0001 [NB: This document is in the electronic form originally provided by the professional court recorder--FC]
1 FERREL MARVIN CHRISTENSEN, affirmed at 10 a.m., examined
2 by Mr. Kozak:
3 Q Dr. Christensen, what is your full name?
4 A Ferrel Marvin Christensen.
5 Q Marvin, M-A-R-V-I-N.
6 A That's right.
7 Q What is your date of birth?
8 A December 16, 1941.
9 Q Where do you live?
10 A In Edmonton. Do you need a street address or --
11 Q No. And how long have you lived in Edmonton?
12 A Since 1971, with many breaks.
13 Q Okay. So I take it from that answer that you first
14 came to Edmonton in 1971, but on occasion you've
15 lived elsewhere since then?
16 A I've taken many breaks, but -- some sabbatical-type
17 breaks, but others paid without leave. Quite often,
18 I'd say. I don't have the details, but over the
19 years, many times.
20 Q Are you married?
21 A No.
22 Q Have you ever been?
23 A I have not.
24 Q I'm sorry, that was no?
25 A No. I do have a voice problem. My stomach may --
26 there's a breath problem, so just remind when we I
27 don't speak properly.
1 Q Well, if I don't, the court reporter will, I'm sure.
2 She's not shy.
3 Do you have any children?
4 A I do not.
5 Q And do any of your family members, siblings,
6 perhaps, or other relatives live in the Edmonton
8 A No.
9 Q Do you have family members that live elsewhere?
10 A Immediate family, I guess you mean?
11 Q Yes.
12 A Family of origin? Yes. Yes, I do. I'm originally
13 from the US, and all of my immediate family
14 members -- all of my family members are there.
15 Q What part of the United States?
16 A Most of my family is living in Utah, in the area of
17 Salt Lake City, and some in California.
18 Q What is your present occupation?
19 A I'm a retired professor.
20 Q All right. So you have no occupation that provides
21 income other than the pension that you get as a
22 retired professor from the University of Alberta; is
23 that correct?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q I can't imagine that you're idle. What are your
26 hobbies, interests, projects, pursuits these days?
27 A Pretty well I spend all of my time, since taking
1 early retirement, working in groups like ECMAS and
2 MERGE. In fact, that's the major part of the reason
3 that I took early retirement was to do that kind of
4 efficacy work for justice and that sort of thing.
5 Q Are you currently working on writing any other
7 A Not seriously. I collect notes on various book and
8 article ideas over time, but nothing of book length
9 that would be called serious, no.
10 Q So I take it then that you still have an ongoing
11 interest and involvement with ECMAS?
12 A Yes, I do.
13 Q And ECMAS is an acronym that stands for
14 Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q And you also mentioned the organization MERGE. You
17 have an ongoing and active involvement with that
18 organization today?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q And that stands for Movement for the Establishment
21 of Real Gender Equality?
22 A Right.
23 Q Are you currently a professor emeritus at the
24 University of Alberta?
25 A Yes. That gives me certain privileges, and they may
26 call on me from time to time to sit on committees,
27 but they haven't done much of that.
1 Q All right. Well, I was just about to ask you what
2 that title and position conferred upon you. Can you
3 describe that?
4 A The use of certain facilities at the university:
5 library, Internet service, and just that general
6 sort of thing. At one time they were giving -- my
7 former department was allowing some space for
8 emeritus professors, but they've run out of space.
9 That's been terminated, or mostly terminated.
10 Q So you have access to an office that you can call
11 your own there?
12 A Not that I can call my own, no. I get some mail
14 Q So is it the case that you're offered shared office
15 space with other people of similar designations from
16 your department?
17 A There was at one point, but the reason I'm not sure
18 is that I haven't ever bothered to use it; but I
19 think it's been pretty well terminated. If I were
20 to go in on an ad hoc basis, I'm sure they would
21 find something for me, but there's nothing permanent
22 as there once was.
23 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
24 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, before I forget to ask you
25 about this, when I asked about what things that the
26 designation of professor emeritus conferred upon
27 you, I think part of your answer was that you were
1 asked to provide advice or sit on committees or
2 asked for your input on certain things, and then I
3 think you said something like: That was once the
4 case, but it no longer happens?
5 A I didn't mean that to reply to sitting on
6 committees. I meant that to reply to the shared
7 office space.
8 Q Oh, I see. So your department still asks you to sit
9 on certain committees?
10 A Well, they've done so once since I retired, so it's
11 not often.
12 Q And you retired in what year?
13 A In 1995.[My error; should have been 1996.]
14 Q What committee did they ask you to sit on?
15 A It was a master's thesis committee, just examining
16 the thesis itself.
17 Q Do you remember the subject matter of the thesis?
18 A Actually, this was a committee not from my own
19 department but for another department, some kind of
20 Literature Department. They've changed all the
21 names, and I'm not sure, but it was a -- it was a
22 thesis of a woman who had written on the subject of
23 pornography, and so it was sort of a natural.
24 Q Do you remember the title of her thesis?
25 A I don't remember that, no.
26 Q Do you remember her name?
27 A I do remember her name but only because she writes
1 free-lance for the Edmonton Journal.
2 Q And who is that?
3 A Karen Virag.
4 Q All right. And did she receive her master's degree?
5 A Yes. That's my understanding. I'm quite certain.
6 Q So since your retirement in 1995, your own
7 department has never involved you or asked you to be
8 involved in committee work?
9 A That's correct. If I can clarify that?
10 Q Yes.
11 A I was not involved in a lot of thesis committees
12 even during my career because philosophy of science,
13 which is my main specialty, is not a major area
14 dealt with by that department.
15 Q That department being?
16 A Philosophy, sorry. And that's, in fact, one of the
17 reasons I was able to take a lot of leave. I wasn't
18 needed for that kind of thing as much, and I was --
19 I worked in administrative work in ways that could
20 be more flexible to arrange, so . . .
21 Q And so is it fair to say that your involvement in
22 things related to the department of philosophy at
23 the University of Alberta since your retirement has
24 remained essentially the same since 1995?
25 A Essentially, very little involvement. That's fair
26 to say.
27 Q What I'm getting at is I just want to get your
1 confirmation that suddenly things that you were once
2 involved in, you were no longer invited to be
3 involved in after the publication of the article in
5 A M-hm.
6 Q Is that --
7 A That wouldn't apply to the department.
8 Q All right.
9 A The people there know me well, so it would not
11 Q Now, based on your date of birth and your date of
12 retirement, I take it that you chose to retire
14 A Yes, at 55.
15 Q And I believe you said that in part your decision to
16 retire early was based on your desire to have an
17 increased role in organizations such as ECMAS and
19 A That's correct. If I can clarify, I enjoy teaching,
20 always, but I've had the feeling that there is a lot
21 of injustice in the world, and I'd rather spend my
22 time working on things that seemed more important to
23 me. Even though teaching has its own importance, I
24 see greater importance in certain other things that
25 I think need to be done, and so maybe that's
26 optimistic, but, in any case, that was part of my
27 reason for retiring.
1 Q All right. Now, you've said that that was a part of
2 your decision?
3 A M-hm.
4 Q The implication is there was something else that led
5 to that decision as well. What was that?
6 A The university made a very lucrative offer. They
7 wanted -- at that particular time, they wanted to
8 get rid of the higher paid, older professors, and
9 they made a good financial offer to help us to make
10 that decision. I did some calculating and realized
11 that I wouldn't be much worse off financially that
12 way then if I went at 65, and that helped. That was
13 the other part of the decision.
14 Q Those are two components to your decision. Were
15 there any other factors that played a role in your
16 decision to retire early?
17 A I don't believe so. Nothing that would have been
18 major that I would have remembered.
19 Q Okay.
20 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
21 MR. KOZAK: Dr. Christensen, you've provided
22 me with a copy of your curriculum vitae this
23 morning. Because it's not currently a part of your
24 production, I propose to mark that as Exhibit D-3.
25 Do you have any objection, Mr. Willis?
26 MR. WILLIS: No objection.
27 EXHIBIT D-3:
1 CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. FERREL MARVIN CHRISTENSEN
2 Q MR. KOZAK: When did you prepare Exhibit 3?
3 A D-3?
4 Q D-3, yes.
5 A It originally was -- well, it's been an ongoing
6 production. It was a c.v. that I used over the
7 years and added to for my professional reasons, and
8 it hasn't really been updated for any other purpose
9 besides those professional purposes.
10 Q All right.
11 A So it's prepared over a long time, and it mostly
12 ended when I retired, except I have one publication
13 that was relevant that didn't actually appear until
14 three years later, and so it has been subsequently
16 Q All right.
17 A But it's pretty well as it stood back in 1995 except
18 for that and changing my phone numbers at the top
20 Q And what publication are you referring to, the one
21 that was added?
22 A It would be the one at the very end in the journal
23 Philosophia, at the very end of my article
24 publication list, on the second page. It says
25 Research and Publication, and then Articles, and
26 then at the very last of the articles, you notice a
27 1998 date on there, whereas everything else is
1 before, up until 1995.
2 Q The reason I was asking about the update process is
3 I noticed from your Affidavit of Records that in
4 describing a curriculum vitae, and I don't know if
5 it is the one you produced today, there is a
6 reference to resumes that you forwarded, I assume
7 yours, but that could be wrong, and then an updated
8 resume. Do you recall if Exhibit D-3 is the updated
9 resume that was referred to in your Affidavit of
11 A No. It wouldn't quite be. I'm sorry, but I don't
12 remember two versions mentioned before. But this is
13 not quite the same because in this one I finally
14 added that last article which I had overlooked
15 before when I sent a copy to my lawyer.
16 Q I see.
17 A And also I noticed that the -- I should get rid of
18 my work phone number from that c.v. because I no
19 longer work there. So this is a little different
20 from the one that I originally sent my lawyer. I
21 don't remember offhand why there would be mention, a
22 reference to updated before. Offhand, I don't
24 Q All right. Well, if in looking back at that issue
25 it becomes apparent as to what things had been
26 updated that led to you producing Exhibit D-3, can
27 you advise me of those updated items on your resume
1 through your lawyer, please?
2 MR. WILLIS: Subject to relevance.
3 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
4 MR. WILLIS: We'll undertake to do that.
5 A If I understand the question, I've just mentioned
6 the two changes that I've made in this document
7 vis-a-vis the one I originally gave him.
8 Q MR. KOZAK: Yes.
9 A I've just advised you on those. There aren't any
10 others. But what I'm not sure about is why I would
11 have said something about an update before. That I
12 don't recall, but I could certainly advise on that
14 Q All right. Well, if you could provide that
15 information to your lawyer, he will then assess its
16 relevance and respond to the undertaking that you've
17 just given me.
18 A If I could think what it might possibly be, but I
19 would certainly do that, yes.
20 Q Well, your memory may be refreshed once you actually
21 review the content of the email which attaches the
22 resumes. I don't want to ask you about those things
23 because that may be such a matter of
24 solicitor/client privileged communication.
25 A I see.
26 UNDERTAKING NO. 1:
27 If IT BECOMES APPARENT AS TO WHAT THINGS HAD BEEN
1 UPDATED THAT LED TO EXHIBIT D-3, ADVISE OF THOSE
2 UPDATED ITEMS ON DR. CHRISTENSEN'S RESUME.
3 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, getting back to D-3, you've
4 had an opportunity to go through this document very
5 carefully, and you've satisfied yourself that this
6 accurately describes your post-secondary education
7 and academic positions held, your teaching
8 experience, your research and publications, your
9 professional activities, your grants and awards and
10 professional organizations in which you have been
12 A Yes. Well, it's a professional c.v. It doesn't
13 involve other parts of my life.
14 Q Yes.
15 A In any great degree.
16 Q And as a professional c.v., that's why it would not
17 have made any reference to your ongoing work with
18 MERGE or ECMAS?
19 A It does make a very brief, vague reference; but, no,
20 it wouldn't. It doesn't make a lot of reference.
21 Q Now, the answer to my next question may, in part, be
22 found in Exhibit D-3, but since I've just seen it
23 for the first time I'm going to ask you anyway.
24 During your tenure as a professor at the
25 University of Alberta, professor of philosophy, was
26 your primary academic focus on pornography?
27 A No.
1 Q Not at all?
2 A As an academic thing, I can safely say, no, I never
3 taught the subject, the information that I had
4 researched, in any of my classes, even though, of
5 course, people there knew the research I had done.
6 So as an academic matter, it was not a part of my
7 work. My work in the department, sorry. It was
8 certainly part of my academic work, but not
9 anything -- it was not reflected in teaching classes
10 and that sort of thing, except I did mention that
11 one, the case of sitting on the master's committee.
12 Q Right.
13 A That's the only thing that comes to mind.
14 Q When was that, by the way? When did you sit on the
15 master's committee that reviewed Ms. Virag's thesis?
16 A It was fairly soon after I retired, as I recall. It
17 would have been 1996 or '97, I would think.
18 Q And while I appreciate that the names of other
19 departments have changed over the years, it was a
20 Literature, English Department, I assume?
21 A Yes, not English. But as my memory -- my memory is
22 a little slow. It kind of comes to my mind that it
23 was Comparative Literature, but I wouldn't swear to
25 Q And is it your understanding that you were asked to
26 participate in this committee because it was
27 generally known at the university that you had an
1 academic interest in the issue of pornography?
2 A Fairly widely known, I would say.
3 Q All right. And do you recall the names of the other
4 committee members?
5 A I don't remember them now, and it would be difficult
6 to recall them at this date. They were people I
7 didn't know particularly well or knew hardly, and so
8 it would be difficult for the names to come back to
10 Q Do you know who it was that asked you to participate
11 on the committee?
12 A It may have been the chair of the department, but it
13 was certainly someone who was prominent in the
14 department. This would be on the records. I could
15 find out these things, if you felt it important.
16 Q All right. Well, I would like you to undertake to
17 use your best efforts to find out who the other
18 committee members were; and if it's available,
19 provide to me through your lawyer a copy of the
20 master's thesis that you reviewed.
21 A A copy?
22 Q Yes.
23 MR. WILLIS: Well, we can undertake to make
24 inquiries and try to determine the names of the
25 committee members and the date that the committee
26 met. As to the master's thesis, we can't undertake
27 to provide that; but, informally, we will, in fact,
1 make an inquiry.
2 MR. KOZAK: All right.
3 UNDERTAKING NO. 2:
4 PROVIDE THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MASTER'S
5 COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWED MS. VIRAG'S THESIS.
6 Q MR. KOZAK: When did you first become
7 interested in the subject matter of pornography?
8 A It would be more accurate to speak of my interest in
9 sexuality as an academic subject, and that goes back
10 quite a long way.
11 Q I assume that your academic interest in the subject
12 matter of sexuality came after your human interest?
13 A Yes, that's a fair assumption.
14 Q All right.
15 A I think it might be most helpful to say that
16 academically the interest developed during the
17 1970s, as I became aware of the existence of a great
18 deal of scientific and academic research on the
19 subject, and in the -- so, I guess, sometime in the
20 1970s, and then developing strongly through the
21 1980s is the time period of that interest and that
23 Q Have you ever described yourself as a proponent of
25 A I don't think so. Defender, certainly, but I'm not
26 sure that proponent would . . .
27 Q All right. But you would agree that you're a
1 defender of pornography?
2 A Yes, pornography per se, in general.
3 Q Yes.
4 A Not every -- not every kind of thing that could be
5 described as pornography, certainly not.
6 Q Is it fair to say that your academic interest in
7 human sexuality, and, as a category of that,
8 pornography, that that academic interest is linked
9 to some childhood memory or experience that you have
10 involving self-hatred over sex?
11 MR. WILLIS: Excuse me, don't answer that
12 quite yet. When you suggested to the witness that
13 he had described -- when you asked him whether he
14 described himself as a proponent of pornography, in
15 my submission, as the witness couldn't recall
16 expressly the use of that word, if you have any
17 evidence that would refresh his memory, you're
18 obliged to produce it to him. Brown v. Dunn.
19 MR. KOZAK: Yes. Well, I don't have any
20 evidence of that.
21 MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
22 MR. KOZAK: And I think his answer was quite
23 clear that he has described himself as a defender of
25 MR. WILLIS: Oh, I'm only wanting to make
26 sure that if you had something in which he had used
27 the word "proponent" or if you had information that
1 he had, that you would provide it to him to refresh
2 his memory, that's all.
3 MR. KOZAK: Yes. I would be obliged to do
4 that if I intended to put it to him at trial, for
6 MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
7 Q MR. KOZAK: So getting back to my question,
8 I think my question, in a rambling fashion, was your
9 academic interests in human sexuality and
10 pornography, would you say that it can fairly be
11 linked to childhood experiences that you had about
12 self-hatred or self-loathing regarding sex?
13 A If I may, there's a long story there, so a simple
14 answer is difficult to give.
15 Q I'll take the long story.
16 A It was linked to many things, certainly my awareness
17 of myself as a sexual being from a very early age,
18 and the emotional distress that I felt from an early
19 age about -- over my sexuality had a lot to do --
20 has had a lot to do with my lifetime concern about
21 how people treat sexuality. It's a long story.
22 I've tried to tell part of it in the document that
23 we've given you. So the answer, yes, there is
24 certainly that kind of link, among many other links.
25 Q Yes, but there's no doubt that you suffered as a
26 child over these issues?
27 A There is no doubt.
1 Q And that suffering, is it fair to say, arose because
2 of guilt or anguish you felt because you thought
3 your attitude towards sex or sexuality was deviant?
4 A Deviant would be the wrong word. I was told that my
5 sexual feelings were very, very bad. At that age, I
6 wouldn't have understood the idea of deviance.
7 Q Right.
8 A Except as the moral: You are evil; Satan is
9 influencing you. Yes, I was -- in an otherwise
10 fairly heavy childhood, this was an item that caused
[Transcription error: should be 'happy', not 'heavy'--FC]
11 me -- was a matter of great distress, yes.
12 Q All right. And you're quite right. You've provided
13 information to me through your lawyer that uses the
14 word "evil".
15 Were you told that your need to see little
16 girls' genitals was evil and that you were in danger
17 of damnation as a result?
18 A I was told, to be a little more precise, that people
19 who have those kinds of feelings are evil, and so I
20 did a very good job of hiding my own personal
22 Q Reading from your document which is entitled
23 My Case, which was provided to us through your
24 lawyer, at page 5 -- your lawyer will have a copy
25 for you there, Dr. Christensen.
26 A I have my own marked copy that I would prefer to
27 use, if that's all right.
1 Q Yes. Page 5, and near the top of the page appears
2 the passage:
3 "I was sent the message that I was evil, and
4 in danger of damnation, because of my
5 powerful-felt need to see little girls'
6 genitals and my fantasies about doing it."
7 "It", I assume, refers to the act of copulation.
8 A No. No, you should not assume that.
9 Q All right. What is "it"?
10 A To seeing little girls' genitals.
11 Q All right. So doing "it", refers to the act of
12 seeing little girls' genitals?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q All right. And you were made to believe that your
15 need was evil?
16 A That was certainly what I was led to believe.
17 Q Okay. And no amount -- I believe you say in your
19 "No amount of self-hatred or crying prayer
20 made those desires go away."
21 A You understand, I've made this admission painfully.
22 This is not --
23 Q Yes.
24 A -- something one likes to talk about. I felt it
25 important to say, and the answer is: Yes.
26 Q No, I understand that these things are not easily
27 discussed, whether in written form or in an
1 Examination for Discovery.
2 But I assume and ask you whether then as an
3 adult you then came to believe that those desires
4 were healthy and normal?
5 A Yes. As I grew up, in the later teens and into
6 adulthood, I became aware of a much wider picture of
7 the world than I had been taught at that age, and
8 certainly -- and it was a great relief to me to
9 receive that kind of understanding and be able to
10 reject what had been taught to me.
11 Q Those teachings, those childhood teachings, did they
12 come primarily from your parents or from the clergy
13 or from other sources?
14 A Primarily in church and school.
15 Q All right.
16 A My parents were frightened to death to talk about
17 such subjects.
18 Q And what church was that?
19 A May I -- is this relevant and important?
20 MR. WILLIS: You should answer that.
21 A All right. Yes. Properly [I said 'popularly'] known as the
22 Mormon Church.
23 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, your realization in your
24 teen years that these desires or needs were normal,
25 was that as a result of you putting some distance
26 between yourself and the church?
27 A No. It was a result of learning about things that I
1 hadn't been allowed -- or hadn't learned about
2 before, hearing about the Kinsey Report, for
3 example, although I never saw it then, just
4 gradually hearing about and learning about things.
5 It was a long process.
6 Q And returning to something that I speculated on
7 earlier, that realization as you became a teenager,
8 and I would say a continuing realization as you
9 became an adult, obviously that had some impact on
10 you, and, in part, led to your later interest in the
11 subject of human sexuality and pornography. Is that
12 a fair assessment?
13 A I lost track of the question. Could you repeat it,
15 Q Well, your early childhood experience --
16 A M-hm.
17 Q -- the association of evil with your need to see
18 little girls' genitals, your realization as a
19 teenager that that wasn't evil, are all of those
20 linked to your later return academically to the
21 issue of human sexuality and pornography?
22 A Yes. Yes. Very strongly linked.
23 Q All right.
24 MR. WILLIS: Do you want to enter this
25 document to which you've referred?
26 MR. KOZAK: I don't know.
27 MR. WILLIS: I feel that you should because
1 you've referred to it and quoted from it on the
2 record, so I'd ask that it be entered, otherwise we
3 risk some confusion at a later stage in the
4 proceedings because there are a number of different
6 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
8 MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, you have provided to
9 me a 42-page document entitled My Case, and I had
10 referred to a passage or perhaps two or three
11 passages in that document. You have suggested that
12 we mark it as an exhibit, and I have no objection to
13 doing that for the purpose of identification, but I
14 would like to reserve my rights and yours, of
15 course, to determine at a later date what use can be
16 made of that document, because it isn't a document
17 in your production. It is a somewhat unusual
18 document in the sense that it's difficult to
19 categorize because it is similar to what one might
20 expect in terms of a written brief on certain issues
21 that arise out of a lawsuit.
22 MR. WILLIS: I agree. Let us enter it
23 subject to all those qualifications, for example, as
24 to when we can come to an agreement about what the
25 Court ought to know about the circumstances under
26 which it was provided and so on and so forth. So
27 subject to the qualifications that you've placed on
1 the record, I am in agreement with entering it.
2 MR. KOZAK: All right.
3 EXHIBIT D-4:
4 DOCUMENT ENTITLED MY CASE
5 Q MR. KOZAK: Dr. Christensen, from things
6 that you have written, including Exhibit 4, I have
7 concluded that you began to study scientific and
8 ethnographic literature on human sexuality in or
9 about 1980; is that accurate?
10 A Not highly accurate. It would have been more like
11 the middle '70s, but not until very close to 1980
12 did I really get -- put a lot of time into it. That
13 would be a better way to describe it.
14 Q Before the break, we had talked about the link to
15 this adult interest with childhood experience.
16 A M-hm.
17 Q Was there something in the mid '70s that occurred
18 that focused your interest, that compelled you to do
19 more reading and research?
20 A Just learning about the existence of this kind of
21 research grabbed my interest very greatly, though,
22 as I said, it was a while before I began putting a
23 lot of time into it.
24 Q Now, in Exhibit 4, you make a reference to -- and I
25 think this is where I came up with the 1980 period.
26 You say that you had been studying these issues for
27 about ten years prior to the publication of your
1 book. By "studying", what exactly did you mean?
2 What forms of study were you referring to?
3 MR. WILLIS: You're referring to the passage
4 in the last paragraph on page 3?
5 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
6 MR. WILLIS: All right. I'm just drawing
7 that to witness's attention, if that's all right.
8 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
9 A Yes. You're asking what forms the study took,
10 basically, is that --
11 Q MR. KOZAK: Yes.
12 A To be as concrete as possible, I simply began
13 reading a lot of the scientific and scholarly
14 literature on the subject. For a prime example of
15 that, I would sit in the library or other places
16 where the literature was available and go through
17 each volume of such journals as the Journal of Sex
18 Research and the Archives of Sexual Behavior and
19 various other books that dealt with those kinds of
20 issues in an academic or a scientific way.
21 Q All right.
22 A I believe at one point, I looked at every article in
23 those two journals up to that day. I just went
24 through all of the bound volumes at one point; and
25 though I didn't read them all, I certainly looked at
26 -- read the abstracts from all of them and scanned
27 some of them, read some others to try to get my
1 education as thorough as possible.
2 Q So it was a self-education then?
3 A That's correct, not entirely on my own, because at
4 some point in the early 1980s, as I recall, I became
5 acquainted with a professor at the University of
6 Hawaii, which is where I was spending many, many
7 months time over the years, who has a small
8 sexuality institute, and I used his resources, and
9 this had a lot to do with the directions my research
10 took was my dealings with him, so it was not in any
11 official way like taking classes, but it was
12 certainly dealing with a recognized expert that I
13 spent a lot of my time. I also corresponded with
14 other recognized experts; although in his case, I
15 was right there with him.
16 Q All right. And who was that?
17 A His name is Milton Diamond.
18 Q You make reference to some of his work in your text,
19 I believe.
20 A I do.
21 Q Do you remember the names of other recognized
22 experts with whom you corresponded?
23 A John Money.
24 Q M-O-N-E-Y?
25 A Right.
26 Q Yes.
27 A I went to a couple of meetings of the Society for
1 the Scientific Study of Sex. At one of those
2 meetings I read a paper that I had written, and I
3 went to one other conference, whose name I would
4 have to look up, held in the Netherlands, and at
5 those meetings I certainly met lots of people who do
6 this kind of research, but I wouldn't remember a lot
7 of their -- I didn't have a lot of contact. You
8 mentioned specifically correspondence, and I'm -- I
9 would not have had very much correspondence with
10 anyone other than those two gentlemen. Some, but it
11 would be difficult to remember, just what, and it
12 wouldn't have been very much.
13 Q All right.
14 A Most of my contact with other experts would have
15 been at these conferences in those years.
16 Q What years do you mean? Can you give me a frame of
18 A Years which I went to those conferences?
19 Q Yes.
20 A It may be mentioned in the curriculum vitae. Oh,
21 okay, here, the Case for Pornography was the title
22 of my address at the 10th International Conference
23 on Sexology in Amsterdam in 1991.
24 In 1988, I read a paper called Defining Sexual
25 Sophistry at a meeting of the Society for the
26 Scientific Study of Sex in San Francisco. I went to
27 another conference, I believe it was in 1984,
1 possibly 1985, another meeting of the Society for
2 the Scientific Study of Sex, which was held in, I
3 believe, in Flagstaff, Arizona.
4 Q You didn't present a paper in Flagstaff?
5 A No. Sorry, Flagstaff . . . I'm not good at these
6 names. I better retract that. Actually, I don't
7 think it was Flagstaff. It was right out of
8 Phoenix, and Flagstaff is someplace else. No, it
9 wouldn't be Flagstaff. No, I do correct that.
10 Q Scottsdale?
11 A Scottsdale. Okay, that rings a bell. I think it
12 was Scottsdale.
13 Q And when you attended meetings of the Society for
14 the Scientific Study of Sex, did you pay your own
16 A That might be alluded to in my c.v. I believe I did
17 pay my way to the -- to the -- no, I'm sorry, my
18 memory is very unclear. I apologize. But let me
19 look and see if there's anything about that in --
20 there's a section in here where there are research
21 grants, travel grants. No, it's not listed there,
22 so I guess the answer is that I did pay my own way,
23 except for the one in Amsterdam, and for that I was
24 given a stipend by -- it should be in here
25 someplace. It would be under Grants and Awards, a
26 stipend by the American Foundation for Gender and
27 Genital Medicine and Science. That stipend paid my
2 Q I'm sorry, is that a reference in Exhibit 3?
3 A Yes. At the -- close to the end of the final page.
4 Q Oh, yes.
5 A It refers to the Book of the Year Award.
6 Q Yes. Now, while I think of it, in Exhibit 3, you
7 have listed a number of articles and where they were
8 published. Do you have copies of those articles?
9 Have you retained copies of your own articles?
10 A I can't be totally sure. I should have most of
11 them. To answer the latter question, I certainly
12 try to keep copies of my own articles. Sometimes
13 things get lost.
14 Q Yes.
15 A But I should have copies of most of them, is the
16 best answer I can give right now.
17 Q Well, I would ask you to undertake to provide copies
18 of the articles, book reviews, refereed papers and
19 invited papers that you've listed in Exhibit 3, to
20 your lawyer, to be forwarded to me with an
21 appropriate bill for photocopying.
22 MR. WILLIS: May I make a proposal?
23 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
24 MR. WILLIS: First of all, I don't know that
25 you're interested in McTaggert's theory of time, so
26 perhaps I could restrict -- we could restrict the
27 undertaking to articles that relate to pornography,
1 directly or indirectly.
2 A Sexuality.
3 MR. KOZAK: Yes, let's make it wider,
5 MR. WILLIS: All right. Sexuality.
6 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
7 MR. WILLIS: Secondly, how about if I send
8 the whole pile to you in trust, and then you can
9 have made whatever copies you want and send it back?
10 MR. KOZAK: That would be fine.
11 MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
12 UNDERTAKING NO. 3:
13 PROVIDE ARTICLES, BOOK REVIEWS, REFEREED PAPERS AND
14 INVITED PAPERS ON SEXUALITY THAT DR. CHRISTENSEN HAS
15 LISTED IN EXHIBIT 3.
16 Q MR. KOZAK: So returning then to an earlier
17 question, that is, what forms of study you
18 undertook, most of it was self-learning through your
19 review of articles, periodicals, books of that
20 nature; correct?
21 A Yes. I think if I can add something to that. I
22 look at the bibliography of my book. It gives a
23 pretty good idea, although it certainly doesn't list
24 all of the sources that I consulted. It gives a
25 sample of them that should be helpful.
26 Q Right. You were invited to present papers where you
27 had interaction with other academics, and you would
1 have learned things from your interaction with them?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q You took no formal course of study or anything of
4 that nature on these issues?
5 A That's correct, on sexuality issues.
6 Q On sexuality issues?
7 A Per se.
8 Q You worked closely with Milton Diamond and his
9 sexuality institute in Hawaii?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And you had an ongoing interaction with John Money?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what is Mr. Money's position?
14 A He was a professor at Johns Hopkins University
15 before he took retirement. It seems to me that he
16 had other links to -- I don't know whether it would
17 be the medical school at Johns Hopkins, but he was
18 certainly a professor and some kind of position with
19 the medical institution of some kind.
20 Q All right.
21 A I'm sorry about my memory on this, but that's as
22 well as I can remember it.
23 Q Now, you shared an academic interest with both
24 Mr. Diamond and Mr. Money. Would you describe them
25 also as friends?
26 A Well, I didn't have enough interaction with
27 Mr. Money that I could use that description. I
1 think you could say that I spent enough time with
2 Mr. Diamond -- Dr. Diamond, that you would call us
3 friends. On occasion we would go to dinner together
4 with his wife or something of that nature, so, yes.
5 Q Yes. You mentioned that you corresponded with both
6 of these gentlemen on issues relating to sexuality;
7 is that correct?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And do you still do so?
10 A I still correspond with Dr. Diamond. Again, I had
11 much less correspondence with Dr. Money, and I
12 haven't corresponded with him for quite some years.
13 Q Have you corresponded with Dr. Diamond regarding
14 issues that are raised in this lawsuit?
15 A I have.
16 Q And have you produced your correspondence to him or
17 his correspondence to you in that regard?
18 A No, I have not.
19 Q Subject to any objection that your lawyer might
20 have, I would ask that you undertake to provide me
21 with copies of your correspondence both to and from
22 Dr. Diamond.
23 MR. WILLIS: We'll take that under
25 MR. KOZAK: All right.
26 UNDERTAKING NO. 4:
27 PROVIDE COPIES OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S CORRESPONDENCE
1 BOTH TO AND FROM DR. DIAMOND REGARDING ISSUES RAISED
2 IN THIS LAWSUIT. (UNDER ADVISEMENT)
3 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, I've been going through the
4 categories of study, and I guess the last question I
5 have for you in that regard is: Did you participate
6 in any focus groups or discussion groups in terms of
7 studying the issue of sexuality?
8 A Discussion groups?
9 Q It's a vague question because I don't really know
10 whether or not people who share an academic interest
11 will ever decide: Let's all go to a known
12 destination and brainstorm; how do we get our views
13 on this subject known to the world at large? that
14 kind of thing.
15 A At one point -- maybe if I could back up just a
16 little here and make clear, I indicated earlier that
17 I spent a lot of time away from my teaching job
18 here; and, in fact, during the 1980s, just about
19 every year I took a half year off; and disliking the
20 climate here as I do, I went to a nice, warm place,
21 Hawaii --
22 Q Yes.
23 A -- where, again, I had access to some very good
24 libraries. The university library there is
25 marvelous for ethnology, the study of other
26 cultures, and so I spent a lot of time going there.
27 And at one point, I don't remember exactly when
1 during the 1980s, the -- Dr. Diamond had weekly
2 seminars, and different people would speak, or
3 different subjects would be discussed at these
4 seminars. I don't remember anything else offhand
5 that fits your description that would be anything
6 very formal, other than the conferences and that
7 kind of discussion.
8 Q The seminars that you've described are the weekly
9 seminars that were arranged by Dr. Diamond, did
10 John Money ever address that group?
11 A No, no. That was a little local Hawaii group.
12 John Money was --
13 Q Far away?
14 A -- in Baltimore.
15 Q Yes. Did anybody in your department at the
16 University of Alberta share your interests in the
17 topic of sexuality?
18 A Not to the extent of doing much of anything about
19 it, that I was aware of.
20 Q So you're not aware of anybody else from your
21 department that did any writing or studied the topic
22 to any great degree?
23 A Not in my department. There were informal
24 discussions over time, certainly, but that's all.
25 Q Those were informal discussions between you and
26 other members of your department?
27 A That's correct.
1 Q Do you know if anybody else from your department
2 shared your views in a general sense, the ones that
3 you've expressed in your book?
4 A That's a pretty vague question, I'm afraid.
5 Q You're right. You don't have to answer it.
6 A Certainly, they shared some of my views. They're a
7 pretty liberal bunch, so it's safe to say that they
8 shared my views in general, but the discussion
9 wouldn't have been in any sort of detail.
10 Q Yes. Well, and that's a good response to an unfair
11 question, because even if they shared your views,
12 you wouldn't necessarily know it.
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Let's get to the book. Did you author a book
15 entitled Pornography, The Other Side?
16 A Yes.
17 Q It was published in 1990; is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And can you describe the sequence of events that led
20 to the idea for the book and its eventually being
22 A Yes, I can. It's a very complicated sequence, but I
23 think I can make it fairly coherent and brief.
24 Q Even to the point where I can understand it?
25 A You'll have no trouble understanding it. Given the
26 kinds of concerns that I had in regard to justice
27 about sexuality, what I've labeled my interest in a
1 sane and humane attitude toward sexuality. As I've
2 also said, I became alarmed during the course of the
3 1980s at what seemed to me arguably was a very
4 strong sort of backlash against earlier sexual
5 liberalism of the late '60s and '70s, and, in
6 particular, it focused on pornography. There was a
7 growing movement during the 1980s, both from left
8 and right ends of the political spectrum attacking
9 pornography, and that's the reason pornography, as
10 opposed to some other aspect of sexuality, sort of
11 became a focus of my own. I became interested in
12 the research that was being done to see if there
13 were harmful effects, and I just gradually got
14 looking to more and more of this research, being
15 more and more concerned about the attitudes that
16 seemed to be becoming more prevalent in society, and
17 I just began writing my ideas down, and over time
18 the ideas developed into articles, which we've
19 mentioned, and eventually into the book. I hope
20 that's a fair answer to your question.
21 Q Yes, it is. The articles that you've described are
22 the ones that you've undertaken to produce through
23 your lawyer?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q And for the purpose of the record that we're making,
26 the book that you authored which you've described is
27 the Defendant's document production B3; is that
2 MR. WILLIS: Correct.
3 Q MR. KOZAK: When you wrote the book,
4 Dr. Christensen, did you know that the subject
5 matter was the source of continuing controversy
6 within society?
7 A Yes, indeed.
8 Q It was then, it still is now; would you agree?
9 A It is less so now, in my perception, than it was
10 then. There was, as I said a moment ago, there was
11 a very strong movement against pornography in the
13 Q Yes, I accept the fact that controversies ebb and
14 flow with time, but my question is: Today, is the
15 subject of pornography still controversial.
16 A The question seems quite vague to me. It is to a
17 degree controversial among many people. Whether
18 it's all that controversial for a majority of
19 people, that would be trickier to answer.
20 I hope that doesn't seem evasive, but it's a --
21 when you say it is controversial, well, even whether
22 the earth is round is controversial in some
23 quarters, or used to be anyway. So controversy, if
24 you mean -- I'd have to have a clear idea of how
25 many people you think are involved in the
26 controversy, or something like that. Yes.
27 Q Well, I appreciate that you can't give an informed
1 opinion on how controversial it is, but if you were
2 to look at a number of subject matters on a
3 spectrum, pornography, I think you would agree, is
4 something that might well divide opinions within a
5 room of people, or a city or a country, for example?
6 A Again, I find that as vague as the word
7 controversial; but, yes, to -- certainly, to some
8 degree, it is a subject of controversy. Now, how
9 big that degree is, is what's bothering me about the
11 Q All right. Are the contents of your book
13 MR. WILLIS: Don't answer that. It calls for
14 an opinion from the witness.
15 Q MR. KOZAK: Well, did your publisher,
16 Praeger, consider the views which you expressed in
17 your book to be controversial?
18 A As opposed to the subject itself?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Because they agreed to publish it, they apparently
21 didn't find it objectionable.
22 Q That's not my question.
23 A No, I realize that, but I'm having trouble with the
25 Q Well --
26 A They knew there would be controversy over it.
27 Q Yes.
1 A I think that's fair to say.
2 Q All right.
3 A Whether they considered it controversial in the
4 sense -- do you see what I'm getting at?
5 Q Yes. They knew that the words that appear in your
6 book would be controversial when they published
8 A Yes, certainly. In fact, I can add something
9 because I don't want to seem evasive here. I had
10 difficulty getting it published because there are
11 people in some publishing houses that find it very
12 distasteful, or else they thought that other people
13 would, so that's a precise enough point to make, I
14 think, without getting into the question of what
15 constitutes controversiality. They said, well, yes,
16 there are some people who very strongly objected to
17 it; and, in fact, I wrote it in the first place
18 trying to change minds. Obviously, I was addressing
19 a controversy.
20 Q Yes.
21 A I hope that clarifies my stand.
22 Q Yes. I think that's very fair. And I was about to
23 ask you whether or not you encountered any
24 difficulty in having it published because of the
25 subject matter and the controversial nature of the
26 topic of pornography. Many mainstream publishers, I
27 assume, would not have been interested in it.
1 A That is a concrete enough statement that I can agree
3 Q And my question about how Praeger viewed this, in
4 part, relates to the introduction to the book that's
5 found on the dust jacket. Now, who wrote the
6 introduction to the book on the dust jacket? Do you
8 A As I recall, they took certain things I said and
9 changed them for their own purposes. That's about
10 the best answer I can give to that.
11 Q Having never published a book, I don't really know
12 the process, so I'm curious. Do they propose some
13 text for the introduction and the dust jacket and
14 then send it to you for review and approval?
15 A I don't recall for sure, but I don't believe so.
16 Q You don't believe so?
17 A I believe that I suggested some things, and then
18 they decided, and I didn't -- was not asked for
19 final approval on the dust jacket, but I can't swear
20 to it either way. It's just been too long to
21 remember those precise details.
22 Q Well, let me ask you if you remember whether when
23 you first read the dust jacket, was that when you
24 first got a copy of the book?
25 A I believe so.
26 Q When you first read that dust jacket, were you
27 shocked and disappointed at what it said or how it
1 described your book?
2 A No. No. I might have felt it could be a little bit
3 more elegant, but, no, I wasn't shocked.
4 Q You certainly didn't think that it misrepresented
5 what the book was about or misled prospective
7 A No. No. It was -- as I hinted, the wording was
8 taken originally from my -- from my own introduction
9 but just shortened and so it wouldn't have been
10 seriously different from what I would have said
12 Q The reason I've asked is because you will see from
13 the inside introduction, inside the front cover
14 appear the words:
15 "F. M. Christensen presents the other side
16 of this debate in what will surely be one of
17 the most controversial books on the
19 A M-hm.
20 Q So you would agree with that description?
21 A "One of the most controversial books," again it has
22 the vagueness that I worried about. It would
23 certainly be a controversial book. "One of the most
24 controversial books," that I . . .
25 Q You don't disagree with that?
26 A Well, it's -- the problem is that I find it not very
27 clear again, or not very testable, or -- if that's a
1 better word.
2 Q On the back of the book, on the dust cover, again
3 those same words appear at the top, albeit in a
4 slightly different order. I'm talking about the
5 very back.
6 A Oh.
7 Q Those words appear again?
8 A That's right.
9 Q And then I wanted to ask, who is Karen DeCrow, do
10 you know?
11 A Oh, yes. She, at one time, was president of the
12 National Organization for Women, in the
13 United States.
14 Q She's an attorney?
15 A An attorney.
16 Q Yes.
17 A And a person who I was aware was quite liberal in
18 her attitudes towards sexuality, in general, and
19 pornography, in particular, and that's why I asked
20 her to write a -- some kind of not analysis but
21 endorsement of the book, if she liked it, for the
22 purposes of publicizing it.
23 Q All right. So you had suggested to her or you had
24 suggested her name to your publisher as somebody who
25 might read the book and provide a comment that could
26 be included on the dust cover?
27 A I believe that's the way it went, yes.
1 Q And the same can be said for the comment that was
2 solicited from Dr. Money?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q Ms. DeCrow describes, I think, the subject matter of
5 the book as a "hot potato"?
6 A M-hm.
7 Q Does that convey the controversial nature of the
8 subject matter?
9 A In the time, certainly, it does.
10 Q Yes, and you've already said that you view it as a
11 topic that's less controversial today than it was in
12 the 1980s?
13 A There's been a huge difference. I don't know if
14 others would have noticed it the way I did, but one
15 has only to look at what's on television today, and
16 remember that in the 1980s the Playboy channel was
17 kept out of Canada, and one realizes that there's
18 been a huge change.
19 Q Yes.
20 A But certainly not a total -- it's not complete.
21 Q Would you agree, Dr. Christensen, that the title
22 itself is controversial in that it begs some
24 MR. WILLIS: Well, again, don't answer that.
25 Mr. Kozak, I would ask that you pose your questions
26 in such a way as to avoid calling for an opinion or
27 a conclusion from the witness. I know that -- I
1 know what you're driving at, and I'm not objecting
2 to that, but the form of question, I'd ask you to
3 give some care to that.
4 MR. KOZAK: Fair enough.
5 Q MR. KOZAK: Who is Martha Sedgewick?
6 A Martha?
7 Q Sedgewick. Do you know that name? It appears to me
8 that she may have been the one that designed the
10 A Oh, I have no idea.
11 Q So you didn't have any input on that?
12 A On the design, no. No.
13 Q Did you have any role to play in the approval of the
15 A No.
16 Q So you had no idea what it was going to look like
17 until you saw it?
18 A That's correct. If I might anticipate what you're
19 getting at, it did -- that red streak did bother me,
20 in fact.
21 Q It did?
22 A It did. It looked a little bit, just a little bit,
24 Q Well, I was going to ask about that because, you
25 know, my view is that it was meant to convey that
26 the white lettering of the title, The Other Side,
27 and the small portion of the text below the red line
1 also in white lettering meant that your views were
2 very much in the minority?
3 A Okay.
4 Q I take it that didn't occur to you?
5 A That did not occur to me.
6 Q And you've never talked to Ms. Sedgewick about --
7 A No.
8 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
9 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, if you could turn to your
10 preface in the book.
11 A M-hm.
12 Q You describe the aim of the book to be "Brief and
14 Now, would you agree that your intention as
15 stated was that this book was to be a polemic
16 treatise and not an academic treatise?
17 A No, I would not agree with that description.
18 Q And so you intended this to be a body of work within
19 an academic spectrum that would convince academics?
20 A I believe the preface says I regard it as an
21 academic book but not directed to other academics as
22 many academics --
23 Q Yes.
24 A Directed to a general intelligent public. Does that
25 capture your . . .
26 Q Well, I think that helps me. In other words, you
27 wanted to educate a broader spectrum of people about
1 issues of importance that related to pornography?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And while your intention was to base that approach
4 on scientific research, your intended audience was
5 more general than the academics who had been writing
6 on the subject?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And that's perhaps why I described it as a polemic
9 treatise. Perhaps I'm being unfair in that
11 A If I may, I thought you said polemic rather than
12 academic, and I am certainly taking a strong
14 Q Right.
15 A And if that fits your description of polemic, then
16 it's polemic; but it's very much based on scholarly
17 work and scientific evidence as, I trust, it shows
18 all the way through it.
19 Q Well, one of the definitions of polemic is a strong
20 controversialist. You've taken -- or an aggressive
21 controversialist. You've taken a strong position in
22 the book. The strong position is aimed at
23 convincing a broad spectrum of people --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- to have a reevaluated look at pornography; is
26 that accurate?
27 A That's accurate, yes. If I may add something
1 though. Again, a word like "polemic" may have
2 different meanings to different people, but it was
3 very important to me that I not just give my own
4 view --
5 Q Right, your thoughts.
6 A -- but that I present all of the arguments and all
7 of the best arguments that I could find on the other
8 side. I believe I was able to argue against them
9 successfully, but it was not polemic in the sense of
10 ignoring other points of view, and -- but as
11 addressing them very seriously with evidence and
12 argument. If one still wants to call it polemic
13 because I took a strong position, then I'm happy
14 with that, but I have to put that gloss on the word.
15 Q I understand. I wanted to ask you about your
16 association and involvement with some of the
17 organizations you mentioned earlier, but I'd like to
18 start with CAPE, C-A-P-E. That's an acronym, I
20 A Yes.
21 Q I know that it's a divorce or was a divorce equality
22 organization, but that's all I know about it. What
23 did the acronym stand for?
24 A Children and Parents Equality.
25 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
26 Q MR. KOZAK: Was that a local organization?
27 A Yes, just here in Edmonton.
1 Q And when did it start, do you know?
2 A Yes. The reason I remember is that it was almost
3 exactly the same time as MERGE was founded in early
5 Q And what was its genesis?
6 A Just a number of individuals who were convinced that
7 there's serious injustices occurring in divorce, and
8 wanted to do something about it, particularly
9 concerned with the idea that in normal circumstances
10 both parents should remain serious parts of their
11 childrens' lives after divorce. I hope that's
12 enough to -- it's very much the same as ECMAS since
14 Q Were you involved in CAPE right from its origins?
15 A Not from the very origins. I learned about it soon
16 after it was founded and started going to its
18 Q What was your interest in the issues that you've
19 described for CAPE?
20 A It came sort of sideways from my original interests.
21 We haven't discussed it here yet, but one of my
22 other strong interests over the years has been
23 equality between the two genders, and as I began
24 getting into researching that subject, I realized
25 that in terms of numbers of people affected,
26 equality in divorce is a very major gender equality
27 issue. Obviously, never having been married or had
1 any children, I didn't have a personal interest in
2 the subject, but all of my life I've had strong
3 interest in justice issues generally, and this one
4 became very important to me because of its
5 connections to gender equality, and things just sort
6 of developed from there.
7 Q Yes. That's why I was somewhat puzzled, because my
8 limited experience with organizations of the type
9 you've described, ECMAS and CAPE, is that the
10 predominant theme of the members is they've all been
11 affected in some fundamental way by divorce or
12 custody issues, and because you've never been
13 married and never had a child, yet you had to have
14 some other connection, so it is the equality between
15 the two genders that first focused your interest on
16 the disparity with which men and women are treated
17 in the divorce arena?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q How far back did your interest in these justice
20 issues go?
21 A I'm sorry, "these justice issues" being.
22 Q That was a bad question. You said earlier you had
23 always been interested in interests relating to
25 A M-hm.
26 Q And I just don't know where in your life that
27 interest first developed.
1 A Well, if I can give a fairly personal answer --
2 Q Yes.
3 A -- to a personal question, anecdotal? Years and
4 years ago when my father was alive, he, in
5 reminiscing about my childhood, he said that in many
6 ways I was more like a little man than a little boy
7 because, I mean, I was a happy enough child in most
8 respects, but I was very concerned about issues,
9 adult issues, and issues of -- and those being
10 mostly what's right and wrong in the world. It just
11 seemed to come more naturally to me, for whatever
12 reason. And so if that answers your question, it is
13 something to do with my basic personality. Caring
14 about equality, injustices, it goes back as far as I
15 can remember, and being more concerned about that
16 than many of my age mates would have been, for
17 whatever reason.
18 Q All right. That does answer my question. I was
19 wondering if your interest in justice and its
20 manifestations and your participation in these
21 organizations was event driven, whether there was
22 some event that led you to believe that the world
23 was cruel to divorced father's, for example?
24 A Well, no event, what I take to be your question,
25 certainly no event in my own life, just simply
26 learning about the events in a lot of other people's
27 lives and saying: Oh, my goodness, I never dreamed
1 it was that bad.
2 Q Yes.
3 A So . . .
4 Q So who first told you about CAPE?
5 A I learned about it in an article in the newspaper
6 and called Peter Kertesz, I think was his name, the
7 founder of CAPE, and said: We may have some common
8 interests here, and it sort of developed from there.
9 Q And how do you spell his surname?
10 A K-E-R-T-E-S-Z, I believe.
11 Q In early 1987 or shortly thereafter when you first
12 learned more about CAPE, do you know how many
13 members it had?
14 A I couldn't recall with any accuracy. They were
15 certainly few. It was not a huge group.
16 Q Would few be fewer than 15?
17 A Depending on what stage you look at. Part of the
18 difficulty is saying what you mean by "members",
19 whether they have to be dues-paying, signed-up
20 members, and that information I wouldn't have ever
21 bothered with; but when CAPE was having regular
22 monthly meetings, they would be attended by probably
23 15 or 20 people most of the time. When they had a
24 special meeting, they might have gotten up as high
25 as 40 or 50. I hope that's helpful, but that's
26 about all I know.
27 Q Yes. That's helpful. Were you a member of CAPE?
1 A Yes.
2 Q So that suggests to me that you paid regular dues to
3 be a member?
4 A That's my memory of it, yes. It's been a long time,
5 but I believe so.
6 Q And that, presumably, gave you the right to attend
7 and the right to vote?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And that right to vote would be on issues regarding
10 the direction of CAPE or whether to take a public
11 stand on certain issues, or whether to lobby or
12 advocate for change, those types of things?
13 A Those things go with membership in general. I don't
14 have any firm memories of any votes on any subject,
15 but, yes, that would follow.
16 Q And was there an executive or guiding mind of CAPE,
17 other than Peter Kertesz?
18 A Oh, yes. After I -- when I -- after I met him, I
19 met some of the others, executive members. There
20 was a gentlemen named George Moss, whom I recall,
21 but I'm probably not going to be able to remember
22 any of the other executive members.
23 Q How would you describe your role and interaction
24 with other members of CAPE? Were you there to
25 learn? Were you there to help? Were you there
26 to --
27 A All of the above, I would say.
1 Q Anything else?
2 A I'm not sure what you might have in mind, but that
3 covers quite a bit.
4 Q Did you counsel members of CAPE on issues relating
5 to custody or access?
6 A I don't believe I would have done anything that you
7 could call counseling. Certainly at that stage I
8 didn't have a lot of information myself. I was
9 learning, but I had no expertise to offer anyone
11 Q Was there a lawyer that you can recall that was
12 involved with CAPE?
13 A Yes. Early on Susan Lynham was involved. I don't
14 recall how long it lasted, but she got some early
15 publicity for them.
16 Q So you can't recall how she was involved, whether
17 she addressed meetings, for example?
18 A I remember one highly publicized meeting, or as well
19 as they could publicize it or get media coverage,
20 but whether -- it had quite a number of people, and
21 they had several speakers, one of whom was MLA
22 John Gogo, Susan Lynham was another, and there
23 were -- oh, yes, and the head of the Maintenance
24 Enforcement Program spoke at that meeting. That was
25 probably the only meeting I'm going to remember from
26 CAPE because all of the others were just the little
27 monthly things where people came and told their
1 stories and talked about what they might do to get
2 publicity and try to get the system changed, and
3 that sort of thing. That meeting was prominent
4 enough that it stands out in my mind. I'm not sure
5 exactly when it happened. It was probably about
6 '88, or maybe as late as '89. '88, I'd guess.
7 Q You said that the organization was formed in early
8 1987. Do you know when it ceased to exist?
9 A I don't know when they stopped reregistering every
10 year, but it was pretty well dead by about 1992,
11 which is why when others came along and began to set
12 up an organization, there wasn't one for them to
13 join already, the others coming along. They started
14 a group that eventually evolved into ECMAS, and that
15 was beginning in 1992, as I recall.
16 Q Were there stated objectives or articles of
17 association or a mission statement of CAPE that you
19 A I don't recall. I would hope so and assume so.
20 They registered with the province, but I don't have
21 any memory of that.
22 Q Did you ever serve on the executive of CAPE?
23 A No.
24 Q Based on an earlier answer you gave me, I take that
25 an important objective of CAPE was to raise public
26 awareness of the issues of gender inequality with
27 respect to maintenance and access?
1 A Gender inequality is a major issue in these kinds of
2 groups. There's certainly many other issues of
3 divorce reform, but that's one that everyone is
4 aware of, and that's why there was a connection with
5 my interests, initially, even though I became
6 interested in the other issues for their own sake as
7 I got involved.
8 Q I see. Did George Moss or Peter Kertesz ever become
9 a member of MERGE?
10 A I don't believe so. No, I don't believe. No, I
11 don't believe so.
12 Q They were formed at about the same time I think you
14 A That's correct.
15 Q Do you know if there was any overlap in terms of
16 membership? Well, obviously, you were a member of
17 both. Anyone else?
18 A A little, but not very much. In case this is
19 enlightening, there's been much more -- much more
20 overlap between ECMAS and MERGE than there ever was
21 between MERGE and CAPE, in recent years, at least,
22 but I don't remember much in the way of overlap,
23 although we certainly -- people in both groups were
24 aware of the other group, and there would have been
25 a certain amount of collaboration. My memory is --
26 this memory is very fuzzy, in general, so I'm afraid
27 I can't offer more than that.
1 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:50 A.M.)
2 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 1:15 P.M.)
3 Q MR. KOZAK: Dr. Christensen, you acknowledge
4 that you are still affirmed, and you're under an
5 obligation to tell the truth?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Thank you very much. When we broke, I had been
8 asking you primarily about organizations in which
9 you were involved, and I think I finished all of my
10 questions with respect to CAPE. And subject to your
11 correction, I think you said that organization had
12 its origins in about 1987 and went until about 1992;
13 is that correct?
14 A '90 or '91. I'm really not totally sure. It was --
15 it was pretty well dead by the time the first
16 stirrings of ECMAS came along. I don't know the
17 time exactly.
18 Q Well, that's actually helpful to me, because while
19 it's not important for me to know the date that it
20 ceased to function because, you know, that can be a
21 practical date or a theoretical date, in your mind,
22 it was pretty well over and done with by the time
23 ECMAS --
24 A Yes, definitely.
25 Q -- became active? And is it your recollection that
26 there was a hiatus or a vacuum between the death of
27 CAPE and the birth of ECMAS?
1 A Yes, to some degree, although I couldn't recall
2 exactly how long it was, but I do know that when the
3 founders of what became ECMAS -- originally, they
4 had a different name.
5 Q Yes.
6 A When they were discussing setting up their
7 organization, I suggested: Look, we've got this
8 organization that has all of its organizational
9 papers filed with the province, why don't we just
10 talk to the people who had been having those
11 meetings and sort of take over from them, take over
12 their organization, as it were. I don't know
13 whether it would have been practical to do that, but
14 they weren't interested, they wanted to use another
16 Q Was there an earlier name for what became ECMAS or a
17 proposed name?
18 A There was, and it was something with the word "men"
19 in the title, and it sort of evolved over time.
20 They decided that, no, we wanted a more
21 gender-neutral name, and so it wasn't for some --
22 later on they changed it to ECMAS, and I don't
23 recall exactly when that happened.
24 Q And when you say "they", you're talking presumably
25 about the executive of ECMAS?
26 A Well, the founders. They would have had some sort
27 of -- it was a while, a couple years before there
1 was any -- they registered with the province, and so
2 there was organization, but it was less formal until
3 they finally reached that point.
4 Q So ECMAS was initially constituted as an informal
6 A M-hm.
7 Q And then over the course of time, perhaps a year or
8 two, there was some thought actually carried out
9 that they should formalize their structure and get
10 the necessary documents filed with the government so
11 that they could become an actual society?
12 A That's right.
13 Q And was that part of your initiative? Was that
14 something that you believed should be done?
15 A No, no, I had no -- very little contact with them at
16 that point. It was just sporadic. I sort of got
17 more involved as time went on after they got better
18 organized and it just looked as if they were going
19 to be a going concern, so . . .
20 Q Who were the founders of ECMAS?
21 A Phil Buller, B-U-L-L-E-R, is the only one whose name
22 I really -- I remember, the only person I can
23 remember. I can't picture the others anymore.
24 Q Okay. And would there be records of who the
25 founders were?
26 A There ought to be. ECMAS has not been terribly good
27 ever about keeping records, and so I would assume
1 so, but that might be a false assumption.
2 Q You're still a member of ECMAS though?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q And as a member, do you have access to ECMAS
6 A It's all very informal. I would presume so, but
7 it's not as if the issue has ever come up, except
8 that when the big change in leadership occurred back
9 in '99, thereabouts, I was -- I suddenly got very
10 much more involved to try and help the new leaders
11 take over and get going, and so I recall at that
12 point bringing out a big box of records that they
13 had inherited and raising some questions about what
14 was in it and so on, but that's about all there is
15 to that memory.
16 Q You have no reason to believe that if you asked for
17 records, ECMAS would say: No, you're not entitled
18 to them?
19 A Oh, no. No, certainly not.
20 Q Do you know when ECMAS was formally constituted? I
21 know that there was a period of time when it --
22 A By that you mean registered with the province?
23 Q Yes.
24 A For a long time I didn't. Actually, what I knew
25 about it I learned from reading one of your
26 Statements of Claim here, Counterclaim or something
27 like that. It gives a 1994 date. I hadn't been
1 particularly aware of that date before then, so. . .
2 Q You have no reason to believe that date is
3 inaccurate though?
4 A No. No reason to believe it's accurate or
5 inaccurate, but it would just be on the reason that
6 I'd expect you to have had a good reason to put in
7 there, so . . .
8 Q And your involvement predates that 1994 registration
9 date, assuming that it is correct?
10 A Yes. Again, it was rather -- quite sporadic
11 involvement, but there was a little, yes.
12 Q And were there any issues or initiatives that ECMAS
13 engaged in that were significantly different than
14 those that you outlined for CAPE?
15 A Not really. Same basic -- you know, the standard
16 issues: custody, access and maintenance, and so,
17 no, I wouldn't have ever noticed any difference.
18 Q I asked you about the founders. You gave me
19 Mr. Buller's name as the only one you can remember.
20 That would have been the initial foundation --
21 A Right.
22 Q -- I'll say the less formal constitution? In 1994,
23 were there others that were guiding your
24 organization that you can remember?
25 A Not that I can remember. Phil Buller still would
26 have been at that date; but, again, memory is too
27 fuzzy, and my involvement was not great enough to
1 have really clicked on the names. At some point, I
2 began going to their meetings, and I can't tell you
3 what that date was. It may have been more like '95
4 or '94, probably sometime around there, and I have
5 these vague memories of those meetings, but I
6 couldn't tell you very much about it now.
7 Q Where did ECMAS operate?
8 A Where?
9 Q Where did it operate: Edmonton, Calgary, both,
10 outside the province?
11 A Oh, it was initially just Edmonton, not outside the
13 Q So initially just Edmonton. That suggests that at a
14 later date it expanded?
15 A That's right.
16 Q Where did it expand?
17 A Again, I don't have a lot of personal knowledge of
18 this because I wasn't involved.
19 Q Yes.
20 A But there was -- it expanded into Calgary and
21 Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, as I recall. I think
22 it's Fort McMurray. I don't remember Alberta
23 geography as I should, but someplace up north, at
24 one point when they were -- when they were really --
25 things were really going well. The branches in
26 Lethbridge and the other place never did work out
27 well. They just -- there's not enough people, I
1 guess; and contrary to what was said in the article,
2 there being current branches at the time when the
3 Laframboise article was written, there were no
4 current branches in Lethbridge or the northern city.
5 Q Fort McMurray?
6 A I guess it was Fort McMurray. Okay. I'm sorry, I
7 really embarrass myself on Alberta geography. When
8 I leave Edmonton, I tend to go --
9 Q To Hawaii?
10 A -- to someplace warm. Anyway, so there were really
11 just the two branches for some years working --
12 effectively, doing things.
13 Q Now, how did ECMAS advertize or tell people about
14 its existence?
15 A Well, it certainly tried to get media publicity,
16 which was often very difficult. The group didn't
17 have a lot of money, so they couldn't exactly pay
18 for it. I'm just trying to think now, anything more
19 specific than that comes to mind. Nothing is really
20 coming to mind about the specific things they might
21 have done, although it may come back to me later.
22 Q Well, I'm just trying to get a sense of how a parent
23 with a custody, access or maintenance issue would
24 come to know about the existence of ECMAS. Would it
25 be referral by lawyer, or would it be billboard,
26 posted on a lamppost or --
27 A Not billboards, that's expensive. A lot of word of
1 mouth and some media coverage. There was a period
2 when we got some pretty good coverage, and -- but I
3 don't have -- after an initial period of not being
4 able to get very good coverage, but I don't remember
5 other kinds of publicity. Maybe other things will
6 come back to me later, but word of -- I'd say word
7 of mouth and some news coverage, go on radio
8 programs. I know that there was always attempts to
9 do that, but that's, you know, that's about as well
10 as I can describe it.
11 Q My experience with media coverage is that it tends
12 to be event focused.
13 A Right.
14 Q And so if there was a court case that raised some
15 interesting or novel point of law involving custody,
16 maintenance or access, the media might cover that
17 court case. Is that the type of thing that ECMAS
18 would seek the press out on in order to provide a
19 comment or a perspective? I just -- you know, I
20 just think that if you invite the media to attend a
21 meeting of ECMAS, they're not going to go -- they're
22 not going to publish, so --
23 MR. WILLIS: Don't answer that for a minute.
24 I'm not sure of the propriety of the form of your
25 question here. Are you asking what the witness
26 understood ECMAS to be doing at that time or what it
27 understands it's policy to be or --
1 MR. KOZAK: No, it wasn't aimed at policy.
2 I was just trying to understand how ECMAS made
3 people in need of their services aware of their
5 MR. WILLIS: All right.
6 MR. KOZAK: By way of example, until this
7 lawsuit, I didn't know about the existence of ECMAS,
8 so I was speculating to myself that had I been a
9 parent in need of whatever services ECMAS was able
10 to offer, how would I know they exist? How did they
11 get word out? That's what I'm trying to find out.
12 MR. WILLIS: All right. Carry on.
13 A Well, one of the things that was done, not so much
14 earlier as sort of in the late '90s, was to have
15 public demonstration, especially after
16 Ann McClelland became the Justice Minister. Quite
17 a few public demonstrations were held during that
18 period, at her office usually, and that's the sort
19 of thing the media does like, and so we got some
20 pretty good coverage for that.
21 You asked about court cases. I don't remember
22 any court cases as having been part of media focus.
23 Q MR. KOZAK: Well, did the profile of ECMAS
24 ever reach the status where if there was a custody,
25 access or maintenance issue, the press would seek
26 out a spokesperson from ECMAS to comment?
27 A To some extent that happened during the period when
1 Caroline Van Ee was president. I remember her
2 mentioning that, and sometimes people from the press
3 would call her.
4 Q I'm sorry, that was Caroline Manning?
5 A Sorry, Van Ee, V-a-n, E-e.
6 Q Now, I've been asking you about the origins of
7 ECMAS. I want to ask you a few questions about the
8 nature of your involvement and how it changed over
9 time. So with that introduction, when did you first
10 become a dues-paying member of ECMAS?
11 A I don't have a clear memory of that. Probably
12 sometime around 1995, but I wouldn't want to be held
13 to it.
14 Q Would you have a record of that?
15 A Well, it may well be this old box would have old
16 slips and things of that nature. I haven't checked
17 on it, but I would guess that there's still some
18 kind of record or other around. I just didn't sort
19 it out.
20 Q Do you have access to that box of records?
21 A They would offer it to me, I'm sure, if I wanted to.
22 Q All right. Well, I'll ask you to undertake to check
23 those records to determine when you first became an
24 official member of ECMAS.
25 MR. WILLIS: We'll do that.
26 UNDERTAKING NO. 5:
27 ADVISE WHEN DR. CHRISTENSEN FIRST BECAME AN OFFICIAL
1 MEMBER OF ECMAS.
2 Q MR. KOZAK: Now, what were the dues, do you
4 A As long as I can recall, it's been $25 a year. I
5 always thought that was too high. My memory is
6 somewhat blurry, so I'm not quite sure how far back
7 that goes.
8 Q That's still the present assessment today?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q And from the commencement of your becoming a member
11 of ECMAS in 1995 until the present day, have you
12 consistently been a member each year?
13 A That's right. The word -- the phrase "each year"
14 might be a little off because sometimes it's
15 sporadic. You don't remember when you last
16 re-signed up, and so you do whenever you do remember
17 it, but that's pretty accurate otherwise.
18 Q And is there an application process to become a
19 member, or is it merely a requirement that you pay
20 the $25?
21 A I remember often enough getting a receipt for
22 payment. I think they were less scrupulous about
23 having forms to fill out and sign your name to, but
24 I could -- my memory could be off on that. It's
25 more a matter of paying it and getting a receipt.
26 Q I guess my questions was: There are no
27 qualification criteria, other than paying your dues?
1 A It's pretty informal, the group has always been. If
2 I may add, it became a little more formal more
3 recently when I suggested that they update the
4 bylaws. Part of it was made necessary by my
5 recurring suggestions about doing something to get a
6 charitable status, and -- but it's -- overall, you
7 have a group of people who have little
8 organizational experience, and everything has been
9 very informal, to give a general answer to your
11 Q That's a general answer. My poorly framed question
12 was aimed at trying to ascertain whether or not some
13 people might be excluded?
14 A Oh, I see. I don't remember anyone ever being
15 excluded. I remember -- I know that from time to
16 time somebody will come along who seems a little
17 extreme, and -- but I wasn't close enough to the
18 inner workings of ECMAS to know whether any decision
19 was ever made to exclude anyone. I would doubt it,
20 based on the informal knowledge I had, but I
21 couldn't say for sure. A very sort of tolerant
22 group of individuals has always been involved in
23 running ECMAS and they wouldn't -- the people, as I
24 know them, wouldn't have been interested in
25 excluding anybody for any but the most extreme
26 reasons, which wouldn't have come up, as far as I
1 Q So you're not aware of any instance where an
2 applicant was refused membership to ECMAS?
3 A I'm not aware of any such.
4 Q Are you aware of any instance where a member of
5 ECMAS was asked to turn in their membership or their
6 membership was revoked?
7 A No, I'm not.
8 Q Now, you responded to a question earlier by saying
9 that there was a change in leadership in 1999?
10 A Right.
11 Q Up until that point in 1999, was ECMAS still guided
12 by Phil Buller?
13 A No. He had left sometime earlier because he had
14 moved to Calgary.
15 Q So who took over that lead role of guiding ECMAS
16 after Phil Buller left?
17 A This was at some point in the mid '90s, I'm guessing
18 1996, something like that, the president was
19 Caroline Van Ee, and the vice president was
20 Brian St. Germain. And they were the -- pretty well
21 the guiding lights. There were others involved, but
22 I probably wouldn't -- I know I wouldn't remember
23 the names of other board members. They were the
24 real key persons at that point, and from that point
25 until 1999 when they both resigned from the board.
26 Q So Caroline Van Ee and Brian St. Germain filled the
27 vacuum created when Phil Buller left Edmonton to
1 move to Calgary?
2 A Yes. I don't know all the details, whether -- I
3 would imagine that one or both of them may have been
4 on the board while he was still president, but I
5 don't know those details, but they certainly -- they
6 certainly were the ones who took over as the prime
7 movers when he left the city.
8 Q And from whenever that date was in the mid 1990s
9 until sometime in 1999, to the best of your
10 knowledge, Caroline Van Ee and Brian St. Germain
11 were the president and vice president of ECMAS?
12 A To the best of my knowledge, I'm quite sure that's
14 Q What happened in 1999?
15 A Well, that's when they both decided to resign from
16 the board. People do get burn-out in a situation
17 like this, and they had been working hard for a long
19 Q Right. Can you give me an idea of approximately how
20 many members ECMAS would have had in the mid 1990s,
21 say at the point when Phil Buller left Edmonton?
22 A I would -- I really couldn't. It's never very
23 large. Sometimes they would talk about all the
24 people who had come to ECMAS and had been involved
25 in some way or other, but the members who actually
26 paid dues to join was always -- was always pretty
27 small. A few dozen, I would think, but, again, I
1 can't swear to that --
2 Q Right.
3 A -- because this is just impressions that I've had.
4 Q But if I suggested that it would never be, say, more
5 than 40, would you agree with that?
6 A I would think that's very likely true.
7 Q And we're talking about dues-paying members?
8 A Yes.
9 Q If people were interested in ECMAS and wanted to
10 attend meetings without paying dues, were they able
11 to do so?
12 A Oh, yes. Yes. Most of those who attended meetings
13 were not members because most of them came and went
14 and didn't stick around to be members.
15 Q So was that a little unwieldy to have many people at
16 meetings who were not members?
17 A No. It might be worthwhile to say something about
18 the nature of the meetings we're talking about.
19 Q All right.
20 A The way it was done back when Brian and Caroline
21 were -- they would have their board meetings
22 something like 6 o'clock in the evening, and then at
23 7 o'clock they'd have a meeting for anybody else who
24 wanted to come, members and visitors, and, in fact,
25 they had a general presentation that they would make
26 for people who hadn't been there before telling them
27 what ECMAS was all about. And the discussion in
1 those meetings would be -- would revolve around what
2 kinds of things can we do to change the system? How
3 can we make the public aware of what we have to say,
4 and so on.
5 Q I see. Now, I take it though that only dues-paying
6 members were entitled to elect the executive?
7 A I have always assumed that. That's pretty standard.
8 Q And do you remember when Caroline Van Ee and
9 Brian St. Germaine were elected to the executive?
10 A No.
11 Q Is it possible that you were at that meeting but
12 just don't recollect it?
13 A I think I was probably not at that meeting. At that
14 point I was not attending very many meetings,
15 certainly not regularly attending, so I doubt very
16 much that I was there. I just sort of began getting
17 involved while Phil Buller was still presiding over
18 it and then just gradually got more and more
19 involved over time.
20 Q Was it during Caroline Van Ee's and
21 Brian St. Germain's tenure that ECMAS increased its
22 public awareness by attending public demonstrations?
23 A I think so. That's the way I remember it, because
24 that was the same time after Ann McClelland became
25 Justice Minister, and that provided something to
26 have demonstrations about that would get media
1 Q And what was the mechanism at ECMAS for a
2 dues-paying member to become a member of the
4 A Okay. Well, this would have been -- I think this
5 was pretty standard. You have an annual general
6 meeting, and they have elections then. Did I
7 misunderstand the question?
8 Q No.
9 A That was the mechanism. What I do remember, and
10 I've stated this in document 4, is that it was very
11 often difficult to get people to run for office and
12 just to be in those positions, so it was generally a
13 matter of whoever wants it were chosen by
14 acclamation, as I remember it.
15 Q Did the bylaws prescribe a mechanism for election of
17 A I don't remember offhand. I dealt more with writing
18 some new bylaws. I certainly have read the old
19 bylaws, but I don't remember very much about them.
20 They're available. That's not -- it wouldn't be a
22 Q I wonder if you could undertake to provide me with
23 copies of the bylaws of ECMAS for the period of time
24 following Phil Buller's departure from Edmonton to
26 MR. WILLIS: We will undertake to make
27 inquiries and provide them if we can get them.
1 MR. KOZAK: Yes, that would be fine.
2 A It was simply a copy of those bylaws was what you
4 Q MR. KOZAK: Well, I suspect there will be
5 more than one set of bylaws, because I have gleaned
6 from your testimony that there were bylaws and that
7 you revised them.
8 A Two separate sets. Two separate sets of bylaws
9 there were -- there are.
10 Q Yes. Okay. Any sets of bylaws that governed the
11 conduct of ECMAS after Phil Buller's tenure, that's
12 what I want you to undertake to use your best
13 efforts to produce.
14 A The bylaws themselves?
15 Q Yes.
16 A That should not be difficult.
17 Q All right. Thank you.
18 UNDERTAKING NO. 6:
19 PROVIDE COPIES OF THE BYLAWS OF ECMAS FOR THE PERIOD
20 OF TIME FOLLOWING PHIL BULLER'S DEPARTURE FROM
21 EDMONTON TO CALGARY.
22 Q MR. KOZAK: Do you remember approximately
23 when you undertook the revision to the bylaws?
24 A Fairly closely. It was during the year before the
25 big disputer election that a lot of this case is
26 about, and it was shortly before that annual general
27 meeting that the final meetings were held in which
1 the ad hoc committee sort of agreed on the bylaws.
2 So it would have been in, as I say, the year before
3 that. That particular annual general meeting in
4 2001 was the time that I got involved in it myself.
5 It may have been as much as eight or nine months
6 before that I sort of started, but I'm not sure.
7 Q All right. So the date of the publication of the
8 article was April 17th, 2001 --
9 A Right.
10 Q -- I believe. So your testimony is that your
11 involvement in revision to the bylaws would have
12 occurred in the calendar year 2000?
13 A Yes, and into the beginning of 2001, more so the
14 beginning of 2001, because that's when we really got
15 looking at it closely and trying to get the job done
16 in time for the AGM.
17 Q And when was the AGM?
18 A I believe that was the 13th of March. 12th maybe.
19 It was a -- sorry, I don't remember which day for
20 sure. It was held on a Monday, which is when all
21 the meetings were held at that time, so it would be
22 easy to double-check it, but I'm sure I've got it
23 written down some places.
24 Q But it was March of 2001?
25 A That's correct.
26 Q What series of events led to you undertaking a
27 revision of the bylaws or being asked to do that?
1 A Just seeing that it needed to be done, if ECMAS was
2 going to do such things as get a charitable tax
3 status, and the fact that I had some experience with
4 that sort of thing, not a huge amount but certainly
5 more than others in ECMAS, that led me into that.
6 A general background point that I find with
7 other things we've said here. Having taken early
8 retirement, I was putting in lots more time in the
9 volunteer-type activities than other people have,
10 and so I could volunteer for a lot of things that --
11 just because no one else was doing it, so . . .
12 Q And what other experience did you have in terms of
13 the designation of entities as being charitable?
14 A I was involved -- I'm not going to be able to recall
15 dates now, but it goes back I believe sometime in
16 the early '90s, I made application to get a
17 charitable tax status for an entity known as the
18 Gender Issues Education Foundation, a charitable
19 foundation, and I mean very little. It was set up
20 at roughly the same time as MERGE had been, the idea
21 being that it could, as a research foundation, it
22 could get its -- get a tax number at some point,
23 whereas if MERGE itself did not, then MERGE wouldn't
24 have to worry about running afoul of being too
25 political. I had to sort of just -- you didn't ask
26 much about MERGE before, but --
27 Q I will.
1 A -- this may be helpful. MERGE was meant to be an
2 activist organization, and GIEF was meant to be a
3 research foundation.
4 Q I'm sorry, MERGE was meant to be what kind of a --
5 A An activist, lobbying and public awareness and that
6 sort of thing, and so whereas MERGE would have
7 regular members and elections, GIEF would simply be
8 privately held with the board members, but no
9 members in any other sense.
10 Q Now, did your revisions to the bylaws of ECMAS
11 result in it obtaining charitable tax status?
12 A No, they haven't gotten around to that. We keep
13 working on it.
14 Q All right.
15 A But I have to be political here. A lot of things
16 were influenced by this article as well. Not in the
17 sense that the application has been made and turned
18 down. I don't mean that. I mean that everything
19 has been turned upside down, and it's gone very
20 slowly on this front, as well as others since then.
21 Q All right. Just so that I'm clear, it isn't the
22 case that you've applied to CCRA for charitable tax
23 status, and they've said: No, we read the article
24 in the Post?
25 A No, no application -- well, I have to be careful now
26 because I haven't been involved in this lately. The
27 application may, in fact, have gone in by now
1 finally, recently, but whether it has actually gone
2 in officially or whether there is still some last
3 minute tinkering with documents, that I'm not sure
4 of. In fact, this question came up at the last
5 ECMAS meeting, and the person who had been handling
6 it, mostly recently, was not at that meeting and
7 couldn't answer that question, so . . .
8 Q So I take your earlier answer to mean you've been
9 distracted from that objective because of the issues
10 arising from the publication of the article and the
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Now, this may become apparent once you produce the
14 revisions to the bylaws, that is, the two sets of
15 bylaws, but what aspects of bylaws were deficient in
16 terms of your plan to obtain charitable tax status?
17 Can you recall offhand?
18 A No. No, I don't recall offhand, but my memory might
19 be jogged if I went back and look at the revised
20 bylaws, and I don't remember at the moment.
21 Q When you proposed to amend the bylaws, given the
22 fact that you were a member but not on the executive
23 of ECMAS, what did you do? Did you approach the
24 executive and make that proposal?
25 A Just volunteered. I'll help out, so . . . I was
26 anxious to get any help I can, so.
27 Q Did there have to be a discussion or a vote on that
2 A I don't remember for sure. Since you're making this
3 distinction between the board members and the
4 regular members, one thing that might be of use to
5 put on the record. After Ms. Van Ee and
6 Mr. St. Germain left, the practice that they had had
7 of having board members -- board meetings separate
8 from the general membership meetings was abandoned,
9 and there was just a general meeting, and everything
10 was done there, and even though I complained about
11 it sometimes, they would have the group, whoever was
12 present at that meeting, make decisions, and
13 sometimes I would say: You're aware this should be
14 made by the board? And they would say: Stop
15 worrying about those things.
16 Q All right. So at some point in 1999 then, it almost
17 became a less formal, rigid approach to governance?
18 A Very much so. I think I mentioned someplace in what
19 I've written as document 4 that for that first year
20 there was no president. We had two people sharing
21 the office of vice president but nobody had been
22 willing to be president, and that gives some flavor
23 of the fact that things were not really done
24 formally in quite a few ways.
25 Q When you say "that first year", are you referring to
26 the first year following the departure of Ms. Van Ee
27 and Mr. St. Germain?
1 A That's correct.
2 Q And who were the two vice presidents in that period
3 of time?
4 A Elsie Cable, and I may not remember the other one's
5 name right now. He moved down to Calgary later on.
6 I would recognize his name, but it's not coming to
7 me right now.
8 Q The situation where you had two vice presidents,
9 when did that end?
10 A After the first year, another person was prevailed
11 upon to become president and ended the following AGM
12 the following year.
13 Q So that would have been March of 2000?
14 A No. The -- when -- about the time that Van Ee and
15 St. Germaine departed, the annual general meetings
16 were being held in November, and that formal time
17 was never really changed. What happened in the year
18 2001 was that it had just gotten put off, put off
19 repeatedly from November, and the decision was made
20 to make it in the spring of the year when the new
21 bylaws were adopted in March of 2001, but it had
22 been supposed to be in November of each year, and it
23 just wasn't that year. For a variety of reasons, it
24 got put off from the time it was officially supposed
25 to occur.
26 Q So my chronology has Ms. Van Ee and
27 Mr. St. Germain --
1 A St. Germain, yes.
2 Q -- leaving in March of 1999; is that correct?
3 A No, it would have been November.
4 Q Oh, sorry, November of 1999.
5 A Oh, let me get this -- wait, I may have been stating
6 this date wrong. It may have been November of '98.
7 I think it was '99 because it was mostly the '99
8 calendar year. Sorry about this, but I'll have to
9 recalculate here.
10 Mr. Bouvier was president in the calendar year
11 of 2000, and so he would have been elected in
12 November of '99. So it actually had been November
13 of 1998 when Van Ee and St. Germain resigned. I
14 keep thinking calender year '99, but it might have
15 just been -- evidently, now that I'm thinking about
16 it more carefully, it was actually just before that
17 calendar year that they actually left their offices,
18 even though I've been thinking in terms of the
19 calendar year as basically the -- '99. I hope
20 that's not confusing. I should have -- I should
21 have thought about that a little more carefully
22 before using those dates.
23 Q Well, just to recap, Van Ee and St. Germain resign
24 in November of 1998?
25 A I believe that's correct. Before the calendar year
26 '99, it would have been.
27 Q At that point in time there is no president, and
1 there are two acting vice presidents or jointly
2 appointed vice presidents?
3 A Co-vice presidents or something along those lines.
5 Q Co-vice presidents, Elsie Cable and a gentleman
6 whose name you can't remember who moves to Calgary
7 at some point?
8 A That's right.
9 Q And that continues past November of 1999 when you
10 would ordinarily have addressed the issue, and is
11 addressed in March of 2000?
12 A No, I believe that in November of '99, we had the
13 election at which Mr. Bouvier was elected.
14 Q Okay.
15 A I can't be totally sure it was November. They might
16 have put it off by a month or something like that,
17 but it was roughly November '99 when Mr. Bouvier was
18 elected, and we had a regular president.
19 Q And who was the vice president?
20 A The vice president . . . Bouvier. I don't recall
21 for some reason. At the moment I don't recall.
22 It's odd. It will come back to me at some point,
23 but I guess it's conceivable that we didn't even
24 have one, but I'd have to check that. It obviously
25 would be available information, but I'm embarrassed
26 to say I don't recall.
27 Q In any event Mr. Bouvier's term was the one that
1 went from approximately November of 1999 through to
3 A Through to November of -- sorry, you're right,
4 through to March of 2001.
5 Q Right. Okay. And that was at or about the time
6 that the bylaws were being revised?
7 A It was during that year but especially toward the
8 end of that period that the work was completed.
9 Q Now, at the meetings that you've described, did you
10 have somebody take minutes?
11 A At the meetings for?
12 Q ECMAS.
13 A For the general monthly meeting for ECMAS?
14 Q Yes.
15 A It would have been fairly sporadic. The first year
16 of Mr. Bouvier's tenure, there wasn't a regular
17 secretary. There was a person that they tried to
18 get to be secretary who just wound up not showing up
19 and really getting into the job. And so there
20 was -- if I'm remembering correctly, for pretty well
21 all of that first year of his tenure, there was no
22 secretary for ECMAS.
23 Q That must have produced some problems.
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did it lead to any disputes over things that had or
26 hadn't been decided or details of decisions made at
27 past meetings?
1 A Not any major disputes. I would imagine there would
2 be some disagreements, but I don't remember any
3 major disputes.
4 Q Were minutes ever kept of the ECMAS meetings, even
5 what we'll call the executive meetings that
6 Ms. Van Ee and Mr. St. Germaine had?
7 A That I don't know the answer to.
8 Q In the box of documents that you've described, the
9 ECMAS documents, have you ever seen minutes of
11 A I never looked at that box long enough to get any
12 kind of a memory now about what was in it, just --
13 it was quite full of a lot of things, but I
14 didn't --
15 Q I'll ask to you undertake to provide copies of
16 minutes of ECMAS meetings, if they exist.
17 MR. WILLIS: We'll undertake to provide
18 whatever minutes Dr. Christensen may have in his
20 MR. KOZAK: All right.
21 A It wouldn't be my materials. It would be ECMAS's.
22 I have nothing like that.
23 MR. WILLIS: Okay, sorry. But we'll make an
24 inquiry, and this too will be subject to relevancy.
25 MR. KOZAK: Right.
26 A Maybe I should add, at the March 2001 meeting, we
27 did elect a secretary who was very competent, and
1 she kept minutes from that date. I don't know, I
2 really don't think she missed any months from that
3 date until the last election when she resigned.
4 Those minutes I do know about.
5 MR. WILLIS: Let me make it a larger
6 undertaking. Whatever we get, I'll turn over to
7 you. If it's irrelevant, so be it.
8 MR. KOZAK: Sure.
9 MR. WILLIS: I'll have to look at them anyway
10 there's no way of avoiding looking at them, so you
11 might as well suffer the --
12 MR. KOZAK: Same punishment.
13 MR. WILLIS: -- pain of looking at irrelevant
14 documents if I have to.
15 Q MR. KOZAK: Well, and just so that we're
16 certain about what it is I'm looking for, I
17 recognize that sometimes formal minutes are kept,
18 and I think those are the minutes that you've
19 described following the meeting in March of 2001?
20 A Yes, we had a good secretary, and she kept minutes
21 of those years, yes.
22 Q But sometimes people keep notes of meetings that
23 might not otherwise be labeled minutes but
24 nevertheless they're a reflection of what went on
25 with some greater or lesser degree of accuracy. I
26 would like those included in the undertaking.
27 A Everything that we can find?
1 Q Yes.
2 A M-hm.
3 UNDERTAKING NO. 7:
4 PROVIDE COPIES OF MINUTES OF ECMAS MEETINGS, IF
6 Q MR. KOZAK: Were any nonparents ever members
7 of the executive of ECMAS?
8 A The executive? I doubt it, but I don't know for
9 sure. We certainly had people who were there as
10 grandparents rather than as parents.
11 Q Yes.
12 A But, well, in the case of Ms. Van Ee, for example,
13 she was in a situation that's not uncommon in the
14 group, a second wife who suffers from problems with
15 her formerly divorced husband, and so if by parent
16 you mean parent of who is in the organization
17 because of a parenting role, in her case it was
18 because of her husband's parenting role.
19 Q Right.
20 A But it would be unusual, and I don't know of any
21 offhand, no.
22 Q All right. Approaching the issue in a different
23 way. Would anything in the bylaws preclude a
24 nonparent, however defined, of being a member of
26 A I'm virtually certain that there's nothing in the
27 old or new bylaws that would do that.
1 Q Okay. Now, your role in ECMAS, that is, as a
2 member, you attended meetings?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Is that correct? What other things did you do for
5 the organization?
6 A On that basis, all sorts of things that came along.
7 For example, I can remember doing the legwork to
8 help set up one meeting that we had at City Hall
9 because I had done it, had set up meetings at
10 City Hall for MERGE in the past. I had that
11 background experience, and so helping to get
12 speakers for that particular meeting. I hope that
13 sort of example helps you.
14 Q Yes. Can you think of other things, that is, for
15 example, did you undertake lobbying efforts?
16 A Lobbying efforts for ECMAS, specifically . . . I
17 belonged to certain ECMAS committees. I did some
18 lobbying. Okay. There was -- one that does come
19 back into mind. In the year after Van Ee and
20 St. Germain resigned from the board, he served for a
21 while as a chair of a committee dealing with custody
22 and -- not maintenance, custody and access issues;
23 and as a member of that committee, I was in on
24 discussions in his home in which we talked about
25 what would be presented to a government minister
26 here in Alberta, and so I was involved in that. I
27 didn't go with them on that particular occasion to
1 talk to the minister. That was done by
2 Mr. St. Germain and I think by some others as well,
3 but I was involved in helping with discussions,
4 presenting my ideas.
5 And I think maybe this may get to what's behind
6 your question, in terms of knowledge of the subject.
7 I think this may have been my biggest role in ECMAS
8 because of my -- by that -- by that stage, the late
9 '90s, I had had years and years of reading
10 literature on ECMAS-type issues and was able to pass
11 that information along to people who didn't have
12 that kind of background. So my background in the
13 legal issues, legal not in a very narrow sense, but
14 at least in a broad sense, is fairly significant, I
15 would say.
16 Q Well, what kinds of things would you say to people?
17 I mean, I appreciate that you have a wealth of
18 knowledge based on I'm sure extensive readings on
19 issues of interest to ECMAS, but I guess I'm trying
20 to put it into a context. I'm a single parent, I
21 have custody and maintenance issues. I come to a
22 meeting. What types of, you know, knowledge or
23 years of review of literature would you be able to
24 tell me about that would assist me with my problem?
25 MR. WILLIS: Don't answer that hypothetical.
26 Q MR. KOZAK: What information did you give
27 people who actually asked you for that?
1 A That's okay?
2 Q It's not hypothetical.
3 MR. WILLIS: If you can think of specific
4 instances, I think it's very appropriate for you to
5 put them on the record.
6 A Instances. Okay. I might have trouble with
7 instances. Maybe it will be helpful to mention that
8 until the time when Ms. Van and Mr. St. Germain
9 left, ECMAS was limiting itself to public awareness
10 and lobbying efforts. Many people who would come to
11 the general meetings would tell parts of their
12 individual stories, but the meetings were not set up
13 to give them help. That was not their purpose.
14 And, in fact, Mr. St. Germain, in particular, would
15 discourage getting into individual cases, saying:
16 Well, that's not what we're here for.
17 Q MR. KOZAK: M-hm.
18 A And so since you're asking about helping
19 individuals, it's important to point out that that
20 really wasn't done, except in a most informal way at
21 the time that they were in charge of the group. And
22 my particular contributions would have been more
23 along -- even then when it was more along the lines
24 of the general problems rather than anything like
25 help for an individual.
26 Q Right.
27 A I'm going by the way you asked the question. This
1 is -- so to give an example of that, I could point
2 out, well, I understand, though I don't know the
3 laws themselves, I understand that British Columbia
4 and Alberta have laws in which unwed fathers have
5 fewer rights than is the case in other provinces.
6 And so this kind of subject could come up, but in
7 terms of helping individuals, that really wasn't
8 happening at that point.
9 Q Okay. Now, you ended your answer by saying "at that
10 point", and from that I assume that it did start to
11 happen later because I know from what you've
12 written, for example, that ECMAS, although it
13 originated as a lobbying and public awareness group,
14 that focus changed after Mr. St. Germain left, and
15 it become, I suppose, more focused on a weekly
16 support group meeting and also looked at a telephone
17 help line that was sponsored jointly with MERGE.
18 A M-hm.
19 Q That type of thing.
20 A Yes.
21 Q So how did your role change?
22 A Well, that was my suggestion, that we start trying
23 to offer some individual help. And as I think I've
24 also written in there one reason that happened is
25 that we began to become aware of people who had
26 represented themselves in court, and because I'd
27 heard so many stories about people who had give up,
1 who couldn't -- just abandoned their kids and got
2 out because they were beaten down by the way the
3 system works, sort of lights went on. Wow, let's
4 share this information. There was one person in
5 particular who was very enthusiastic about the help
6 he had gotten through the group from another
7 individual in the group, neither one of them on the
8 board, but they made contact in the group, and he
9 said: Here's how I did it. Suddenly, I thought:
10 Wow, this sounds very promising. We had this one
11 person who feels he's learned a lot of things about
12 filling out the forms and making applications, and
13 it sounded very promising to me, so it was at that
14 point that I suggested to him that he be involved in
15 sharing a support group to give individual help.
16 Q Who was that person?
17 A His name is James Haiden, H-A-I-D-E-N, and he always
18 goes by the nickname Jiggs.
19 Q And when the lights went on for you, what did you do
20 about it? Did you advise the then current members
21 of the executive that this was a change in focus
22 that might well benefit many members of ECMAS?
23 A Well, I wouldn't have called it a change in focus.
24 I would have called it an addition.
25 Q Right.
26 A It was something in addition that we're doing. I
27 thought it would be very good partly because people
1 who -- I mean this is a struggling organization.
2 Part of my reasoning, but only part, was that those
3 who came along and got help in that way, some of
4 them might stick around, be more likely to stick
5 around to help with the public education and
6 lobbying efforts. Two reasons for feeling this was
7 a good thing to try.
8 Q Getting back to my question. When the lights went
9 on, you presumably raised this with the executive?
10 A Yes, I did. It would have been very informally, and
11 I don't remember any details, but . . .
12 Q And at that time, did the bylaws contemplate this
13 type of activity?
14 A As I remember, nothing -- well, the bylaws at that
15 time were pretty sparse. They didn't say a lot.
16 And so, no, I'm virtually certain that there was
17 nothing close to that in the bylaws. Not much of
18 anything else, really. They were very short bylaws.
19 Q The bylaws would not have excluded that type of --
20 A No, no, I'm quite sure not. Well, sorry, I got to
21 be more careful here. The bylaws may well have
22 spoken of the lobbying type of role, and maybe by
23 virtue of not mentioning any other kind of role it
24 could be thought of as excluding that, but I don't
25 remember the wording of the bylaws.
26 Oh, if I may, in fact, this -- now my memory
27 works. The link with your earlier questions comes
1 back. You asked earlier what was deficient about
2 the bylaws that I would want to change them for
3 charity status, and, of course, if under the old
4 bylaws you were not being charitable --
5 Q Right.
6 A -- you were not helping people, then you certainly
7 couldn't have gotten the charitable status. So
8 actually I feel a bit foolish for not thinking of
9 that before, but now that it comes back to me, yes,
10 that was the -- that was the big reason. Now,
11 that -- I mean, as a strictly lobbying group, you're
12 not going to get charitable status.
13 Q Right.
14 A And if your bylaws specifically say that you're
15 there trying to help individuals, then you can
16 qualify for charitable status. Yes, that was
17 certainly the reason that -- I mean, there were
18 many, many other things that I thought might be
19 changed while we were at it, but that was the
20 fundamental reason, actually. I'm sorry I didn't
21 answer your question before, but that's the answer.
22 Q We have answered it. But, of course, that's the
23 focus of CCRA when they look at an application, is
24 it not?
25 A Oh, indeed, yes. It should be doing something
27 Q I wanted to ask you a few questions about MERGE.
1 Perhaps it would be less confusing if we just
2 completed the chronology on ECMAS though.
3 A M-hm.
4 Q So in March of 2001, there was a delayed annual
5 general meeting, that is, ordinarily it would have
6 been in November of 2000?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Had Mr. Bouvier indicated that he was not interested
9 in being president of ECMAS?
10 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
11 MR. KOZAK: I'll mark these as the next two
12 exhibits. The first is six pages entitled ECMAS
13 Annual General Meeting, March 12th, 2001. That's
14 Exhibit 5.
15 EXHIBIT D-5:
16 SIX PAGES ENTITLED ECMAS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING,
17 MARCH 12, 2001
18 MR. KOZAK: The next document is an eight-page
19 document entitled ECMAS Annual General Meeting,
20 March 12, 2001.
21 EXHIBIT D-6 :
22 EIGHT-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED ECMAS ANNUAL GENERAL
23 MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001.
24 MR. KOZAK: Next, a ten-page document
25 entitled Public Relations Committee.
26 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
27 Q MR. KOZAK: I want to ask you about MERGE.
1 I'm not finished with ECMAS --
2 A M-hm.
3 Q -- but I'm finished for the moment with ECMAS.
4 MERGE is an organization which I gather you were
5 most closely involved with of the three that we've
7 A I've been the president of MERGE since the
9 Q And when was the beginning?
10 A In 1987.
11 Q And, again, the objectives or purposes for MERGE
12 were what?
13 A Roughly, generally speaking, equality between the
14 two sexes. There was a general statement that we
15 adopted in '87 giving its mission and so on, and if
16 you'd like a copy of that, that would be --
17 Q Yes, I would. If you could undertake to provide me
18 with that.
19 MR. WILLIS: All right, so undertaken.
20 UNDERTAKING NO. 8:
21 PROVIDE THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR MERGE.
22 Q MR. KOZAK: You've been the president of
23 MERGE since its inception?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And how often does MERGE meet?
26 A It's -- over the years, it's been usually quite
27 sporadic. There was a period in earlier years when
1 we were meeting monthly, and we were having speakers
2 come and video tapes and this, that and the other
3 for several years; and then since that time, it's
4 been quite irregular, depending on a lot of
5 different things.
6 In very recent years, we've had some special
7 committees that did most of the meeting, and only
8 occasionally would there be a general meeting; but
9 the general answer is that it's been quite irregular
10 for most of MERGE's history.
11 Q All right. Are minutes kept of MERGE's meetings?
12 A Generally, no. The exception would be the annual
13 general meeting where, of course, you have to have
14 them for the powers that be. If there had been
15 minutes of other meetings, it would have been fairly
16 rare, and I don't recall any such.
17 Q And as the president of MERGE, are you also the
18 keeper of the records?
19 A No. We have a secretary treasurer who keeps the
20 main ongoing records.
21 Q And who is that?
22 A His name is Dan Mason.
23 Q How long has Mr. Mason been the secretary treasurer?
24 A I'm not certain. It seems something like six or
25 eight years, but don't quote me on that, but it's
26 been quite a while now.
27 Q Have you had an annual general meeting in each of
1 the years that MERGE has existed?
2 A Yes, we have.
3 Q And how many members are there in MERGE today?
4 A Well, today, we just had the annual general meeting
5 recently, and the number would pretty well be those
6 who signed up and paid their dues at that time.
7 MERGE, like ECMAS, has been on hard times the last
8 couple of years, and so it would probably be about a
10 Q A dozen. How many would it have been in 1999, your
11 best recollection?
12 A Probably never have been over two dozen because
13 MERGE, like ECMAS, has never made a big deal of
14 getting people to sign up. We have lots of people
15 come and get active. And then what we've done in
16 MERGE is sort of wait -- not bother people with
17 being formally members until the annual general
18 meeting, and then we'd say: Okay, you need to be a
19 paid-up member to vote, and that was a convenient
20 way of handling that problem, not having to deal
21 with it all the time, even though it obviously is
22 not too good for showing lots of people on your
23 membership rolls.
24 Q What is the annual membership fee to be a member of
26 A $10.
27 Q Now, when you say in recent years MERGE has fallen
1 on hard times, or words to that effect, does that
2 reflect less of a general concern about gender
3 equality issues?
4 A Certainly not less of a concern.
5 Q To what do you attribute the falling on hard times?
6 A My being unable, as I see it at least, to go out and
7 do the kinds of lobbying that I was doing so much
8 before. My name has been dragged through the mud,
9 and it makes it very difficult to approach people
10 under special circumstances with the issues that I
11 was used to approaching people with.
12 Q All right. So you attribute the hard times that
13 MERGE is experiencing at least in part to the
14 publication of the article on April 17th, 2001?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q And when you gave that answer, you said at least my
17 feeling that, words to that effect, in other words,
18 that is your perception?
19 A To correct that, my perception that I really can't
20 be approaching people the way I once did because of
21 what they might already have heard about me, or
22 which might be told to them about me soon after, and
23 so on.
24 Q Yes.
25 A That's what I -- there have been people, and I think
26 I mentioned this in the document, who got off
27 connection with me.
1 Q Yes.
2 A But I think a bigger influence is people that I've
3 been afraid to approach because of knowing what's
4 being said out there.
5 Q All right. Well, I'd like to address that. First
6 of all, in one of your documents, you refer to the
7 fact that you had a scheduled meeting with the
8 Chief Justice, and that he declined to meet with you
9 after the publication of the article?
10 A He sent a letter cancelling the meeting.
11 Q Yes. And in that letter, what did he say about the
13 A I couldn't tell you the exact words, but we could
14 read it if we want to see.
15 MR. WILLIS: I think we sent you a copy of
17 MR. KOZAK: Yes.
18 A It was something very brief: In light of this
19 article, the meeting is cancelled. Not those words,
20 but something close to that.
21 Q MR. KOZAK: And I'll come back to that
22 letter. What other evidence do you have that this
23 article adversely affected your ability to take the
24 message out to people, lobby, so to speak?
25 A Well, the other person that I specifically mentioned
26 was a woman whom I had worked with in regard to the
27 issue of domestic violence.
1 Q Yes, and her name was?
2 A Sheila -- I'm really terrible on names anymore. I
3 hope it will come to me, but it's not coming yet. I
4 can certainly get it for you.
5 Q It's mentioned in your --
6 A It is mentioned in there --
7 Q Yes.
8 A -- but not by name, no.
9 Q Perhaps you could undertake to advise me of the name
10 when you think of it.
11 UNDERTAKING NO. 9:
12 PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE WOMAN WITH WHOM
13 DR. CHRISTENSEN HAD WORKED WITH IN REGARD TO THE
14 ISSUE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
15 MR. WILLIS: Yes. There's actually a
16 sequence of letters from the Chief Justice which are
17 referred to in the letter we provided you.
18 MR. KOZAK: Right.
19 MR. WILLIS: But there are three of them.
20 I'm not sure where the original is of the letter we
21 already provided you with, but there is the letter,
22 and its two precursors.
23 A Okay. I didn't remember there being that many.
24 MR. KOZAK: Those are all in your
25 production, I assume?
26 MR. WILLIS: You know, I'm not sure if they
1 MR. KOZAK: I think I've only seen the
2 last --
3 MR. WILLIS: I'm not sure if they are
4 because I don't know that Dr. Christensen realized
5 that they were.
6 MR. KOZAK: I think I've only seen the last
8 MR. WILLIS: I don't think the first two are
9 in our production. I don't think any of them are in
10 our production. We provided you with a copy of the
11 last one, but I don't think its in our production.
12 MR. KOZAK: Right. It was at our meeting in
14 MR. WILLIS: That's right, but the first two
15 I hadn't actually seen until quite recently.
16 MR. KOZAK: Right.
17 MR. WILLIS: But they are not in themselves
18 relevant, but they're relevant to the interpretation
19 of the last one.
20 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
21 Q MR. KOZAK: I'm focusing for the moment on
22 specific instances where you feel that the reception
23 that you would get from --
24 A M-hm.
25 Q -- somebody that you wanted to speak to perceptively
26 changed after publication of the article on April
27 17th, 2001. You've listed the planned meeting with
1 the Chief Justice?
2 A Right.
3 Q You've referred to a proposed meeting that you were
4 going to have with somebody by the name of Sheila.
5 A Not to a proposed meeting, no. Someone that I met
6 with --
7 Q Yes.
8 A -- and had a very good relationship with and who
9 suddenly stopped answering my messages after that
11 Q All right. And did she tell you that she stopped
12 answering your messages because of the article?
13 A No. She didn't tell me anything because she didn't
15 Q So you've made the assumption that it was based on
16 the fact that the article was published?
17 A Inference, high probability would be a good
18 description, and, again, because of her -- because
19 of the good relationship we had before.
20 Q All right. Anybody else?
21 A Well, there certainly had been others who -- mostly
22 people that I've contacted since those events and
23 seemed to have developed some sort of rapport with
24 who suddenly lost interest. Now, there I'm not
25 going to be so quick to draw an inference because
26 there could be many reasons, but somebody you don't
27 know very well to begin with, it's harder for you to
1 say what they would have done. You don't know them.
2 So, yes, there have been quite a few instances of
3 that kind, but I can't very well appeal to them as
4 evidence because of the fact that there could have
5 been other reasons for their suddenly losing
6 interest in communicating with me.
7 Q All right. So in terms of what you've referred to
8 as evidence of a perhaps altered reception to the
9 efforts that you would otherwise make, you can list
10 those two examples.
11 A These are the two that I feel confident in
12 presenting as examples. Others, I can't have that
13 same confidence. As I indicated in my writings,
14 most people will not tell you these things. They
15 will find -- if you ask them, they'll find some
16 excuse, and so one doesn't press the point.
17 Q Have you asked anybody?
18 A Usually.
19 Q Have you asked anybody the specific question? When
20 you say people will not usually tell you these
21 things --
22 A M-hm.
23 Q -- have you ever asked anybody: Has your perception
24 of me changed, or your willingness to hear my views
25 on these subjects changed as a result of reading
26 that article?
27 A I believe I have a few times.
1 Q All right. And has anybody answered in the
2 affirmative to that question?
3 A I don't believe so.
4 Q Right. So the response that you've gotten to the
5 specific question has always been a reaffirmation in
6 their belief that existed prior to the publication
7 of the article?
8 A Well, these would be not all the people that I knew
9 well at all before the article.
10 Q Yes.
11 A But simply along the lines of: No, no, no, no, that
12 really wasn't it, is the response I've gotten a
13 couple of times.
14 Q Yes.
15 A And that's about as much as I can say, I think.
16 Q Is it fair to say that what you do know after the
17 publication of the article is that you're fearful
18 that people's perception has changed, and that
19 affects your willingness to go out and lobby on
20 behalf of say MERGE or ECMAS?
21 A I've certainly been fearful to approach new
22 people --
23 Q Yes.
24 A -- that I think might have heard my name because of
25 the kind of work that they're in, if they're social
26 workers or government people and so on. And as a
27 consequence, I have done -- I thought I'd done a
1 great deal is to try to get others associated with
2 ECMAS -- sorry, with MERGE, and GIEF, to do the
3 approaching, to sign the letters and that sort of
4 thing, instead of me, whereas things I would have
5 done much more in the past. But it has -- it's been
6 a case-by-case situation; but certainly when
7 somebody who it seemed to be very likely to have
8 heard or will hear after about what has been said
9 about me, I definitely will try to get someone else
10 to approach them or else just give up on the idea.
11 That definitely is the case, so . . .
12 Q So would you describe your role with MERGE or GIEF
13 as more of a background role as opposed to a
14 front-line role in lobbying?
15 A Now, certainly, yes. Now, certain other persons
16 have been signing key documents going out. For
17 example, on complaints to the Human Rights
18 Commission, of which we've had a couple in the last
19 year, this time around others have always done the
20 signing and been up front, competent other people,
21 but otherwise people who are so busy that I probably
22 wouldn't have asked them in the past, and I'm lucky
23 to have them now.
24 Q So what is your concern about signing a Human Rights
25 complaint? I mean, I'm just -- I'm puzzle as to how
26 your concern over the article would manifest itself
27 in that fashion?
1 A I guess I'm not sure why it would be puzzling. If
2 you have lost credibility in the eyes of people who
3 do this kind of thing, it's apt to hurt you.
4 There's a -- whether it's a -- in a Human Rights
5 situation, as well as any other, where there's an
6 awful lot of political influence, not just the pure
7 application of principles.
8 Q But again, you have no, I'm going to use your word
9 "evidence", that that would in some way preclude you
10 or operate against you in a Human Rights forum?
11 A Just the evidence that I think we all have of
12 knowing what it means to seriously lose your
13 credibility, to be seen as a person who is fighting
14 for justice while being very unjust, and fight for
15 principals while be unprincipled, I think we all
16 know enough about the human condition, at least if
17 we've lived as long as all of us here have, to know
18 that when a person's name is harmed, it's going to
19 have this type of effect, in general, even if one is
20 not in a situation to predict in a particular case
21 where it's going to happen.
22 Q Well, I know, Dr. Christensen, that you've spent a
23 great deal of time and effort and thought in terms
24 of your analysis of the impugned article and the
25 meanings that you say come from the article. I
26 guess what I'm interested in is, has anybody ever
27 said to you that as a result of reading that article
1 they think that you are unjust or unprincipled or
2 unethical or any of those negative things?
3 A No, no one has said that to me directly.
4 Q And has anybody said that they've heard that about
5 you from somebody else?
6 A Yes, that has happened to me.
7 Q And who was that? Who told you that?
8 A I should have written this down at the time, but I
9 remember about whom it was said, who said some
10 rather hash things about me, a person whom I have
11 never met, whom I've talked to very briefly on the
12 telephone, said about the person who did the
13 reporting, this person said: They should not be
14 dealing with a person like me, but I do not remember
15 the name of the person who told me that. I really,
16 really should have written that down. It was
17 someone, I believe, at a support group meeting or
18 someone connected with the ECMAS support group.
19 Q All right. And who was the speaker that said these
20 things about you?
21 A Is this appropriate to --
22 MR. WILLIS: Yes.
23 A It's hearsay, but I was told that -- I'm having
24 trouble with my memory right now, a certain woman
25 lawyer said this about me, Hodgkinson.
26 Q MR. KOZAK: Terry Hodgkinson?
27 A Terry Hodgkinson, yes. And to be fully clear, I
1 should add that what was reported to me was -- had
2 no detail, it was just that I was the sort of person
3 that one should not be dealing with at all. It was
4 something very negative, but certainly no mention of
5 the article or no reasons given other than that
6 general assessment as it was told to me.
7 Q All right. So you don't remember who told you about
8 this statement by Terry Hodgkinson. If you do
9 remember, will you undertake to provide me with that
10 name through your solicitor?
11 A I will certainly try. It's not likely that I will
12 think of it, but it's possible.
13 Q All right. I'll ask you to undertake to use your
14 best efforts; and if you think of it, please provide
15 me with the name through your counsel.
16 UNDERTAKING NO. 10:
17 PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO TOLD
18 DR. CHRISTENSEN ABOUT THE STATEMENT MADE BY
19 TERRY HODGKINSON.
20 Q MR. KOZAK: But your present recollection is
21 that it was a negative comment that was nonspecific
22 and not linked to the publication of the article?
23 A No mention of that, just simply -- and my impression
24 was that nothing more than that was said, just that:
25 He's a terrible person, you shouldn't be dealing
26 with him.
27 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
1 Q MR. KOZAK: So no one has, since the
2 publication of the article on April 17th, 2001, told
3 you that as a result of reading that article, they
4 think that you're unprincipled or unethical or bad?
5 A No, that's correct.
6 Q On one occasion, a person whose name you can't
7 remember right now, told you that Terry Hodgkinson
8 said that you were a person that one should not be
9 dealing with, but it wasn't linked to the article,
10 and it wasn't more specific than that?
11 A That's the way it was told to me, yes.
12 Q That was after the publication of the article,
14 A Oh, yes. That was within the last year, as I
16 Q And no other instances of people relaying negative
17 comments to you?
18 A That specifically related to the article, that's
20 Q Any other negative repercussions of the article that
21 -- now, I appreciate you've given me a document
22 which I haven't read, and I will read it, dealing
23 with Dr. Soble. That was you turning down a request
24 for a paper or some participation on an issue for
25 fear that issues arising from the article would have
26 a negative impact on that group?
27 A Yes.
1 Q Is there anything else you can think of?
2 A Of this kind of -- this specific sort of thing, I
3 don't believe so. It's conceivable that I could
4 think of something else later on, but I've thought
5 about it already without coming up with anything,
6 but that specific -- well, no, I could mention one
7 other thing, but, again, it's speculation, as long
8 as you really want all of these names and so on.
9 Among the persons who have indicated -- or are no
10 longer willing to communicate with me since this
11 event with whom I had great communication before are
12 Senator Anne Cools.
13 Q Yes?
14 A And M. V. [ MP] Roger Galloway. I have brought both of
15 them to the province in the past at their expense
16 but for MERGE events, and we had a very good
17 relationship for years; but since this whole event,
18 they have not been willing to communicate with me.
19 Q And they haven't specifically pointed out the
20 article as the reason?
21 A Well, they haven't pointed out anything. They just
22 indicated displeasure or -- displeasure in
23 Senator Cools' case; simply not replying in Roger
24 Galloway's case.
25 Q All right.
26 A And so you don't really get -- I've often thought,
27 especially in the case of Mr. Galloway, writing a
1 letter -- well, sorry, I guess I did write him a
2 letter in which I hinted that maybe the reason he
3 was doing this was these events, and he didn't reply
4 to that. So I guess -- sorry, some things are a
5 little slow coming back to my memory, but mostly
6 because he didn't reply, I don't have any concrete
7 evidence for the reason, but the timing is such that
8 it really couldn't plausibly be anything else.
9 Q Well, that's a conclusion that you've reached?
10 A That's a conclusion that I've reached, yes.
11 Q Now, that letter that you've mentioned, is it part
12 of your production?
13 A To Roger Galloway?
14 Q Yes.
15 A It is not. It would make sense to put it in there,
16 I guess, given the other things you've been asking
18 Q Well, I'll ask you for your undertaking to provide
19 us with a copy, if it's something that you're citing
20 as evidence of a changed attitude towards you that
21 relates to the publication. I think that should be
22 part of your production.
23 A It should still be available on my computer, so it
24 shouldn't be a problem.
25 UNDERTAKING NO. 11:
26 PROVIDE A COPY OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S LETTER TO
27 MR. GALLOWAY.
1 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
4 PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 3 P.M., 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2003
7 Certificate of Transcript
9 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
10 foregoing pages are a true and faithful transcript
11 of the proceedings taken down by me in shorthand and
12 transcribed to the best of my skill and ability.
13 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of
14 Alberta, this 25th day of September, 2003.
21 D. L. Ragan, CSR (A)
22 Official Court Reporter
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
D-3 CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. FERREL MARVIN
D-4 DOCUMENT ENTITLED MY CASE 23
D-5 SIX PAGES ENTITLED ECMAS ANNUAL GENERAL
MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001 92
D-6 EIGHT-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED ECMAS ANNUAL
GENERAL MEETING, MARCH 12, 2001 92
INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 If IT BECOMES APPARENT AS TO WHAT THINGS HAD
BEEN UPDATED THAT LED TO EXHIBIT D-3, ADVISE
OF THOSE UPDATED ITEMS ON DR. CHRISTENSEN'S
2 PROVIDE THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
MASTER'S COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWED MS. VIRAG'S
3 PROVIDE ARTICLES, BOOK REVIEWS, REFEREED
PAPERS AND INVITED PAPERS ON SEXUALITY THAT
DR. CHRISTENSEN HAS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 3. 29
4 PROVIDE COPIES OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S
CORRESPONDENCE BOTH TO AND FROM DR. DIAMOND
REGARDING ISSUES RAISED IN THIS LAWSUIT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT) 31
5 ADVISE WHEN DR. CHRISTENSEN FIRST BECAME AN
OFFICIAL MEMBER OF ECMAS. 64
6 PROVIDE COPIES OF THE BYLAWS OF ECMAS FOR THE
PERIOD OF TIME FOLLOWING PHIL BULLER'S
DEPARTURE FROM EDMONTON TO CALGARY. 72
7 PROVIDE COPIES OF MINUTES OF ECMAS MEETINGS,
IF AVAILABLE. 84
8 PROVIDE THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR MERGE. 93
9 PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE WOMAN WITH WHOM
DR. CHRISTENSEN HAD WORKED WITH IN REGARD TO
THE ISSUE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 98
10 PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO TOLD
DR. CHRISTENSEN ABOUT THE STATEMENT MADE BY
TERRY HODGKINSON. 106
11 PROVIDE A COPY OF DR. CHRISTENSEN'S LETTER TO
MR. GALLOWAY. 109
Undertakings listed in this transcript are provided for your
assistance only. Counsel's records may differ. Please check
transcript to ensure that all undertakings have been listed
according to your records.
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
- and -
THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY, NP HOLDINGS COMPANY,
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY
FERREL MARVIN CHRISTENSEN
B. J. Willis, Esq. For the Plaintiff
F. S. Kozak, Esq. For the Defendants
P. L. E. Eastwood, Esq.
D. L Ragan, C.S.R. (A) Official Court Reporter/
16th September, 2003