BC Fathers

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL - APRIL 26, 2007

WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANTS HMTQ IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATUS OF WOMEN CANADA

ZEYNEP KARMAN.............................................................................................. 3

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET:.................................................. 3

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL - APRIL 27, 2007

WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANTS HMTQ IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATUS OF WOMEN CANADA

ZEYNEP KARMAN........................................................................................... 79

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET, CONTINUING:.................... 79


[OPENING STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT]

MR. GAUDET:  I'd like to call Ms. Zeynep Karman, please.


ZEYNEP KARMAN

a witness called for the Minister, affirmed.

THE CLERK:  Would you state your name in full and spell your last name for the record, please?

A    Certainly.  It's Zeynep Adan [phonetic] Karman.  The last name is spelt as K-a-r-m-a-n.

THE CLERK:  [inaudible/away from microphone] ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Sorry, what is the first name again?

A    Zeynep.  Z-e-y-n-e-p.


EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET:

Q    Ms. Karman, I ‑‑ I hate to have to ask you this question, but could you [indiscernible] tell us your age, please?

A    Fifty-seven.

Q    And where do you reside?

A    In Ottawa.

MR. GAUDET:  Can the court hear ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes.  Could you speak a little louder, please?  And don't ‑‑ don't rely on the microphone ‑‑

A    Okay.  All right.

THE COURT:  -- because it ‑‑ 

A    I'll do my best.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So you ‑‑ you do live in Ottawa?

A    Yes, I do.

Q    And you work in Ottawa?

A    I do.

MR. GAUDET:  Now, if I may, My Lord, be allowed a certain latitude in leading the witness through her professional ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  You can lead until your friend objects.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.  All right.

Q    Now ‑‑ 

A    Thank you.

Q    Now, Ms. Karman, I understand that you were originally born in ‑‑ in Turkey, is that correct?

A    That's true.

Q    And when did you come to Canada?

A    End of '74, as a student.

THE COURT:  I'm sorry, when?

A    1974, October, as a student.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And ‑‑ I see.  Okay.  So at the time, then, you were studying at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey?

A    Yes.

Q    And you were pursuing a course of study in ‑‑ 

A    Economics.

Q    -- Economics and Statistics?

A    Yes.

Q    Is that correct?

A    That's correct.

Q    All right.  And that began in 1972?

A    Actually, my undergraduate degree's in 1972 and my graduate is '78.

Q    All right.  So you already had your undergraduate degree ‑‑ 

A    I did.

Q    -- when you came to Canada?

A    That's right.

Q    And I'll just suggest that you wait till I finish the question before answering.

          So, then, when you came to Canada, you began pursuing a course of study at the University of New Brunswick ‑‑ 

A    Right.  That's right.

Q    -- in Fredericton?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    And you took a ‑‑ or you enrolled in a course in Economics there?

A    That's right.

Q    And you graduated with a Master of Arts in Economics ‑‑ 

A    That's right.

Q    -- in 1978?

A    Yes.

Q    Now, do you have any other further post-secondary education?

A    No.  I have done various courses, but not another degree.

Q    And I see you've taken graduate courses in Management Theories, Industrial Organization, and Public Enterprises at the London School of Economics?

A    That's correct.

Q    And that was 1986?

A    That's right.

Q    Now ‑‑ now, I will skip over your employment in Turkey.  After you complete your Master of Arts degree from the University of New Brunswick, did you then work for the Fredericton Rape Crisis Centre?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    From 1978 to 1979?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, was that a government operation?

A    No, it was NGO, a non-government organization.

Q    And from 1979 to 1982, you were the director of an organization called Women's Research Associates?

A    That's correct.

Q    In Fredericton?

A    In Fredericton.

Q    And what was that organization?

A    It's a private one.  It's a research organization.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Now, excuse my ignorance if I object at this point, but other than proving the capacity to endure the Fredericton winters, is there any relevance to her no doubt proficient academic background?  I don't dispute it.  Unless there's some relevance ‑‑ I'm sure she's very well educated, very intelligent lady, and I see no other reason for it, so. . .

MR. GAUDET:  Well, I'm just simply trying to establish the ‑‑ the witness's professional background.

THE COURT:  No, go ‑‑ go ahead. 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  I assume it won't be taking too much longer.

MR. GAUDET:  No.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  

Q    Sorry, you were about to answer the question as to what that organization was, I believe.

A    It was a private organization of researchers.

Q    And what did they research?  What types of things did they research?

A    Equality issues.

Q    So you ‑‑ were you engaged in equality research issues ‑‑ research in equality issues while you were there?

A    Yes, I was.

Q    All right.  Now, you ‑‑ when did you begin your employment with the Government of Canada?

A    1983.

Q    And what organization within the government did you work for?

A    In a department that was called Employment and Immigration.

Q    Was that in Fredericton as well?

A    The regional office was in Fredericton.

Q    All right.  And when did you begin work with Status of Women Canada?

A    1990.

Q    And in what capacity?

A    I started as a senior economist.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Did that ‑‑ was that senior economist?

A    That's right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Sorry.  I just couldn't ‑‑ thank you.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes, maybe [inaudible/voice drops].

Q    You were ‑‑ you were a senior economist and ‑‑ with the Policy Analyst ‑‑ Analysis and Development Directorate?

A    That's right.

Q    And then you were in that position until 1994?

A    That's right.

Q    And then you became a senior economist with HRDC, Human Resource Development Canada?

A    Right, on a secondment, yes.

Q    Now, if ‑‑ from December 1994 to February 1996, you were the acting director of Policy Analysis and Development at Status of Women Canada?

A    That's right.

THE COURT:  What dates?

MR. GAUDET:  December 1994 to February 1996.

A    That's right.

Q    Now, what ‑‑ what position did you ‑‑ did you assume in February of 1996?

A    I became a director of research at Status of Women Canada.

Q    You were the director of the Research Directorate?

A    Yes, I was.

Q    At Status of Women Canada?

A    That's right.

Q    And as such, were you responsible for the Policy Research Fund?

A    I was responsible for the Policy Research Fund and for the creation of the research program.

Q    Now, how long did you act in that capacity, work in the capacity as the director of the Research Directorate?

A    Until March 19 ‑‑ until March 2007.

Q    So where are you currently working?

A    I am now at Citizenship and Immigration.

THE COURT:  At where, Citizenship and Immigration?

A    Citizenship and Immigration.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And what's your position there?

A    I am a director of knowledge transfer.

Q    Okay.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Of what, I'm sorry?

A    Knowledge transfer.  It's still in research area.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    You no longer work with Status of Women Canada as of March 2007?

A    That's right.

MR. GAUDET:  Now, can you explain. . .

          Well, before I do that, perhaps, if I may, I'll put a ‑‑ I'd like to put a document before the witness and ask her to identify it.

A    Thank you.

Q    Now, are you able to identify what this document is?

A    Yes, it's a report on plans and priorities for the year 2003 and 2004 of Status of Women Canada.

Q    Who would have ‑‑ who prepared this document?

A    The department will prepare it, but it will be signed by the minister responsible for the Status of Women, in this case, by secretary of state responsible for the Status of Women.

Q    And what was the purpose for which this document was prepared?

A    It was a reporting of its activities for that fiscal year, presented to the Treasury Board.

Q    Is it a report on activities actually carried out or a report on activities to be carried out in that fiscal year?

A    Plans and priorities ‑‑ you are absolutely right.  It is on ‑‑ on the ones ‑‑ on the plans of priorities for the next fiscal year, yes.  For the fiscal year 2003 and 2004.

Q    And the fiscal year begins on April 1st, 2003?

A    That's right.

Q    And is there ‑‑ is there a legal obligation to submit this document?

A    Yes, there's a legal obligation by all departments to submit this document.

Q    To Parliament?

A    Yes.

Q    And do you know, was this document submitted to Parliament?

A    Yes.

Q    Have you reviewed this document?

A    I am familiar with this document, yes.

MR. GAUDET:  If I may, I'd like to have this document marked as an exhibit.

THE COURT:  All right.  Exhibit. . .

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 31, My Lord.

EXHIBIT 31:  Report on plans and priorities for the year 2003 and 2004 of Status of Women Canada

MR. GAUDET:  Oh.  I'm being asked when I would like ‑‑ like to take the break and I'm content to take the break now, if it pleases Your Lordship.

THE COURT:  All right.  That's fine.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

ZEYNEP KARMAN, recalled.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  Thank you.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET, continuing:

Q    Before we go too much further on this ‑‑ on this point and into this document, Ms. Karman, I'd like to ask you, are you fluent in the French language?

A    Yes, I can converse and read in French.

Q    You can converse and read in French?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    And so you would call yourself bilingual in the sense of ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- French ‑‑ 

A    I ‑‑ 

Q    -- and English?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Okay.  As we'll be coming to some documents that are ‑‑ were written in French, you would have been able to understand those documents?

A    I will.

Q    All right.  Now, if you'd turn to page 5 of the ‑‑ of Exhibit 31.  I'm just going to ask you generally, can you explain to the court what Status of Women Canada is?

A    Mm-hmm.  I could.  It is a small agency, government agency, federal government agency, that was founded in 1976.  Its legal mandate is to coordinate policy with respect to Status of Women in all of its policies and programs, and generally its mission can be explained as to promoting gender equality and improving and promoting the full participation of women in all spheres of ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm ‑‑ I'm awfully sorry ‑‑ 

A    -- social, economic ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes, I'm having trouble ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- and it may be the background ‑‑ 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.

THE COURT:  Yes, I think it's the traffic noise outside, but ‑‑ but, please, ma'am ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

THE COURT:  -- you really do have to make an effort to speak louder.

A    To speak louder. 

THE COURT:  All right.

A    I will do my best.

MR. GAUDET:  And if I may, you don't have to ‑‑ we're not in a hurry ‑‑ 

A    Okay.  We can go slow.

MR. GAUDET:  I mean we don't want to be here all day ‑‑ well, we may be here ‑‑ we don't want to be ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  We are going to be here all day ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  -- here longer than we have to be

THE COURT:  -- so don't worry about it.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

A    Okay.  And I'm, of course, very familiar with the subject matter, so I might be speaking fast. 

THE COURT:  Yes.

A    I will slow down.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.  So ‑‑ because people will be taking notes, so ‑‑ 

A    All right.

MR. GAUDET:  -- including His Lordship, so please make a conscious effort to speak slowly and as loudly as you can.

A    I will try.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

Q    So ‑‑ 

A    The objective of the department is to promote equality, gender equality, and improve the lives of women in all spheres of their lives, whether it is social, economic or cultural or political.

Q    Or political?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Now, you have used the term agency and department interchangeably to describe what Status of Women Canada is.  Do you know what its precise legal nature is?

A    This is a legal question that we have been dealing with for a long time.  That's why I'm using both of them.  I believe it is departmental agency.  It is an autonomous department.  It has its own either secretary of state or minister.  Currently ‑‑ do you want me to talk about this or wait for your questions?

Q    No, no, that's fine.  I just ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    I want to make sure Mr. Christie's able to follow what you're saying.

A    And currently the minister responsible for Canadian Heritage also carries the portfolio.  She is also responsible for the Status of Women Canada.

Q    Because some ‑‑ in some of the documents we'll come to, there are letters written to and by an individual who is called secretary of state for Status of Women Canada.

A    Right.

Q    And in other documents, we'll see that there is a ‑‑ 

A    Minister ‑‑ 

Q    -- questions addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

A    That's right.  Canadian Heritage ‑‑ since 1993, Canadian Heritage ‑‑ minister responsible for Canadian Heritage does carry the responsibility, but for a long time, she has delegated that responsibility to the secretary of state, so we did have secretaries of state responsible for the Status of Women, but for the last two ministers, starting with Minister Frulla and the current minister, the ministers no longer have secretary of state, but they carry the ‑‑ both ‑‑ both the portfolios themselves.

Q    And you said Minister Frulla.  It's F ‑‑ Frulla, F-r-u-l-l-a?

A    That's right.  She was the first one who, since 1993, that was a minister without a secretary of state.

Q    Now, have you read the description of the legal mandate that's on page 5 of this document?

A    Right.

Q    And does it accurately set out what you understand the legal mandate of Status of Women Canada to be?

A    It does.

Q    And have you read the vision of Status of Women Canada on the ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- same page?

          And does it set out what you understand the vision of Status of Women Canada to be?

A    Right.  It does.

Q    And the next item is the mission of Status of Women Canada.  Do you ‑‑ have you read this portion of the document before?

A    Yes, I have.

Q    And do you understand this description of the mission to accurately describe the mission of Status of Women Canada?

A    Yes.  Of those years, yes.

Q    So at the time that this report ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- was written. 

          Has the mission of Status of Women Canada changed over time?

A    In general terms, not really, but sometimes the words used are slightly different.

Q    So when it says that, "Status of Women Canada works to influence the development of strengthened and more equitable policy and to seek a broader range of effective stakeholders," you understand that to be the ‑‑ the mission of Status of Women Canada at this time?

A    I ‑‑ I do, but where is it that you are reading that?

Q    I'm sorry.  I'm reading at the bottom of page 5.

A    Yes.

Q    And does that remain the mission of Status of Women Canada today to your knowledge?

A    It was before I left, yes.

Q    Now, over on the next page, there ‑‑ the document speaks of strategic roles.

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Can you explain what is meant by the term strategic roles?

A    I will try.  And this is the terminology that was used at the time.  I don't believe it is used now because it just read too much like governmentese.  And the Status of Women Canada had three roles:  as a knowledge broker and as a portal of information and as a centre of expertise.  I would like to point out that Status is a very, very small organization, department, and it's ‑‑ it does its functions mainly working through other departments.  It doesn't have a line authority.  It's ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry, I'll just stop you.  What ‑‑ what does that mean, it doesn't have line authority?

A    It means that it doesn't have its own policies.  It has some of its own programs, but it is ‑‑ for example, comparing to Immigration Canada, which is ‑‑ it has its legal responsibilities, it has its programs and ‑‑ and policies, Status works with all other departmental ‑‑ departments.  It has a horizontal mandate in terms of promoting gender equality.

Q    Now, the ‑‑ the third bullet item here in ‑‑ under the heading "Strategic roles," states, "Portal for information." 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    [As read in]:

The Status of Women Canada serves as a gateway for information on gender equality within the federal government and for communities across the country.

     Can you explain what that ‑‑ you ‑‑ you understand that to mean?

A    From a perspective of a research directorate, it ‑‑ it's means that we are to provide information and knowledge in relation to gender equality to ‑‑ to Canadians in general, to ‑‑ to other stakeholders in particular.  We also had other information that was originated from their department too.

Q    And we'll come to the Policy Research Fund specifically in a moment ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- but would the ‑‑ would the Policy Research Fund, for which you were responsible, respond or ‑‑ or fit within this strategic role?

A    That will fit within that strategic role and ‑‑ and also partially with the centre of expertise role.

Q    Now, would you turn to page 9, please, of the document?  You see the heading on page 9, "3.2, The current status of women"?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    And ‑‑ and the third paragraph down, the ‑‑ the paragraph in that ‑‑ on that page speaks of violence against women ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- and it ‑‑ it states [as read in]:

Violence against women continues to be a significant and persistent social and economic problem in Canada and is closely linked to inequalities and social imbalances in society. . .

     Et cetera.  Now, can you explain why that that ‑‑ this passage, which speaks to statistics on ‑‑ on violence against women in Canada, is contained in the report?

A    It is contained in the report because that section is an explanation of the current status of women and it's also the justification for the priorities Status of Women has, one of which is related to eliminate violence against women.

Q    And is it fair to say that eliminating violence against women is one of the important priorities of Status of Women Canada?

A    It is one of the very important priorities of Status of Women Canada, yes.

Q    Okay.  Now, over on page 11, under the heading ‑‑ at the very top of the page, "Strategic outcomes for Canada," it ‑‑ you see that paragraph?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Sorry, that heading?

A    Yes, I do.

THE COURT:  Page?

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry, page 11.

THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  Right.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And you see the first sentence underneath that heading [as read in]:

Within its overall mandate and mission, SWC will continue to focus its efforts on working with other federal government departments and agencies to strengthen and promote equitable public policy to enhance the capacity of a broader range of informed and effective stakeholders.

     Now ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- as I ‑‑ as I said, we'll come to the specifics of the Policy Research Fund in a moment, but would your directorate and the fund which you administered meet or ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, just ‑‑ I'm just trying to find the part.  I don't mean to ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  [inaudible/voice drops] ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Ah.  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Would it ‑‑ would it be related to this focus on efforts that are described here?

A    Yes, it will be direct ‑‑ directly related to that sentence you have just read.

Q    Now, there's ‑‑ under 4.1, there's a new heading, "The agenda for ‑‑ for gender equality."  Can you explain what that is?

A    Um. . .

Q    Or was?

A    The agenda for gender equality was an initiative of the ‑‑ of the federal government and of Status of Women [indiscernible] lead role, and one of the main features of this agenda was to implement the gender-base analysis which is a way to analyze all new initiatives and programs or policies, taking into consideration its impact on women and men.

Q    Gender-based analysis?

A    That's right.

Q    Okay.  Now, could you recall when the ‑‑ this agenda for gender equality be ‑‑ began or when it was initially implemented?

A    I ‑‑ I have to check when.  I was not the lead for that one.

Q    But it was ongoing at the time this ‑‑ 

A    It was ongoing at the time, yes.

Q    -- that this report was written.

A    That's right.

Q    Now, over onto page 13, Item 4.1.1, at the top of the page.  It says, "Strengthened and equitable public policy."

A    Right.

Q    Do you see that?

A    Yes, I do.

Q    And the paragraph reads [as read in]:

SWC. . .

     And I'll just stop because this ‑‑ the ‑‑ the acronym most commonly used for Status of Women Canada is SWC.

A    That's correct.

Q    Do you ever use the acronym SOW to describe ‑‑ 

A    We don't.

Q    Sorry.  You have to let me finish the question.

A    Okay.  Sorry.

Q    So to describe Status of Women Canada, do you use that acronym SOW?

A    No.

Q    Now [as read in]:

SWC will continue to work horizontally across the federal government as well as with other levels of government to influence the development of policies, research, programs, and services that will take into account the diversity of women's perspectives and realities.  In doing so, SWC will continue to work with women's and other equality-seeking organizations to facilitate their full and active engagement with other departments so they can play an effective and strategic role in influencing the program and policy considerations of other federal institutions.

     It states:

In 2003/4, the department's work will continue to focus on the following three priorities areas. . .

     Now, you recall having read that?

A    Yes.

Q    And does the ‑‑ does the Policy Research Fund that you were responsible for administering, does it meet the ‑‑ this particular aspect of the report and priorities for this year?

A    In ‑‑ in terms of providing knowledge, yes, but I think it is mainly referring to a woman's program, this particular paragraph.

Q    Now, just to stop and explain why this particular document is ‑‑ has been tendered, 2003 to ‑‑ and 4, that fiscal year, do you understand that to be the year that the report, "School success by gender," was published by Status of Women Canada?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, if you turn to page 16 ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Sorry, what page?

MR. GAUDET:  Sixteen.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    At the very bottom of the page, you see the bullet point, "Addressing violence against women"? 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    [As read in]:

One of SWC's longer-term partnerships. . .

     I'll skip that.  This is a family violence initiative it speaks of.  And it refers at the end of the sentence to, "Building the knowledge base through data collection and research."  The Policy Research Fund, did it have any role in ‑‑ in this?

A    Not directly.

Q    Not directly?  But if we turn onto page ‑‑ page 17, Item 4.2, "A broader range of informed and effective stakeholders," and this refers to the department's second strategic outcome [as read in]:

To enhance the capacity and knowledge of key partners and stakeholders so that they can engage in their own efforts to advance gender equality.  This outcome is not solely an end in itself, but it is essential to the attainment of ‑‑ of the first outcome.  To achieve this, SWC will continue to focus its efforts on two fronts, knowledge building and partnerships.

          And on to sub 4.2.1, "Accelerating knowledge building on selected issues with key audiences."  Do you see that?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    [As read in]:

This strategy involves activities such as conducting and disseminating research, preparing and distributing educational materials, holding round-table discussions, analyzing current and emerging issues, and sharing information and data among shareholders, both nationally and internationally. 

     Now, did the ‑‑ the Policy Research Fund, was one of its purposes ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- to achieve this ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- strategic outcome?  Yes?

A    Yes, it's part of the strategic outcome.

Q    Now, on page 21, there's a description of the organization of Status of Women Canada, is that correct?

A    Right.

Q    Yes?

A    Yes.

Q    Under 5.1, you see "Program delivery responsibilities."  The first bolded ‑‑ embolded [sic] item is the coordinator of SWC, who heads ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- the department.  Now, do you recall who that was at this time?

A    Yes, Florence Ievers.

Q    How do you spell her last name?

A    I-e-v-e-r-s.

Q    And if you turn to page 22, we see the ‑‑ this Research Directorate?

A    Right.

Q    It says [as read in]:

The Research Directorate is responsible for implementing and administering the Policy Research Fund, which funds independent forward-thinking policy research on emerging and gender equality issues.

     Now, is this the ‑‑ this the directorate that you were responsible for?

A    Yes.

Q    That you were the director of?

A    That's right.

Q    That's right.  Okay.  Now, is that an accurate ‑‑ the first sentence, is that an accurate description of ‑‑ of what the Policy Research Fund does?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    And the second sentence [as read in]:

This directorate also provides research-related input into policy analysis and development related to gender equality, provides information to women's groups, researchers, and other constituents on ongoing and recent research and collaborates with federal departments and domestic and international research organizations on policy research initiatives and projects.

     That's a lot of information in one sentence, but can you tell me, does that accurately, to your knowledge, reflect what the directorate did when you were its director?

A    Yes, it does generally reflect what the directorate did.

Q    And is it accurate that you ‑‑ were you the only director of this ‑‑ 

A    I was the only director.

Q    Now ‑‑ now might be a good time for you to explain for us, then, in ‑‑ to the extent you can, in elaborating what we've gone through, what the Policy Research Fund was.

A    And how it worked?

Q    And how it worked.

A    Okay.

Q    But first of all, what ‑‑ what was it?

A    Okay.  Policy Research Fund was a program fund acquired in 1995 by the decision of the government and it was to fund, as it's explained, of policy research on gender equality both for the long-term emerging issues and the current urgent issues.  We had 1.2 million for this fund.  That include ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry, you'll have to slow down ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- if you will, please, so ‑‑ 

A    Okay.  The fund was 1.2 million ‑‑ 

Q    Now, is that an annual figure?

A    Annual figure.  That included all expenses.  That ‑‑ by that I mean translation, editing, and publishing.

Q    Sorry, and did that also include ‑‑ 

A    The funds for the ‑‑ 

Q    -- the cost of ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- the ‑‑ you have to let me ask the question.  Did it also include paying the salary of employees?

A    No, but it did include the contract for researchers.  And ‑‑ 

Q    All right.  So 1.2 million ‑‑ 

A    Million.  Mm-hmm.

Q    -- annually ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- was for the cost of the research.

A    That's correct.

Q    Okay. 

A    It was in ‑‑ when we had the mandate in mid '90s, we consulted throughout Canada to determine how the ‑‑ this program is to be designed and what should be its priorities.  At the end of this extensive consultations, it was decided that there will be an External Committee nominated by ‑‑ by variety of groups or ‑‑ or Canadians at large and appointed by the minister or the secretary of state responsible for the Status of Women to play a key role in determining the research themes on an annual basis as well as determining which proposals are to be funded.

Q    All right.  Now, don't go into too much detail ‑‑ 

A    All right.

Q    -- about the ‑‑ 

A    How it works ‑‑ 

Q    -- External Committee because I'll get into that.

A    Okay.  Perhaps you may want to ask me specific questions that I will respond to.

Q    All right.  Taking you up on your offer, then, what was the objective of the Policy Research Fund?

A    The objective of the Policy Research Fund was to fund policy research on gender equality issues that will ‑‑ that could be helping people to a better understanding of the issues and will be fostering public debate on these issues as well as identifying social trends and their impacts on women.

Q    And was there a policy influencing purpose as well ‑‑ 

A    There was a purpose to influence other research organizations to incorporate gender-based research into the way they carried out their ‑‑ their work and ‑‑ and obviously in generally influencing the policymakers to take into consideration impact of their policies on both ‑‑ on gender.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Are we through with Exhibit 31?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, Ms. Karman, I've just shown you a document, a ‑‑ well, a six-page document.  Do you recognize the document?

A    Yes.

Q    And can you identify what this document is?

A    This document is from the website of Status of Women Canada that explains the Policy Research Fund and I think the second part is specifically on the calls for proposals with ‑‑ it has a list of projects that have been funded by this particular call for proposal that is named as "Where have all the women gone?  Shift in policy discourses."

Q    Okay.  I hate to be ‑‑ sound like a broken record, but you really have to keep your voice up ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- okay?  It may assist if I ‑‑ and not ‑‑ I don't mean to sound condescending, but it might ‑‑ condescending, but it may assist if you direct your answers to His Lordship ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- instead of looking down.  Okay.

          You haven't testified before, have you?

A    No.

Q    No.  So you've seen this document before?

A    Yes, I have.

Q    And you can ‑‑ you've ‑‑ now, this hasn't come out directly yet, but does the Policy Research Fund still exist today?

A    No.

Q    And does the Research Directorate exist today ‑‑ 

A    No.

Q    -- with the Status of Women Canada?

A    No, it does not.

Q    And can you tell us when the Research Directorate and the Policy Research Fund ceased to exist?

A    At the end of March 2007.

Q    At the end of this most ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- recent fiscal year?

A    That's right.

Q    So if one were to go onto the Status of Women Canada website right now and try to access this web page, do you ‑‑ would this ‑‑ would one be able to do that?

A    I think not, but I have not checked it myself, but I have been told that some of this information has ‑‑ it does not ‑‑ is not as it is here, but I'm not sure.

Q    Anymore.

A    Yeah.

Q    But it was at one point in time?

A    Oh, yes, definitely.

Q    Okay.  Now, under the ‑‑ the heading "Primary objective of the Policy Research Fund," it states [as read in]:

The following types of research are supported by the fund [indiscernible] research that identifies policy gaps, trends, and emerging issues, research that examines the consequences of existing policies, and research that focuses on concrete recommendations for policies and practices that would improve the status of women.

     Do you see that?

A    Yes, I do.

Q    Now, is that an accurate description of the following ‑‑ of the types of research that were supported by the fund?

A    That's right.  That's an accurate description of how we define policy research and accurate description of the kind of proposals that we will fund.

MR. GAUDET:  May I have this document marked as an exhibit, please?

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thirty-four, is it?

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 32, My Lord.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh.

EXHIBIT 32:  Document from the Status of Women Canada website

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And we'll come back to that document in a ‑‑ in a moment, but. . .

          Now, the document that we've identified as Exhibit 31, which was the report on planning and priorities, is that document tabled at the beginning of the fiscal year?

A    It should be, yes.

Q    And in this case it was, was it?

A    It should have a date in front of it.  It does not have a date, but it is in the beginning of the fiscal year, the Exhibit Number 31, and the one that you have just given me is at the end of ‑‑ 

Q    Well, don't get ahead of yourself.  Now, I've just shown ‑‑ I've just put a document to you.  It's entitled "Status of Women Canada performance report for the period ending March 31, 2004."

A    Right.

Q    Now, can you tell us what this document is?

A    This document is a performance report of Status of Women Canada for the same ‑‑ for the period ending 31st of March 2004, and it reports the activities and initiatives taken by Status of Women Canada.

Q    During that fiscal year?

A    During that fiscal year.

Q    And that's the same fiscal year in respect of which Exhibit 31 was filed with Parliament, is that correct?

A    Yes, that is correct.

Q    So if you will, this is a form of report card?

A    It is a form of report card, yes.

Q    And to whom or what institution is this document tabled?

A    It is the same, to the Parliament, to the Treasury Board.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I heard ‑‑ I heard the word Parliament, but the next three words ‑‑ 

A    Treasury Board.

THE COURT:  And to Treasury Board.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I see.  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Is the preparation of this ‑‑ and submission of this document required by Treasury Board?

A    Yes.

Q    So it's mandatory for Status of Women Canada to file this form of report card?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    Have you seen this document before?

A    I must have.  The only reason why I'm answering like that because this was the year that I was not fully at Status of Women Canada.

Q    All right.  And we'll come to that.

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    And this kind of report card, how often is it published?

A    Once a year.

Q    And so the year that ‑‑ the year 2003 and 4 is the year in which the ‑‑ the report, "School success by gender," was ‑‑ was published by Status of Women Canada?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, if you look at page 3, please, of the ‑‑ of the document, at Item 2.1, it looks like there's simply a repetition there of the mandate, vision, mission, and roles?

A    That's correct.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm sorry, what page again?

MR. GAUDET:  Page 3.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm sorry.  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And if you look in the first paragraph under Item 2.2, "Reporting context," you see it's ‑‑ in the second sentence, it states [as read in]:

As in recent years, the agency continues to focus on three priority areas:  women's economic autonomy, eliminating violence against women, and promoting women's human rights.

     And to your recollection, were those the three priority areas of Status of Women Canada at that time?

A    Yes, it was.

Q    Now, on page 4, there is ‑‑ in the second complete paragraph you ‑‑ that begins, "With these responsibilities and considerations in mind" ‑‑ do you see that?

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Now, would you take a moment and ‑‑ to read that, please, because that paragraph contains a description of the agenda for ‑‑ for gender equality?

A    Yes.

Q    I'm going to ask you if that's an accurate description of the agenda for gender equality that you've mentioned.

A    Yes, it does, to my understanding of this particular initiative.

MR. CHRISTIE:  What page was that again?

MR. GAUDET:  Page 4.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Four.  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And in that paragraph, there's a sentence that begins [as read in]:

The agency works to enhance voluntary sector capacity, engage Canadians in the policy process, and meet international commitments and treaty obligations.

A    Right.

Q    Now, I'd like you to focus on the words "engage Canadians in the policy process."  Now, is that something which the Policy Research Fund did or was intended to do?

A    That is something that Policy Research Fund will contribute to.

Q    So the ‑‑ that ‑‑ the Policy Research Fund isn't the only part of Status of Women Canada that would ‑‑ that would meet this objective, but it ‑‑ that was one of its objectives?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, on page 2.3, you see there's a ‑‑ there's a table or a box there titled "Performance results, expectations, and corporate logic map."

A    Yeah.

Q    Now, that ‑‑ that seems to ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Sorry, what page, sorry?

MR. GAUDET:  Page 4 ‑‑ 5.

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And that seems like kind of government-speak language to me.

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    Now, can you explain what the purpose of this ‑‑ that table is or that ‑‑ this portion of the report is, if you can?

A    I will try.  This is a way of presenting the results of our performance, and under the three areas that we were responsible with, as you have referred in the previous document to, it's the more equitable public policies, a broader range of informed effective stakeholders, and the last one is ‑‑ is effectiveness of the agency internally.  So particularly in terms of the Policy Research Fund, we contributed to the second one, that is, the broader range of informed and effective stakeholders. 

          And as you can see in 2.13, that gender equality issues are increasingly reflected in research agendas of both national and international policy institutions and research networks is one of the objectives that we had.

Q    And how about Item 1.14?

A    1.14 is ‑‑ okay, let me see what it is.  Exactly.  That is the key objective of the PRF, Policy Research Fund.

Q    That ‑‑ that's to ensure that various provincial and federal departments, international institutions, women's groups, equality-seeking organizations, academics, and researchers are better informed on emerging and urgent gender equality issues?

A    That's right.

Q    That ‑‑ that is squarely within the mandate of the ‑‑ 

A    It is.

Q    -- Policy Research Fund, is it not?

A    It is.  It is.

Q    If I may say, that is the raison d'être of the Policy Research Fund, is it not?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, my friend should really just take the stand I ‑‑ at this point.  I don't object to leading, but ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  All right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- let the witness say what she thinks if it would be possible.

MR. GAUDET:  I like the word raison d'être, that's all.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, I agree.  It's a beautiful word.

A    I ‑‑ I agree with you totally with your remark.  That is the case.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm glad to hear there's no disagreement.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Okay.  Now, as ‑‑ how easy or difficult is it to track or monitor the impact or effectiveness of something like the Policy Research Fund?

A    It will be extremely difficult, and I ‑‑ would you like me to explain why?

Q    Please elaborate, yes.

A    Because as every information and knowledge that comes across, people, when they ‑‑ when they read it or [indiscernible] they think about it, when the policymakers actually use this information and this knowledge, they do not always recollect and refer back to where they got the original idea from, so therefore we had the challenge of trying to design the ways to track this so it can be indirectly tracked, and ‑‑ do you want me to continue?

Q    No, not yet because ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- we'll come to that later ‑‑ 

A    All right.

Q    -- but I just wanted to ‑‑ because the [indiscernible] ‑‑ well, what is ‑‑ what is the general purpose of the performance report?

A    The general purpose of ‑‑ of this particular report, and this ‑‑ 

Q    Yes.

A    -- was another approach that was taken, is just to demonstrate that what we are doing is in line with what we are agreed to do, what is in our mandate, and demonstrating that we have actually done it.

Q    Now, the next page, on page 6, there ‑‑ the heading is "2.4, Summary of agency performance"?

A    Right.

Q    Now, is this ‑‑ what is this?  Can you tell us what this table, which goes on to page 8, is?

A    It is a more detailed, but still summary, of the performance of the agency in line with what was the impact, what was the objective and how is it that we can demonstrate that we have reached that objective?  For example, the number one, when it says, "Strengthened and more equitable public policy," then our calls for proposals is one of the way that we demonstrate how we are intending to and will be able to show that ‑‑ what we have done on this particular objective.

Q    Now, you're looking at Item ‑‑ 

A    I just looked at the very first one ‑‑ 

Q    Yes, but you're ‑‑ 

A    -- Item ‑‑ 

Q    -- looking under Item 1, "Strengthened and more equitable" ‑‑ 

A    That's right.

Q    -- "public policy"?  And ‑‑ 

A    That's right.

Q    -- in the left-hand box, in Number 16 ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- [as read in]:

Increased understanding and identification of possible gaps by selected departments. . .

 

A    That's right.

Q   

. . .key institutions, and community groups of the links between international and domestic commitments regarding selected issues such as women's poverty and those faced more specifically by the aboriginal women.

     And I see in the right-hand column, evidenced by their ‑‑ I ‑‑

A    The ‑‑ 

Q    -- we see a second item down, "PRF corporate proposals"?

A    Yes.

Q    Is that Policy Research Fund?

A    That's the Policy Research Fund.

Q    Okay.

A    But if ‑‑ the other example might be much more direct ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  [inaudible/voice drops] ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm just trying to follow.  I apologize.

MR. GAUDET:  [indiscernible/speakers overlapping] ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  [indiscernible/speakers overlapping]. Thank you.  [inaudible/voice drops].

A    Okay.  If you look at page 7, and under 2, "A broader range of informed and effective stakeholders," 1.10, which is, "Some federal stakeholders possess an increased common understanding of gender implications in ‑‑ in areas such as international trade," for ‑‑ as an area that was given, and our research reports, particularly in trafficking in persons, contributed to that particular objective.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Okay.  So you're ‑‑ now, that passage refers, although it doesn't say so directly, to a report that was published by the Policy Research Fund?

A    Series of reports that was published by ‑‑ by Policy Research Fund, yes.

Q    Now, it wasn't the ‑‑ now, it wasn't the report, "School success by gender"?

A    No.

MR. CHRISTIE:  [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And if you look at Item 1.15 on the ‑‑ on the same page.

A    Right.

Q    So ‑‑ and the ‑‑ the objective is to "Select ‑‑  selected federal departments possess an increased awareness of gender equality issues."

A    Right.

Q    In the ‑‑ in the right-hand column, "PRF research reports, distribution, and feedback from OGDs."

A    What is OGDs?

A    Other government departments.

Q    Okay.  Now, I don't want to ‑‑ I don't want to flog this horse to death, but just highlight a few parts of the report that ‑‑ that reflect the achievements made by the Policy Research Fund.  If you'd turn to page 9, now we ‑‑ we see in the second paragraph ‑‑ 

A    Yes, I do.

Q    -- three long-term strategic outcomes ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- and the first one [as read in]:

Strengthened and more equitable public policy through policies, research programs, and services that take into account gender, the diversity of women's perspectives, the reality of their lives.

A    Right. 

Q    Now, it says ‑‑ you can read down, the next paragraph:

To achieve the first outcome, "Strengthened and more equitable policy," Status of Women Canada has carried out the following to fulfil responsibilities under the agenda for gender equality.

     And the third bullet item down ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    [As read in]:

Engage Canadians in the public policy process to ensure women's experience and perspectives are included in discussions on the public policy agenda as well as planning for the future.

     Now, is that something that the research fund was ‑‑ was responsible for achieving, or for attempting to achieve?

A    I'm sorry, you are ‑‑ you are referring to the third one or the second one of the long-term strategic outcomes?  Are you referring to that one?

Q    No, the first.

A    The very first one?  Yes, indirectly, and second one directly.

Q    And that's ‑‑ the second one is which, "More ‑‑ a more informed and effective stakeholders"?

A    That's right.

Q    Yes.  Now ‑‑ so if you turn to page 22 of the document, please?  Is this where that second objective appears, strategic outcome appears, that you were referring to?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Is a ‑‑ is a translation of this document going to be provided?

MR. GAUDET:  I'm reading an English version of this.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, yes.  My mistake.

THE COURT:  So what language would you like it translated into, Mr. Christie?

MR. CHRISTIE:  It was just that I couldn't understand it.  It was a light-hearted attempt at humour [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET:  I see.

MR. CHRISTIE:  English would help, but ‑‑ sorry.

MR. GAUDET:  All right.  Apparently Mr. Christie doesn't understand the text.

MR. CHRISTIE:  It's my fault.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Item 2.5.2, "A broader range of informed and effective stakeholders."

A    That is right.

Q    Can you explain what that means?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.

A    That was the second business line or objective of ‑‑ of that particular year, to increase the knowledge base of the stakeholders in general and I believe by effective stakeholders it depends on which area you are talking about.  I am not involved with the writing of these, so that's why I'm so uneasy answering and trying to interpret, to the best of my abilities, what is it that it was meant there with this particular terminologies.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Well, what ‑‑ what do you understand the word stakeholders to mean?

A    Stakeholders mean those who are ‑‑ have a particular interest in certain policies or programs.

THE COURT:  Yes.  Which is, of course, the exact opposite of the proper meaning of the word, but it's ‑‑ everybody use ‑‑ seems to use it as this way now. 

A    Exactly.

THE COURT:  It's one of my pet peeves, actually ‑‑ 

A    That's right [indiscernible] ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  -- is the way the word stakeholders is used, but. . .

MR. CHRISTIE:  I thought it was ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  I ‑‑ I have no idea ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I thought it was a fork, a stakeholder.  Thought that was ‑‑ 

A    Those [indiscernible] holding the stake, yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.

THE COURT:  A stakeholder is supposed to be somebody who has no interest and they hold the property that's at issue, but it seems to have developed the actual opposite meaning.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Well, I take it it was the opposite meaning that was intended in this report.

A    Yes, it was.

THE COURT:  It was.  Yes.  I understand that.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And so Item 2.5.21 ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Point 1.

MR. GAUDET:  Point 1.  Thank you.

Q    "Accelerating knowledge building."  What ‑‑ what was meant by that ‑‑ that strategy, I guess, is the term that's been used to described that, is that right?

A    That is right, and I think it is particularly referring to the initiative of a directorate, gender-based analysis directorate, and what they were trying to do in accelerating the capacities of other government departments in using and applying knowledge.

Q    Now, over on the page, on page 23, there's a direct reference to the Policy Research Fund.

A    That's right.

Q    It says that [as read in]:

Status of Women Canada's Policy Research Fund provides an important medium for building knowledge that is useful across all sectors of Canadian society and informing [indiscernible] gender equality and women's human rights.

A    Right.

Q    It looks like they've just used the same language there that ‑‑ 

A    Exactly.

Q    -- we see in Exhibit ‑‑ Exhibit 32, that ‑‑ 

A    Exactly.  Right.  And ‑‑ and there's a specific reference to the increased use of the publications ‑‑

Q    Now ‑‑ 

A    -- in the following paragraph, yeah.

Q    Yes.  Now, how did the agency evaluate whether the use of the publications it had published in the ‑‑ under the aegis of this fund had increased?

A    Variety of ways.  We had just in ‑‑ in ‑‑ within this year, part of the ‑‑ actual part of the previous year, we had an evaluation that one of ‑‑ with one of these recommendations to try to trace how its publications were used, so one of the ways to trace them is through hits of the Internet hits, and of course it's not the best ways to do them, but it does demonstrate some interest of the users to go to certain particular to the research publications and ‑‑ and to which publications within that list that we have provided and have people access to.  Sometimes downloading them is a better indication of ‑‑ of interest.  And for the last three years ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry, can you detect both the number of hits and the number of downloads?

A    I think so.

Q    Okay.

A    I think so.  And then there's also the references, how many other publications used our publications as a reference, and that is one of the best indicator of the use of the research reports.  Plus in all of our publications, we have a page inserted in them for people to respond to, but we don't get a lot of responses from that particular way, but we do ‑‑ 

Q    You mean a [indiscernible] evaluation form?

A    Yes, an evaluation form, but we do get, occasionally, some e-mails and responses, and sometimes in the media, too, there's references to our publications.

Q    Okay.  And we'll come to the specific responses to this report later.

A    Okay.

MR. GAUDET:  If I may, may I have this marked as an exhibit, My Lord?

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thirty-three.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 33, My Lord.

EXHIBIT 33:  Report

A    Okay.  I ‑‑ did I [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, Ms. Karman, I just had you provided with a document entitled "Leading the way:  A decade of Policy Research Fund reports from the Status of Women Canada," dated March 2007.

A    Right.

Q    Now, do you recognize this document?

A    I do.

Q    Can you tell me who the author of this document is?

A    I can't because I don't ‑‑ I don't recall ‑‑ we were just trying to find out what the second name is.  Diane ‑‑ it doesn't come to me, but I'll find it.

Q    So you know who ‑‑ 

A    Of course.  Of course.  Yes ‑‑ 

Q    You know ‑‑ you know who it is, but you just can't remember her last name?

A    I just can't remember her last name.

Q    Okay.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't ‑‑ I don't object if my friend wants to lead the witness on that ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- [indiscernible] any need.

MR. GAUDET:  I don't know her last name either.

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. GAUDET:  We'll ‑‑ we'll find out.

A    We will find out.

Q    But can you tell us what the ‑‑ that person does, who ‑‑ who she is, generally speaking, like ‑‑ 

A    She is an [indiscernible], a person that we usually contract for some of our editing work and tracing some of the references, so we had asked her to, based on the way we were collecting the information of tracing how our reports are used, we had asked her to put together this particular report.

Q    So can you just ‑‑ again, just tell us what the purpose of the report ‑‑ what the purpose of this report is?

A    The purpose of the report is mainly looking at how our publications have been used and therefore in which areas we have been able to influence others, whether it is in their work or whether it is in the [indiscernible] of the researchers in ‑‑ in encouraging the work on policy research issues.

Q    All right.  Now, on page ‑‑ hmm.  Maybe this would be a good time to get into this issue now.  On page 1 of the document you see a box ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- "External Committee members" ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- "1996 to 2007."  Can you explain what the External Committee of the research fund was?

A    External Committee of the research fund was a group of people who were named by the minister or secretary of state responsible for the Status of Women Canada to play a key role in selecting the themes of research that will form the basis of calls for proposals and also selecting the proposals for ‑‑ for funding.

Q    You said themes?

A    Themes.

Q    Now, is this a list, then, of the members over time of the External Committee?

A    That is right.  This is members between the years 1996 and 2007 of all members of the External Committee.

Q    Now, if I may, this isn't ‑‑ all these individuals did not sit on the committee at one time.

A    No, not at all.  There was five or six at a time.  We tried to establish diversity over time so they did represent different disciplines, different regions, different areas of study and research, and there were about five or six ‑‑ 

Q    And what ‑‑ 

A    -- serving about three years.

Q    Pardon me?

A    Serving about three years each.

Q    And they were ‑‑ where were they selected from?

A    They were selected from nominations that came from [indiscernible] books or individuals and short-listed by a selection committee and named by the minister.

Q    Now, did you play any ‑‑ have any participation in the external research ‑‑ sorry, the External Committee?

A    Yes, I did.  I chaired the meetings and the director played a secretarial role to these meetings.

Q    So you mean ‑‑ you mean employees from the directorate acted as the secretary for the committee?

A    In terms of, yes, secretarial role, including get ‑‑ organizing the meetings, making sure that they got the necessary documentations, plus we also reviewed all of the proposals and ranked, from our perspective, as to their strengths and weaknesses.

Q    Okay.  Now, how ‑‑ so you say that the committee selected the themes.  How did they go about doing that?  How did they go about selecting themes for ‑‑ for research?

A    We have an established criteria of five basic criteria for them to use, and every time we have received proposals, we have ‑‑ send them to all of the members and assigned A and B readers to them ‑‑ that is to say, the person who was assigned as an A reader was the one to present the proposal and ‑‑ with all of ‑‑ of its aspects, and the B reader responded to it, and there was a discussion all over because everyone had a chance to read it, including our input, as a result of which we were able to ‑‑ to list, by priority, the projects to be selected.

Q    Now, sorry ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- are you speaking about ‑‑ you're speaking about what you just described, the process for selecting proposals.

A    That's right.

Q    Well, my ‑‑ my question was directed at how themes for research were selected.

A    How themes were selected.  The themes were again selected within a meeting in spring that we had, a two-day meeting, where all members came with their own ‑‑ based on their own knowledge and discipline what ‑‑ what were the policy research gaps, and we, as a directorate, also had an environmental scan looking into a variety of sources to determine what are the possible research gaps ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry, the term environmental scan doesn't ‑‑ could you explain what that means?

A    It means that ‑‑ looking at the research environment that we ‑‑ for example, what is happening by other research organizations, institutions, what is happening in other countries that have similar systems like ours, what is on the government's agenda, and on the speech from the Crown and budget, et cetera, to have a good understanding what is happening in the policy world and the research world that will enable us to determine where the gaps are.  That be referred to ‑‑ that process environmental scan.

Q    Okay.  So you ‑‑ you held meetings, a meeting, and the theme was ‑‑ 

A    Yes.  We had a two-days meeting that will give everyone opportunity ‑‑ every member an opportunity to present their ‑‑ their areas, their themes, and ‑‑ and with all the rationale to it, then we discuss it during the two days, at the end of which we always reached a consensus on the particular themes we should be going ‑‑ developing calls for proposals for the following year.

Q    Okay.  Now, turning back to this document ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Is that a convenient time, actually ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, to break? 

THE COURT:  -- since we're going back to the document?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes, that's fine.  Yes.

THE COURT:  Yes.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE CLERK:  Recalling ‑‑

MR. GOODERHAM:  My Lord, I thought it might be ‑‑ 

THE CLERK:  -- Wiebe and Bouchard ‑‑

THE COURT:  Oh, sorry.  Yes.

MR. GOODERHAM:  Excuse me.

THE COURT:  Yes, Mr. Gooderham.

MR. GOODERHAM:  I thought it might be useful to mention that there is an official translator lined up for this proceeding which ‑‑ a French translator, who, at the moment, must ‑‑ must come from Vancouver.  There wasn't somebody available locally.  So I thought I would speak now to this problem of scheduling.  It seems to me that for ‑‑ Dr. Bouchard will be the first witness in my case.  That doesn't look like it's going to happen until Monday morning, and I've talked to my friends and ‑‑

THE COURT:  Right.

MR. GOODERHAM:  -- I think we're all agreed on that.  I should stand that translator down this afternoon rather than leave it too close to the wire.

THE COURT:  Probably ‑‑ how ‑‑ what are we looking at in terms of time?  You have this witness and I guess you'll ‑‑ gather you'll be a bit longer in chief and ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

THE COURT:  -- and then you have another ‑‑ another witness after this?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  So basically your witnesses will take us through tomorrow quite ‑‑ without much difficulty, I ‑‑ it sounds like.

MR. GAUDET:  I would expect.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GOODERHAM:  All right.  Yes, and I have an opening which ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GOODERHAM:  -- I could begin with, so ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  All right.  That's fine.

MR. GOODERHAM:  Very well.  Thank you.  

ZEYNEP KARMAN, recalled.

THE CLERK:  Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.

A    Thank you.

MR. GAUDET:  And I remind you to try and keep your voice up, please, Ms. Karman.

A    [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET:  Thank you.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET, continuing:

Q    Now, before the ‑‑ the luncheon break, we were looking at this document which has not yet been marked as an exhibit, the "Leading the way" report.  Do you have any ‑‑ based upon any research you have done over the lunch break, do you have a ‑‑ a improved recollection as to who the author of the report is or may be?

A    I will have it.  I want to check what I remember is the correct one ‑‑ I believe it's Diane Foreaux [phonetic] ‑‑ but I have asked my staff and they will get back to me and so I'll be able to give you the name.

Q    Now, they ‑‑ this ‑‑ this fund ‑‑ fund began in 1996?

A    Yes.

Q    Now, on page 2 of the report, there's a list of the staff ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- at the top of the page and you ‑‑ you are there as director.

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, in the next paragraph ‑‑ the ‑‑ the next paragraph deals with a number of reports that were produced under this fund from its inception, and how many were produced?

A    Eighty-seven.

Q    Is that an accurate statement?

A    I believe so.  Being produced doesn't always mean that it is printed, though.

Q    Oh, so there were 87 reports produced, but not necessarily published?

A    Not necessarily all of them published, and some of them are published on the website only.

Q    Okay.  Now, over on the next page, onto page 3, there's a box there entitled, "Calls for proposals:  Themes" ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- "from 1996 to 2006."  What is this box, please?

A    This is the box that has the list of themes that are selected for the calls of proposals by year ‑‑

Q    Is it an exhaustive list?

A    It is. 

Q    And if we look one, two ‑‑ six from the bottom, can you identify what that theme was?

A    Yes, that is "Where have all the women gone?  Shift in policy discourse, September 1999."

Q    And that is ‑‑ 

A    [inaudible/voice drops] ‑‑ 

Q    That is the theme ‑‑ is that the theme which led to the publication of the report at issue in this case?

A    That is right, and it is a list of the calls for proposals by themes, yes.

Q    Now, over onto the next page, on page 4, the heading appears, "The influence of the Policy Research Fund reports."

A    Right.

Q    And this portion of the paper ‑‑ it goes on to page 6, it appears ‑‑ now, what was the purpose of this portion of the report, of this document?

A    This portion of the report was to demonstrate the influence of the policy research publications through ‑‑ to what extent it was used, how it was used, and certain examples of where it was used through mainly references or hits in the ‑‑ in our website, through our website.

Q    Okay.  So the method ‑‑ can you explain just generally what the methodology was that was employed to establish the impact or the influence of these reports?

A    I think the simpler one was just looking at the hits and downwards and a bit more complicated one is using to ‑‑ through citations [indiscernible] and extended Google search as to the use of the reports, in particular reports by different publications and by citations.

Q    On page 5, for instance, if you look at the middle paragraph where it states [as read in]:

The reports also influenced current and future generations in Canada.  The 2003 and 2004 research turned up links to Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Canada decisions to associations providing support to women and children and to 18 university courses in Canada using 21 of the reports as course reading material.

     Now, was there research done in particular in those two years, 2003, 2004?

A    I think it ‑‑ it is looking at the last three years, so that's why the focus was on those years.  Um. . .

Q    So does that refer to the ‑‑ those ‑‑ those numbers ‑‑ or, sorry, those years ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.  Mm-hmm.

Q    -- the 2003 and 2004 research, does that refer to research that was published in those years?  Do you know?

A    I do not know.  I don't think so because on occasions research gets ‑‑ research that's been funded and published before keeps on being used.

Q    So it could include research prior to those years?

A    It could include research prior to those years.  But all I can say that we started looking closely to citations and referrals after these years.

Q    The next paragraph states [as read in]:

The most recent URL analysis was undertaking ‑‑ undertaken in the fall of 2006.

     What does URL analysis refer to?

A    It is ‑‑ it's a uniform reporting links.  I think it is in websites.  It is possible to use this system to find the links through other publications or ‑‑ other publications, other references.  I cannot explain technically how it works, but it is addition to the addresses that makes it possible to track them.

Q    So ‑‑ so was ‑‑ are you ‑‑ are you ‑‑ may I paraphrase in saying that this is a research method to establish or attempt to establish where the ‑‑ a given report was referred to in another ‑‑ in another Internet site?

A    In other Internet sites or pub ‑‑ yes, all publications that are in the Internets [sic], yes.  It has to be through Internet.

Q    Now, on to page 7 of this document.  There's another large box there ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- entitled "PRF Researchers-Authors, 1996 to 2006."  Can you tell me what this is, please?

A    Yes, I certainly can.  These are all of the authors that have received contracts from the Policy Research Fund and actually published Policy Research Fund reports.  Sometimes there is one person that does ‑‑ is the only author and sometimes there's a group of them, so therefore the list is much longer, of course, than the number of publications that we have.

Q    And are the individually-named defendants, Isabelle Boily, Pierrette Bouchard, and Marie-Claude Proulx, listed in this document?

A    Yes.  I cannot find them, but I am sure they are there.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Alphabetical.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, on to page 8, in the centre paragraph, where it states [as read in]:

The Policy Research Fund led the way in a number of issues including trafficking in women and girls, which is now the subject of a private member's bill in the House of Commons and a focus of study by the House of Commons Standing Committee and the Status of Women.  The RCMP credits the Policy Research Fund with providing much of the early research the police force used when it began investigating the problem of trafficking of women ‑‑ women in Canada.  Yvon. . .

-- looks like Durand ‑‑ Dandurand ‑‑ 

A    Dandurand.

Q   

. . .senior associate, International Centre for Criminal Justice Policy, UBC, also attested to this in October 2006 brief to House of Commons Standing Committee and the Status of Women where he credited the Status of Women for conducting the earliest research in Canada on trafficking.

     Now, why was this paragraph included in the ‑‑ in the report?  Can you speak to that?

A    Yes, because it is another way of showing how our research papers were used in both analyzing and defining public policies.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay. 

          May I have this document marked as an exhibit, please, My Lord?

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 34, My Lord.

THE COURT:  Thirty-four?

EXHIBIT 34:  Report entitled "Leading the way"

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

Q    Now, at the ‑‑ at ‑‑ prior to the break, we talked about the External Committee, do you ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- and your involvement with the External Committee.  Now, this is a large bound volume.

A    Thank you.

Q    Can you tell the court, please, what this document is?

A    This is the English version of the handbook prepared for the External Committee that helps them to carry out their roles and responsibilities.  It's a briefing book for the External Committee members.

Q    Now, the ‑‑ at the ‑‑ page 1 of the document, in the bottom right-hand corner, it says "January 2005."  Can you tell us when this ‑‑ when this particular package was prepared?  Is that when it was prepared?

A    It was when it was prepared.  Actually, the particular package is prepared earlier, but it is continuously revised.

Q    Now, at what point in time did the practice begin of providing an information package such as this to External Committee members?

A    An earliest version of this would probably be 1998.  I'm not exactly certain, but I believe it's 1998.

Q    And what was the purpose or reason for providing this package to the External Committee members?

A    So that they'll be familiar with their role because it describes not only the objectives, but also what is expected of them and how the procedures will ‑‑ will continue during the times that they will be serving as a member of the External Committee.

Q    Now, I forgot to ask you this earlier.  Do the External Committee members receive any form of remuneration for their participation on the committee?

A    They do, a very limited one.  They do receive $500 a day when there are actually meetings, so since they only come to two meetings in a ‑‑ each year, that will amount to $2,000, so two days meeting each.

Q    Now, do you have any involvement in ‑‑ at the instruction or orientation of External Committee members at the time that they begin their mandate?

A    Yes, I do spend time with the new members and go through this handbook with them.

Q    And when did you begin doing that?

A    Actually, we started doing that for the last four years or so.

Q    Having an orientation session?

A    Yes [indiscernible] we always provided this information, but we decide it will be easier if we spend some time and more effective if they actual [sic] spend face-to-face time going through them.

Q    All right.  Now, if you'd pull open the document, the ‑‑ the very beginning, first few pages, what are ‑‑ what is this part of the document?

A    The first few pages is just an introduction to Status of Women Canada.  It's an overview.

Q    And also onto page 3, the Research Directorate?

A    There is ‑‑ research at Status of Women Canada.  It just explains the roles and responsibilities very briefly of the Research Directorate and the Policy Research Fund and also some other research activities that are going on within Status of Women Canada.

Q    Okay.  And what is at Tab 2, "Establishment of the Policy Research Fund"?

A    That is a history of the fund, when it was founded and how it was founded and the consultations, what the findings of the consultations, and how the current research program is formed by these findings.

Q    Now, onto the next tab, Tab 3, we see "Objectives and goals of Status of Women Canada's Policy Research Fund," and I think we've seen the objectives before.

A    That's right.

Q    Now, the goals, could you explain what the goals are there, please?

A    Right.  The goals include that ‑‑ our intent to bridge the gap between research and policy and mainly to bring the policy research on women's equality in a public area now so that it will be openly discussed, to make our findings accessible and be used by policymakers, researchers, and other equality-seeking advocates, and to provide credible research on women's equality that will be taken into account.

Q    Now, within that tab ‑‑ these pages aren't numbered, but it looks like it's on page 5.  The heading at the top of the page is "Research eligible for funding."

A    Right.

Q    Now, what are these ‑‑ what are these criteria that are set out here, please?

A    This is a criteria that explains special niche of this Policy Research Fund starting by the definition of what we consider policy research and what is not to be considered policy research, and then it goes through giving headings such as that it has be original contribution, it has to have national relevance, it has to advance equality of women, so these are the criteria by which we ‑‑ we would consider a proposal, a policy research proposal.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, sorry, just trying to get on the page ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  No, I think it's ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Further on?  [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So ‑‑ and a few pages over, there's a heading at the top, "Who is eligible for funding?"

A    "Who is eligible for funding?"  Yes.

Q    Can you explain what this passage means?

A    Certainly.  It is ‑‑ it is mainly saying that everyone is eligible for ‑‑ for proposals, to be sending proposals.  Each proposal will be judged on its own merits, so it could ‑‑ you could be an individual researcher, you could be university-based one, part of an equality-seeking organization, and while we'll encourage partnership, it is not necessary that, you know ‑‑ more ‑‑ I think the message is everyone is eligible to be applying for these funds.

Q    And the next page over, there are guiding principles.

A    Right.

Q    Now, who are these principles intended to guide?  Whom are they intended to guide?

A    It ‑‑ it is a ‑‑ guiding principles for the Policy Research Fund, for actually implementing the fund and how it functions.

Q    I see.  And there are 10.

A    There are 10.

Q    The first one I find ‑‑ I'd like you to elaborate upon, independence.  The ‑‑ what ‑‑ can you elaborate on what is meant by the independence of the Policy Research Fund?

A    Certainly.  This is one of the unique features of this fund and we wanted to be very clear that we'll define what is meant by independence and what it ‑‑ what it means that it ‑‑ that the findings of the research are that of the researcher and that authors will have full control over the research methodologies, findings, and conclusions, and ‑‑ and their reports will be published if it fits all other criteria.  So that's how independence is defined, and within that context you also see the role of the External Committee is explained too as to what we ‑‑ that it will be ‑‑ that an External Committee will finalize the search priorities, select research to be funded, and determine if the research is going to be published or not, provide recommendations if the research is to be published or not.  So it ‑‑ it's ‑‑ sets up the role of the government within this fund as much as the role of the researchers and the External Committee members.  Am I clear in that?

Q    I believe so.

THE COURT:  Mm-hmm.

A    Okay.

MR. GAUDET:  Thank you.

Q    Now ‑‑ now, Items ‑‑ Number 6, "The rigour of the research."  Can you explain what is intended by that criteria, that guiding principle?

A    Certainly.  To ‑‑ to have research publications to be used by the right of users, as we have demonstrated that have been, it is important that there will be a certain rigour experience in ‑‑ in publishing them, so we define this by ensuring that the research publication ‑‑ the draft research publications are reviewed by peer reviewers, people who are ‑‑ who are experts in that particular field, and we also have them reviewed by other government departments or by provincial governments should their recommendations or should the findings within the research has any relevance to them to ensure that the factual information's correct, and also my directorate ‑‑ also the person responsible for that particular research projects also reviews them.

Q    And that's prior to publication?

A    That's prior to publication.  In all occasions, we ‑‑ we may ask the authors to make the corrections or revisions as necessary.

Q    And are these 10 guiding principles also intended to guide the External Committee members when selecting proposals or is there something different that ‑‑ 

A    There is another criteria of selection proposals, but these are the underlying, guiding principles on everything that we do within this program ‑‑ 

Q    Okay.

A    -- research program.

Q    Now, the next item over is Tab 4.  This is entitled "External Committee selection and functioning," and this describes ‑‑ does this ‑‑ does this describe the process for the ‑‑ and criteria for selection of the External Committee members?

A    Yes, it does.

Q    And we've gone through that, so I won't ask you to elaborate on that, except perhaps ‑‑ I spoke too soon ‑‑ the second bullet states that [as read in]:

A nomination committee. . . 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q   

. . .comprised of outgoing External Committee members, a representative of a NGO community, and the director of the Research Directorate review the nominations and recommend a shortlist for membership on the External Committee.  After having individually reviewed each of the nominations according to pre-established evaluation criteria set by the Research Directorate, the nomination committee meets to review the nominations and make recommendations for short-listed members. 

     Is that how the process worked?

A    Yes, that's exactly how the process worked.

Q    But the ultimate decision was made by the minister?

A    That is correct.  We would prepare ‑‑ prepare a short list for her to select from.

Q    And the selection criteria are ‑‑ follow on the next pages ‑‑ next page, rather?

A    That's right.

Q    Yes?

A    Do you want me to ‑‑ yes, it does, sir.

Q    Now, Tab 5, "External" ‑‑ entitled "External Committee roles and responsibilities, regular cycle:  Calls for proposal for emerging issues research."  Can you explain what this document says, please?

THE COURT:  Sorry, where are you now?

MR. GAUDET:  I'm sorry, I'm at Tab 5.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Are these tabs numbered or ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, I'm sorry, my version's ‑‑ no, I ‑‑ I apologize.

THE COURT:  Mine aren't, but I ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  No, it's the next tab over.

THE COURT:  "External Committee roles and responsibilities," is that where you're at?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

A    Okay.  [inaudible/voice drops].  "Roles and responsibilities."  Yes.  The first page explains the ‑‑ the regular cycle of when the propose ‑‑ when the themes are selected, when the proposals are ‑‑ when the calls for proposals go out and the time, about three months, for the proposals to be prepared, and when the ‑‑ they are reviewed the next time, which is in February, usually, when the External Committee meets to assess the proposals, and by February, March, we sign a contract with them with the intent that the proposals ‑‑ the work on the research projects will ‑‑ will start in April, which is also start of the new fiscal year for the federal government.

Q    And that's a rough schedule?

A    That's a rough schedule, changed a little bit, yeah.

Q    And the next page, "Identifying the fund's research priorities."

A    Right.

Q    Now, if you look at the ‑‑ on the ‑‑ the next page over, which ‑‑ there's a heading, "Target audiences and dissemination means."

A    Right.

Q    Well, what does this ‑‑ what are these two paragraphs in reference to?

A    It is a reference to the calls for proposals to ensure that it is as widely disseminated as possible so that those interested parties will have easy access to them, so it is not only distributed through our ‑‑ it's not [indiscernible] on our website, but it also goes to a variety of organizations as a call letter.

Q    So you ‑‑ you post the call for proposals on the website ‑‑ 

A    Yes, we do.

Q    -- of Status of Women Canada?

A    Yes, we do.

Q    But you also send them directly to individuals?

A    That's right, through e-mails, through ‑‑ yeah.

Q    Do you have a list of people to ‑‑ researchers to whom they're sent?

A    Yes.

Q    And the next page over, it's entitled, "Evaluation of research proposals"?

A    Right.

Q    You ‑‑ you went into that at some ‑‑ at some length this morning ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- and you talked about A and B readers.  Can you just recapitulate what the process is for evaluating proposals?

A    Certainly.  We send all proposals to all members, to all External Committee members, and then we assign them A and B readers' role, so that A reader will be the one that will be introducing the proposal to the rest of the group and the B reader will be responding with their findings and it will be then open to discussion by all External Committee members.  All External Committee members are expected to read and score these proposals and we normally receive the proposals in advance ‑‑ the scoring in advance, sorry.

Q    And then the next page over, it says ‑‑ entitled, "Assessment of the final research reports."  Can you explain what ‑‑ what the role is of the External Committee members in terms of evaluating the final research report?

A    Their role is actually coming up with the recommendations to us to see if they think this particular research should be published or not or published with ‑‑ conditionally with the revisions, so what they do receive is, of course, their ‑‑ a copy of the final report and the reviews by experts, external experts, as well as by other government departments or provincial departments and our own assessments.  In many cases, because the External Committee members are also experts in ‑‑ in certain fields, they would provide extensive reviews, but what their role is to get back to us agreeing with our recommendations or having recommendations of their own.

Q    Now, can a report be published without the approval of the External Committee?

A    No.  No, it cannot be published without their approval.

Q    And the last page simply says, "Translation, production, and dissemination."  Who's responsible for translation of ‑‑ of reports?

A    We are, Status of Women Canada, and we contract this function out for translations and editing and printing, but we are responsible for that, yes.

Q    Now, is a ‑‑ before a report is published in ‑‑ in both languages, is the author given an opportunity to ‑‑ 

A    Oh, yes.

Q    -- let me finish the question ‑‑ 

A    Sorry.

Q    -- an opportunity to comment, review and comment upon the translation?

A    Yes, and they do.

Q    And then how is the ‑‑ how are the reports disseminated?

A    Then the reports are disseminated through an established list.  Our minister selects to which other ministers she would like to send it to in advance, an advance copy, and our deputy had also sent it to her counterparts.  I also want to mention that our minister sends it to her counterparts, provincial counterparts, too, and I send it to other government departments, other research directorates.  Then it goes to libraries, universities, research organizations, equality-seeking groups, and other individuals who ask for them.  We have a list of researchers, for example, that would like to receive every time we have a publication or other interested parties that would like to receive them, so we do send them out until we are out of copies and then it will only be on our website.

          So there's an advance distribution of a report, usually?

A    Yes.  There is an advance ‑‑ of course we provide it to our minister in advance, and then she also would send it to her counterparts, if she chooses to do so, advance copies.

Q    And does the minister have any form of a ‑‑ either sign off or approval with respect to the publication of reports?

A    This is not something that she ‑‑ they have ever exercised, but obviously the ministers would have that power should they wish to use that.

Q    So a minister could exercise a form of veto over   the publication of a report?  Is that possible?

A    It is ‑‑ it is certainly possible [indiscernible] responsibility, but as I said, because it ‑‑ of the nature of this program as a independent Policy Research Fund, they have never exercised that right because it does not reflect their views or the department's ‑‑ department's views.

Q    Now, the next tab, which we ‑‑ after the next green tab is entitled, "Status of Women Canada's Research Directorate, roles and responsibilities related ‑‑ related to PRF."

A    Right.  Now, just in general terms, can you just describe the role ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  To ‑‑ to [inaudible/away from microphone] or PRF?

A    PRF.

MR. CHRISTIE:  That's the ‑‑ oh, I see, it's PRF.

THE COURT:  All right.  I [inaudible/voice drops] here.  Yes.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Can you just explain in general terms what the roles and responsibilities of the Research Directorate are in relation to the fund?

A    In relation to the ‑‑ to the fund is in general to manage the funds, manage the finances of the funds, of course, one first thing, but in ‑‑ in relation to roles of the External Committee, to ‑‑ to provide them the necessary information, trends, environmental scans, and to arrange their meetings, to chair the meetings, provide minutes of the meetings, and when they choose certain themes after a discussion, to draft the calls for proposals and to ensure that there is ‑‑ we have received the appropriate approvals and receive the draft research publications, do the necessary reviews, and put ‑‑ you know, send it back to them for their own approvals, and finally to ensure that the draft reports are edited, translated, printed, distributed, and then start the cycle again.

Q    Thank you.

          Now, the next tab over just speaks of the budget of the research fund.  I think you said ‑‑ 

A    Yes, that's right.

Q    -- the total budget was ‑‑ 

A    Yeah.

Q    -- 1.2 million dollars ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- is that right?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, I'd like you to go to the almost very end of the document.

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    It's the penultimate tab, I guess you could say.  It's about five pages from the end.  It's an appendix.  It's entitled "Appendix D:  Research proposal assessment form."

A    Right.

Q    Now, can you tell us, please, what this document is?

A    Certainly.  This is a form that External Committee members are expected to use in their assessment of the proposals.  We also use the same form to do our own assessments.  The first part of this ‑‑ the first block has a list of questions to ‑‑ which ‑‑ with yes or no answers to ensure that the research proposals fit certain criteria, and then there are five areas that they are expected to assess these proposals such as policy relevance of the ‑‑ the proposal, their objectives, and their distinctions, their explanations of how it should be done, the context of the research, and the methodology, finally, the roles and responsibilities of the research team.  So they score all of these things and we receive the final scores to prepare for the meeting where we will be discussing all of them to select the best ones.

Q    And over on the next page?

A    The next page has the overall assessment, if it is recommended, not recommended, highly recommended, and some comments they have, and some of the assessment in the budget.  Of course, we have our own budget guidelines, Treasury Board guidelines, but on many occasions it is also important to know if they think that necessary funds are allocated to the activities that the researchers are going to undertake or just if it is too much is allocated to certain funds.  And then there are the definitions in the same page.

Q    Yes.  Now, if you go to the very end, it looks like, if you look at the last few pages ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- that the table of contents appears at the back.

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    That's the table of contents for this book.

A    For this book, right.

MR. GAUDET:  Right.  Perhaps it should have been put at the front. 

          Okay.  If I may, My Lord, I would like to have that marked as an exhibit.

THE COURT:  Exhibit 35.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 35.

EXHIBIT 35:  English version of the handbook prepared for the External Committee

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, in an average year, how many research proposals ‑‑ how many research reports would be published?

A    Seven or eight.

Q    So ‑‑ now, you were ‑‑ were you the director of the Research Directorate at the time that the theme for the request for proposals for this report was decided upon?

A    I was.

Q    And can you explain your involvement with respect to the External Committee deliberations that led to the ‑‑ this theme, the theme being selected for this report?

A    I chaired the meeting and I made sure that there was [indiscernible] discussion of all possible themes and facilitated consensus building, and at the end of these ‑‑ this meeting, this particular theme was selected as one of the themes for the calls for proposal ‑‑ for the call for proposal.

Q    Now, I just hand you a document that appears to me to be minutes.  Can you identify this document for us, please?

A    Yes.  This is the ‑‑ the minutes of the External Committee's meeting that took place on May 26, 27, 1999, at SWC's main boardroom.  It's a meeting that I have chaired.

Q    Now, do you know who took these minutes?

A    I believe Jo Anne de Lepper put them altogether.

Q    And who's Jo Anne de Lepper?

A    It's ‑‑ she is ‑‑ she's a technical assistant, but that really means she's an administrative person, has an administrative role, plus other roles in our directorate.

Q    Now, at the top of the list of those in attendance, there are six names.  Can you identify who they are?

A    All these names are members of the External Committee at the time.

Q    And onto the next page, Number 2, where it says, "Themes for the 1999 call for proposals" [as read in]:

A list of possible themes was developed based on suggestions from brainstorming sessions held with SWC policy analysts and regional staff and provided to External Committee members.

A    Yeah.  Yes.

Q    And over onto the next page, the ‑‑ the themes ‑‑ on May 27th, the themes for the 1999 call for proposals are set out and there ‑‑ there were three?

A    There were three of them and with the understanding that titles are to be finalized.  One, which was an urgent call, was that of the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and at two, emerging issues were young women at risk and women and a shift in policy discourse, and this last one was one that we are referring to with, of course, another title.

Q    Now, do you have any recollection as to what the general tenor of the discussion was regarding that theme, women and the shift in policy discourse?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Now, with all due respect, seeing that might involve just pure hearsay ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  I think that's right, Mr. ‑‑ Mr. ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- unless there's some ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  I mean what ‑‑ [indiscernible] what ‑‑ what does ‑‑ what can be ‑‑ what could I take from that evidence?

MR. GAUDET:  Well, part of the defence of qualified privilege is, of course, that the ‑‑ the report, which was in response to a call for proposals that played to a certain theme, serves an important public policy ‑‑ purpose, and actually I would have thought that the witness's recollection as to why it was that this theme was selected by the External Committee members would help inform the court's knowledge as to why it was that this particular theme was considered important by the External Committee.  I mean we ‑‑ we have the actual call for proposals and the precise wording of the theme and we can ‑‑ that will explain ‑‑ I mean it says, essentially, what the theme was and what was intended ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Well, and that's ‑‑ that's really what matters, isn't it, what was ‑‑ what was put out, what was finally adopted?

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, fair enough.  Fair enough.

THE COURT:  It just ‑‑ it just ‑‑ I think Mr. Christie has a legitimate concern that we are ‑‑ that ‑‑ that, you know, you're asking the witness to basically repeat statements or opinions or views that were expressed by other people at ‑‑ at this meeting which, you know, now ‑‑ and to some extent you ‑‑ I guess you've taken it for the truth of the fact or at least truth of the ‑‑ of the fact those statements were made, I suppose, which makes ‑‑ means it's not hearsay.

MR. GAUDET:  That's what I ‑‑ that's what I thought.

THE COURT:  Yes.  Okay.  I'm not going to give it much weight, but go ahead.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    I just want to know if ‑‑ if you have a general recollection as to why this theme was selected based upon the discussion ‑‑ 

A    Discussion ‑‑ 

Q    -- at the time.

A    What I do remember is that we did have extensive discussion on this end.  A number of External Committee members were observing a trend in the public policy or in terms of the ‑‑ the importance or a focus ‑‑ the diminishing importance of the equality issues in the sense that the public ‑‑

THE COURT:  Well, wait a minute now.  Now ‑‑ now, I think ‑‑ I think we are getting into ‑‑ into true hearsay now because she is quoting the ‑‑ what the other members of the committee had said they observed and that is ‑‑ that is a matter of fact which ‑‑ which does ‑‑ does, I think, violate the hearsay rule here.  So I'm going to stop you there.  I mean I think ‑‑ I think you can probably deal ‑‑ deal with it when you ‑‑ when we get to whatever documents that actually set out the ‑‑ the concern and the reason for ‑‑ for this matter, but ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, no, fair enough.  Perhaps the easiest thing to do and ‑‑ simply to show the witness the call for proposals, which will set out the ‑‑ the theme and the reasons for it ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  -- in more detail, if that's ‑‑ but nevertheless, I would like to have the minutes marked as an exhibit.

THE COURT:  Yes.  Yes.  Okay.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 36.

EXHIBIT 36:  Minutes

MR. CHRISTIE:  I ‑‑ I'm wondering now, of course, how much further the minister intends to go in this direction.  I haven't objected yet, but these are not actually public documents, and generally speaking, there'd have to be some exception to the hearsay rule as to their contents if the minister's relying on them for the truth of their contents.  I ‑‑ the ‑‑ the call for proposals I ‑‑ I would take to be a public document, but I'm not sure where else my friend would go, but I'd like to make that observation to indicate my view of the matter, at least.

THE COURT:  Presumably this ‑‑ this is some kind of business record, if not a public document.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  I don't ‑‑ well, I don't want to be caught unawares later on if there's an issue as to the admissibility of the document.  Do you ‑‑ do you ‑‑ are you objecting to the admissibility of the document?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, no, I haven't ‑‑ oh, 36 is already ruled on.  I'm a little late if I want to argue that one.

THE COURT:  Well, yes.  Sorry.  I'm ‑‑ I've been ‑‑ I've been ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, I wasn't trying to say ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- that I felt in any way cut off.  I just think ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I want to observe and submit that I will be making, perhaps, an objection if it goes any further in this direction.  That's all.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  Well, there will be another set of minutes for the meeting when the proposals were selected ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, well let me consider that ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  We'll get to that.  We'll ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  -- and so if I have to go through the process for establishing whether this was prepared in the ordinary course of business ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Well ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  -- of the committee, then I can do that ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, let me have the opportunity to at least see what you're talking about ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes.  Yes.  That's ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- before I object.  Maybe I won't ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  We'll ‑‑ we'll burn that bridge when we come to it, as they say.

MR. GAUDET:  I thought it was cross.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Sometimes it's better to burn [indiscernible].

MR. GAUDET:  All right.

Q    Now, Ms. Karnap ‑‑ Karman, pardon me, Karman, I've just given you a document that's a letter dated September 10th, 1999, with an attachment.  Is that your name at the bottom of the document?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    Can you identify what this document is?

A    This is a call for proposal written generally to ‑‑ for everyone, and it is soliciting for proposals with ‑‑ on the two themes, including "Young women at risk," and, "Where have all the women gone?  Shifts in policy discourses," and it has instructions for submitting the proposal.

Q    Now, in the top right-hand corner of the page, there's an exhibit number of this list ‑‑ 

A    Three.

MR. GAUDET:  I'll inform the court this document was marked as an exhibit on the examination for discovery of [indiscernible] Ms. Radulovich.

Q    You don't recognize ‑‑ you weren't ‑‑ you don't recognize that notation at the top?

A    No.

Q    No.  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I notice the reporter didn't fill it in either.

MR. GAUDET:  I think she was expecting you to do that.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Really?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm not a reporter.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So if you turn over to what's page 18 in the bottom right-hand corner ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- theme number two, "Where have all the women gone?  Shifts in policy discourses."  Now, does this set out the ‑‑ the essence of the ‑‑ the theme for proposals?

A    Yes, it is.  When they are developing the theme, we draft them and send it back to all our External Committee members to ensure that they are capturing exactly what they wanted the theme to be.  So once we get approval of all of them in both official languages, then we proceed with it.  So this is a approved version of what the External Committee members wanted the theme to be.

Q    So this was approved by the External Committee prior to it being sent out for general distribution?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, it refers to ‑‑ well, let's refer to the first paragraph.  So where ‑‑ in the second sentence, it says [as read in]:

Across western democracy, significant shifts in policy discourses can be observed, often fostering a propensity to neglect a line of argument or analysis based on issues of equality between men and women in favour of other foci. . .

     Now, what does foci mean?

A    It's a plural of focus.

Q   

. . .whether they be child-centred, family-centred, or human or cultural rights-centred, or even centred on differences in diversity.  Although all these issues are vitally important, this shift restricts. . .

     Do you want to know what page I'm on?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Eighteen.

MR. GAUDET:  Eighteen.  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  [indiscernible].

MR. GAUDET: 

Q   

Although all these issues are vitally important, this shift restricts more and more the advocacy of women's rights and increasingly portrays it as a special interest pleading.  Treating the issues of social division based on gender as ‑‑ as minor is more likely to harm the advancement of Canadian women's equality in the current context where social policy issues are framed more and more in terms of reduced state responsibility, privatization, and increased individual duty and responsibility.

     Now, does that reflect what the ‑‑ this is the theme?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, this was drafted in both official languages?

A    That's right.

Q    And was it sent out in both official languages?

A    Not necessarily.  It's, of course, put on our website on both official languages, but sometimes people indicate which language they want to receive in, then you send it in that ‑‑ the language of their preference.

Q    Now, are you aware of whether this document was sent to the defendant, Madam Bouchard?

A    I'm ‑‑ I don't ‑‑ I'm assuming so since she has applied for.  It will be sent to her university for sure.

Q    And now following on to ‑‑ on page 0 ‑‑ page 1, where the letter appears in French, and the proposals appear in French, is this the French version of the ‑‑ of the document?

A    Yes, it is.

MR. GAUDET:  If I may, I'd like to have the document as a ‑‑ together with both English version ‑‑ English and French versions made one exhibit ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET:  -- is that fine?

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes, it's both together.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 37.

EXHIBIT 37:  Letter and attached call for proposal, French and English versions

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, you said Ms. ‑‑ Dr. Bouchard responded to the proposal, request for proposals?

A    Yes.

Q    And did she submit a proposal?

A    She did.

Q    And in what language did she submit the proposal?

A    In French.

Q    And did you review the proposal once ‑‑ that she submitted?

A    I ‑‑ not in the first instance, I did not.  The way we proceed with the reviews, I ask my staff to undertake review of ‑‑ of different proposals and we then discuss it altogether.  I don't particularly remember reading it through before, but I do look into it when we are discussing them.

Q    But ‑‑ but somebody from your ‑‑ 

A    Oh, yes, definite ‑‑ 

Q    -- staff reviewed ‑‑ 

A    Oh, yes.

Q    You have to let me finish the question.

A    Sorry.

Q    Somebody from your staff reviewed the proposal?

A    Yes.  It is more than somebody, actually.  Everyone reviews it at ‑‑ at the end, but somebody ‑‑ just like we're asking the External Committee, someone takes a lead of reviewing the proposals and talking to them.

Q    Do you recall who that person was for this proposal?

A    I'm not certain.  It would ‑‑ but I can give you two names, one of two.

Q    Yes.

A    It is either Julie Dompierre [phonetic] or Beck Dysart.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I couldn't hear either one.

A    Beck Dysart or Julie Dompierre.  It's ‑‑ I believe it's Julie Dompierre, but I have to check my records to ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

A    -- to indicate that. 

Q    Now, do you recognize this document?

A    Yes.

Q    And could you identify what this document is, please?

A    It's a proposal by Madame Bouchard, Pierrette Bouchard.  I don't see a date to it, but it's a proposal to our ‑‑ it's a response to our call for proposals.

Q    Well, does ‑‑ there's a CV that appears in the latter half of the document.  Do you see that?

THE COURT:  [indiscernible] the date.  It's dated December 7th, '99.  There's a "Received" stamp, anyway.

A    There's a date?  Okay.

THE COURT:  I think right at the front ‑‑ front ‑‑ the front cover there's a stamp that seems to indicate it was received by ‑‑ 

A    It was received by that date. 

THE COURT:  Yes.

A    That's December 7th.  Sorry.  Yes, it's a curriculum vitae of Madam Bouchard.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, this document is in the French language, you ‑‑ you can see.

A    Right.

Q    Was there a translation of this made?

A    We have made a translation, an unofficial translation, for the members of the External Committee who were not ‑‑ who are Anglophones.

Q    And have you been able to locate that translation?

A    Unfortunately not.  Not yet.

Q    Now ‑‑ yes ‑‑ 

MR. GOODERHAM:  I hesitate to interrupt, but the language problem may arise from time to time, but there is an English translation of this that was ‑‑ this document that was prepared when there was an earlier application in this case about two years ago.  My friend ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  It's prepared within the context of this case as opposed to one that was prepared ‑‑ 

MR. GOODERHAM:  Yes.

THE COURT:  -- contemporaneously ‑‑ 

MR. GOODERHAM:  It's not the one the witness is talking about, but if ‑‑ if it turns out an English translation is needed here, that's one that is available and I have made a number of copies.

THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, we ‑‑ if we need it, we'll [indiscernible].  In the meantime, I get a chance to work on my French.

MR. GOODERHAM:  Very well.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Would ‑‑ would it be a good time to take a morning ‑‑ I mean an afternoon break?

THE COURT:  Bien sur [phonetic].

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR AFTERNOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

ZEYNEP KARMAN, recalled.

THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET, continuing:

Q    Ms. Karman, I understand that over the break you were able to obtain the answer to the question that has been plaguing us since early this morning regarding the authorship of the March 2007 report.  Can you tell us who the author is?

A    Yes.  Her name is Diane Perrier [phonetic].

Q    And who is Diane Perrier?

A    She's a contractor that has done various work for us in terms of editing and has undertaken that study that you are referring to.

THE COURT:  That's Poirier?

A    Perrier.

THE COURT:  Perrier.

MR. GAUDET:  And that's Exhibit 34.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    She's not an employee of Status of Women Canada?

A    No, she's not.

Q    She's not an employee of the Government of Canada, is she?

A    No, she's not.

Q    Now, just before the break, you were looking at ‑‑ at this document which is the proposal submitted by Dr. Bouchard.  You have that?

A    Yes.

Q    Yes.  And the only item I'm going to ask you to look at is on what's page 30 of the ‑‑ in the bottom right-hand corner.  Well, actually, perhaps the previous page, page 29, the ‑‑ the budget de recherches.  Is that the budget?

A    Yes, it is the ‑‑ 

Q    Okay.

A    -- budget of the research.

Q    And if you turn over the page and ‑‑ and ‑‑ is that ‑‑ does that reflect the amount that ‑‑ of the proposed budget she was submitting for the ‑‑ her proposal?

A    Yes, that's the amount she was looking for.

Q    And perhaps you just might read that for the record, please.

A    The total amount was $83,514.86.

MR. GAUDET:  My Lord, I'd like to mark that as an exhibit, if I may.

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 38, My Lord.

THE COURT:  Trente-huit ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Oui.

THE COURT:  -- would be the appropriate characterization of it.

EXHIBIT 38:  Proposal submitted by Dr. Bouchard

MR. GAUDET:  [indiscernible].

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.  I ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Thirty-eight.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  [indiscernible].

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, what was the process within Status of Women Canada's Research Directorate once the proposals, including this proposal, were received for this ‑‑ for this ‑‑ this call for proposals, this theme?

A    I assigned it to the research analysts and every one of them would ‑‑ would read all of them, but would be responsible to ‑‑ to introduce, to debate a limited number of proposals that ‑‑ 

Q    Now, sorry, I should just stop.  You say research analysts.

A    Research analysts are members of the government that work ‑‑ work in my directorate and are senior research analysts or research analysts and there are three of them.

Q    And who are ‑‑ who were the research analysts?

A    My recollection is that it was Julie Dompierre, Nora Hamill [phonetic], and Beck Dysart.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Could we just get those names slowly?  I apologize.  I'm trying to write them down and. . .

A    Sorry.  Julie Dompierre, Nora Hamill, and Beck Dysart.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Hamill?

A    Hamill.  In the briefing ‑‑ in the minutes that you have as one of the exhibits has the names listed.

MR. CHRISTIE:  And the last one was Beth [sic]. . .

A    Dysart.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, Dysart.

MR. GAUDET:  Beck.  Beck.

A    Beck Dysart.  Beck.  B-e-c-k.

THE COURT:  Ah, yes.  So ‑‑ if you ‑‑ Exhibit 36, under the ‑‑ the names of SWC people in attendance, we see those names.  All right.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Is that correct?  Were those three individuals present?

A    Those three were the ones, yeah.  Exactly.

THE COURT:  Yes.  Right.  Okay.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Okay.  And so they are research analysts?

A    They are research analysts, yes.

Q    And ‑‑ and what did ‑‑ what role did they play with respect to reviewing the proposal?

A    They reviewed them all and use the same scoring sheet that you have referred to earlier that was part of the handbook for the External Committee members and every one of them reviews every one of the proposals, but took responsibility to debate one-third of the proposals, since it was three, and we will get together and have meetings to discuss each and every one of them so that we will come with a ranking, one ranking that belong with the ‑‑ for the Research Directorate and that will be a separate ranking and to be discussed during the two days where we are debating the proposals.

Q    So, if I may, then the directorate actually ranked proposals?

A    Yes, and score them, yeah, and rank them, yeah.

Q    So ‑‑ now, when was the ‑‑ what was the next step in the process involved regarding the evaluation of the proposals?

A    We would receive the ranking of all External Committee members and we will put it together.  Then when the meeting start, it will be the External Committee members that are assigned as the A readers that will start discussing these proposals and there will be a open discussion of all of them.  We will also present our views of what we thought about them and ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry, we meaning ‑‑ meaning who?

A    Meaning the Research Directorate.  Research Directorate will also present their ‑‑ our positions on how we analyze the ‑‑ the same proposal, and at the end of two days ‑‑ and people will change ‑‑ 

Q    Sorry ‑‑ sorry, before ‑‑ 

A    -- before that ‑‑ 

Q    -- before we get to the meeting ‑‑ 

A    All right.  Oh ‑‑ oh, I am already at the meeting, so I'll go back.

Q    Yes, you're ‑‑ you're already at the meeting now.

A    Okay. 

Q    Now ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  [indiscernible] along.

MR. GAUDET:  Way ahead of me, which is not unusual [inaudible/voice drops].

A    Thank you.

Q    Now, I've just provided you a document which is entitled "Theme 2:  Where have all the women gone?  Shifts in policy discourses," and then the corresponding title in French.  It ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    Can you identify what this document is, please?

A    What this document is, it is a grid which has the numbering on the left-hand side that numbers them according to a time we receive ‑‑ that doesn't mean any other numbering by ‑‑ but that, that has authors ‑‑ affiliation of that particular author, the title of the proposal, and then it has the names of the A and B readers.  These ‑‑ the two under the A and B column, these are the external ‑‑ the first names of the External Committee members.  And as I explained earlier on, the A person would be the one responsible of presenting that proposal and her assessment and the second one, who will be responding, will be the B reader, then it will be open for everyone to discuss.  So that grid just shows which proposals we have received and who are the A and B readers.

Q    Now, can you tell the court, to the best of your knowledge, who drafted or prepared this table?

A    Jo Anne de Lepper.

Q    And she's the administrative assistant ‑‑ 

A    That's right.  Plus with other duties too, yes.

Q    And is this a comprehensive list of the proposals received in response to the call for proposals?

A    Yes, it will be all of the proposals received within the given deadline, all complete proposals within the given deadline.

Q    Now, was there a review done by a Status of Women Canada individual to ‑‑ to assess the state of completeness of the proposal?

A    Yes. 

Q    Now, can you identify in the document where the proposal submitted by Dr. Bouchard appears?

A    The proposal submitted by Dr. Bouchard is Number 29.  She's the last one on the third page.

Q    And does that Number 29 have any particular significance?

A    Not at all.  It just says that hers arrived the ‑‑ the last arrival.

Q    So that's the last one in the door?

A    The last one in the door.

Q    Now, there are two ‑‑ the ‑‑ under the A and B column, these are the A and B readers?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, who is Francine?

A    Francine Decarry is one of the External Committee members.  She's from ‑‑ from Quebec and her ‑‑ she's a sociologist, as far as I remember.  Isabelle McKee-Allen is the B column.  She was a Dean of Arts at the University of Moncton, New Brunswick.

Q    Sorry, Francine's last name is?

A    Francine Decarry.  It will also be in the same ‑‑ 

Q    I see.

A    -- list of minutes.

Q    And their names both appear in the ‑‑ the table that's in Exhibit 34, the ‑‑ the report that was authored by Ms. ‑‑ 

A    Yes, it ‑‑ 

Q    -- Perrier?

A    -- it does.  That's right.  Diane Perrier.

THE COURT:  Also appear on Exhibit 36, which is easier to find.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

THE COURT:  Okay.  Which are the minutes.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So they were ‑‑ were they in attendance at the initial meeting when the theme was selected?

A    Yes, they were.

MR. GAUDET:  Now, may ‑‑ may I mark this document as ‑‑ unless Mr. Christie has any objection, I'd like to have this marked as an exhibit.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  I ‑‑ I suppose that ‑‑ just to explore the possibility of it being contrived after the fact, is this something that was in existence at the time?  Would that not be a reasonable question to inquire?  Or created after the fact, to ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Well ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  It appears like that.

MR. GAUDET:  -- may I ask a ‑‑ the question, then?

Q    At the bottom right-hand corner of the document, it says, "Revised January 17th, 2000."

A    Right.

Q    And is this when the document was ‑‑ was finalized?

A    Yes.  We have such documents for all call for proposals.

THE COURT:  All right.  Exhibit 39.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 39, My Lord.

EXHIBIT 39:  Document entitled "Theme 2:  Where have all the women gone?  Shifts in policy discourses."

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Do I take it, then, that there were 29 calls for ‑‑ or proposals received in response to that call for proposals?

A    Right.  Twenty-nine?  Thirty-nine?  Is it 29 or 39?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Twenty-nine.

MR. GAUDET:  Twenty-nine.

A    Twenty-nine.  Twenty-nine.  [inaudible/voice drops].

Q    So then what was the next step in the process of evaluation of the proposals?

A    Okay.  Now, assuming that we are at the stage that every External Committee member has put their scores in and send it to us ‑‑ 

Q    So, sorry, now just go back ‑‑ 

A    Okay.  We are not there yet.  Okay.

Q    The ‑‑ well, no, tell us ‑‑ 

A    Okay.

Q    -- what does ‑‑ what do the ‑‑ what did the External Committee members do ‑‑ 

A    External Committee members have to, according to the way they're assigned, they have to prepare for the meetings where we'll be discussing all of them.  So they all have to ‑‑ have to fill in that two pagers [sic] that we went through as part of their briefing book that has five criteria that they have to assess, so they have to do these assessments and send it to us with the time that we always request for them, a certain deadline, so ‑‑ and we also assess our own.  So we put all of this information to another grid to be discussed during those two days, and during those two days, the A readers present it and the B readers respond to it, then it is open for everyone to discuss, and people do change their scores according to what their hear each other's comments ‑‑ there might be areas that they have overlooked or did not consider sufficiently.  So at the end of these two days, we come up with a listing of the same proposals in an order of priority.  Of course, there will also be a number of them that will be scored so low that will not be in that listing.  Once we have that list, according to the budget that's available to us, we fund them.

Q    Okay.  I ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Nothing.

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, okay.  I was ‑‑ I sensed an objection in the ‑‑ in the air.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Perhaps an observation, but not an objection.

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, I've just provided you a copy of a document that looks like minutes of a meeting.  Do you recognize this document, Ms. Karman?

A    Yes, I do.

Q    Can you identify it for the court, please?

A    It is minutes of the meeting with the External Committee on January 20th, 2000, held in Ottawa.  It ‑‑ for ‑‑ held in Ottawa, January 20, 21, 2000.

Q    And were you present at this meeting?

A    Yes, I chaired it.

Q    And ‑‑ and can you advise who took the minutes of the meeting?

A    It is Jo Anne de Lepper.

Q    And are minutes taken of all meetings ‑‑ were minutes taken of all meetings of the External Committee?

A    There are minutes of all meetings of the External Committee which is then approved by them.

Q    So ‑‑ so are you saying ‑‑ all right, so what happens to ‑‑ are drafts of the minutes distributed?

A    Yes.

Q    And are ‑‑ what happens?

A    And they approve ‑‑ and they approve and, if ‑‑ if need be, we ‑‑ it's revised.  So the final minutes is the minutes that is approved by all External Committee members and everyone that was in that meeting.

Q    And if you look at those who were in attendance, Francine Decarry and Isabelle McKee-Allen, those ‑‑ who are they?

A    They were members of the External Committee and they were the two that was assigned as the A and B readers for this particular proposal of Dr. Bouchard.

Q    Now, on page 2 of this document, where it refers under the heading, "Assessment of proposals" ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- it says [as read in]:

The committee reviewed and discussed the proposals individually.

     Did ‑‑ is that correct?

A    That's right.

Q   

For each proposal, one member had been assigned the task of initiating the discussion. . .

     -- is that the A reader?

A    That's the A reader.

Q   

. . .and a second member was assigned to respond.

A    That's the B reader.

Q   

All committee members provided their

scoring of each proposal and any additional comments. . .

     Did that happen?

A    That's right.  It did happen.

Q   

. . .and the marking and overall ranking was used in the discussion and decision-making for funding.

A    That's right.

Q    And then it says:

The proposals on "Where have all the women gone?" were assessed on Thursday, January 20th.

     Is that your recollection?

A    Yes.

Q    And it says:

The projects recommended by ‑‑ for funding by the External Committee are listed in rank order on the following page.

     The following page, which has the number three at the top, is this the rank order listing you were referring to?

A    Yes.

Q    Now, the ‑‑ at the very top of the ‑‑ of the page, the first proposal listed is that of Madame Bouchard's.  Can you explain what the significance of that is?

A    The significance of that is that's the highest ‑‑ highest ranking proposal by all members of the External Committee.

Q    Now ‑‑ and it looks like there was some revision of the budget, though.

A    That's right. 

Q    Can you elaborate on what that ‑‑ what happened there?

A    There was the ‑‑ the required budget was assessed as being too high, therefore the suggested budget was ‑‑ which is listed as ‑‑ on the last column of seventy-five thousand was the one that is recommended by the External Committee.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay. 

          Now, if I may, I'd like to have that document marked as an exhibit, My Lord.

THE COURT:  Exhibit 40, My Lord.

THE COURT:  Exhibit 40.

EXHIBIT 40:  Minutes of meeting held January 20 and 21, 2000

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So what ‑‑ what, in a ‑‑ in a nutshell, does it mean, the fact that Madame Bouchard's report was listed first?

A    It means that there will be funding that report, that proposal, yes, if she agrees on the reduced budget.

Q    Okay.  Now, at ‑‑ so do you recall, then, what the next step was in the process now that her proposal has been accepted and ‑‑ what was the next step?

A    The next step will be notifying her that her proposal has been short-listed and ‑‑ you know, informing her that there will be a change ‑‑ a required change of the budget and would she be open to that, and obviously then putting a contract together and signing the contract with her, with specific time lines and [indiscernible] attached to the contract.

Q    Now, do you recall whether Madam Bouchard accepted the budget revision downward to $75,000?

A    I believe she has.

Q    Okay.  I'm going to show you a document [inaudible/voice drops].  Now ‑‑ now, this is a letter that ‑‑ that's dated March the 10th, 2000, is that right?

A    That's right.

Q    And is that your signature that appears on page 2?

A    It is.  It is.

Q    Now, this is written in French.

A    That's right.

Q    Was ‑‑ was all of your correspondence with Madame Bouchard in the French language?

A    It was.  That was her ‑‑ the language of her preference.

Q    And ‑‑ and you were required to correspond with her in French if that was her preference, isn't that true?

A    Yes, of course.

Q    Now, can you tell us just ‑‑ just what this ‑‑ what the purpose of this letter is?

A    Okay.  I'm just looking through to see what is it.  I think it's an explanation to her on ‑‑ just give me one minute to just have a look.

Q    Mm-hmm.  That's fine.

A    It is ‑‑ it is a letter to her explaining that we have received her revised budget and providing her information as to how she is to submit her invoices and ‑‑ and how the report is to be written, what special ‑‑ is it Windows or Words [sic], what she can use, and how is it going to present ‑‑ sort of detailed information as to how she is supposed to give us her draft report, but ‑‑ in the second half.  In the first half, it is about instructions on the budgets and how she is going to provide her invoices.

Q    Now, if you go on to page 2 in the second paragraph ‑‑ 

A    Mm-hmm.

Q    -- can you just perhaps tell us what that paragraph says that begins with ‑‑ 

A    [indiscernible]?

Q    Yes.

A    [indiscernible]?  It is ‑‑ it mainly says please do use very simple language and ‑‑ and have a list of suggestions that ‑‑ to use shorter ‑‑ shorter sentences, not more than 14 words, and use active voice, and ‑‑ rather than complex phrases, and generally make it a report that will be easy for the general public to read and ‑‑ and understand.  That is, you know, sort of use plain language.

Q    Now, in ‑‑ now, is this ‑‑ is this a kind of ‑‑ is this standard advice that you provide ‑‑ 

A    Yes.

Q    -- to researchers?

A    That's right, we do.  We do, because this is for the public.  These are not academic papers.

Q    Sorry, the ‑‑ the papers are not academic papers?

A    They are not done for the ‑‑ for the purpose of ‑‑ it can be academic papers too, but it is ‑‑ it is used for the public ‑‑ for the public for ‑‑ for being accessible to as many people as possible, not only to academics.

Q    I see.  And did you send this letter to Dr. Bouchard?

A    Yes, I did.

MR. GAUDET:  And I'd like to have this marked as an exhibit, if it pleases the court.

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 41, My Lord.

EXHIBIT 41:  Letter dated March 10, 2000

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, can you recall, madam, what the next step was in the process leading up to the ‑‑ the signing of a contract?

A    What we will do, we'll draft up the terms of reference based on the proposal, and her own proposal also becomes part of the contract, and prepare the contract, and ‑‑ and I would sign it and then we'll send it to her and ‑‑ and she will sign it too, at what ‑‑ at which stage the ‑‑ the process starts for her to start with her project, and there will be deadlines and [indiscernible], and at the same time, I will assign one of the research analysts for being a project manager.

Q    Okay.  Oh, the ‑‑ so the contract ‑‑ who ‑‑ who prepares the contract?

A    The contract ‑‑ the majority of ‑‑ of the contract is pre-prepared, it's a standard government contract, and the section that is particular to the proposal will be prepared by the ‑‑ mostly by the analyst responsible, who's going to be responsible for that project, and Joanne will put it together, Jo Anne de Lepper.

Q    And it's done by Status of Women Canada?

A    Oh, yes, we do it.

Q    Now, this is a letter, Ms. Karman, that's dated April the 17th, 2000?

A    That's right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Have we marked the letter of the 10th of March 2000?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

THE COURT:  Yes, we did.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Forty-one?

THE COURT:  Forty-one.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, sorry.  Thank you.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, the ‑‑ this ‑‑ this letter ‑‑ is that your name that appears at the bottom of the page?

A    Yes, it does, and Julie Dompierre signed it for me.

Q    But did you authorize this letter to be sent?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Okay.  Now, what ‑‑ what was the purpose of the ‑‑ of this letter?

A    This letter, which ‑‑ with the attachments of the contract, was saying that, "Here is a contract, and if you agree with it, please do sign it and return it to us."

Q    Now, if you turn over the page, this is ‑‑ is this the contract?

A    I think, yes.

Q    Now, what's the date of the contract on the top ‑‑ the top of the page?

A    The date of the contract is ‑‑ where is it ‑‑ is March 9th, 2000.

Q    Okay.  And now at the bottom of the page, what are items ‑‑ what does Item 2.1 say?

A    That the ‑‑ Madam Bouchard will be ‑‑ that this contract is going to ‑‑ between 1st of April and 31st of March of 2002, so be realized avec diligence and competence and ‑‑ is that what you want?  This is. . .

Q    I just want ‑‑ I mean I ‑‑ I want to know if you can tell me what that paragraph 2.1 ‑‑ what the meaning of that paragraph ‑‑ that term is, what that says, that's all.

A    That the contractee [sic], I think, will be covering the ‑‑ the work between the periods of 1st of April and 31st of March of 2002 with diligence and competence.

Q    Okay.  Because you spoke, I think, earlier about two components of the contract ‑‑ 

A    Right.

Q    -- is that correct? 

          And you said one was prepared by an official ‑‑ a member of SWC?

A    That ‑‑ that is right.  The ‑‑ there is a ‑‑ majority of the pages of the contract is pre-prepared, but there's a section that is one of the appendices that has the terms of reference that is prepared by the Research Directorate that, based on the proposal, explains what is it ‑‑ what the person is going to be delivering to the Government of Canada and when this is going to happen.

Q    Okay.  Now, is it fair to say that Appendix 1, that starts on page 3 ‑‑ or, sorry, Appendix A, that starts on page 3, that's standard form?

A    Yes.

Q    Is that right?

A    That's right.

Q    Okay.  And is that the same for Appendix 2 ‑‑ or Appendix B, pardon me?

A    Appendix ‑‑ okay.  Yeah.  Yes, this is specific ‑‑ this is the same for all the contracts we sign.

Q    Now, do you have an English version of the standard form of this contract?

A    Yes, we do ‑‑ 

Q    Okay.

A    -- and I had asked it to be sent to you.

MR. GAUDET:  And we can provide that to the court tomorrow, My Lord.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. GAUDET:  All right.

Q    But it says ‑‑ so ‑‑ and your ‑‑ does your name appear on the bottom of page 2 of the contract?

A    Yes, it does.

Q    Did you sign this contract?

A    I did.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay. 

          If I may, I would like to have this marked as an exhibit, My Lord.

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 42, My Lord.

EXHIBIT 42:  Letter of April the 17th, 2000 and attachments

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So what ‑‑ was this contract accepted?  Were the terms of this contract accepted by Ms. Bouchard?

A    Yes, and I think there would be another version with her signature in it ‑‑ on it.

Q    Now, can you ‑‑ you said that the project was assigned to a research analyst.  Who was the ‑‑ 

A    That's right.

Q    Who was the research analyst originally assigned?

A    I think it started with Julie Dompierre, then it was Beck Dysart, then it was Vesna Radulovich.

Q    Okay.  Now, what ‑‑ do you recall what approximate time Ms. Radulovich assumed responsibility as the research analyst for the project?

A    I think she assumed responsibility when Beck Dysart left for maternity leave and which ‑‑ I'll have to check the dates ‑‑ 

Q    Okay.

A    -- when she started.  This was one of her first projects.

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

          I'm about to enter into a new area, and I'm in your hands.  I can use the remaining time or ‑‑

THE COURT:  Well, it's up to you.  It depends on how long you take.  I mean we ‑‑ we were a little ‑‑ I was a little late getting back after lunch, so if you want to run a little bit overtime, go ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

THE COURT:  -- go ahead and ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

THE COURT:  -- deal with it.

MR. CHRISTIE:  For the benefit of my learned friend and possibly Ms. Vesna Radulovich, I just want to suggest that in the event the cross-examination starts tomorrow, which seems likely, I would like the court to direct that the witness ‑‑ the next witness not be in the court at that time, and in view of that, maybe if that could be indicated so she could do something else.  I'm sure she doesn't want to have to wait in the hallway or something and ‑‑ just for ‑‑ I hadn't objected at this point because ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  No, that's ‑‑ that's fine.  You're entitled to that order if ‑‑ if you ask for it.  We'll just ‑‑ just ‑‑ perhaps you can give some indication of when she's ‑‑ when you think she should come back, but perhaps ‑‑ you can deal with that with your friends.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, well, I ‑‑ I'm certain that if cross-examination starts tomorrow morning, then I'm ‑‑ I'm positive it'll take the rest ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Of the ‑‑ of the day or ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, I'm sorry, not the rest of the day, definitely, but ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  But certainly until lunchtime ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  An hour.

THE COURT:  An hour?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.  I don't think much more.

THE COURT:  All right.  So. . .

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

MR. CHRISTIE:  If that helps.  I hoped to clarify. . .

THE COURT:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GAUDET:  But she can stay for the rest of the day or ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, yes, I have no objection in chief.  It's just in cross ‑‑ 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.  So ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  Ah. 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

Q    Now ‑‑ so you ‑‑ and you're ‑‑ now that the contract has been signed, what is the next step in the process in ‑‑ in terms of the preparation of the report?

A    For a while, nothing happens from our side because the researchers then start working on their research projects, and usually in each contract there is times when we'll need interim reports, so when we receive them, we do, of course, look at them ‑‑ the person assigned for the project will look at them and see if it is in line with ‑‑ with the proposal, and the second step will be receiving the draft final report, at which case we will start the review process.

Q    Now, is there a rough guide as to when you expect to receive a ‑‑ the first interim report after the contract is signed?

A    Not necessarily because it depends so much on the nature of the ‑‑ of the contract, but it will be on that appendix when we expect to receive it.

Q    Appendix of the contract?

A    Yeah.

Q    Okay.  In any event, in this case, are you aware of ‑‑ of the fact that interim reports were delivered?

A    I have to check, but it is for us ‑‑ 

Q    Are you able to refresh your memory ‑‑ 

A    Yes, please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you.

THE COURT:  It's on Appendix D.

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, in terms of the general ‑‑ Appendix D of the contract?

THE COURT:  Well, it sets out what appears to be, unless I'm misunderstanding it, the dates for interim reports, so. . .

MR. GAUDET:  Okay.

THE COURT:  Could we accept that unless there's ‑‑ unless the dates are different?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Appendix D, Delta?

MR. GAUDET:  In Appendix D of the ‑‑ 

A    No, I don't have it.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    You don't have Exhibit 42?

A    No, I think ‑‑ that's why I knew it was there.

Q    Yes.  Yes.  You see Item Number 1 on page 15?

A    Right.

Q    Page 15, in the bottom right-hand corner?

A    Yes.

Q    His Lordship has identified that the first ‑‑ looks like that the first ‑‑ the preliminary or first interim report is to be delivered on December 15th, is that correct?

A    That's what it says, yes.

Q    And that's your understanding?

A    Yes.

THE COURT:  It's a lucky guess on my part.

MR. GAUDET:  Ah.

A    There are two of them.

Q    Two interim reports?

A    That's right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Is that two interim reports expected or delivered?  I don't quite understand.

A    This contract says that that there will be two internal [sic] reports to be delivered and a final report to be delivered.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  [inaudible/voice drops].

MR. GAUDET:  This might be a good time to break, My Lord, because I can't seem to find a reference that I'm looking for, so ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  All right.  So just so I understand, so ‑‑ so you ‑‑ tomorrow morning, you'll continue with this witness, then Ms. Radulovic is the next witness?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

THE COURT:  All right.  So just [indiscernible] yes, all right, just ‑‑ I ‑‑ Mr. Christie has accommodated her, saying she doesn't have to be here, but you should set a time because I don't really ‑‑ we lost a half a day yesterday ‑‑

MR. GAUDET:  Yes.

THE COURT:  -- so I don't want us to ‑‑ 

MR. CHRISTIE:  We'll discuss ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  -- have any more dead time.

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- timing [indiscernible/speakers overlapping] ‑‑ 

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- My Lord.

THE COURT:  All right.  Ten o'clock tomorrow.


(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO APRIL 27, 2007, AT 10 A.M.)

Transcriber:  Linda Kemp


Victoria, B.C.

April 27, 2007

THE CLERK:  In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Friday, this 27th day of April, 2007, recalling Wiebe v. Bouchard and others. 


ZEYNEP KARMAN

recalled, warned.

THE COURT:  Yes, Mr. Gaudet. 

MR. GAUDET:  Thank you, My Lord. 


EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GAUDET, CONTINUING:

Q    Ms. Karman, yesterday you testified that there was a translation done of the proposal submitted by Ms. Bouchard, is that correct?

A    Yes. 

Q    Now, do you recognize the document that I have just put -- had put before you?

A    Yes, I do. 

Q    And can you identify what this document is, please?

A    It is the English translation of the research proposal presented by Pierrette Bouchard with a title of "Analysis of Discourse on Gender Base Economic Sexes and Failure", what are socio-political issues for women. 

Q    Is it the translation of the proposal that you referred to yesterday?

A    Yes, it is. 

Q    And do you know who it was that -- who turned out the work of translating this document? 

A    It is -- I believe it's the internal translation through Status of Women Canada.  It's not a formal translation, just a translation enabling -- Anglophone External Committee members to read it.  

Q    And to your knowledge was this document submitted to the Anglophone --

A    Yes.

Q    -- members of the External Committee? 

A    Yes, it was. 

MR. GAUDET:  If I may, My Lord. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  An Exhibit. 

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 43, My Lord. 

THE COURT:  Forty-three. 

EXHIBIT 43:  English translation of research proposal

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And yesterday we took you to a document which was the contract that you signed with Ms. Bouchard?

A    Right. 

Q    Now, I asked you whether Ms. Bouchard signed the contract? 

A    Eventually she had signed the contract, yes, but the version I seen was not that one. 

Q    All right.  So there was another version of the contract that she signed? 

A    That's right. 

Q    Do you have -- I've asked for a document to be put before you.  Do you recognize this document?

A    Yes, this is a contract between Status of Women Canada and Pierrette Bouchard. 

Q    Now, on page 2 of the document the signature line for Status of Women Canada doesn't bear your name?

A    No, that is true.  The name is Julie Dompierre.  She's the senior research analyst and she has signed this on behalf -- on my behalf and with my knowledge and permission. 

Q    So was this the contract that bound Ms. Bouchard and Status of Women Canada? 

A    Yes, that's right.  

MR. GAUDET:  I'd like to have that marked as an exhibit, please. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 44, My Lord. 

EXHIBIT 44:  Contract between Status of Women Canada and Pierrette Bouchard

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    And when we left off yesterday I believe we were discussing the first interim report.  Do you have a recollection of a first interim report being submitted by Ms. Bouchard to Status of Women Canada? 

A    Yes, indirectly.  I was told about it. 

Q    You were told there was one submitted?

A    Yes. 

Q    Okay.  Now, did you ever see a copy of the report?

A    I don't recall seeing a copy of the report. 

Q    And would it normally have been provided to you?

A    If there was an issue or problem, otherwise the research analyst who was in charge of it will be following the project management.  It will only be brought to my attention if there was some problems in the report, in the interim or the final reports. 

Q    And to your knowledge were there any problems?

A    No, there were none. 

Q    Now, was it customary for Status of Women Canada to respond to the interim -- to an interim report, to provide comment on it? 

A    If necessary. 

Q    And do you know whether that was done in this case?

A    I believe not.  There would be recognition, of course, of their confirmation that they received it. 

Q    Well, I'm showing you an e-mail dated January 31st, 2001, from Beck Dysart to Pierrette Bouchard and are you a copy on the e-mail?

A    Yes, I am. 

Q    Do you have any recollection of receiving this e-mail?

A    Not really.  I receive so many e-mails but I'm sure I have received it because it was customary for me to be cc to such correspondence. 

Q    And can you just tell us what the subject matter of this e-mail is?

A    It is written from Beck Dysart to Madam Bouchard recognizing that she is -- in her response to the receipt of the report, and she's making a couple of comments about it and starting to say that I have read it with a lot of interest; that she's glad the research is being done in this way; that it is almost complete.  And it also has some information about the receipts to be followed -- to be sent to us. 

Q    Is that all?

A    There are a couple of comments related to the research.  Do you want me to translate them all?

Q    No, no, I just --

A    Okay. 

Q    -- wanted to hit the highlights of what --

A    The highlights of areas. 

Q    And was it customary then to send this kind of response to a researcher?

A    Yeah, it was. 

MR. GAUDET:  Can I make this an exhibit, please.

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Is this going to be translated at some point?  I think there's -- there's really an obligation to allow us to see what it says, if it's an exhibit.  It's useless to me, at least, in its present form. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, I wasn't intending to make translations of all the e-mails and correspondence that set out -- that were exchanged between the parties.  My friend has had our list of documents for a very long time now and didn't request a copy of this.  Had he done so and wanted it translated he could have done so. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I have an answer to that.  First of all, a list of documents is not documents that are going to be tendered.  It's a list of all documents.  We only know when the document is tendered what is going to be tendered, and at that point it becomes a question of whether it's admissible.  I'm not saying it's not admissible, I'm saying in order for it to be admissible, in fairness, it should be comprehensible, at least to the other side. 

          The Government of Canada is not without resources in this regard, and I'm asking that if they're going to rely on an e-mail or anything in the French language they give me the benefit of it in language I can understand.  I apologize, I'm not sufficiently fluent and bilingual.  This is a trial in the English language and it always was, although there was a great effort to make it a trial in Quebec, it didn't succeed. 

THE COURT:  Well, I think the document can be admitted as an exhibit but I think as a matter of courtesy to your friend you should provide a translation of it so that he's in a position to cross-examine on it.  Either that or he can ask the witness to translate it during his cross-examination.

MR. CHRISTIE:  That would be the long way. 

THE COURT:  Exactly. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, it doesn't -- frankly my case isn't going to rise or fall on the strength of this one document, My Lord. 

THE COURT:  Well, it's not your -- it's not a question of your case.  You put it in as a document, as an exhibit, your friend may wish to cross-examine on it and if he's telling me he can't cross-examine on it because he doesn't understand it then --

MR. GAUDET:  Well, then I withdraw this as an exhibit. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. GAUDET:  But I have the witness' evidence -- we had the witness' evidence with respect to the document.

THE COURT:  Well, you have the witness' evidence that comments were sent.

MR. GAUDET:  Yes. 

THE COURT:  The comments were provided.  If you don't want to enter it as an exhibit that's fine. 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes. 

THE COURT:  So withdrawn. 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, Ms. Karman, what was the policy or practice within Status of Women Canada with respect to pre-release or pre-publication of reports by researchers?

A    We would prepare a briefing note for our minister and send an advanced copy to her and she --

Q    I'm sorry, you might not understand my question.  I'll rephrase the question.  I'm not talking about the -- in terms of a researcher wanting to disclose the results of her research prior to publication what was the policy with respect to that? 

A    The contract says that it is -- the research belongs to Status of Women Canada.  We have the right for a first publication.  That in special instances it is possible for the researchers to ask permission to present their research but not the findings.  And we decide case by case if we will give that permission or not. 

Q    Now, in the context of this project, this report, are you aware of any request having been made by Professor Bouchard to discuss the results of her research prior to publication?

A    Yes, I am. 

Q    Now, I've just shown you an e-mail exchange, at the top of the document what's the date, please? 

A    The date is March 12th, 2002. 

Q    Have you seen this document before?

A    Yes, I have. 

Q    Now, you are the recipient of this e-mail?

A    Yes, I am. 

Q    Can you explain to the court what the subject matter of this correspondence is?

A    The subject -- it is a request to talk about the research, original request coming from Madam Bouchard to Vesna Radulovic who is the research analyst responsible for this project requesting to talk about her research to provincial ministers in a closed -- in a closed meeting. 

Q    Sorry, let me just stop you.  When you say provincial ministers, the e-mail speaks of Provincial Government officials. 

A    I'm sorry, I was just looking at my response here. You're absolutely, right, Provincial Government officers, and she's asking for permission to do so, and I have agreed Vesna sends me that information and I agree with that request.  Also indicating that she will not be -- she should not be distributing any text but she could certainly talk about her preliminary findings of her research. 

Q    Now, when it speaks of all the Provincial Government officials responsible for women's issues in their respective departments in the e-mail, do you see that paragraph?

A    Yes.  Just a moment.  In her original e-mail?

Q    In the e-mail from Vesna to you, dated March 7th, 2002, on page 1.

A    Mm-hmm, right. 

Q    The first bullet point. 

A    Yes, I see it. 

Q    Now, what did you understand Provincial Government officials responsible for women's issues in their respective departments to mean?  Which government is this referring to? 

A    It's the Government of Quebec.  It's the Provincial Government of Quebec, and provincial officers that are in the Government of Quebec. 

Q    Well, did you understand this meeting to include Provincial Government officials from other governments besides the Government of Quebec? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I think it's sort of inappropriate to have this witness interpret what she thinks is meant by words used by another witness when that other witness is available to explain what she meant, and so is the person who attended the meeting, and I believe that they're both going to be called. 

THE COURT:  Well, except this witness was giving the permission --

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, I see. 

THE COURT:  -- and in that context, you know, she can tell what she thought she was giving permission for.  It might be right or wrong and other witnesses will deal with that, I suppose. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you. 

A    It is -- my understanding of it is for the provincial officers of the Government of Quebec. 

MR. GAUDET:  I'd like to make this an exhibit, My Lord. 

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, is that including all three pages because the second page and the third page are in French and not translated.  I have a problem with that because I don't know what it says and I can't deal with it in any reasonable way unless I get a translation.  I'm sorry but if that's the purpose -- you've got the English version of the exchange between Karman and -- Ms. Karman and Ms. Radulovic  so isn't that what you want? 

MR. GAUDET:  It's the entire document, My Lord, because the request was initiated by Ms. Bouchard and there was correspondence between Ms. Bouchard and Ms. Radulovic which lead to the request being made to Ms. Karman which she approved.  So I think the document and its integrity would be admissible.  If he wants the translation of this, then I guess I'll have a translation made.

THE COURT:  Well, I think it's important because one of the issues here is when this -- when it was published.  We know the date the book was published, but when any publication -- whether any of the -- the earlier discussions, of course, an issue would be whether any of that earlier discussion included any reference to the plaintiff, and the correspondence leading to that could be very important. 

          Now, if you're prepared to provide it -- I'm going to allow the exhibit in in its entirety.  If you're prepared to provide your friend a translation that's fine, but if it's going to be an issue about this, if it's an issue that's going to arise in other -- context of other documents, then I'm going to want to hear submissions with authorities from both of you about what the obligation is to provide -- you know in a --

MR. GAUDET:  Canadian courtroom.

THE COURT:  -- Canadian courtroom what the obligation is to provide translations if the document is in Canada's other official language.  I don't know if there's any authority on that at all, but if it's going to be a dispute I'm going to want submissions on it.  If you're prepared to simply provide it to your friend, that's fine. 

MR. GAUDET:  In the context of this exhibit I will do that. 

THE COURT:  Okay. 

MR. GAUDET:  I don't know the rigor to which my friend is going to demand, however the translation to an extent.

THE COURT:  Well, I'm just telling you if the issue arises in the context of a document where you're not prepared to provide your friend the translation as a matter of courtesy or whatever, then I'm going to want to hear submissions from everyone as to what the obligations are.  All right.  But I'll allow this in based on what you've just told me.  So that will be Exhibit 45.

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 45, My Lord. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm wondering, My Lord, Exhibit 44 was withdrawn.  Does this become 44?

THE COURT:  Oh, you're right.  No, no, no, Exhibit 44 wasn't withdrawn.  The other --

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, yes, I'm sorry.  I apologize. 

THE COURT:  Right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  My mistake. 

EXHIBIT 45:  Copy of E-mail dated March 12, 2002

MR. CHRISTIE:  I do my best to confuse the issue but Madam Registrar had it right. 

THE COURT:  Yes, well, you may confuse me but you won't confuse Madam Registrar. 

THE CLERK:  Thank you, My Lord. 

MR. GAUDET:  I believe this is the document that Mr. Wiebe indicated that he had read when he formed his opinion as to what was disclosed to whom and when.

THE COURT:  Well, I'm not sure of that.  He said he saw a document but he didn't identify any one in particular.

MR. GAUDET:  Well, actually I believe I took him to -- this is exhibit -- this was a -- this particular document was put to him.

THE COURT:  Oh, was it?  Okay. 

MR. GAUDET:  Tab 62. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  The English version part. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Not the French.  He doesn't understand that. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes. 

Q    Now, I'm going to ask you a question then about the English -- the first page which is in English.

A    Okay.  

Q    Now, you understood the entire document, did you?

A    I did.  Yes, I did. 

Q    Because you speak French?

A    Yes, I read French and I speak French. 

Q    Now, in the e-mail to you from Vesna Radulovic, dated March 7th, 2002, there's six bullet points. 

THE COURT:  Sorry, we're now in -- still on 45?

MR. GAUDET:  Yes. 

THE COURT:  Okay. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, in the second bullet point when it said it was a closed -- it is a closed meeting, there will be no media present, what did you understand that to mean when you gave your approval? 

A    That this is a meeting that will only include Government officials and that there will be -- it will not be a public one. 

Q    And in the fifth bullet point when it says (as read in:

She'll not be distributing a text of her presentation or any papers related to the research. 

     What did you understand that to mean when you gave your approval for this to take place?

A    That the work that she's been doing for us, the one that is funded by Policy Research Fund, no part of that will be distributed during that meeting. 

Q    Now, after the first interim report was received and comments provided what was the next step in the process? 

A    There will be another interim report and then the final report, final draft report. 

Q    And to your knowledge was a second interim report provided?

A    Yes, to my knowledge it was provided. 

Q    Did you see a copy of that document?

A    I don't think so.  I don't remember it.  I doubt it. 

Q    All right.  So then after that takes place, the second interim report, what's the next step? 

A    The final draft report. 

Q    And that's submitted by who?

A    By Madam Bouchard. 

Q    All right.  And to whom would that have been submitted? 

A    To Status of Women Canada. 

Q    To which individual?

A    It will either come to Vesna Radulovic or Jo Anne de Lepper. 

Q    Okay.  And after Status of Women Canada received the draft final report what was done with it?

A    Then we will have it reviewed. 

Q    Reviewed by whom?

A    By an outside expert and if there are any references to any provincial governments or other government departments, the report will be sent to them for review for factual information. 

Q    Was that done in this case?

A    Yes, it was. 

Q    And do you recall to whom the document was distributed for review?

A    It was to the Province of Quebec, to some references and also to External reviewers.  If you mention the name I'm sure I will remember it but she was an expert in education. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't object if my friend wants to lead here. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I assume that it's not terribly contentious.  It might save some time. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  All right. 

Q    Was a copy of the report send to Manon Theoret?

A    Mm-hmm, Manon Theoret. 

Q    And that's spelled T-h-e-o-r-e-t.  And she is a professor?

A    Yes, she is. 

Q    And do you also send -- a copy of the document was sent to the Provincial Government of Quebec?

A    Yes.  I believe that's what Vesna has done. 

Q    Oh, Vesna did that?

A    Yes. 

Q    Okay.  And if I told you it was sent to -- pardon me, you don't mind if I lead on this?

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, go ahead.  The more the merrier.  I'll object if I think I should. 

MR. GAUDET:  All right. 

Q    To Madam Madeleine Savoie with the Secrétariat à la condition féminine of the Government of Quebec, would that sound right? 

A    That sounds right. 

Q    And were those copies of the final -- for the final draft sent by Ms. Radulovic? 

A    Yes, that's correct. 

Q    And to your knowledge were reviews conducted of the report by Madam Theoret?

A    Yes, they were conducted by her.  Excuse me, can you repeat the question?

Q    Yes.  My question was, was a review conducted by Madam Theoret?

A    Yes, it was. 

Q    And was a copy of that provided to Status of Women Canada?

A    Yes, it was. 

Q    And it was provided to Ms. Radulovic?

A    Yes. 

Q    And to your knowledge did the Government of Quebec provide any comments on the report?

A    What I remember is that the Government of Quebec said that they really did not have any comments on this. 

Q    Now, in your testimony yesterday when you were describing the general process --

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    -- leading to the publication of report you referred to a peer review.

A    Right. 

Q    Now, is that what the review conducted by Madam Theoret was?

A    Would be a peer review, yes. 

Q    So in terms of process, after Madam Theoret provided her peer review comments on the report do you know what was the next step?

A    The next step will be that the person in charge of the project will also put together her assessment of the project and send it to External Committee members.  And External Committee members in turn would either provide their reviews or generally their recommendations if this particular project should be published or not; or if it should be published conditionally, conditional to certain changes. 

Q    And was that exercise carried out by Ms. Radulovic?

A    Yes, it was carried out, and the recommendations came as to go ahead with publication of this particular project. 

Q    So the External Committee members said go ahead? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And publish?

A    Yes. 

Q    Now, the rest of the steps, can you just describe to us generally what they are?  You were not directly involved with this part of the process, were you?

A    Not directly, but I still am.  As a Director I'm responsible that the process gets carried through.  So the next process will be editing of the research and then checking with the author about the results of -- the suggestions of the editors, and once that is approved it will be translated and proofread in both official languages and it will, again, verified, sent to the researcher.  Then I think they provide the layout and then it goes to printing. 

Q    Now, did Ms. Bouchard have an opportunity to comment on the translation?

A    Yes, she did. 

Q    And so then what's the next step?  Is it published?

A    It's published.  It's printed, it's published and then it is distributed. 

Q    And all those steps took place in this case?

A    All those steps took place in this particular case. 

Q    Now, I understand that you were -- you went on a leave of absence at some point?

A    I went on a leave, yes. 

Q    And when did that take place?

A    Between -- it was -- there were sections of it.  The first one started in February, 2003, and mid-May, 2003, for French language training.  Then I took a personal leave and then continued with the French language training starting September of 2003. 

Q    And when did that French language training finish?

A    November, 2004. 

THE COURT:  September '03 to November '04, is it? 

A    That's right. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    So is it fair to say then that you were not working actively at Status of Women Canada from February '03 to November '04?

A    Yes. 

Q    But did you stay in touch with individuals there?

A    Yes, I did. 

Q    Now, who took over your functions as Director when you were gone?

A    First it was Lucie Marchessault-Lussier as an acting director and she was there till summer, till July, I believe, of 2003, and then Vesna Radulovic who was there until the next summer, and then Ann Alite -- Ann Alite [phonetic] who was there till I came back, so August to November. 

Q    Okay.  Now, after the report was published did Status of Women Canada receive any responses to the publication of the report?

A    I was told they have. 

THE COURT:  Yes.  She just said she wasn't there at the time, so I don't know how you can deal with that. 

MR. GAUDET:  No, no, I know.  I'm trying to set this up properly. 

Q    So you weren't actually there when this report was published? 

A    No, I wasn't there when it was published. 

Q    Okay.  So any information you have in terms of what the reaction to the report was came from other individuals? 

A    It came from other individuals and there were some cases where they have shown me some correspondence. 

Q    Oh, so you saw some of the reactions to the report?

A    Yes. 

Q    In written form?

A    Yes, a printout of it, yeah.  Yes. 

Q    All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't mind if my friend shows her something that she had a look at. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  And maybe the quickest way to introduce it actually. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    This is an e-mail.  Do you recognize this document, Ms. Karman?

A    I do. 

Q    You've seen this before?

A    I have. 

Q    In what context have you seen this before?

A    Jo Anne de Lepper showed it to me. 

Q    Do you recall when she showed it to you?

A    Not exactly but I believe it's sometime in the summer of 2003. 

Q    Now, it's an e-mail from Tony Fray [phonetic] to Augustine J.  Do you know -- is that Jean Augustine?

A    I think -- yeah, Jean Augustine. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  This is particular obnoxious and highly prejudicial.  I don't know what it proves.  I

     mean --

THE COURT:  I'm not sure I do either.  I mean it's a --

MR. GAUDET:  Well, if my friend isn't going to be referring to the reaction to the report and what it was in his cross-examination, then there's no need to go into it. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I'm not saying that. 

THE COURT:  Well, the reaction to the report relates to the reaction to the report as it may impact on the alleged defamation of the plaintiff.  What does a reaction from some other person to the report have to do with anything. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, as I said, if my friend is not going to be raising -- my friend asked questions in examination for discovery, and in fact I asked Canada to provide an undertaking to provide all the documents that related to all complaints made regarding the report.  And you heard evidence from the plaintiff regarding questions in the House of Commons made by Betty Hinton -- or Members of Parliament regarding the report.  And reference to complaints made by other organizations, such as the Australian False Memory Syndrome Association and a professor, I believe, he mentioned from McGill University, complaining about the report.  And so if my friend is content to say that all that's irrelevant and that the responses or reactions of other individuals to the report are irrelevant and he won't ask questions of the witness about complaints --

THE COURT:  Well, no.  I mean, it's one thing to say he said that certain people who had been in the same position as him had complained and had their names removed from the list, that's what -- that's what the plaintiff gave evidence of.  And he gave evidence of the proceedings of the House of Commons which by definition, I think, are admissible.  But I'm still not sure how some response from somebody from Arizona has anything to do with anything. 

MR. GAUDET:  Just to answer your question --

MR. CHRISTIE:  This is not a person who was ever on the list or asked to be removed from the list. 

THE COURT:  Yes, I understand that, Mr. Christie.  Let's hear from your friend. 

MR. GAUDET:  The defence that -- one of the defences that Canada's making to the alleged defamation is this defence of qualified privilege. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  And the qualified privilege defence, as Your Lordship knows, engages a --

THE COURT:  Don't assume I know anything. 

MR. GAUDET:  But based on my introduction, we’re going to be arguing that -- and have taken a position in our pleadings that there was a public duty upon Status of Women Canada to report on the issues that were published in the report, to encourage debate on the issues published in the report.  And part of the -- part of the theme of the report that was addressed by Madam Bouchard was this concept that there was a discourse of hate, that there are anti-feminists out there who are using the internet as a forum to advance their agenda against the advances made by women through the feminist movement.  And as we know Mr. Wiebe's website was identified in the report as an example of that. 

          Now, this is, I submit -- and Mr. Wiebe said the reason he puts his material on his website is to encourage debate and encourage discourse on these issues.  And I submit that the fact that these kinds of responses were received by those individuals or those kinds of -- the people that the report speaks of demonstrates that there is a public policy purpose, and it goes to articulating and defining the public policy purpose that the report was intended to address.  And I'm not going to put in all of the reactions 'cause that would be a stack like this, but I thought that just an illustration of the kind of reaction that the report generated from this lobby would tend to show that the public policy purpose that the report was intended to address is a valid one.  And I'll let Mr. Christie respond to that. 

THE COURT:  Okay. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.  This is not a case about debate, nor is it a case about how there are outrageous men who say bad things and despicable things about women.  That's not the issue in this case, although my friend might like to make it the issue.  It would only have peripheral relevance if it could demonstrate that it was a complaint about being on the list and somehow or other it was useful to the defence of qualified privilege.  I can't see that from this document, and it's obvious that from my friend's remarks he is trying to demonstrate the existence of a lobby connecting an outrageous -- this document is an outrageous abuse of women, and connected somehow to the plaintiff to defame him.  And it almost is a process of blaming the victim and adding more abuse in the process.  It really doesn't come close to qualified privilege.  That's a very important debate in this case. 

          Qualified privilege is pled and I recognize that it is an issue that will have to be addressed, but if I could just briefly say something about qualified privilege.  There has to be a duty to receive and a capacity to do something about the document received.  It has no connection here between some poor ranting individual and some duty to receive or some duty to -- that could rectify some -- a grievance for   injustice.  The classic example of qualified privilege is a defamatory report to the police about somebody, and we all understand that it gives us a good picture of where there has to be a relationship between the duty to receive the information and the capacity to do something about it. 

          This individual was not attempting in any way to rectify some legitimate grievance.  He is expressing what might be called a pathetic point of view, and it's interesting that my friend says he's not going to produce the stack of complaints, and I take it that's by people whose name is on the list -- maybe it isn't but -- that's the way I thought it would be relevant.  But he's made a selection of -- if this is the worst it demonstrates that it's of no relevance to the issue, and it's just an attempt to prejudice the case, and I thought really quite unfairly so, anyway, I thank you for hearing me. 

THE COURT:  Well, the issue of qualified privilege, it seems to me is this.  First of all, that the Government of Canada has a duty to publish information which suggests there might be a, to use your phrase, a discourse of hatred against women.  Is that part of what you're saying? 

MR. GAUDET:  It's part of that.  It's partly --

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  -- the Government of Canada has a duty to encourage debate and research analysis of that.

THE COURT:  Right.  Right. 

MR. GAUDET:  This is an example of exactly what it was. 

THE COURT:  Right.  Right.  And leaving aside -- then the next question is, does that -- assuming that's correct and that such a duty exists, which I don't take Mr. Christie to be quarrelling with, the next question is, does that qualified privilege arising from that duty extend to the specific comments allegedly made about the plaintiff. 

MR. GAUDET:  No.  Actually with respect I believe that the concept of qualified privilege applies to the occasion upon which the comments were made and not with respect to the specific comments that --

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, the comments have to fall within the scope of a qualified privilege and that is going to be an issue.  I know, for instance, the Court of Appeal in this province in Pressler v. Lethbridge was confronted with this same argument, and I've got a copy for Your Lordship, that because a news agency has a duty to encourage debate and inform the public, therefore a qualified privilege extends to their capacity on the specific occasion to do what they did.  And I'll tell you now, it certainly wasn't taken that way by the Court of Appeal of this province, and I don't think by any other. 

          So rather than debate the whole issue I think, frankly, the document even in the scope of what my friend perceives to be qualified privilege about which I would later like to make submissions, this wouldn't qualify.  It's actually the result of the report clearly.  It's not a pre-existing document, it's some reaction.  Reaction can be relevant to show a number of things, particularly relating to a specific case, but to use it to justify the publication of your report that you get a reaction from a nut case and therefore that proves the existence of nut cases is to put the cart before the horse, and it doesn't add relevance to qualified privilege.  

THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Gaudet, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing what possible probative value this document is.  Now, if you wish to make further submissions on it with authorities, that's fine.  And if you want to mark it as an exhibit for identification for this purpose just so we can argue about it later, that's fine.  But, you know, I must agree with Mr. Christie I have a great deal of difficulty seeing what relevance this document has in the context of this case.  So do you want to mark it as an exhibit for identification? 

MR. GAUDET:  Yes, please, My Lord. 

THE CLERK:  Exhibit A, My Lord. 

THE COURT:  Exhibit A.  All right.

MARKED A FOR IDENTIFICATION:  E-mail Tony Fray [phonetic] to J. Augustine

MR. GAUDET:  

Q    Ms. Karman, the report contains a disclaimer?

A    Right. 

MR. GAUDET:  Exhibit 1 is a copy of the report.  Is there a copy for the witness? 

Q    At the bottom of the first page of the report, a numbered page, the frontis piece. 

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    It says (as read in): 

This document expresses the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada. 

     Can you explain, why was this disclaimer put on the front of the report?

A    It reflects the nature of the research program that we have.  We are funding independent research.  Research findings are those of the author and as indicated there, it does not necessarily reflect the position of the -- either -- neither the Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada.  It is one of the principles of the Policy Research Fund. 

MR. GAUDET:  I'd like to show the witness a copy of the Statement of Claim.

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET: 

Q    Now, Ms. Karman, will you, please, turn to page 8 of the Statement of Claim.  It's, I believe, paragraph 8D.  Now, this is a document prepared by the plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel.  Do you see paragraph 8D (as read in):

The Minister and Crown defendant acted with malice as follows, and sub rule (i) or 1, to achieve political popularity among militant feminists the defendants published, sponsored, funded the study in defamatory publication. 

          Now, can you tell the court is the reason why Status of Women Canada published, sponsored and funded this report -- first of all, do you know what the word sponsored means here?

A    Yes, I do. 

Q    You do? 

A    I believe I do. 

Q    What do you take it to mean here?

A    Is that we have supported for this research -- particular research project to be carried out. 

Q    Now, is the reason why that was done to achieve political popularity among militant feminists?

A    No.  It is -- this particular sentence does not reflect any of the objectives of the Policy Research Fund or the Status of Women Canada.

Q    Do you know what is meant here by the term militant feminists? 

A    Not really because these are definitions that are very subjective. 

Q    The next paragraph states (as read in):

In refusing to remove and cease publication of the defamatory article after request to do so out of a political concern for popularity with militant feminists and for publicly biased motives.

          So I'm going to ask you, is the reason why the -- well, first of all, are you aware of a request to remove and cease publication of the article made by Mr. Wiebe? 

A    Not directly, no. 

Q    No.  Do you have any knowledge as to why -- as to whether or not the publication wasn't removed, whether that had anything to do with a concern -- political concern for popularity with militant feminists? 

A    I can answer you definitively that it had nothing to do with a political concern for popularity with militant feminists and for publicly biased motives because that is not the raison d'êtat or the objective of this particular program. 

MR. GAUDET:  I have no further questions of the witness. 

THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Godderham, do you have any questions for this witness? 

MR. GOODERHAM:  No. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Godderham, do you have any questions for this witness? 

MR. GOODERHAM:  No. 

THE COURT:  All right. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTIE:

Q    Now, witness, could you tell me, please, are you aware of the nature of more than just this report funded by your department?

A    If I understand your question, yes, I'm aware of many publications funded by Policy Research Fund, yes. 

Q    Yes.  And when I say aware, in fairness, I suppose you didn't read them all in minute detail?

A    No. 

Q    But you'd be aware of their general content, I take it?

A    General content, yes. 

Q    Yes.  And would that extend to knowing, first of all, what it's about, subject matter, would it extend that far?

A    Yes, it would. 

Q    And would it extend in the case of a report, would it extend to, for example, a glance at it, a look through it to see that the general categories and subject matter?

MR. GAUDET:  Oh, I don't understand the question, My Lord.  Is it directed to a particular report? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, I'm --

THE COURT:  No, he's talking generally. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  -- about all the reports. 

THE COURT:  But you're talking about her general practice?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes. 

Q    And I hope I'm not confusing you, am I? 

A    No --

Q    I'm talking about all the reports. 

A    Of all the reports I have some idea about it, but that doesn't mean I will remember it all. 

Q    No, no.  And don't expect me to try and demand that you answer questions about things you don't  -- haven't read or can't remember.  I'm not here to do that.  What I am asking you though is as the Director of this Research Department you might have a general knowledge, and I'm trying to explore just how detailed, about all these reports that would be issued during your tenure, would that be a fair statement? 

A    That would be a fair statement, yes. 

Q    Okay.  And, of course, I'm trying to explore a little bit about how much detail you would look at, and I'm suggesting, correct me if I'm wrong, that when you would be involved with these various reports, in an administrative and advisory role, I take it you'd look through them, glance through them, see that the general topics, maybe chapter headings, maybe read them in some detail if they were of interest, but you'd scan them, is that a fair statement?

A    Yes. 

Q    Okay.  And I would say being as we are, it would be impossible to say in regard to any particular report precisely what you did or didn't see, would that be fair? 

A    That will be fair, yes. 

Q    All right.  Now, what I'm really trying to get at is, can you tell me about any other report issued during your tenure, and I can see this was not issued during your tenure, you had gone elsewhere, but it was a report that you certainly dealt with and up to the almost publication date, is that fair?

A    Yes. 

Q    Okay.  Any other report generate the controversy this one did, in your experience?

MR. GAUDET:  I object.  I don't see how that question would possibly be relevant. 

THE COURT:  Well, I'm not sure I see it either but it's cross-examination and there's some latitude here.  Go ahead. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  All right.  That was somewhat of a peripheral point. 

Q    Can you tell me if any other report ever generated the controversy this one did? 

A    Yes. 

Q    What one was that?

A    The one that comes to mind is the one that we did on polygamy. 

THE COURT:  On what? 

A    Polygamy. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Polygamy, I see.  In the one you did on polygamy were there any lists or references to polygamists?

A    To organizations, yes. 

Q    There were?

A    Yeah. 

Q    I see.  Any other report that you recall that listed groups or individuals in a pejorative sense?

A    I don't think I'll be able to answer -- first of all, I don't think it was listed in a pejorative sense anywhere, here included. 

Q    Yes. 

A    So, you know, unless I have to go through all of them I won't be able to answer your question.

Q    Okay.  Well, I do want you to -- if you do say that a list or names were named in this report on polygamy --

A    Organizations were named. 

Q    Organizations were named.  No individuals?

A    I don't recall. 

Q    So was this polygamy study published before "School Success By Gender," the Exhibit 1 here?

A    After. 

Q    After.  So prior to this document that I'm holding in my hand which I hope is correctly identified as Exhibit 1 or perhaps 2 -- 1, other than Exhibit 1 you have never before published a study with the names, either pejorative or otherwise, of individuals, correct?

A    I'm not saying that.  I am just saying that -- you asked me what I remembered and I just gave you an example of the one that I remembered. 

Q    But that was after?

A    Right. 

Q    And you can't think of another study?

A    Another one that was -- a lot of debate on it was on trafficking in women. 

Q    Were there any lists of people identified as woman traffickers?

A    I don't recall that.  I don't think so. 

Q    No.  My understanding, and I want to put this to you, from Ms. Radulovic is that prior to this study no study published by Status of Women Canada had ever listed names of individuals and described them in any way, am I correct in that?  You agree with that, do you?

A    I do not.  I cannot tell you. 

Q    You can't.  All right.  But can you tell me any study prior to this that you specifically recall actually listing --

A    I cannot respond to this question unless I really will look through all of them. 

Q    No, but I think you can to my last question.  Can you recall any other studies that you specifically remember naming names of individuals or groups?

A    Normally references will always be made. 

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry, just to be clear, that isn't the same question you asked before. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm sure it's not identical but I think it's the same.  I'll try again.  Now, was there a problem with it? 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, to be fair, you referred to lists of individuals and now he's changed the question to naming names.

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay. 

MR. GAUDET:  And whether any of those names is mentioned in a report is something very different than whether there's a list. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.  I'm indebted to my friend for that correction and I agree. 

Q    So any other study prior to Exhibit 1 that produced lists of names that you recall today? 

A    I do not recall that.  However, whenever there's a source of any information, any research -- researcher -- researcher will make a reference to where that source is.  Will have to make that reference. 

Q    Do you know what I mean by a list? 

A    Yes, I do. 

Q    Okay.  Can you agree with me that there's no other study that lists names of individuals and groups to which any pejorative references are made in the study?  Do you agree with that? 

A    You are doing -- you're asking your question and modified using the adjectives that I will not be able to respond to.

Q    Okay. 

A    You're making reference to pejorative lists.  And in any case unless I have access to all of these things I will not be able to answer your questions if there were lists or not. 

Q    Okay.  Let's go back to the question and simplify it.  You agree with me that you could -- it's possible to create a pejorative list?  Do you understand what I mean by the word "pejorative list"?

A    Could you explain what it is that you exactly mean by pejorative list? 

Q    Yes.  Pejorative list would be a list of names or -- a list of names is what I'm concerned about which has negative connotations.  That’s what I mean by a pejorative list, a list of bad boys would be a pejorative list; a list of bad girls would be a pejorative list, that's what I mean by a pejorative list.  So in that context you understand what I mean, I trust? 

A    I do. 

Q    Okay.  And I'm going to put it to you quite bluntly that no other study that you on behalf of Status of Women had anything to do with, in your position as Director or Policy Research, ever, prior to Exhibit 1, published a pejorative list?

A    But I do not agree with that this one is a pejorative list either. 

Q    I didn't say this one was a pejorative list.  That's an argument I will definitely make.  I'm not putting it to you to admit that.  You don't agree with that, do you?

A    No. 

Q    It's not a pejorative list in your opinion?

A    It's a list. 

Q    Well, I didn't ask your opinion as to whether this contained a pejorative list.  I'm not asking you that. 

A    Okay. 

Q    I'm asking you whether in any other study you were involved with as Director of Policy Research you ever saw the production of a pejorative list?

A    But, again, you are using the term pejorative.

Q    Yes, I've defined it, you've understood the definition. 

A    And the answer is no.

Q    And you can answer that question. 

A    I do not recall having seeing a pejorative list.

Q    All right. 

A    Or -- no, a pejorative list. 

Q    All right.  You don't recall ever seeing a pejorative list.  If you had seen a list, a pejorative list, you would have been concerned about it, I take it?

A    The research analyst working on it would have flagged it to me. 

Q    Yes.  What would you have done?

A    Looked into it. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  So in this case the research analyst -- if there was a pejorative list in Exhibit 1, the research analyst should have flagged it to you, if there was a pejorative list, correct?

A    If and yes. 

Q    Okay.  And who was the research analyst from beginning to end in regard to "School Success By Gender"?

A    It changed. 

Q    All right.  Who was the first one? 

A    In the contract Julie Dompierre's name is there.  Then Beck Dysart was the one who took over and Vesna Radulovic take over in the final stages of the process. 

Q    So it's only at the final stages of the process,  after the contract is signed --

A    Right.

Q    -- and the research is produced in final form that you would have seen or been able to see any list, is that correct?

A    After the draft report has been received. 

Q    And when the draft report was received who was the research analyst?

A    It was Vesna Radulovic. 

Q    Okay.  So from the first occasion upon which a draft report was received she was the research analyst, correct?

A    That's correct?

Q    And she's the one who should have, if there was a pejorative list, should have flagged it to you? 

A    If she believed that there was. 

Q    Okay.  So I'm just trying to identify who would have been responsible to do that, and there's no doubt it would be her, correct?

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    I'm sorry?

A    Yes. 

Q    All right.  Thank you.  

A    Correct. 

Q    I take it from your evidence the Government of Canada's fiscal year always begins on April 1st, is that right? 

A    That's right.

Q    I see.  And you said that it was sent externally.  That's the draft report was sent externally for peer review to one professor, correct, and the Government of Quebec?

A    Yes. 

Q    All right.  I'm looking at a document which is W three zeros 133 in our production called a "Critical Analysis of the Research Paper" by Pierrette Bouchard, Isabelle Boily and Marie Claude Proulx.  It's written in English, and I'm asking you to consider whether you ever saw that?

A    Yes, I have seen that.  I'm not so sure if the original was written in English though, and yes, I have seen that. 

Q    Okay.  Well, you don't dispute that that was produced and you've seen it, in one of the languages of the country.  Is that the document prepared by Ms. Theoret?

A    I believe it is.  The form I have seen is not exactly this form, that's why I'm looking at it but I believe this is the -- this is the report. 

Q    Yes.  Three pages in English anyway. 

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    So we only got it with the name blacked out but now it appears that's Madam Theoret.  Nobody else wrote a report critical of this --

MR. GAUDET:  Well, sorry, just to clarify for the record.  You say you only got it with the name blacked out.  Are you referring to the access to information request you made? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, that's right. 

MR. GAUDET:  And you aren't suggesting that we gave you a copy that wasn't blacked out in the context of the litigation? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, actually I don't think we got it from you in the context of the litigation.  But that's what we're looking at and I agree it's from access to information. 

Q    So what I'm trying to establish, if I may, is that this is the one and only critical analysis of the research paper that is the subject of these proceedings, is that correct?

A    That has been done by an external expert. 

Q    Yes, done by an external expert. 

A    Right. 

Q    Well, why do you go to an external expert?  For objectivity, let's get to the point.

A    For objectivity, for the reader of the report. 

Q    Thank you.  Now, you've seen it and I'm going to put to you that it said, under paragraph 4, suggestions concerning form, it said words to this effect, in either French or English, quote, and I've highlighted it (as read in): 

As well, it is surprising to see journalists and authors of verbatim quotations named, given that ethics and tradition in qualitative research usually require researchers to maintain the anonymity of such sources.

     Did you actually see words to that effect?

A    Yes, but if you read the next sentence it says (as read in:

While these things are admitted in public domain.

Q    I'm not arguing with that. 

A    Okay. 

Q    I'll deal with everything. 

A    Okay. 

Q    I'll go there.  You don't have to -- just wait for the question.  What I'm going to ask you is, it mentions ethics.

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    And traditions in qualitative research.  When you read a critic of a research paper referring to ethics and traditions in qualitative research, does that concern you at all?

A    I look at what it is that they have produced and in that particular case it is a public information, so therefore we did not agree with her concern.  However --

Q    No, my question's very general really.

A    Okay.  Yeah.  Yes. 

Q    When you hear from --

A    The answer is yes. 

Q    And so the answer to the question is it does concern you?

A    It is not the concern but we will look at it, of course. 

Q    Do you want me to read the next sentence, I will.  The next sentence appears to be (as read in): 

While these texts are admittedly in the public domain some hesitation persists.

     Correct? 

A    Correct. 

Q    Do you want me to read the next sentence (as read  in): 

A note would soften the effect of the decision to proceed in this manner.

A    Right. 

Q    Now, have I read everything in there that's relevant to that?

A    In that -- by that, yes. 

Q    Yes.  And then we go on to typographical errors but -- and I'll file this, if I may, since you've identified it as containing the substance of what you received.  Would that be fair?

A    It is. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  All right.  Thank you.  Could that be the next exhibit? 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, could I see what you're referring to?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, of course.  And I think that's probably 46. 

THE COURT:  Forty-six, I think. 

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 46. 

EXHIBIT 46:  Document

THE COURT:  May I see it, please, for a moment.

MR. CHRISTIE:  And, for the record, the highlighting on the, I think, second page I put there myself and I think -- if I need to I'll clarify that.  That's the portion I put to the witness. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I just have a couple of questions on that.

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you. 

Q    So would it be correct to say this is the one and only critical analysis from outside your department that was ever obtained or received?

A    If they're not counting External Committee members that are also outside the department, they also review them. 

Q    Yes.  I looked at the list of External Committee members, you yourself would participate in selecting them, correct?

A    I participate in making a short list, yes. 

Q    Yes.  And I couldn't see one single man on this panel, correct?  

A    That is correct. 

Q    Okay.  This was to determine if it was objectively fair to gender equality, was it?

A    Objectively -- excuse me? 

Q    The External Committee was to make sure everything was -- or something that you were dealing with would be objectively fair for gender equality, was it?

A    The External Committee members are to check the quality of the research that they have carried out -- the researchers have carried out, what they've agreed to do so, and use a methodology in a way that it was proposed and that it was a research -- policy research project. 

Q    When you got this document which we've marked Exhibit 46 and you read the words, "It is surprising to see journalists and authors of verbatim quotations named," did you ever contact this person to say what do you mean by journalists and authors of verbatim quotations named?  Did you ever do that? 

A    No, I did not.  However, this particular review was also sent to External Committee members and my project analyst also reviewed it, and the general consent was it was acceptable the way it was presented. 

Q    Did you have any trouble figuring out what she meant?  I don't think you did.  You knew very well she was referring to the Appendix 2 list? 

A    Not at all.

Q    No?

A    No. 

Q    What other lists or --

A    There is -- no, she was referring to a journalist that is within the context of that --

Q    Yes, yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry, let the witness answer the question.

THE COURT:  Yes, please, Mr. Christie, let her finish. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay. 

A    It is a journalists that are referred to within the body of the report. 

Q    There is a list of journalists, isn't there, on page 61?

A    I have to check. 

Q    Okay. 

A    Yes. 

Q    And they're referred to as spokespersons, is that right? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Yes.  That's the list of journalists, isn't it?

A    I believe so. 

Q    Yes.  And the authors of verbatim quotations, that's Appendix 2, isn't it?

A    No. 

Q    No?  Well, what are the -- you tell me then what authors of verbatim quotations means? 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, with respect Ms. Karman didn't write the critique. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, she claims to have understood it. 

MR. GAUDET:  Then you could ask what she thought that term means. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I did.  I asked her to tell me what it means. 

MR. GAUDET:  To her. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, all right, to her, if that's necessary.  Generally implied but no problem.

A    I understood it in those pages there's a specific reference to the articles and pages exception so I understood it to refer to the journalists that are starting from the page 61 onwards. 

Q    So let me understand you correctly.  You say that journalists refers to page 61, right, under spokespersons, and authors of verbatim quotations refers to the same thing, does it? 

A    It may also be throughout that -- yes, there's a page on 62, 63, if you'll see it it is -- it keeps on continuing there, but also it is very possible that throughout the body of the research there might be verbatim references, but I cannot direct the answer to that because I will have to go through the report to do that. 

Q    Wouldn't you agree with me that it's quite obvious that you can't find anything that you could identify today other than, I suggest, Appendix 2 that means authors of verbatim quotations?

THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Christie, if you want her to read the whole report now to answer that question.

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, I thought -- okay, I appreciate the point. 

Q    When you looked at this document and saw the -- did you look at the list of journalists referred to as spokespersons?

A    I don't remember. 

Q    On page 61?

A    I'm just looking at it now. 

Q    Well, let --

MR. GAUDET:  Well, let the witness read the document. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  She said I'm looking at it now.  I appreciate that.  My question was did you look at it before.  It's not hard to answer that one. 

A    I might have. 

Q    Well, here's what I'm going to suggest that if you have an independent reviewer telling you there are ethical concerns about seeing people or journalists or people named, you would look in the report to see what they mean, wouldn't you?

A    If I was managing the project, yes, I would do that.  In my case it will be flagged to me and with an explanation of what it might mean and I will just look at it and will I agree with it.

Q    Okay.  Was this flagged to you or not? 

A    To tell you the truth I do not remember. 

Q    So you're saying that the qualitative control mechanism within your Research Department would be the research analyst, is that what I'm to understand?

A    No, not only the research analyst.  It could be a research analyst that will lead the project.  There will be peer review and plus all of the External Committee members will not only read it themselves in many cases, but also look at the reviews of others to determine if it should be -- this publication should be proceeded or not. 

Q    Outside your handpicked committee -- I know you don't like that term but you did pick the committee. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, no --

MR. CHRISTIE:  The External Review Committee.

THE COURT:  No, she didn't say that, Mr. Christie. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay.  She had a hand in picking out, sorry.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE:  

Q    Outside the Internal or External Review Committee the only objective analysis in detail of this report was done by Ms. Theoret, correct? 

A    Not really because you are assuming that the External Committee members would not be objective. 

Q    And that's an argument, not an answer.  I said outside of them, it's a matter of opinion whether they are or are not objective.  It's an argument.  I'm not going into that.  I'm just asking you if this is the only external review outside your own committee. 

A    This is the only external peer review outside the members of the External Committee. 

Q    Now, if there were ethical concerns raised by the sole external -- I call it external -- outside of your department, the sole critical analysis, would it be the duty of the research analyst to flag it to your attention?

MR. GAUDET:  Well, I have to object because the question implies evidence that the witness hasn't given.  She has explained that the External Committee conducts a review process and Mr. Christie has framed the question as if they don't exist.  The sole critical or objective review he's described it as being Ms. Theoret, and I just think --

THE COURT:  No, I took the question as being specifically excluding the review committee and then the question is if the outside peer reviewer raised ethical concerns, then I didn't hear the rest of the question actually. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  All right. 

Q    Would it be the duty of the research analyst to flag it to your attention?

A    If she considered that -- if she agreed with the reviewers she will flag -- she would bring it to my attention, yes. 

Q    So it's not her duty to bring it to your attention if the outside reviewer raises ethical concerns.  It's her discretion to do so. 

A    It is her discretion to do so, and I think in this particular case, if you read the rest of the review, that it was a very favourable one and she just -- it wasn't flagged as something that -- it was more of a question than a flag.

THE COURT:  All right. 

A    And --

THE COURT:  Sorry, go ahead. 

A    And thus it is perfectly understandable that it was -- it may not have been brought to my attention as a problem.

THE COURT:  Is that a convenient point to break, Mr. Christie? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes.  Sorry, I didn't realize the time. 

THE COURT:  All right.  Ma'am, you probably heard me tell other witnesses --

A    Yes. 

THE COURT:  -- that while under cross-examination they can't discuss their evidence, and the same applies. 

A    Yes. 


(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)


ZEYNEP KARMAN

recalled, warned.

THE COURT:  Yes, Mr. Christie.

MR. CHRISTIE:  My Lord, I'm indebted to my learned friend, Mr. Gooderham, for the suggestion of which I would like to consent to of providing to Your Lordship at least a photocopy of the English version of Exhibit 1.  My learned friend, Mr. Gaudet, has apparently no objection and I have a copy if it please Your Lordship to file for your use. 

THE COURT:  Thank you. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  This does not contain the French version at all but it's all of the English version on one side at a time, that's why it looks a little thicker.  It's only printed on one side.  If I may, I'd like to offer that as the next exhibit and/or some use to the court. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Which might be then 47 perhaps. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

THE CLERK:  Exhibit 47.

EXHIBIT 47:  English version of Exhibit 1

 

MR. CHRISTIE:  And I spoke to my friend -- and I have an extra copy here -- about the subject of Exhibit 46 of which he wants a copy.  I assured him that either the registrar could help, or if she couldn't I would by noon and he can use it then. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTIE, CONTINUING:

Q    Excuse, witness, if I may, back to the point, just how much did you know about Pierrette Bouchard?  Did you ever know of her previously? 

A    No. 

Q    Never met her?

A    Never met her. 

Q    Did you ever inquire on her website or anywhere as to her academic qualifications?

A    Certainly.  In her proposal there's a CV --

Q    Okay.

A    -- which shows her academic credentials. 

Q    And did it show her fields of interest?

A    It showed her areas of interest, yes. 

Q    Yes.  So did you look at her CV in which she set out her doctorate, her fields of interests, her specializations of study and all those things? 

A    I have at the time. 

Q    You did at the time.  And I take it then you would have read that in French because that's how it's situated?

A    Yes, it's translated, yeah. 

Q    Okay.  Well, what I'm going to do now is show you what I suggest is Pierrette Bouchard's CV, the one that you would have seen.  This one, I suggest, comes off of the internet but I suggest is what you would have seen, is that correct?

A    I cannot say yes or no.  This is eight years ago and it was much -- I recall it being much longer one. 

Q    Okay.  Well, what I'm going to ask you to look at is the last sentence under Fields of Interest, and I just want to ask you if you could read out the last sentence of that in French if you wish but I just want to -- read it to yourself, just yourself.

A    Right. 

Q    Have you read it?

A    I have read it. 

Q    Does it not indicate that she is a militant feminist and a unionist?

A    That's what it says. 

Q    Okay.  So you would have probably read that, I take it?

A    I doubt it. 

Q    You doubt it?

A    'Cause usually the CV's that arrive are not the same thing found on websites. 

Q    Okay.  Fair enough.  But you still don't know what a militant feminist is? 

A    I believe you have to ask the author. 

Q    So you didn't ask her?

A    No. 

Q    No.  I take it -- I suggest that's because you know what it means?  That's why you didn't ask her, is that right? 

A    I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I'm saying that is not the CV I have seen so I might not -- have never seen that terminology. 

Q    Okay.  Today do you understand what it means?

A    Do you want to define it for me?

Q    No, I don't think I should.  I just wondered if you understand what a militant feminist is, so whether you admit --

A    One interpretation would be an activist, but I do not know.  These are all subjective terminologies. 

Q    Okay.  Did any of the, what you call, External Review Committee, the women who meet once a year for two days, correct?

A    Twice a year. 

Q    Twice a year for two days.  Is that correct, twice a year for two days?

A    Yes, with the total number of days being four. 

Q    I see.  Okay.  Did any of them at any time indicate that they did not recommend publishing Madam Bouchard's report? 

A    I do remember a discussion, an early discussion to see -- because it was focused on education which is a provincial jurisdiction, should this report be considered or not.  I recall that.  And after we said that it can be a provincial jurisdiction everyone recommended that we should go ahead with it. 

Q    Did you ever fill out these little report cards, assessment -- summary of the assessment?

A    Yes. 

Q    And I've got two of them that says not recommended.  Could you explain that?

A    The only explanation I can give you is because there was some members thought that because it's on the issue of provincial jurisdiction, they might not be able to fund it.  They thought they would not be considered as eligible, and therefore could not be recommended. 

Q    Oh, so you're giving us what you say their reasons were. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, with respect, that's what you asked the witness. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, I asked her if she'd seen some assessments that did not recommend publication and then you launched into your explanation.  That's the --

THE COURT:  No, she's entitled to explain her answer, Mr. Christie. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I agree, I agree. 

Q    But what I'm just saying is that you are telling us what you say they said, right, as to the reasons?

A    And I'm also telling you that I'm aware that some members felt that it might not be eligible. 

Q    Well, we don't know what they thought because there's no minutes of the discussions, is there? 

A    There is -- there's a meeting minutes, yes. 

Q    Well, they're not verbatim by any means.

A    No. 

Q    And they don't record anywhere, not recommending publication, they don't do that, do they?  The minutes. 

A    The minutes would not because the publications that are not recommended will not be selected. 

Q    The mandate that's on page 5 of Exhibit 31.  Do you say that's sanctioned by Parliament?

MR. GAUDET:  Could the witness have the exhibit.

THE CLERK:  Which exhibit is it?

MR. CHRISTIE:  Thirty-one. 

A    Thank you. 

Q    So you've got Exhibit 31, is that correct?

A    That is correct. 

Q    All right.  And if you turn to page 5 is there something called a mandate?

A    There's something called -- it's a legal mandate, yes. 

Q    A legal mandate.  This was somehow sanctioned by Parliament or the Minister or where does it come from?

A    It's an Order in Council 7679 -- 79, yeah -- 779. 

Q    Could you explain how the mission, division or the legal mandate would ever require the publication of a list of opponents of feminism? 

A    The list of opponents of feminism?

Q    Mm-hmm.  A list of opponents of feminism.  I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with any characterization of Appendix 2.  That's an argument, I don't want to go there, but can you explain to me how the legal mandate, division or the mission could ever require a list of opponents of feminism? 

A    I will try to answer your question the way I understand your question to be.  In the mission, if you look at it, is the mission is to promote gender equality and the full participation of all women in the economic social culture and political life of the country.  Thus, through that kind of a mission we are -- we have a program, a research program that provides information and assessment of policy issues from a gender perspective, and that's what these research publications do.  So, therefore, within that publication any of the information or any of the analysis contributes to better understanding of gender equality and impact of policies and programs on women and men. 

Q    What's gender equality? 

A    Equality between sexes.

THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what was the answer?

A    It's equality between women and men, both within the roles that they have in the society. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    So you wouldn't expect that there would be no point of view for men because there's two sexes, right?

A    Why wouldn't I expect that there's -- there's always a point of view from both perspective, but our role is present a perspective from the women's point of view. 

Q    I see.  So gender equality from your perspective doesn't mean making an equal and fair representation of both sexes, but only for the benefit of women then?

A    I would not define it like that because something that benefits women will benefit the whole society, so it is the gender equality in the way I understand it will benefit both women and men.

Q    So your position is that it wouldn't be part of your legal mandate to produce a list of bad men or men's groups, would it? 

A    I don't think I can answer a question like that.  It's just so unprecise and --

Q    Oh, is it?  Well, let me be more precise.  I've looked at the --

A    You can on the context.  I cannot answer questions without a context.

Q    Okay.  Well, I'll try to clarify the question if it's too ambiguous.  What I'm saying is the legal mandate, the vision and the mission do not indicate any desire or intention to do any harm to men's groups, does it?

A    Harm to -- harm to anybody. 

Q    No, I'm talking about men's groups.  You wanted me to be specific so I'm specific.  Does it in any way that you can interpret by any means justify to your mind doing any harm to men's groups? 

A    I can only answer this question in the term that no harm is ever intended by any of the Government Departments to anyone. 

Q    All right.  Well, it certainly wouldn't fall within the mandate or the vision or the mission to condemn men's groups, would it? 

A    I don't think we condemn groups. 

Q    I don't think you think you do, and I'm not sure that you're going to ever accept that you do, and I'm not arguing with you about that.  But it wouldn't be --

A    But you are trying to make me say something. 

Q    I'm trying to make you say something very objective actually, and that is that this mission statement, this vision, this mandate, does not encompass doing harm or condemning men's groups at all, does it?

A    There's nothing in our mission statement that is designed to harm anyone.  It is to promote gender equality and to have -- particularly the director -- that I was the director of is there to discuss and analyze the impact of policies and programs and the emerging issues on women and to do a gender based analysis. 

Q    Does that encompass, in your understanding, any justification to isolate or condemn men's groups?

A    It does include the analysis of the impact of any groups discussions or the way they present certain policies or programs.  In my mind that does not include harm. 

Q    So the answer -- the simple answer is no, you're not entitled to -- under your mandate or vision or mission statement you're not entitled to condemn men's groups, right? 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, now, just -- I object.  That's not exactly -- that's the exact opposite. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, it may be.  I'm trying to get her to admit what I suggest is true. 

Q    Will you agree with me or not?  I won't pursue it if you won't but that's what I'm putting to you.

THE COURT:  The question was -- well, the first question was does it encompass any justification to isolate men's groups and the answer was it includes analysis of the impact of any groups discussion.  So then your next question is what?

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Does any of the legal mandate, the vision or the mission, to your mind, encompass or authorize you on behalf of the Status of Women Canada to condemn men's groups?  I can't be more clear than that, and I'll put it to you directly, it doesn't. 

THE COURT:  Well, let's -- what's your question?  Are you asking her to --

MR. CHRISTIE:  All right.  I'll put it in the interrogative. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Is it your understanding from the mandate, the vision or the mission that any of it would allow you, authorize you or encourage you to condemn men's groups?

A    We are not in the business of condemning anyone.  We're in the business of debating, presenting and understanding impacts of certain policies of programs on women and in the business of improving the lives of women. 

Q    So the answer is no, isn't it, simply put?  I think I'm entitled to a simple answer. 

A    Okay. 

Q    Pardon?

A    Okay. 

Q    Is that the answer, no, you're not?  It doesn't authorize, encourage --

A    It doesn't authorize or to encourage to --

Q    -- condemning men's groups? 

A    -- to harm anybody. 

Q    Okay.  Including men's groups, is that right? 

A    Including men's groups. 

Q    Yes, men are included in that, right? 

A    In terms of harming people, of course. 

Q    Okay.  And it wouldn't involved a -- is the function of Status of Women Canada and the policy research group advocacy of new policy or explaining of old policy?

A    The mandate of the research group, as you call it, policy research fund is to fund research projects on the emerging issues. 

Q    Emerging issues.  So it's not articulating and explaining policy, it's researching emerging issues, right?

A    Well, while -- in doing that it can very well provide analysis of the existing policies and its impact on women.

Q    "School Success by Gender," Exhibit 1 was not explaining policy, was it?

A    It was -- the call for proposal called for explaining the impact of possible policies on the discourse -- on the changing discourse. 

Q    Possible policies.

A    And impact. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  In this paper if you -- have you read it, Exhibit 1?

A    I had read it. 

Q    You had, in the past tense?

A    Yes. 

Q    When?

A    Sometime ago. 

Q    Before the litigation or after?

A    Before. 

Q    How long before?  Before publication or after?

A    After publication. 

Q    You never read it before publication?

A    I did not read it through before publication, no. 

Q    Did you sit on the panel that decided whether to publish or not? 

A    It is not a panel.

Q    Whatever it is, did you sit on it, chair it?

A    No, none of the above. 

Q    Well, what did you do then in regard to publication?

A    The process is when it is reviewed then External Committee members provide us the suggestion if we should proceed or not, and the researcher makes the necessary revisions or suggests the revisions as she wishes, and then it gets published. 

Q    Wasn't there a meeting -- two meetings, in fact, about --

A    Not about -- not after the fact.  The meeting, the first meeting is --

Q    No, I'm talking about before the fact.

MR. GAUDET:  If the witness could answer the question. 

THE COURT:  Yes, let the witness answer, what she's explaining. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes. 

A    The first meeting is to select the team of the research and the second meeting is to assess the proposals.  The decisions to continue on with the publication or not does not take place in the meetings.  Each individual external policy member respond to us directly. 

Q    Well, I thought when you had the meeting they changed their views when decisions were made?

A    It related to proposal. 

Q    Yes.  It related to the proposal and then related to the decision to publish, right?

A    No, just related to the proposal. 

Q    Well, what happens when you decide to publish?  Does any discussion occur or do you just have a decision automatically?

A    If all of the External Committee members recommend that we should proceed with it, there is no discussion. 

Q    Well, in this case I understand two members of the Committee did not agree and did not recommend publication, am I right?

A    You understand wrong. 

Q    Okay. 

A    It is not right. 

Q    What is this?  I'm referring to a summary of assessment document.  Have you seen anything like that before? 

A    Yes, I have. 

Q    What is it?

A    What it is is something that I explained yesterday. 

Q    Just tell me what it is. 

A    It is a proposal --

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry, just a moment.  Let the witness answer --

MR. CHRISTIE:  She's telling me what she told me yesterday, but I want to know what it is. 

THE COURT:  Let her answer in her way, Mr. Christie. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, sir.  Sorry. 

A    It's a research proposal assessment form. 

Q    Yes. 

A    So it is a way to assess the proposals. 

Q    Mm-hmm. 

A    Not the research -- the proposals for the research.

Q    Was there anything similar when they decided to publish or not?

A    No. 

Q    Nothing like that?

A    Nothing like that. 

Q    Okay. 

A    We just receive their inputs directly. 

Q    One of the functions of Status of Women Canada is to prevent violence against women, correct?

A    That's correct. 

Q    And that's where we looked at page 9 3.2 of Exhibit 31, correct?

A    Correct. 

Q    Can you explain to me and to the court, please, why is it necessary in addressing violence against women to list men's groups?

A    Where do you read this?

Q    Where do I read what?  My question, it's on my paper. 

A    Okay.  But you made a reference to something here. 

Q    3.2, all right.  It was exactly what you referred to before.  It's in the third paragraph under current status of women.

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    And it says violence against women continues to be a significant and persistent social economic problem.  It's closely linked with equalities, et cetera, et cetera, and I asked you was it the function of Status of Women Canada to be concerned about violence to women.  You said yes, it is.  And my next question was, why is it necessary in addressing problems of violence against women to list men's groups? 

A    I think that's a question that has to be within the context, and you may be better off asking the author within the context of her research, why it was relevant and necessary to have this references of the groups. 

Q    Well, why is it necessary to publish it on behalf of Status of Women?

A    Because Status of Women Canada publishes research projects that fits its criteria to foster debate on them, and for the public to have a better understanding and discussion of the issues as it relates to gender equality.  I'm sorry, can I have some water?  Thank you. 

Q    I'm having trouble following your answer but let me put it to you this way, that the reason you, on behalf of Status of Women, publish this report and listed men's groups was because you wanted the public to understand that these groups were violent, am I right?

A    The reason that we publish and fund research projects --

Q    No, no, not the general question.  This --

A    Well, I can answer only generally because this is an independent research project. 

Q    But didn't you on behalf of Status of Women Canada have a discretion on the authority as to whether to publish it or not? 

A    Not me personally, and the way it does work that it is defined by the External Committee members that are nominated by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.  

Q    Well, you're the highest ranking authority with Status of Women Canada appearing here in this courtroom, aren't you?

A    I am.

Q    Yes.  Well, then speaking on behalf of Status of Women Canada I'm asking you is it not true that the reason you published the list of men's groups and out of a concern for violence was because you thought that these groups were violent?

MR. GAUDET:  Well, my objection is that it hasn't been established that the reason why the report was published was due to this concern of violence, in the first place, violence against women.  And the question implies an assumption which hasn't been established. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I'm actually quoting from Exhibit 31 which was established to the extent that it is by the Crown -- Federal Minister's introduction, but I'll move on. 

THE COURT:  You can break the question up in two if you want. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I could try and I'll do that. 

Q    The mandate of your organization is to prevent violence against women, correct?

A    To eliminate or reduce violence against women, yes. 

Q    Can you explain to me how it is consistent with that that you would publish a list of men's groups?

MR. GAUDET:  I believe that question's already been asked. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I guess it has.  I thought I should break it down.  Well, I'll try again. 

Q    Let me put it to you this way.  That the public understands that your mandate is to eliminate violence against women, that's part of your job and you've explained that to the public many times, right?

A    At least we attempted to. 

Q    I'm sorry, yes? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And you have a lot of government publications to explain that, right?

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    So the general public understands that part of your function is to eliminate violence against women, right? 

A    I assume so but how would I know? 

Q    Well, you told us how many hits you had on your website in 2003, right?  Did you?

A    Yes. 

Q    And you kept track of that, right?

A    Right. 

Q    And it was over a million, I think a million-three, correct?

A    I assume so, I don't know. 

MR. GAUDET:  Take the witness to the document. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay, I can.  I have a memory, she has a memory, I thought she could -- yeah, actually we may have to do that.  I'm not sure which one it is but we'll find it. 

Q    The document where you recorded the number of hits on your website --

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    -- was to demonstrate that the public's interested in your research, right?

A    Public's interest in our research, yes. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  And you're very anxious to make sure that it's written in simple language for the average person to understand, correct? 

A    That is correct. 

Q    Because it's not for academic purposes, it's for public education purposes, right?

A    Yes, it's serves academic purposes too but it's for public. 

Q    And primarily that's why you want and you're interested to show to your Minister and to everybody else that a lot of people look at your website, correct?

A    That is true. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  And I recall -- and I don't say this lightly, that prior to this report's publication in 2002 you had 300,000 hits on your website and after this publication in 2003 the recorded numbers were one million three hundred and something.  Now, you agree from memory that that's probably true, do you agree?

A    That might very well be true.  However, it is not -- it is all of our publications we rely on --

Q    Yes.  It's your website?

A    Yes. 

Q    Could include any one of your publications?

A    Exactly. 

Q    But you also have a tool --

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    -- in your repertoire of research that will enable you to determine which of the documents on your website were accessed, that's correct?

A    That is correct. 

Q    And did you do that?

A    I did not. 

Q    But somebody did. 

A    It is possible that it could be done. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  And I'm now looking at Exhibit 34 actually, and I'm indebted to my assistant for pointing this out to me.  So we are not misleading you, on page -- unnumbered under the influence of the policy research funds report -- or fund reports, plural, I calculated in 2000 and --

THE COURT:  Where are you in that document, Mr. Christie? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'm sorry, there's no numbers on the pages but it goes in about four -- it's on the fifth page in. 

MR. GAUDET:  There actually are numbers on the page.

THE COURT:  Well, there are numbers on some of the pages. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh, yeah, it's on the top left, I'm sorry.  I didn't see it.  Top left, yes.  Number 4 is the page number. 

Q    And it says in 2001 you had 371,493 and in 2003 to 2004 you had 1,322,915 and I calculated that to be somewhere in the region of a 400 percent or four times increase, is that a fair statement? 

A    It appears to be, yes. 

Q    And then I notice that in 2005 and 6 it's about a 95 percent increase to 2,102,555, right?

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    Can you tell me -- is that correct?

A    Yes. 

Q    These are your figures?

A    Yes, these are the figures. 

Q    All right.  And looking at that did you ever inquire how many people viewed "School Success by Gender," Exhibit 1? 

A    I never did. 

Q    Why not?

A    It was never -- I never did. 

Q    It would be possible, I take it? 

A    I believe it is technically possible. 

Q    When no one asked you to find that out after -- did you personally feel that it might be of interest after you knew that -- at some point you became aware there was a lawsuit over this document, right?

A    Yes. 

Q    When was that?

A    I believe in the summer of 2003.  I do not recall, but when I was in the French training I was -- yes, it was mentioned to me. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  And you never inquired and to your knowledge no one else ever inquired as to how many accesses to this document there were?  That is Exhibit 1.

A    I haven't, no. 

Q    Which of the agent -- do you call the Status of Women an agency?  Is that a correct definition?

A    It is.  It is an agency.  As I said there's always a -- we define it, sometimes it's called departmental agency but agency.  If you use that terminology I will understand it as Status of Women Canada. 

Q    It's viewed in the government as an agency of government, is it? 

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    Pardon?

A    Yes. 

Q    I see.  And which of the priorities of the agency would be advanced by publishing a list of men's groups who are non-feminist or were critical of feminism, which of the agency's priorities would be thereby advanced? 

A    Agency's priorities to contribute to the public policy debate from a gender perspective in general will be the one, and it will relate to all of its priorities. 

Q    Oh, I see, okay.  When you were advised by Exhibit 46 that there were some ethical concerns, and I take it you became aware of that at some point.  Maybe I should identify when.  When did you --

MR. GAUDET:  You went through this -- my objection is that Mr. Christie went through this with the witness and her evidence was that she personally wasn't made aware of these objections and now he's saying that she was. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I thought she actually read it but maybe I'm wrong.

THE COURT:  I think her evidence was that it wasn't flagged for her attention, is the best she can recall. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay.  No, that's fine. 

Q    Was there any practice in your decision to publish documents to submit it to any legal review for the possibility of defamation as sometimes newspapers do?

A    It has never happened to date.  I suppose if we had concerns we might have done so.  The way the process works is that whatever the reviews or concerns of the reviewers is also sent to the authors, and sometimes it is suggestions and changes are made afterwards.  So I'm just -- I realize I have not completed how the process completely works through. 

Q    Well, do you remember my question? 

A    Your question is have I done -- have I notified anyone in terms of any concerns that there may be some legal defamation issues.  Is there a practice of doing that. 

Q    I asked you if there was a practice --

A    If there was a practice of doing that. 

Q    -- of reviewing publications -- prior to publication for possible defamation, and I think to get to the point the answer is no?

A    The answer is -- well, not a direct no.  While there has been no practice, that doesn't mean it is a possibility. 

Q    Well, I'm not interested in possibilities.  I was interested in an existing practice at the time this document, Exhibit 1, was published, there was no practice of submitting the documents prior to publication for analysis of possible defamation? 

A    That is correct. 

Q    Thank you.  The general purpose of the performance report was really self laudatory, wasn't it?

A    Which performance report are you referring to?

Q    Any one of them. 

A    The purpose of the Status of Women Canada performance reports are to show what they have done during the year based on what they've agreed to do. 

Q    I didn't see any criticism either of the practices or any of the publications saying that anything was wrong, is that right? 

A    No.  That is correct. 

Q    Okay.  And who writes that?

A    This is a document that is produced by Status of Women Canada with contributions from each directorate and with the approval of the deputy heads, and then with the approval of the Minister.  So it's a collective effort. 

Q    You indicated at one point in your evidence that you could tell us how many downloads there were from your website?

A    We could. 

Q    Yeah.  Did you find out how many there were after the publication of Exhibit 1?

A    No. 

Q    Why not?  You didn't want anyone to know how many people had looked at it, or how many people had downloaded it, you didn't want that, correct?

A    I think you are putting intent.  First of all, I was not even --

Q    Yeah, I am getting an intent. 

MR. GAUDET:  No, let this --

A    Yeah.  I was not even around at the time. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    All right.  That's your answer, I wasn't there.  But you say Marchessault-Lussier, she succeeded you?

A    Yes. 

Q    Did you ever inquire of her why they didn't take a look and see how many people had downloaded the document?

A    I don't believe I did. 

Q    Okay.  Were you party to the decision eventually to delete Appendix 2?

A    No, I was not. 

Q    Who was?

A    Deputy head of the Status of Women Canada. 

Q    Who was that?

A    Florence Ievers. 

Q    How do you spell that?

A    I-e-v-e-r-s. 

Q    First name?

A    Florence. 

Q    And you weren’t party to the discussions about it or why it was done?

A    No.  No, I was not. 

Q    Exhibit 34 as I understand it lists the members of the External Committee.  Do you have Exhibit 34 in front of you? 

A    No. 

Q    I think you do actually.  You've got one exhibit.  What's the number on it? 

A    This is 31. 

Q    Thirty-one, okay.  And who wrote 34?

A    Diane Fourier -- Perrier -- Diane Perrier. 

Q    Okay.  And she is actually a member of Status of Women Canada?

A    No, she's not. 

Q    What's her function?

A    She has done various jobs for us in terms of editing and looking into the references, so we have asked her to put this document together. 

Q    And that contains the names of all the members of the External Committee?

A    It does, yes, page 1. 

Q    And I think you'll agree with me that there was no -- no man ever sat on that Committee at all? 

A    No man has ever sat on that Committee and I don't even recall if any man wanted to apply for it. 

Q    How many have you asked?

A    It's been asked -- it's an open call throughout Canada. 

Q    Oh, I see.  How's it advertised?

A    It is advertised through our website. 

Q    And did you have a report card for 2005 indicating the number of hits on your website at that time? 

A    2005.  I think it's included there on page 4. 

Q    Page 4.  Oh, yes, that's the number of hits, right?

A    Yes.  Accesses, yes. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  We went over that.  On page 5 you have the second paragraph -- the reports, I take it that's your research reports, including Exhibit 1, right?

A    On page 5?

Q    Page 5.

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    The reports also influence current and future generations in Canada.  2003 and 2004 research turned up links to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court, decisions to associations providing support to women and children and 18 university courses.  Canada using 21 of the reports -- in Canada using 21 of the reports as course reading material.  Would this include Exhibit 1 in that description?

A    I have to check.  I do not know. 

Q    Well, it's referring to all the reports, isn't it?

A    No, not necessarily because when it says, for example, 18 university courses, well the university courses might be using one or two or four or five courses.  It doesn't mean they're particularly using --

Q    I guess we don't understand each other.  I didn't say it referred to a specific report but --

A    Oh, okay. 

Q    -- but Exhibit 1 would be included in that description, to precisely how you couldn't say?

A    To precisely how I couldn't say and if it was included or not I couldn't say. 

Q    Well, can you explain to me how it is excluded in any way from that description?

A    No.  Not one way or the other because it is looking at all of them and making references to how they are used.  It might be, you know, one or two of them; it might be 15 of them, we have many publications, so it doesn't say. 

Q    Isn't that exactly how the list, Appendix 2, refers to men's groups? 

MR. GAUDET:  I don't understand the question. 

THE COURT:  I don't either. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Well, Exhibit 2 has a number of men's groups listed, doesn't it, or Appendix 2?

A    It's part of Appendix 2. 

Q    Is part of Exhibit 1.  Have you looked at it? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And have you looked at the descriptions of various issues and items that are raised by the author of the report of concern to women, violence --

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    -- the use of the internet by pedophiles, by pornographers, you observed that?

A    I have read -- I had read the report, as I said. 

Q    Right.  So could you tell me by looking at the list which of the list members fit within the category of the pornographers and which in the category of the pedophiles and which in other categories of violence, can you tell us? 

A    No. 

Q    Okay.  We'll ask the author, that's a better place to ask.  Who actually checks facts?  You see in newspapers -- are you familiar with newspaper publishing at all? 

A    I may be.  Tell me what your next question is. 

Q    Okay.  Well, I'm going to suggest that a lot of times before we publish things editors check facts.

A    Right.

Q    They're called fact checkers. 

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    Right.  They go through a document that's about to be published --

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    -- to look for statements, not of opinion, but a fact.

A    Yeah. 

Q    I'm not saying there are any in here, I'm not arguing about that.  You have a fact checker that goes through what you're going to publish to see if the facts are true.

A    To see if all of the references are correct. 

Q    Oh, no.  No, no.  References are one thing, facts are another.  Do you know what I mean by a difference?

A    That is true, but if you, for example, are referring to some subsequent information there's always -- there always has to be a reference to them. 

Q    Okay.  I guess -- my point is if there are -- do you know what I mean by a statement of fact?

A    I think I do. 

Q    Yeah.  Well, I'm sure you do.  I'm just asking for an admission that you do.  And what I'm saying is that you don't apparently have anybody, even Ms.  -- what was her name -- Theoret? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Even Ms. Theoret doesn't make any attempt to check facts it seems from her letter, Exhibit 46, am I right?  There are no fact checkers?

A    Perhaps I could explain what it is we checked, we do verify and that might be easier to understand, if your idea of checking the facts is --

Q    Well, I don't know why but go ahead. 

A    We do have the reports reviewed by any of the references to government policies and programs, so therefore it is checked from that aspect.  If there are any references being made, they are checked by our library.  And if there's any other reference to particular information, such as an example of statistics, it always has to give the source anyways. 

Q    Mm-hmm. 

A    So if the sources are correct or not and the reference are correct that's being checked.  But other factual information, if you need that information perhaps the author is the best one to be responding to you. 

Q    No, but you're the ones who made the decision to publish this in the form it is, right? 

A    That's right. 

Q    You're the ones who made the decision to put it on the Government of Canada website, right?  That wasn't the author's decision. 

A    No. 

Q    That was your decision? 

A    That is --

Q    Status of Women Canada's decision?

A    Status of Women Canada decision with the recommendations of the External Committee. 

Q    So in the whole of that process, if statements of fact are made about individuals, who checks them?

A    Statements of facts made about the individual?

Q    Well, I thought we understood what a fact was, so yes, that's exactly what I said. 

A    Well, I assume we have the responsibility to check the facts, yes. 

Q    Who do you have with the job of doing it? 

A    We have our library services and we have the reviewers and we have the analysts responsible for reviewing. 

Q    So the reviewers in this case are the, quote, External Committee, closed quote, and Ms. Theoret, correct? 

A    Yes.  And --

Q    Right.  Anywhere in the --

MR. GAUDET:  Sorry, the witness hasn't finished --

A    An internalist and also reviewed by the analyst responsible for this project. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    That is? 

A    Vesna Radulovic and also references are checked by our library. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  So I'm not interested in determination of whether an attributed quote is found in an existing publication, that's not my question.  My question is state as a fact, like if someone says Doug Christie's a pedophile, does anybody check that out?

A    I don't think anything like that has been said in the report. 

Q    Well, I know you don't, but that's what I'm going to argue, but if that statement or statements to that effect. 

A    If there was statements to that effect we would have looked at it totally differently. 

Q    Did you ever read the entire report yourself or have anyone do so to determine the implications, if any, of the statements about individuals set out in Appendix 2? 

A    I haven't. 

Q    Did you give instructions for anyone else to do that? 

A    When I was there? 

Q    I would assume that wouldn't be implicit, yes.

A    I believe that it is the duty of the person -- the analyst in charge of the report to read it thoroughly, and I believe that's been done. 

THE COURT:  Is that a convenient point, Mr. Christie? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, I'm sorry, it is, yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  My Lord, just before we break --

THE COURT:  Oh, sorry, Mr. Gaudet. 

MR. GAUDET:  Just on the matter of timing. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  We have Ms. Radulovic waiting in the wings. 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  We originally had an estimate -- I'm not saying Mr. Christie's bound to it, but he gave us a time estimate as to when he's going to be completed, so I'd like to, if I could, tell her whether she's going -- could be expected to begin testifying today or not. 

THE COURT:  Do you have any sense, Mr. Christie, or? 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I'm certain she will be. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  So I don't think it will be much longer. 

THE COURT:  All right.  Two o'clock. 


(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)


ZEYNEP KARMAN

recalled, warned.

THE COURT:  Yes.

MR. GAUDET:  My Lord, I just wanted to advise you and ask your permission for me to keep my cell phone on.  My wife is in an advanced state of pregnancy and I've learned that she may require an immediate surgical procedure this afternoon so --

THE COURT:  Oh. 

MR. GAUDET:  -- so she'll let me know, but I'll find out if she calls me so --

THE COURT:  Do you feel comfortable continuing or do you want to adjourn? 

MR. GAUDET:  No, I'll be fine.  I will be concerned but I will be fine. 

THE COURT:  All right. 

MR. GAUDET:  But if she -- if she does need that then I'll get a call and so I'd just like to keep the phone on if I may. 

THE COURT:  Oh, certainly.  Yes. 

MR. GAUDET:  Okay. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTIE, CONTINUING:

Q    Did you become aware in June of 2003 of a number of complaints about this publication from groups and individuals on the list, Appendix 2?

A    Not in June. 

Q    So you actually weren't there?

A    No.

Q    And you don't know anything that happened in June in regards --

A    I was outside the country, no. 

Q    I see.  Are you authorized to speak on behalf of the Department about what went on or, sorry, agency at that time or am I talking about --

MR. GAUDET:  The witness can speak to her personal knowledge and if you have documents you want to put to her, but I think it's a pretty general question.  

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Okay.  Yes, I guess it is.  I was trying to establish whether you had informed yourself of the position of your agency in any way as Director of Research, whether you're informed by others. 

THE COURT:  Even if she has the rules of evidence still apply. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Yes, that's right.  I apologize.  I'm a little shocked but my mistake. 

Q    I'm showing you -- tell me, you've used the word masculinist in your experience?

A    Not particularly but I'm aware that it has been used in this report. 

Q    Okay.  Well, did you read the word masculinist in the report before it was published?

A    I believe it's in the title so. 

Q    Oh, yes.  I therefore take the answer to be yes, I read it before it was published? 

A    Yes, I've seen that title before it was published.

Q    Thank you.  So what does it mean? 

A    I believe there's a definition inside the report as to what it means. 

Q    What did you think it meant?

A    I'm not sure if I'll be able to answer you that.  I need to find the definition because I usually take whatever it is the authors would like it to mean. 

Q    And you don't know what --

A    But generally it means men's groups that I took -- men's groups, making their positions known from a certain perspective. 

Q    Yes.  The perspective being that masculinist is a person who believes and promotes a superiority of a male gender, is that correct?

A    I wouldn't say that. 

Q    Well, tell me what the definition that you understood was? 

A    I think it's very generally, but again I'd rather define that particular definition that's being used in this publication, but from the perspective of a man is what I understand. 

Q    Sorry? 

A    From perspective of a male species. 

Q    So to you it never connoted superiority then, is that what you're saying? 

A    These are the kind of definitions in women's that can have all their ideas of interpretations. 

Q    Well, I'm curious as to yours, that's all.  Did you have one or not? 

A    No, I did not have a particular --

Q    So you didn't know what it meant? 

A    I did not say that. 

Q    Well, tell us what you thought it meant at the time you --

A    The masculinist discourse meaning a discourse from a male perspective, but by that it doesn't in particular say one thing or the other.  It just shows a perspective.  It may or may not be a superior perspective. 

Q    And you didn't have any idea whether it did or didn't when you took whatever position you took on publishing? 

A    The position that I take in publishing these things depend on the process that I've explained to you. 

Q    Oh, I know, I know.  I just wondered if you had understood the term masculinist to mean a male who believes and promotes superiority in males and take the answer to be no, you didn't know that?

A    I wouldn't say all of the masculinist movement will be reflecting that, no. 

Q    Okay.  And you can't recall what you may or may not have known about the definition in the report itself? 

A    I believe there is a definition in the report but I do not recall what exactly the definition explained. 

Q    And I take it you're not aware of any written complaints by anybody; by that, I mean aware of specifically.  You never read any complaints and you haven't taken the time to look at any complaints?

A    At the time I was not the Director.  There was another person acting as Director of Research.  However, as I have earlier told there was one of the e-mails that was shown to me and it was explained to me that there were a reaction to this report and certain complaints.  But I have not directly read all of them or were made aware of them as they have arrived. 

Q    Have you read any of them? 

A    The one that I have read is, I think, already in one of the exhibits. 

Q    What was that?

A    The one that were disturbing e-mail that came. 

THE COURT:  The one you objected to. 

A    Yes. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Yeah, the one from Arizona.

A    The one from Arizona, that was talking about freedom of buying guns in the States. 

Q    I see.  So you didn't hear anything from the Parents Coalition of British Columbia yourself?

A    Myself, no. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  You didn't hear anything in writing from Betty Hinton.  You never read a letter from her?

A    No.  But I think it was mentioned in the court that --

Q    Well, please don't worry about what was mentioned in the court.  I just asked you if you read it, that's all. 

A    I have read it yesterday because it was mentioned.

Q    Oh.  You read it yesterday?

A    Yes, in the documents that were there. 

Q    And did you receive a letter or did you see a letter from a professor of the University McGill?

A    No. 

Q    And are you aware of correspondence between Lucie Marchessault-Lussier and Jo Anne de Lepper?

A    What correspondence are you referring to?

Q    About the subject of the protest and condemnation of "School Success by Gender"? 

A    Not directly, no. 

Q    Were you party to the decision to take Appendix 2 off the website?

A    No, I was not. 

Q    Are you aware who was?

A    I believe such decisions -- I believe it was Florence Ievers, but I am indirectly told and normally deputy head that will take such decisions.

Q    And that's who she was, deputy head?

A    That's right. 

Q    So let me understand.  You left in February '03 and came back in November '04, is that correct?

A    That's true.

Q    That's correct.  So the entire period of any controversy was when you weren't there?

A    That's right. 

Q    When I looked at Exhibit 37 and I ask you to perhaps do that and I'll show it to you, or a copy of it.  That's the document entitled "Dear Colleagues," September 10th, 1999.  You've identified this document.  The registrar is now showing you Exhibit 37. 

A    Yes, that's right. 

Q    You identified it and told us this was the proposal letter, right?

A    Call for proposal. 

Q    Call for proposal.  So now, if you turn to the theme on page 18 --

A    Yes. 

Q    -- I noted that it says (as read in):

Public policies are to a large extent the product of how the issues or problems are defined at the outset --

A    Right. 

Q   

-- across western democracy.  Significant shifts in policy discourses can be observed, often fostering a propensity to neglect a line of argument or analysis based on issues of equality between men and women in favour of other faux sci (phonetic), whether they be child centred, family centred, human or cultural right centred or even centred on differences and diversity.

     Did I read that?

A    Mm-hmm.  

Q    Now, this request for proposals is objecting to policy shifts away from the issues of equality between men and women, isn't it? 

A    It is making observations that there are policy shifts. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  

A    And the research question is looking to what does it mean, what might be the impact of it.  Because if you continue on reading --

Q    Well, I will actually. 

A    Okay. 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, let the witness finish her --

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    If you continue on reading is a -- it's not an answer but I will. 

Although all these issues are vitally important this shift restricts more and more the advocacy of rights groups and increasingly portrays it as special interest pleading.

     Did I read that? 

A    You have forgot one word (as read in):

-- the advocacy of women's rights and increasingly portrays it as special interest pleading.

 

Q    Mm-hmm.  Okay.  So the Status of Women, if women's rights is seen as special interest pleading is diminished in its significance and importance, isn't it?

A    Yes.  I think the concern is if the public policies consider it like that the importance of the women's equality will diminish, yes. 

Q    Yes.  And the funding of Status of Women Canada depends upon the perception of its importance for the defence of women's rights, doesn't it?

A    I suppose you can say that, but it is a government department. 

Q    That's fine. 

A    Yes.

Q    Did it ever cross your mind that government departments funding depends on public perception?

A    It could, yes. 

Q    And if it's perceived that women's rights is special pleading it's not any more important than aboriginal rights or family rights or men's rights and that's a problem for funding, isn't it? 

A    I have never thought of it from that perspective but there's a logical argument to what you are presenting. 

Q    Okay.  I read this page in detail and I'm not trying to ignore any part of it, but I got to the bottom line on that same page, in the last paragraph it says (as read in): 

Moreover, there's a clear and sustained interest in bottom line economics in the areas of (indiscernible) area (singular) of social policies.  This type of discourse accentuates privatization, individual citizen's responsibility and community responsibility versus State or Government responsibility and has had an impact on how policy debates in areas such as health care and employment are framed. 

     Let me try to interpret that the way, at least I understand it, and see if we agree. 

          That expresses a concern that if women's rights is seen as just another form of special interest pleading the bottom line economics are that the State might not be as much involved any more than they would be in father's rights groups, and that would be an unfortunate thing for Status of Women Canada.  That's the way I read it.  You tell me where I'm wrong. 

A    Okay.  Now, first of all, these calls for proposal has nothing to do with the interests of Status of Women as a department, whether it exists or not, and there are other frameworks within the Government of Canada that supports the existence of priorities, equality priorities.  So from my perspective this is an observation of the trends  that might diminish the importance given to the public policies that will promote equality of women. 

Q    Yes.  Well, I think we seem to agree, at least that's my perception, to some extent and I'll leave it to His Lordship to decide whether we do or not.  But the reason why the discourse about masculinists, whatever they may be, is of concern was because of the danger there might shift the public perception towards sympathy for fathers and men away from women -- women's rights, correct?

A    Not necessarily.  I think the shifts in discourse might be another way of presenting the issues so the policies or programs resulted from it may not be particularly policies or programs that will give priority to improving equality between men and women. 

Q    Between what?

A    Equality between men and women. 

Q    If I was looking to satisfy this request for proposals don't you think it would be obvious that what you were looking for was somebody to discredit this discourse that was diminishing the need for women's equality?  Isn't that clearly what the message conveys? 

A    I wouldn't agree with that.  I think we are looking for what will be the impact of this changed discourse.  Would there be an impact of it and if so what will it be. 

Q    Well, I get the impression from the last paragraph on that page that what they're concerned about in the impact of this new discourse -- that's page 18 again -- is the economic impact.  That economic impact of this type of discourse is that it accentuates privatization, the individual citizen's responsibility and community responsibility versus State or government, and that, I suggest, would concern the funding for Status of Women Canada?

A    That is not my interpretation.  My interpretation would be and that that paragraph starts with "moreover," so not only discourse as described -- described -- the shift as described above, but this preoccupation with the bottom line economics may be a way to -- that will cause difficulties in describing the importance of equality issues because this is not -- there's always a cost involved with equality.  And if you are preoccupied by the bottom line, then some other concerns may not be given priority.  And this is the old premises saying that this may be the case, so we are looking for research projects to demonstrate if this is the case. 

Q    To demonstrate that this discourse should not be believed.  That's exactly what you were asking for?

A    No.  We are saying that if there's -- what was the impact of this shift in discourse. 

Q    Yes.  Well, the impact in the shift --

A    It can possibly be that we could have received some research project that would say that there is absolutely no impact. 

Q    Yes.  And that would be very disastrous. 

A    Why would it be disastrous? 

Q    Because you say so yourself right there.  Reduce State funding for, guess what, equality of women.  That's exactly what it says, isn't it?

A    No. 

Q    Okay.  Do you want to refer to the previous paragraph?  You say moreover. 

A    Yeah. 

Q    You say I didn't include what preceded, let me do that.  It says in the previous paragraph (as read in): 

The emergence of 'rights oriented lobbying' seems designed to give a voice to those who have been portrayed as normally disadvantaged groups in the wake of feminism.  (For instance men's rights, fathers' rights, parents' rights, children's rights and the rights of the fetus.) 

     Right? 

A    Mm-hmm. 

Q    Is that what it says?

A    Yes. 

Q    (As read in): 

We have also witnessed the exacerbation of tensions between minority rights and/or cultural rights, advocacy groups on the one hand and women's rights groups on the other.  For instance, tensions between Native communities quest for self determination, and Native's women equality issues. 

A    Right. 

Q    Clearly what you're pointing to there is the problem that arises when everybody wants government money, and Status of Women wants to make sure that nobody else gets into the government funding over rights issues. 

A    Okay.  What it does describe here, rather than looking at the equality issues as superseding and it involves everyone and every group.  It is starting to present it as if it's a special interest group --

Q    That's right. 

A    -- would be -- may have an impact on the policies and programs that will be promoting equality.  So more or less making the premise that this is a new development in the western economies, the western countries that sort of dividing up the pie rather than enlarging the pie. 

Q    Mm-hmm. 

A    So these interests should not be competing with each other.  Every one of them can remain.  It should not be at the expense of the other ones.  So a discourse that says it's at the expense of the other may have an impact on policy and programs promoting equality. 

Q    I suggest that what -- it doesn't say anything about spending more government money.  It expresses the concern, quote, "This type of discourse accentuates privatization," what does that mean?  Is that government spending?  What's privatization? 

A    Privatization is just from making public services more private. 

Q    Yeah, and not paying for them. 

A    By the government. 

Q    Well, for example, if -- do men's groups get funded?  Does the fathers' rights group get funded?  Is there a Status of Men funded publicly in Canada? 

MR. GAUDET:  Well, which question do you --

MR. CHRISTIE:  I'll go with the last one.  Sorry, I realize what I said. 

Q    Is there a Status of Men in Canada publicly funded like Status of Women?

A    In terms of all of the government policies and programs serve men and women, and the realities of Canada now that they are still inconsistencies between men and women, so therefore as it is in our Charter too, it is permissible to promote women's equality. 

Q    Did you hear my question? 

A    Is there a department that is --

Q    Publicly funded Status of Men's agency in the Canadian Government?  No.  Is there?

A    No, there is no agency named as such. 

Q    All right.  Let's not quibble about names.  Is there a Status of Men's organization, to your knowledge, in any province in Canada funded by government money? 

A    I do not know to what extent many of these groups gets funds or -- do or do not get funds. 

Q    Do you know of an agency comparable to the Status of Women in any government in a province of Canada?

A    But your question's very backward, in the sense that the only reason --

Q    Well, no, I don't think so. 

A    -- that there's a Status of Women --

Q    If it's objectionable say so. 

A    -- is because there's a need for it.  Had there been a need for a Status of Men perhaps there will be one. 

Q    At least give me the benefit of a simple answer.  Is there, yes or no, any publicly funded Status of Men's organization funded by the provincial government of any level in Canada?

A    Status of Men organization or department?

Q    Okay.  We'll call it a department or agency, comparable to the Status of Women Canada, is that clear? 

A    To my knowledge there's no such department named as such. 

Q    All right.  And it would be dividing up the pie differently if there was, wouldn't it? 

A    Not necessarily. 

Q    Not necessarily.  Now, if all these claims are privatized and they rely on individual citizen's responsibility doesn't that seem to imply -- isn't that what it means that government doesn't pay for it any more?  I'm trying to understand this language. 

A    I think you have to think of it in bigger terms of Status of Women Canada.  The government's interventions or promotions of equality depends in all of its agencies or departments.  It is not the Status of Women Canada. 

Q    I'm sorry, you're not answering my question.  I'm looking explicitly at that sentence (as read in). 

This type of discourse accentuates privatization, individual citizen's responsibility and community responsibility versus State or Government responsibility. 

          I want to interpret and want to understand that, and I think it means this.  It means that your concern there is that this type of discourse, quote, "masculinists" results in no more government funding.  That's what that means, isn't it? 

A    Two things.  One, this is not a particular masculinist discourse what you have read, and secondly, it doesn’t --

Q    Well --

MR. GAUDET:  No, let the witness answer the question.

A    It doesn't say specifically of any funding related to Status of Women, but generally government's roles and responsibilities in the terms of promoting equality of women. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Mm-hmm. 

Q    Okay.  Now, let's get back to the question.  That sentence indicates the danger, I suggest, that this type of discourse will result in privatization, individual citizen's responsibility and community responsibility versus State or Government responsibility, isn't that what it means? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Right.  And that means no more government funding for these special interest groups, doesn't it? 

A    This is the premise of the questions, perhaps it will be easier that it's clearly understood if you also will agree the research questions because this is just an observation of what is -- how -- it's an observation how the discourse is changing, and then the question says what does it mean, would it have an impact and what kind of impact. 

Q    Well, you've already said here what the impact is.  It means no more government funding from this type of discourse.  That's why you want --

MR. GAUDET:  Well, that's not --

MR. CHRISTIE:  I was going to finish the question. 

MR. GAUDET:  But that is not what the witness said. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I know it's not what the witness said. 

THE COURT:  But that's what you just said, that's what the witness said. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    I put it to you that this paragraph clearly indicates that privatization, individual responsibility and community responsibility versus State or Government responsibility indicates -- means that there will be no more government funding if this type of discourse continues, doesn't it?

A    No.  What --

Q    Well, what do you think it means? 

THE COURT:  Just let her answer.

A    Okay.  First of all, they are talking about a debate, okay.  The last paragraph talks about that there's a clear and sustained interest in the bottom line economics.

MR. CHRISTIE:  

Q    Mm-hmm. 

A    This type of discourse -- and it tells it -- accentuates privatization to individual citizen's responsibility and community responsibility versus the State or Government responsibility, and has had an impact on how policy debates in the areas such as health care and employment are framed.  Okay.  So we are talking about how policy debates are framed. 

Q    We're talking about a type of discourse and I want to ask you to tell me --

A    A type of discourse --

Q    -- what type of discourse?

A    The discourse that is -- that is focusing on bottom line economics, the discourse that's focusing on privatization has an impact of framing the discussion.  So what does it mean to framing the discussion in a certain manner, what does it mean in terms of its impact on equality issues.  That is -- the whole thing is a premise of how the discourse is framed now, and how the western countries are framing it, and therefore the research question -- but why are you saying no to me? 

Q    I can't believe what you're saying, that's why I'm shaking my head. 

A    Okay. 

Q    You asked me, I told you.  Now, listen, the previous paragraph made it clear, the top of the page, the last sentence (as read in). 

Treating the issues of social division based on gender as minor is more likely to harm the advancement of women's equality in the current context where social policy issues are framed more and more in terms of reduced State responsibility, privatization, an increased individual duty and responsibility.

     Right?

A    Right. 

Q    Now, I put it to you that anyone reading that can get a clear indication that they, that is Status of Women Canada, want a treatise on the theme that they want more government funding for women's equalities issues, and the discourse that threatens it is identified as, quote, "men's rights, fathers' rights, parents' rights," when you read that whole page?  You don't agree?

A    I don't agree.  This is a research theme and this is a research question that sets up the question as perceived and asks for the researchers to give proposals which may or may not prove the premise.

Q    The premise is what?

A    The premise is that there is a shift in discourses and that this shift by framing the problems differently may have a certain -- may have a different impact on the equality issues.  Does it or doesn't it demonstrate? 

Q    So they're just supposed to demonstrate what effect it would have and they're not supposed to advocate against that shift, is that what you're saying the theme is?  They're not supposed to oppose the shift, they're just supposed to say, well, does it cause a shift or not? 

A    What I can tell you, if we had received --

Q    Can you tell me the answer to my question?

A    I will, but I am answering your question. 

Q    All right. 

A    If we have received the proposal that systematically demonstrate that such shift in discourses will have absolutely no impact on the equality of women and how the problems are going to perceive who they funded that to. 

Q    So if it had no effect you would have funded

     that?

A    The research cannot say the answer to his question.  It just -- the proposal just head up the questions. 

Q    I suggest in the description of the theme it expresses what the concern is and what you're looking for, correct?

A    Exactly. 

Q    Yes.  And in the expression of the theme, if the result was no, it has no effect on support for women's equality, you would have funded that too, is that what you said?

A    The proposals -- yes, it is, but the way you are presenting, the proposals do not give the answers, it just present the question saying that we are going to look into such and such, and this is the way we are going to look into it, this is our methodology and these are the kinds of questions we are going to answer, and if it is done in a way that satisfies the criteria of our program we would fund it. 

Q    If it was done in such a way that satisfies the criteria of your program you would fund it?

A    Yes. 

Q    Yes.  The criterion of your program is to justify further funding for Status of Women Canada?

A    That is your premise. 

Q    Well, it's the premise of the organization?

A    I don't agree with that. 

Q    Well, it's very clear there, isn't it?

A    I don't think so. 

Q    Was it not a somewhat leading question to describe the theme the way you did, setting it up as a conflict between individual rights and State funded feminism? 

A    There's nothing that says State funded feminism in this one. 

Q    It doesn't say that explicitly --

A    -- and it does --

Q    -- but that's what it means. 

MR. GAUDET:  Let the witness answer the question.

A    It does set up the premise as it is seen by the Committee that we have.  Yes, there's shifts and this shift may have -- it is likely to have this kinds of impacts.  And then it sets the questions.  Obviously the experts on the table have observed these shifts and are asking themselves questions to exactly what does it mean, if the policies are defined differently than it used to be within the western countries.  So what kind of impact will there be when they are no longer talking about women's rights. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    And what kind of impact do you think that the militant feminist would have to the thought that there'd no longer be women's rights? 

MR. GAUDET:  I object to that question.  It's not relevant. 

A    You will have to ask them. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  No, it's relevant. 

THE COURT:  Well, you're asking -- you objected earlier to being asked -- do people ask questions about what -- or somebody objected to questions about what a witness thought somebody else would think. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Oh.  If it was phrased that way I would agree.  I thought I asked don't you think that a militant feminist would have a bias on that issue?

MR. GAUDET:  Well, I don't see the relevance of the question, what the witness' opinion of that is. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  That's not her opinion.  I said didn't she think that a militant feminist would have a bias on the issue. 

MR. GAUDET:  And I object, I don't think the question is relevant. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, because it's highly relevant.  My friend has produced the CV of Ms. Bouchard.  She identified what she says in that regard as militant feminism.  I've had it translated a number of times, so that's why it's relevant. 

THE COURT:  If the witness can answer the question, go ahead. 

A    Okay.  So you're asking me what the militant feminist --

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    No.  I'll ask it again. 

THE COURT:  Ask the question again. 

A    Okay, please do. 

MR. CHRISTIE: 

Q    Don't you think that the militant feminist would have a bias on that issue?

A    Can you also define the issue?

Q    Well, the issue of whether there will be State funding for women's equality or not, as you defined it?

A    It is likely that the militant feminists would have a concern about it, yes. 

Q    A very strong concern depending on how militant they were, right?

A    I can't answer that. 

Q    Well, you do admit that a feminist is going to want State funding for women's equality and Status of Women Canada. 

A    Feminism is a movement that's defined so separately by many.  It all depends on the --

Q    I can't hear you, I'm sorry.

A    It all depends on the interpretations, so you know, I cannot answer that. 

Q    Do you know what I'm talking about when I say militant feminists or not?  

MR. GAUDET:  Well, sorry, just to be fair, you didn't ask the question in terms of militant feminism, you just used the word feminism and that was the question the witness was responding to.  To be fair to the witness. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  Well, I thought we were talking about militant feminists, but I think we'll move on. 

Q    Any reference in the contract that you filed as Exhibit 42 to liability for statements about individuals?

A    Exhibit 42. 

Q    Exhibit 42 is the contract. 

A    Thank you.  Could you repeat your question?

Q    Was there any provision in the contract or reference to statements about individuals or the liability for the truth of the statements? 

A    I can't find it yet but if you want to refer to

     me --

Q    I suggest there's nothing there whatsoever about liability for the truth or falsity of any of its statements. 

A    Thank you.  I can't find anything yet. 

Q    What page are you on?

A    Page 111 -- 000111. 

Q    Are you over to 112?

A    If I'm on 112.  I'm now on 112?

Q    No.  113 deals with what?

A    Interest area -- okay, tax. 

Q    Tax, interest.

A    Mm-hmm.  And service -- tax of the service provided and --

Q    Description of work.

A    Description of work, yes, in terms of reference, yes. 

Q    Right.  Anything in terms of work that indicates the responsibility to check the facts or to be responsible for the truth of the statements is that of the author, it's nowhere said there, is there? 

A    I don't see it there, but of course the checking of the facts is the responsibility of the author, of any researcher that is presenting their work. 

Q    Was that a legal opinion or is that something that's explicitly stated somewhere? 

A    It is not explicitly stated here. 

Q    Or anywhere?  Do you know anywhere that it's explicitly stated that the author's responsible for the truth of the contents of their research?  Explicitly stated anywhere?

A    I think just understood. 

Q    So the answer is it's not explicitly stated anywhere?

A    Not here, no. 

Q    And the extent of Ms. Bouchard's responsibilities to you and for which she was paid the $75,000 was to deliver the report to you?  She'd satisfied all her responsibilities to you at that point? 

A    By delivering the report according to her contract, yes. 

Q    Mm-hmm.  The decision, of course, to publish thereafter was entirely the Status of Women Canada over which she had no final control?

A    That is true. 

Q    All right.  And actually the research that she undertook under the contract for the 75,000 was your property 'cause you would allow her to talk about it but you wouldn't allow her to publish or produce any of the papers that went into the research project?

A    Prior to us publishing it first, intellectual property and there's a section there in the contract.  It is -- the research belongs to her.  We have the first right to publish, and if we choose not to then it is hers. 

MR. CHRISTIE:  I beg your pardon for a moment.  Thank you very much. 

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. GAUDET:

Q    Ms. Karman, do you have Exhibit 37 in front of you?

A    Yes, I do.  Yes, I do. 

Q    And if you turn to page 18, please. 

A    Yes. 

Q    And you were asked a long series of questions regarding the meaning or your interpretation of the last paragraph on page 18, do you recall that?

A    That's right. 

Q    If you turn over the page, please, at page 19, and the first paragraph where it states (as read in): 

The areas discussed above represent only a sample of the manner in which shifts in policy discourses have occurred.  They are not meant to limit the topics eligible for support under this -- for proposals.

          Now, can you answer whether it would have been required -- was it necessary for a researcher to have addressed the question that was contained in the bottom of page 18 in order for the proposal to be considered and/or accepted?

A    Not all of them, but there was an expectancy that the researcher will be answering to these questions, or it was also possible to initiate another question within this framework. 

MR. GAUDET:  Those are my questions. 

THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you, ma'am.  You're free to go now. 


(WITNESS EXCUSED)