is that a statement that



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.


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]



-- 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



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 --



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?



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. 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?



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




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?



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



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.




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.



MR. WILLIS: 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. WILLIS: Thank you.


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.



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



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.
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



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?



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


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


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



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]



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



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



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].



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



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



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


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



"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 Winnipeg to Edmonton, and that for some months, Dr. Christensen had paid her money to work for him. Correct?

A She advised me of that.

Q And how long had you known that?

A I knew her previous, like before she moved to Winnipeg, so I knew when it was going on, when it happened.

Q When did you first meet her? Before she moved to Winnipeg?



A No.

Q Sorry. That's what you said.

A I'm sorry. Before she left Winnipeg to go to Edmonton.

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 Alberta. In person, she soon acted very differently.] [Back]

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



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



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



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,



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



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



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.



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



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.


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



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. WILLIS: Thank you.

MR. KOZAK: Off the record.



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



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.

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?



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



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



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.


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



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.


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



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.



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 Alberta time. [Her computer's time--which was already an hour fast.]

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



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



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.


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



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.


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



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?


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



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 Calgary.

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



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



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.



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



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?



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



they can help us fix the date when you had that discussion? Maybe they kept some notes?

A I can inquire.

Q Okay.


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."



"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


MR. KOZAK: Do you want me to get

a calendar?

MR. WILLIS: Sure. That would be

helpful. Thanks.


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



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]



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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.


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



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



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


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,



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



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



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.



(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. WILLIS: And Thursday was March



A Of the next week.

MR. WILLIS: Right, of the following

week. So Saturday, March 24th.


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,



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.



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 Adams' resignation, expel Christensen, that the thrust of the story



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



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



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



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



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 Adams resigning the elected position. Sorry, and you say, "What started out as a concern about the person being in an elected position turns out to be actually a bigger problem." "Yeah", says Mr. Bouvier. "So merely resigning the elected position is not necessarily addressing the bigger problem."

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



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



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.
MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I don't
see any passage about expelling Mr. Christensen.



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,



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.

Adams. Right?

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



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 Adams' resignation and they get it, that's not enough. They still got to get rid of Christensen, according to you. Correct? It's a separate issue, and you make it clear that it's separate. You make it clear, and you intended to make it clear to Mr. Bouvier that it was not enough to get rid of Mr. Adams. Isn't that right? For the hypothetical Y.M.C.A. to get rid of Mr. Adams.

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



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


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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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

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



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. 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?



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?



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



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


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.




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



equivocal stance in this matter would be appearing

to condone sex with kids. That you say at page


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



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


4:30 p.m.