Toronto, Ontario

--- Upon resuming on Tuesday, October 14, 1997

at 10:15 a.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.

We propose first to deal with the application of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

MR. WOODS: Good morning. My name is Seamus Woods. I am here on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

I am in the Panel's hands in terms of how they would like me to deal with the submissions. We did prepare a submission that I think the Panel should have received. If not, I have extra copies. I also have a small Book of Authorities which we put together on the issue of interventions.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Do all counsel have a copy of this material and the application?

MR. WOODS: I distributed it to Mr. Christie. I have extra copies of the Book of Authorities. The letter which Mr. Richler originally sent making the application, I think, was distributed to counsel. If other counsel want copies of the Book of Authorities, I will make them available.

If you have seen Mr. Richler's letter already, you will know the basis of our submissions in terms of the request that we be granted interested party status. I do not propose to go over the letter line by line. Instead, what I propose to do is just to set out some of the background on the Canadian Jewish Congress and some of the cases that it has been involved with in the past, and then the basis for its being granted status in these proceedings at the present time.

Just to give you some idea of the background of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the organization was founded in 1919. It is the single democratic decision-making organization for all segments of the Canadian Jewish community. It is organized at all government levels and has national and regional offices across this country. Virtually all organizations, societies, groupings and other sectoral and religious bodies which have a Jewish heritage participate in the Canadian Jewish Congress.

The organization has a well-established history as a participant in issues involving human rights and freedoms, especially with respect to the rights of ethnic, religious and other minorities.

A listing of some of the matters in which the Congress has been involved is set out in Mr. Richler's letter. It is about four or five pages long.

In brief, the Congress has been involved with public inquiries, royal commissions, legislative and parliamentary committee hearings, court cases and Human Rights Tribunal hearings.

Just dealing with the matters over the past 10 years or so, the Congress has been granted leave to intervene in a number of court cases and Human Rights Tribunal hearings. In particular, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Congress has been involved in the cases involving John Ross Taylor, Keegstra, Andrews, Zundel, and Finta. Insofar as Human Rights Tribunal hearings are concerned, the Congress was a participant in the complaint against New Brunswick School District No. 15 and Malcolm Ross, not only at the Board of Inquiry level but also at the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench level, the Court of Appeal and, again, at the Supreme Court of Canada.

It was involved in the Kane and Church of Jesus Christ, Aryan Nations, Terry Long and Ray Bradley hearing and was also involved in the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia.

The law as to when a party may be granted status to participate in a hearing such as this is perhaps not as clearly enunciated as it might be in other areas. Insofar as this Tribunal is concerned, the jurisdiction flows from section 50(1) of the statute which only speaks of interested parties. That has been used in the past to grant representative group standing. In the Book of Authorities, I have given you the Canadian Paraplegic Association case where a group representing disabled persons was allowed to participate in a Tribunal hearing regarding electoral laws. In that case the board that was hearing it likened it to participating in a royal commission.

Insofar as the courts are concerned, the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the issue of standing in a number of cases. I have given you a couple of them in the Book of Authorities. There is the Reference Re Workers' Compensation Act which is at tab 4 and the Finta decision at tab 7.

I will take you to the Finta decision briefly. That was an application for leave to intervene by a number of parties including the Canadian Jewish Congress in respect of the case involving Mr. Finta. Madam Justice McLachlin dealt with the issue. Insofar as the test was concerned, you will find that at pages 706 and 707 of the decision she sets out the test that was previously enunciated in the Newfoundland Workers' Compensation Act Reference, requiring that an applicant can establish (1) an interest and (2) submissions that will be useful and different from those of the other parties.

It might be interesting to point out at page 708 of her decision that she dealt with both the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B'nai Brith applications, indicating that insofar as that case was concerned both groups offered useful and novel submissions and had distinctive contributions to make in the area of international law theory, comparative law, the Nuremberg principles, and the criminal justice obligations and position of Canada vis-à-vis the victims of war crimes.

I note that in its decision on granting other interested parties status in this particular proceeding, this Panel, in fact, referred to that particular provision when speaking of the B'nai Brith. In my submission, it would be equally appropriate to use it insofar as my client, the Canadian Jewish Congress, is concerned.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The wording of the section is broad, but is there implicit in all this some numerical consideration? How many interested parties should be represented or admitted to a hearing such as this?

MR. WOODS: There is nothing in the particular statute that deals with whether one is enough or two is too many. In either case, it is going to be up to the Tribunal concerned to decide whether the party is going to bring something to the proceedings that is perhaps not already there.

In this particular case the Canadian Jewish Congress is the umbrella group for all Jewish organizations in Canada. As that, it brings something that is not present here with the parties who have already been granted interested party status.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the Tribunal would be interested in hearing more detail on that specific point. What does the Congress bring that the other groups who have already been admitted do not?

MR. WOODS: The Canadian Jewish Congress has not only a long history in terms of protection of the position of the Jewish community in Canada and the effects of hate literature and the like on that particular community but, insofar as the areas broadening out into what we have before the Tribunal, which is the whole aspect of the Internet and that particular area, the CJC has had particular interest in that area and has developed a special expertise in terms of the Internet. Mr. Bernie Farber who is, in fact, with us in the court today, seated in the second row, has written a number of papers on the effect of the Internet on this particular area, one of which I believe was submitted to the Tribunal with the original application that Mr. Richler made.

Mr. Farber has, in fact, participated in a number of panels that dealt specifically with concerns regarding the Internet. He brings, as a potential person involved in this hearing, a special expertise in this particular area.

Also, as was pointed out in the submissions that Mr. Richler made originally, the CJC has established a special subcommittee dealing particularly with this area and, as such, it has developed something special that is not present in the other people who are already parties before the Tribunal.

Insofar as the Tribunal may have a concern about whether the efforts of CJC are going to be simply a duplication of what the other parties are going to say, that, I think, is something that the Tribunal can deal with as the Hearing progresses. Certainly it is my client's intention not to be either unnecessarily duplicative of what other people have to say or to involve itself in issues on which it does not have a special expertise. We are prepared to work with the other parties and with the Commission to ensure that the material that we have at our disposal and can usefully offer to the Tribunal is, in fact, put forward in a way that is not going to result in a duplication of effort that has already been given.

In brief, my submission to the Tribunal is that the CJC brings something that other parties do not have and that, as a result, its participation in this Hearing would allow the Tribunal to hear evidence on other issues and perhaps a different point of view on some issues from what has already been presented by the others. In that result, in my submission, the CJC should be granted interested party status in these proceedings on the same basis as the other groups have already been granted that status.

Subject to any response I might have to what Mr. Christie may have to say or any questions from the Panel, those are all my submissions.

MEMBER DEVINS: I am hesitant because the Tribunal Chair has already asked this question, but I would be grateful for some assistance.

Could you spell out in perhaps more detail what the unique perspective is that the CJC would bring. I am sure you have seen the Tribunal's decisions granting interested party status to the other groups. Specifically, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith was granted status on the basis of their expertise in the Internet as well as their expertise in dealing with the issues that are before us. If you could provide me some assistance, I would be grateful.

MR. WOODS: If it would please the Tribunal, I will just check with Mr. Farber to see if he has any particular points he would like me to raise with you now.

--- (A Short Pause)

To some extent, I think I have gone over this one time. The main concern is that the groups that are already granted status, leaving aside the Internet and I will come back to that, are all representative of a particular aspect of the Jewish community. The Canadian Jewish Congress is not representative of one aspect of the Jewish community but, rather, the entire Jewish community.

When we are dealing with the particular issues that the Tribunal is going to have before it in this proceeding, it is important, in my submission, that we get all aspects of the Jewish community -- reform, conservative, orthodox, everything. The groups that have been granted status thus far perhaps are not as representative of the entire community. By being the umbrella group, the CJC brings something a little special to the Tribunal in that respect.

Insofar as the Internet is concerned, the CJC was one of the first bodies, if not the first, in the Jewish community to specifically look into the questions of the Internet. Because it was the first one looking into it, it has had a longer experience with the issues being raised in this particular proceeding. Mr. Farber, in particular, has authored the report that has already been provided to the Tribunal, setting out some of his background -- not necessarily the same point of view that the B'nai Brith would express in its submissions in this proceeding. If we do not have both groups there, the chances are that the one point of view may be somewhat lost.

Certainly by having his expertise available for the Tribunal and certainly insofar as submissions are concerned, I think that would bring something a little special that would not otherwise be present.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal would not be deprived of his evidence.

MR. WOODS: I am sorry, I can't hear you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal would not be deprived of the benefit of his evidence.

MR. WOODS: No. Certainly he could be called as a witness by somebody else. You are right; that would get the evidence in front of you. I think having somebody testify as a witness would not necessarily be the same as having that point of view presented to the Tribunal in the form of submissions. Somebody who can give their evidence is not necessarily the same submissions that would be made. There is a distinction there that one has to accept.

Also, of course, Mr. Farber is not the only person in the organization who has an expertise in this area. While our submissions would certainly be putting him front and centre, there are other people whose point of view I think we will need to get across. Certainly that will be able to be done in the event that the CJC is granted interested party status.

MEMBER JAIN: My question pertains to the timing of the application for interested party status.

MR. WOODS: Unlike perhaps some of the other organizations that have already been granted standing, the CJC is a very large group. There is a certain process that has to be followed before it can get involved in proceedings. The net effect is that one person does not make the decision to have the organization involved in the proceeding; it has to go through a process.

It was explained to me as being a little like a bill becoming law in Parliament. It requires not just the approval of one person, but it has to go through Cabinet, through both houses of Parliament. It is not exactly the same thing within the Canadian Jewish Congress, but there are elements of that there.

That is the reason we are not here as early as we would normally like to have been. It was a matter of some debate within the organization about participating in the hearings. The decision has been made, and that is why we are here.

As I understand, we are not asking that the Tribunal slow down its decision-making or its dealing with the evidence. We have the set of hearing dates, and we will not be asking for any changes on the hearing dates.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, counsel. Do any counsel wish to speak in support of this application?

Mr. Christie, please.

MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.

It is regrettable that Mr. Richler was not here himself to present the argument because, although the suggestion was made that the Canadian Jewish Congress intervened in John Ross Taylor and Zundel and Finta and in Malcolm Ross, the only one at which they were allowed to intervene at the hearing stage was in the case of Malcolm Ross.

In that case, being before a Human Rights Tribunal in the province of New Brunswick chaired by Brian Bruce, they were restricted from doing anything more than making submissions. They were not allowed to participate in cross-examination; they were not allowed to involve themselves in the case because the parties were adequately represented by the Ministry of Education, the School District, by Mr. Ross' own counsel and by the complainant who also had his own lawyer.

In that light, it is quite clear that intervenants are not normally granted, or were not at that time granted, intervenant status in the sense of full participants. Obviously, things have changed, and this Tribunal has taken the view that we have three organizations and one individual representing themselves to represent various segments of the Jewish community -- no one ever asked them how many. It was my recollection that they tended to regard themselves as representatives for all. Unlike the questions directed to me when I was seeking to introduce information on behalf of certain German groups, it was never suggested that they did not represent all Jews.

We have a situation where there are three Intervenants representing Jewish groups and one party representing herself as a Jewish person. The only solution, if more are to be accommodated, would be to move the Tribunal to a theatre where it would be easier to accommodate this large number of lawyers. We have three, apparently, for the Commission and several for various Intervenants. It becomes difficult for one person to cope with as much as we are being presented with.

Of course, myself and Ms Kulaszka represent Mr. Zundel, and there is really nobody speaking for us or on our side of any issue other than myself, I guess.

I don't know whether fairness is a factor to consider here but, if it is, I would like to submit that it has already become a situation where the Intervenants have more powers than they were granted in any tribunal where counsel opposed them, with the one exception of the tribunal involving Terry Long in Alberta where, I gather, these gentlemen who have made presentations here also made presentations on behalf of intervenants and participated. I might point out that that was a case in which no counsel opposed them. Mr. Long, himself, absented himself from the day that he was required to produce membership lists, and there really was no opposition.

There is one serious question arising out of that, and I think we have a right to know the Tribunal's position on this. That is the question of whether all these Intervenants, at the end of the day when they get what they want, will be entitled to costs. They were in Mr. Long's case and, of course, it bankrupted Mr. Long and anyone who had dared to oppose the intervenants. Properties have been seized. Homes and families have been dispossessed, and this comes as somewhat of a shock to people like me who did not realize that that was the plan. We now see it as more of a plan and more of an intention on the part of the Intervenants because they are not unfamiliar with the process. They did it in Alberta. We would like to know if it is their intention here and whether it is the position of the Tribunal that they view it as within their power to award costs.

We are not talking here of $20,000 or $30,000. I recall the figures getting over $100,000, and it was the liability of each defendant. We would be opposing this intervention for those reasons as well, but we don't know whether they seek costs or not. That is something I think we should be entitled to know.

Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further comments?

MR. WOODS: In terms of the status of the Canadian Jewish Congress, my submission is simply that we should be granted the same status as the other participants and that the Tribunal will definitely have the ability to deal with the questions of participation in the Hearing as the Hearing actually progresses. I think that is the basic distinction between this case and the situation in New Brunswick with Mr. Ross.

In terms of costs, at this point in time, without the Tribunal having started to hear evidence and certainly being very far away from making a decision, we are not in a position to give you what our submissions on costs are going to be. I can tell you that we are not here simply to seek costs from Mr. Zundel. That is not the purpose of our involvement. Our involvement here is to make sure that a point of view is expressed to the Tribunal.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal will recess.

--- Short Recess at 10:40 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 10:51 a.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Because of the unique and important issues involved in these proceedings, we are of the view that interested party status should be granted to the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Having said that, we remind the Congress and its counsel that these proceedings should not be unnecessarily prolonged by interventions which are not considered in conjunction with counsel for the other interested parties.

The ruling that we made with respect to the applications of the other parties applies as well to the Congress.

Mr. Binnie, are you ready to call evidence?

MR. CHRISTIE: If I may, in my letter of September 30 I asked to make the submission that any member of the Tribunal should consider and disclose any support for or membership in any of the intervenor organizations. I don't know if that has been considered or if it needs to be further considered, but I want that put on the record.

I, likewise, have difficulty with the 10-day rule which I indicated in my letter of September 30.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let us deal with the first matter first, Mr. Christie. Let me help you with what you are trying to do here.

What you are seeking is a motion to the Tribunal to ask Panel members questions which might lead to a conclusion that there is or is not a bias. Is that not what you are doing?

MR. CHRISTIE: No. My question was whether any Panel member could disclose or at least acknowledge any support for or membership in any of the intervenor organizations.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The issue is larger than that. Implicit in what you are saying is that you have a right to question members of this Tribunal with respect to issues that may go to bias. Where is your authority to do that?

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't think I have a right to question them, but I have a right to raise the issue. I think what I am relying on is the position taken by Ms MacTavish who at one point disqualified herself because she found that her husband was a member of the firm that was prosecuting on behalf of the Commission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that was a fact in existence that was brought to the attention of the Tribunal. Do you have any facts with respect to any member of this Tribunal which might lead to a conclusion that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias?

MR. CHRISTIE: I cannot have those facts. I don't know any members of the Tribunal. But I think it is incumbent upon members of the Tribunal to do what Ms MacTavish did. I had no knowledge of her husband's involvement in any law firm. She brought that to my attention.

I think that is the right and proper course, and I am simply saying that, if any member of the Tribunal is either a member of or a supporter of any of the intervening groups, it is not for me to have to inquire. It is not within my power to inquire. I think it is their duty to make that known. If it is known, it may not be prejudicial but, if it is, I should be entitled to know about it just as I was with Ms MacTavish.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Binnie, please.

MR. BINNIE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Ms MacTavish, that was raised with the Tribunal by me at the time that we were retained to represent the Commission before the Tribunal. Ms MacTavish was, therefore, responding to an issue that had been presented by a party.

In light of Mr. Christie's acknowledgement a moment ago that he has no information of any facts or events that would give rise to an apprehension of bias, in my submission, it is a quite inappropriate line of inquiry for him to attempt to initiate.

MR. CHRISTIE: In reply to that, let me say this.

If it is true that Mr. Binnie brought this up at the Tribunal, he did not bring it up with me. The first I heard of it was from Ms MacTavish and the Tribunal itself. Consequently, if there were direct approaches to the Tribunal by Mr. Binnie in my absence, I suppose he considers that appropriate. He argued the same position in the Supreme Court vis-à-vis another matter.

I do not consider it appropriate that anyone should approach the Tribunal in the absence of other counsel. If that was the case, then it is neither here nor there. He had knowledge that should have been, and properly was, put to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is in the best position to know whether any of their members is either a member or a supporter of any of the intervenant groups.

If such be the case, as it was in the case, for instance, of the Human Rights Tribunal regarding McAleer and, I believe, the Payzant case -- it was Mr. Sinclair's tribunal in Vancouver where I raised the same issue. There was a consideration of the matter, and I later found out that Lois Serwa who sat on that tribunal was a member or a supporter of a group that was involved as a complainant.

I think, frankly, in those circumstances it is not a matter of a fishing expedition. It is a matter of a simple inquiry. If the Tribunal is of the view that nobody is, then that is fine. But I don't see how I can be put in the position of having to do investigative work on members of the Tribunal.

MR. BINNIE: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to that, there was a letter written to Mr. Christie by the Registrar of the Human Rights Tribunal, dated January 21, 1997, copied to all parties including Mr. Christie, acknowledging receipt of a letter from the General Counsel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, acknowledging receipt of his letter dated January 15, 1997, advising that Mr. Ian Binnie of the law firm of McCarthy Tétrault would be representing the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

It was raised in a letter. There was correspondence with the Tribunal to which Mr. Christie was a party, and that is how the issue arose.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

I know of no authority which would allow in these circumstances questioning of Tribunal members to elicit information pertinent to the issue of bias. It is always incumbent upon Tribunal members to ensure that they can fairly and impartially hear a matter. This is the view of the Tribunal members.

I am not going to allow those questions to be asked or answered.

Do you have something else, Mr. Christie?

MR. CHRISTIE: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Binnie, would you like to proceed?

MR. BINNIE: As a postscript to the point I just made, there is a letter from Mr. Christie to the Tribunal dated January 23, 1997 which acknowledges receipt of the earlier correspondence.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR. CHRISTIE: If my friend is making the point that that was conveying any knowledge of Ms MacTavish's position, I point out that it did not.

MR. BINNIE: Let's just read it, then, and I can file a copy with the Tribunal:

"As I have discussed with Mr. Zundel, he is of the firm view that the information provided in your letter raises a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Tribunal when the prosecutor is the partner or the spouse of the judge. In our view, this is a clear case where either the Tribunal member or the prosecutor must step aside."

It can hardly be clearer that Mr. Christie knew exactly what the issue was --

MR. BINNIE: Mr. Binnie misunderstands. I said that I did not hear this in any submission from Mr. Binnie. The information came from the Tribunal itself. Mr. Binnie says that he made the Tribunal aware of the situation.

I simply point out that, if Mr. Binnie did that, it was not something that I had known about until the Tribunal brought it to my attention. It is a judge being approached by one party, and that Tribunal advises the other party.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We have made a ruling, so let's get on with it. Mr. Binnie, please.

MR. CHRISTIE: Very well.

MR. BINNIE: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, before calling our first witness, what I would like to do is to introduce very briefly the matters which we are bringing before this Tribunal.

As the Tribunal is aware, the complaint arises out of the establishment on the Internet of the Zundelsite. It is the Commission's position in support of the complaints that the choice by Mr. Zundel of the Zundelsite is simply a way in which he can, through facilities in California, target the Jewish community in Canada and elsewhere for his particular brand of matter that is likely to expose them to hatred and contempt within the meaning of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I have provided to the Registrar a slim volume of the originating documents. I would ask the Tribunal to look first of all at the Complaint documents.

You will see at tab 1 the Complaint filed by Ms Sabina Citron to the Human Rights Commission, dated September 15, 1996. Having set out her allegation that the establishment of this Web site and the placement on the Web site of messages that are likely to expose her to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that "we are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination," which is to say race, is contrary to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

She gives as her particulars that she is a Jew and a survivor of the Holocaust, and she identifies documents which she says were downloaded on August 14, 1996 from a Home Page called "The Zundelsite" offered by the Respondent Zundel on the World Wide Web.

Provided at this site were the full texts of several pamphlets, including "66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust" and at least 10 other documents which I believe are likely to expose persons of Jewish faith and ethnic origin to hatred and contempt.

Attached to this Complaint Form are examples of the messages on the Home Page.

At tab 2 is the Complaint of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations which is substantially to the same effect, although it identifies a number of additional pamphlets. It includes "Did Six Million Really Die?;" the full text of the publication "66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust;" the full text of an article "Jewish Soap;" and at least 10 other documents which we believe are likely to expose persons of the Jewish faith and ethnic origin to hatred and contempt.

At tab 3 you will see a letter from Mr. Christie in which he says he has reviewed the particulars of the complaint of Ms Citron and Ms Hall, and he says they are overly broad and fail to particularize the complaints adequately. He then lists items 1 to 7, being the articles that he has received.

He then says over the page that he wants particulars from both Complainants as to the exact articles complained of, the passages from the articles which are alleged to incite hatred. He says that these are necessary in order to permit Mr. Zundel to intelligently decide what witnesses and documents he needs to produce.

That was responded to on behalf of the Commission by letter dated August 15, 1997, which is at tab 4. You will see that there is, first of all, the listing of 320 documents, covering pages 1 through 18, in the Commission's possession, control or power, relevant to the Complaint launched by the Toronto Mayor's Committee and by Ms Citron.

Then at page 18 Mr. Zundel is alerted, following that list:

"In proving the respondent's contravention of s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Commission relies on all documents posted on the Zundelsite, located on the Internet --"

And it gives the Internet address.

"-- from April 1995 up to August 14, 1997 and continuing thereafter. This includes Power Letters, ZGrams --"

Which are categories of documents posted on the Zundelsite.

"-- and any other articles, press releases and documents found at that Web site during the relevant period.

The Commission will establish both that the content of the posted material is likely to expose members of an identifiable group to hatred or contempt and will demonstrate that the respondent, Ernst Zundel, on his own, or by acting in concert with others, is responsible for communicating these messages or causing them repeatedly to be so communicated.

The Commission may prove its case on the basis of any of the documents posted on the Zundelsite during the relevant period, including the specific articles referred to as examples by the complainants in their formal complaints. In addition to the documents referred to by the complainants, please find enclosed a binder of the thirty documents listed below --"

Which refers back to the at least 10 documents in the Complaints themselves.

"-- (the 31st item is a video which is not included) upon which the Commission will place particular reliance. You will observe that we have highlighted a number of passages which, among others, may be the subject of expert testimony."

There was included with that letter a tabulated book of 31 documents which are indexed on pages 18, 19 and 20 of this letter. The letter concludes by enclosing a list of witnesses which, as presently advised, the Commission intended to call.

There are documents included, as you will see, not only items downloaded from the Zundelsite, but also newspaper articles, such as items 10 and 11 on page 19, in which Mr. Zundel told journalists about his plans with the Internet.

What we have prepared for the Tribunal and for Mr. Christie and the other counsel is a book containing the documents downloaded from the Zundelsite on which the Commission will rest the case here. In accordance with the language of the Complaints, it includes the documents identified initially by the Complainants in September and July 1996 respectively, and it identifies the other documents which they refer to simply as at least 10 other documents. It lists those documents specifically and sets out copies.

All of this material has previously been provided to Mr. Christie and, through him, to Mr. Zundel. Those books I have left with the Registrar and would ask her to hand them to the Tribunal.

I should indicate to the Tribunal that there is a number of issues which we expect the Tribunal will have to deal with in the course of this Hearing, arising out of the language of section 13(1) of the Act.

There is an issue raised on behalf of Mr. Zundel as to whether he, either alone or in concert with a group of other persons, has made the communication complained of. There will be an issue, as indicated by Mr. Christie at the Pre-hearing, as to whether it can be said that use of the Internet is to cause to communicate telephonically or to use the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking. We will be calling evidence about the Internet, how it is used and how we say it conforms to section 13 of the Act.

There is the additional issue of whether the telecommunications undertaking referred to is within the legislative authority of Parliament, which raises a question of territorial jurisdiction also referred to by Mr. Christie at the earlier meeting.

There is, of course, the issue as to whether what the Commission says are documents communicated by the Respondent Zundel through the Internet does expose Jewish people to hatred or contempt by reason of their being of Jewish origin. Evidence will be called to prove those elements of the allegation.

In respect of those matters, I might ask the Tribunal to look briefly at this Book of Documents so that you will have some idea of what is to be discussed in the evidence before you.

There is an Index of Documents at the first tab corresponding to the tabs which follow. You will see at the first tab, for example, the text as downloaded from the Zundelsite which is a copy of a pamphlet which he previously published called "Did Six Million Really Die: Truth at Last - Exposed:" This is said to include a Foreword to the new edition, "Zundel's Story."

You will recall that both Complainants referred to the document at tab 2, "66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust."

At tab 3 is an article put on the Zundelsite, we say, by Mr. Zundel, called "Jewish Soap."

At tab 4 you will see what is the index to documents available on the Zundelsite. If you flip over to the Table of Contents which appears about four pages in, you will see that the index is divided into a number of sections. I will just briefly identify those that we are particularly concerned with in this Hearing.

There is, first of all, a heading called "Politically Incorrect News." You will see under that heading a number of the items previously referred to, including "66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust" and the article entitled "Jewish Soap."

There is then a section called "Freedom Alert." Those articles address the theory put about by Mr. Zundel that in some way what he is up to is a search for truth, a debate about history, and to endeavour to wrap himself in the mantle of freedom of expression.

There is then a section called "Power Letters" which extend over a period of three years, 1995, 1996 and 1997. There will be evidence that Mr. Zundel produces documents on a monthly basis which he calls his Power Letters which he signs and distributes. Those Power Letters have been transferred to the Zundelsite and are available from the Zundelsite, and several of those documents are included in the book in the tabs that follow.

There are then a number of miscellaneous headings, including "Censorship Through Law" where, again, Mr. Zundel attempts to portray all of this as what he somewhere describes as a civilized and cultivated exchange of views.

He then has some books and articles, including again this transcript, "Did Six Million Really Die?" and so on.

That gives you some idea of what is available on the Zundelsite from which the Commission has selected a number of particular items on which it relies in this proceeding.

By way of an example, if you look at tab 7, you will see "An Open Letter from the 'Zundelsite'" dated December 9, 1996. Over the page you will see a formulation that is repeated at several instances through the documents. In the bold face type the basic message of the Zundelsite is said to be a challenge to three specific commonly accepted, monstrous lies pertaining to the Holocaust. Then he lists three items:

". that there ever was a Fuehrer order for the genocidal killings of Jews, Gypsies and others

. that the chief murder weapon or instrument for the alleged mass killing, called a 'gas chamber,' was designed for the express purpose of targeting groups of human beings like Jews

. that the numbers of victims claimed to have been killed are anywhere near the number of people who actually died in concentration camps of whatever cause - including lack of food, lack of shelter and medicines, epidemics, old age and the vagaries of total war."

Then in the highlighted portion there is the statement as follows:

"To claim that World War II was fought by the Germans, as the Holocaust Promotion Lobby incessantly claims, just to kill off the Jews as a group, is a deliberately planned, systematic deception amounting to financial, political, emotional and spiritual extortion."

These passages that the Commission relies upon are of importance in light of the position taken by Mr. Zundel in these documents, that this is a dispassionate view of the historical record that he is interested in rather than simple propaganda aimed at raising hatred and contempt against an identifiable community.

Tab 8 is a communication by Mr. Zundel through the Zundelsite, which starts out saying: "My name is Ernst Zundel. I am a Holocaust Revisionist." Then he asks his questions about "Did Six Million Really Die?" Then he says:

"I am the cause of the first-time-ever censorship ban on the Net. I need not repeat details here. The German act of censorship - first CompuServe, then Telekom - brought forth a reaction the likes of which happens to dissidents only in Hollywood movies."

If you flip over a couple of pages, you will see that in this document he describes how he came to form the Zundelsite. At the bottom of the second page, in the second paragraph from the bottom, he says:

"Because of the persecution I experienced for expressing my unorthodox viewpoint on history, I decided with the help of some American friends to set up a world-wide web page in the USA, the last bastion of free speech. I quietly set about constructing my web page."

Then he carries on with a further discussion of his involvement in setting up and establishing this Web site, fundamentally for the purpose, so far as Canada is concerned, of attempting to publish through the medium of the Internet to Canadians this type of material which is calculated to raise hatred and contempt against an identifiable minority.

Then at tab 9 is, again, a document downloaded from the Internet which consists of an exchange between somebody called Jamie McCarthy of Nizkor and responses from Mr. Zundel. What this led to was some connection between the Zundelsite and the Nizkor site in which people travelling the Internet could link the communications on both sites and consider their views.

If you flip through tab 9 to the page that is marked 314 in the bottom right-hand corner, this is the passage I referred to a moment ago where the effort is made by Mr. Zundel to present what he communicates not as hate propaganda but as a scholarly and respectable exchange. In the bottom paragraph on page 314 he says:

"Our intent, as stated above and which bears repeating, is to offer an alternate viewpoint to the government- and media approved version of the 'Holocaust,' presented in a democratic forum. Scholars and researchers on both sides can post their replies and have the strength of their research and logic weighted, argued and judged. It is our hope that many intellectuals will participate - both actively by offering their findings and passively by judging evidence. I am very willing to extend a hand for a cultured, scholarly and respectable exchange and facilitate an easy navigational system that would allow an open, searching mind to read, to reflect and to compare."

We will be calling as our first witness Professor Gary Prideaux who is a professor of linguistics and who is in a position to analyze the actual content of the Zundel material to give you an analysis as to why what is set out in these documents is not a cultured, scholarly and respectable exchange, but is simply anti-Semitism and hate propaganda wrapped up in the flag of freedom of speech.

If you flip ahead to tab 12, you will see an example of why what we are dealing with here is hate propaganda, not an exercise of freedom of expression in any meaning of the term. If you look three pages in at the first highlighted portion, you will see an example of what is complained about. It says, according to Mr. Zundel:

"The problem is, very simply, that the German oligarchy and the Jewish/Zionist/Marxist racketeers who have conned the Germans, the Americans and, for that matter, the whole world with their Holocaust extortion scheme --"

"Holocaust extortion scheme" is a repeated expression all through this material.

"-- are both dependent for their own survival on the non-exposure of this fraudulent, parasitic enterprise."

Then there is more to the same effect as you look through the documents which follow.

If you flip over to tab 17, again this is a Power Letter which means that it is a Zundelsite reproduction of a document circulated in hard copy by Mr. Zundel. It is said in the heading to be the personal opinions of Mr. Zundel. Again, with respect to scholarly debate, if you go over to the third page, you will see a taste of what the Zundelsite offers.

Mr. Zundel says that he can expect little fairness or help from the media which, under normal circumstances, could act as a check on the doings of the spy agency -- this is the SIRC committee.

"The media of Canada, because it is largely blinded by self-induced Germanophobia for the last 50 years, can no longer be trusted to ring the alarm bells against this unholy troika of Intelligence Service, Intelligence Review Committee, and a Holocaust-Lobby-driven Government - headed by a Prime Minister who is surrounded by more Jewish staffers and 'advisors' than any other Prime Minister I can think of in my 38 years in this country!"

And so on.

Again, if you go over to tab 22, Mr. Zundel's own offering in his Power Letter dated March 1997 is his response to the Swiss government's announcement respecting Swiss banks and the amounts of money which were taken in by the banks and said to belong to victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Zundel's response is on the second page where he says:

"The Swiss ruling elite, with a few notable exceptions, has predictably caved in to the worldwide Holocaust Lobby pressure and announced their fatal error - a $6 Billion Holocaust Victims' Fund. The Holocaust terrorists are crowing triumphantly! The eternal parasite, riding high on a wave of victimhood, seems to have cast all caution to the wind, drunk with the feeling of influence and power of having brought yet one more gentile country to its knees."

This, again, in the ostensive pursuit of a scholarly exchange.

Finally, the next tab is an interview which Mr. Zundel gave to Australia's largest Internet magazine. You will see that in the second paragraph below the heading, "Good Morning from the Zundelsite," it says:

"Below is an interview that Ernst gave about a week ago to Australia's largest Internet magazine, Internet Australia. I am bringing it here for your perusal and edification."

The first question is of interest in light of the issue of authorship. He is asked:

"As you explain, your site has been subjected to various attempts at censorship. Please outline the main challenges that the Zundelsite has faced."

Mr. Zundel responds:

"Pressure was brought against our first server in California, which led to the abrupt cancellation of our website."

In the next couple of paragraphs down he says, "Our current server came under heavy pressure in January --" and so on.

That is a taste of the kind of material that will be discussed in the evidence before the Tribunal.

I can indicate briefly the witnesses that we expect to call in this portion of the Hearing. I had mentioned Professor Prideaux from the Department of Linguistics at the University of Alberta. He is going to assist the Tribunal to dissect these writings on which the Commission relies, to point out how far at variance what is produced here is from scholarly dialogue; that what fundamentally is employed here are rather old techniques of classic anti-Semitism, the stereotyping of Jewish people, the negative characteristics repeated over and over again, and the linguistic structure that is calculated to create hatred and contempt within section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We will also be calling, with respect to the Internet, Mr. Ian Angus who is an expert in the field of telecommunications, who will provide the Tribunal with evidence as to whether the Zundelsite constitutes communicating telephonically or by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament. That evidence will also go to the matter of territoriality.

As the Tribunal is aware, section 40(5(c) provides that conduct outside Canada is nevertheless actionable under the Human Rights Act if the victim is a Canadian citizen or person lawfully admitted to reside in this country. An understanding of how the Internet works is clearly of relevance to the matters that you have to decide.

There is also the evidence of Professor Frances Henry whom the Commission will call. She is a social anthropologist at York University. She will outline to the Tribunal how the Holocaust denial messages on the Zundelsite really conform to the classical anti-Semitism that section 13(1) was, in part, designed to redress.

There will also, of course, be witnesses to authenticate the documents downloaded from the Zundelsite and to bring home to Mr. Zundel the authorship of the works complained of.

I would say finally and before calling our first witness that the matters before this Tribunal are not matters pertaining to freedom of expression. As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in a number of cases, freedom of expression is not absolute. There are limits imposed so that the freedom of one does not invade and disparage the freedom of another. The example often given is that no one has the freedom to cry "fire" in a crowded theatre.

The limitations which are imposed by section 13(1) of the Act, as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Taylor case, really address matters which go beyond freedom of expression and which are designed and targeted on the rights of others.

The other point I would ask the Tribunal to keep in mind during the course of the Hearing is that these documents which, in our submission, by any objective standard expose and are calculated to expose Jewish people to hatred and contempt were understood by Mr. Zundel to have that effect. As the portion in the article that I read to you demonstrated and as other pieces of his writings demonstrate, he went to California with a view to attempting to sidestep the Canadian legal system and spread into Canada a message of hate that he understood he was precluded from distributing directly here.

At the end of the day, one of the issues that the Tribunal will have to address is whether indeed the laws of this country in which Mr. Zundel resides and has resided, as he says, for 38 years, can be so easily sidestepped and circumvented.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, with that I would propose that we call Professor Gary Prideaux as our first witness. My colleague, Mr. Eddie Taylor, will ask questions of Professor Prideaux.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR. BINNIE: I just want to put on the record that we are going to be asking for an order excluding witnesses in the usual form. I don't know whether my friend has any objection, but clearly it will be of assistance to the Tribunal to know that the witnesses called are not tailoring evidence or otherwise influenced by what they have heard from other witnesses.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess the issue is who is allowed to remain, who are exceptions to the order.

MR. BINNIE: I acknowledge that Mr. Zundel clearly is entitled to remain as the Respondent to the proceeding and for the purposes of instructing Mr. Christie.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The first several witnesses that you have listed are all in the nature of expert evidence?

MR. BINNIE: Yes.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are experts to be called by Mr. Christie allowed to hear that evidence?

MR. BINNIE: I have not heard from Mr. Christie as to what, if any, testimony he expects to call.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I am asking whether you would agree that his experts would be allowed to remain, if he has any.

MR. BINNIE: I would agree that the order for exclusion extends to fact witnesses and does not preclude the experts who are going to testify on the subject matter of what is discussed in the evidence before the Tribunal. If they are to comment on that, then they are going to have to know what has been said.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie...?

MR. CHRISTIE: I have no comment.

THE CHAIRPERSON: There will be an order excluding witnesses. That order will not extend to Mr. Zundel who will be here to instruct counsel.

MR. CHRISTIE: Does it extend to experts?

MR. BINNIE: As I understood the ground rule, to the extent that experts are to be called to comment on the factual evidence presented to the Tribunal, they are entitled to hear that factual evidence. To the extent that they are simply called as expert witnesses, giving matters of opinion which are not directed to what is being said in the witness box before the Tribunal, they would be excluded as well.

MR. CHRISTIE: If that is the order, I don't know what it means. It is very obscure to me.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take our morning recess.

--- Short Recess at 11:45 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 12:02 p.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: There will be an order excluding witnesses with the exception of Mr. Zundel and expert witnesses.

MR. EARLE: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to make a brief opening statement on behalf of the Toronto Mayor's Committee.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Does every representative wish to make an opening statement?

MR. ROSEN: I thought there was general agreement that there were not going to be any opening statements, that Mr. Binnie would speak and then witnesses would follow.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That was my expectation, if not an order. At the appropriate time, perhaps we can hear from you later.

Can we proceed with the evidence now?

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Commission calls as its first witness Dr. Gary Prideaux.

AFFIRMED: GARY D. PRIDEAUX

Mr. Chairman and Members, the Commission will offer Dr. Prideaux as an expert witness. Dr. Prideaux is a linguist, and we wish to have him qualified as able to give expert opinion evidence in the area of discourse analysis which is a subset of the field of linguistics.

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF RE QUALIFICATIONS

MR. TAYLOR:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Prideaux.

Could I ask you to take up Exhibit HR-3, and I direct you to tab 1. I will just ask you, sir, to leaf through those 16 pages and ask you to identify that document, please.

A. That is my curriculum vitae.

Q. Thank you. I note, Doctor, that you were born in the United States. You have citizenship in both Canada and United States. You obtained a B.A. at Rice University in Houston and a Ph.D in Linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin.

Could you tell me, sir, your thesis topic in your Ph.D studies.

A. It was "The syntax of Japanese honorofics." It was a thesis addressed to the question of the use of language, Japanese honorofic language, and a syntactic analysis of it. It is a document that took a theoretical position that was current at that particular period, namely Chomsky's theory of the aspect of syntax and tried to explore the ramifications of that theory in a really complicated language totally unlike English.

Q. Why did you choose the Japanese language, Doctor?

A. Because, when I was a student, Japanese was one of the languages that I chose to take. I was interested in the language. I studied the language for three years and worked on it there and in Japan as well.

Q. I will ask you, Doctor, just to keep your voice up. This is a large room and you are competing with air conditioning and the security devices.

If I could take you to your professional experience, sir, you are affiliated with the University of Alberta and have been since 1966; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Could you just run through some of the positions you have had at the University of Alberta?

A. As you can see from my CV, I first went to University of Alberta in 1966, upon completion of the Ph.D at the University of Texas at Austin. I have been associated with that university for my full academic career. The times that I have been away from the University of Alberta have been when I was either on sabbatical or in Japan on a Fulbright Lectureship.

I became an Assistant Professor upon arrival. I was promoted to Associate Professor in 1971. I was granted tenure in 1970. I was Chair of the department for about 12 years, two terms plus some acting time as Chair. I was promoted to Professor in 1978. I also served a term as Associate Dean in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, dealing with departments on our campus with graduate programs in areas of the social sciences primarily.

Q. I note at the bottom of page 1, under the headline "Research and Teaching Specializations," Discourse analysis, psycholinguistics, syntactic theory, structure of English, and structure of Japanese.

If I turn you to page 2, sir, under the headline "Courses Taught," in your undergraduate teaching responsibilities, could you describe the course, Psycholinguistics. I think it is the third from the bottom there.

A. This is an undergraduate course that I taught in different forms over several years. The course is an introduction basically to psycholinguistics, psycholinguistics being the experimental study of language phenomena, language comprehension and language production, language acquisition, and the interface between linguistic theory, theoretical constructs, and psychological constructs -- that is, issues in experimentation, experimental design.

The goal of the course is to familiarize the students with the basic literature in this discipline and in the subdisciplines of linguistics and also to introduce them to the actual workings of the psycholinguist. That is, they carry out their experiments and so forth under direction.

Q. The last one of your undergraduate courses that you have listed here, Discourse Analysis, could you describe that, please.

A. Discourse Analysis, again, is an undergraduate course. It is an introduction to the discipline. Discourse analysis involves a variety of facets. It is, again, a subdiscipline of linguistics, but it takes as its input not only linguistics and psychology but some issues from other disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, et cetera.

The course is designed as a kind of survey course, a course designed to introduce the students to various approaches to discourse analysis -- those taken by people like psycholinguists versus those taken by conversational analysts, for example, and also, from a philosophical point of view, theoretical issues that have been developed in discourse analysis.

The goal of the course is that at the end of the course the students should have a working familiarity with several different approaches to discourse analysis and be able to function in each of those approaches in a literate way.

Q. I take you down to the graduate courses that you have taught and draw your attention to Advanced Topics in psycholinguistics. What are the advanced topics that you would cover?

A. Some of the topics that I have dealt with -- this is a seminar, so the topic in the seminar might change from year to year or from term to term. One topic that I dealt with fairly recently and actually published on a bit as well has to do with language comprehension processes, processes that are basically cognitive and psychological in nature as opposed to sociological in nature -- that is, processes like parsing strategies, the effect of numerous constraints, the effect of lexical choice, et cetera, on the way people process language. The idea is that, with certain kinds of structures, processing is inhibited; with other kinds of structures processing is facilitated. The use of those kinds of structures which might fit into a particular extended stretch of speech can still be looked at, to some extent, in isolation with respect to particulars of the structures.

For example, if we were looking at some canonical properties of English, that is, properties that are sort of common to English structure -- English is a language that has a subject-verb-object order, as you know. We can have structures in which that order is changed. We can have structures where the order might be object-verb-subject, like "Black beans I can't stand them" -- structures in which you have non-canonical forms.

The question for the psycholinguist in that particular seminar that I did was to look at these non-canonical forms and ask what kinds of strategies, what kinds of cognitive processing phenomena were involved in order to facilitate or inhibit the process.

Q. I will just take you down to the next headline, the Professional Societies that you are a member of. Could you describe those, Doctor.

A. Taking them from the top, Mr. Taylor, the first society is simply a local Conference of Linguists in Alberta and B.C. and a few from Saskatchewan. It is an opportunity for linguists to meet on an annual basis in a very informal situation and to exchange ideas.

The Canadian Linguistic Association is the flagship society for my discipline. It is the major linguistic association of Canada. I have served in various capacities on the Executive of that committee as well.

Cognitive Science Society is a relatively new society where people interested in empirical aspects of linguistics, like discourse analysis, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, language acquisition and so forth, come together to participate and exchange ideas cross-disciplinarily.

The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States is another international organization. It is an association of linguists from both countries who meet annually and publish a journal.

The Linguistic Society of America is the flagship professional society of our discipline. It is a society which has a long history. It was formed probably in the 1920s by some very eminent early linguists, Leonard Bloomfield, Edward Sapir and others. It has membership all over the world. It publishes the flagship journal in my discipline, the journal "Language."

The other two conferences are, again, relatively local organizations. I participate in the Southern Conference on Linguistics because I have colleagues who work in the southern United States, and that is where I originate, so I have an opportunity to see those people every three or four years, perhaps. They publish a journal.

The Western Conference on Linguistics is, again, a western Canadian and western United States association which meets annually in different universities. Its focus is primarily on formal syntactic analysis.

Q. Under the next headline, "Awards, Grants and Fellowships," I won't take you, sir, through each of these. I will just note that it spreads from page 2 over on to page 3. I have specific questions about the second SSHRCC grant. Could you describe that grant and what it was for.

A. We are talking about the second entry there?

Q. Yes, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

A. SSHRCC, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is, as I am sure the Panel must know, the primary federal funding agency for the social sciences and humanities for academics. This particular research grant is a three-year grant, and its subject matter is basically discourse analysis carried out in an experimental and text analysis methodology.

The funding is spread over three years, and the funding is used primarily for graduate student support and research, for assisting graduate students in their own research, but also, and more important, in carrying out group research which we engage in.

It is a continuation of grants. It is not the same grant, but it is a continuation of a series of grants that I have held over the last few years in which I started my work in psycholinguistics and expanded into discourse analysis.

Q. Could you just describe the process, then -- how that grant came about, and the process that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council puts you through in order to make the grant.

A. These grant applications are made in my discipline on a three-year basis; they are usually three-year grants. The application forms simply involve -- I shouldn't say "simply" -- involve specification in some considerable detail of the projects, usually a series of projects linked together under the aegis of a common thread; statements of the theoretical basis, the methodologies to be used; the kinds of support needed; the venues for publication of those results; the qualifications of the participants, including if one is asking for a post-doctoral fellow or graduate students and the like. Those applications are locally adjudicated by the universities and then sent forth from the university's granting office to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

In the year that I received this, 1996, there were for all linguists in the country only 13 grants awarded in this area, so I was very fortunate to get one.

Q. Can you comment, Doctor, on the size of the award? Where does the size of the award fit into the other grants, to your knowledge?

A. I think it is probably, if not the largest, one of the largest, which doesn't look all that large when you look at NSERC awards and the like. In linguistics it is a large award.

Q. I draw your attention next, Doctor, to your election to the Scientific Research Society in 1994. Could you describe that society, please.

A. That is a society, Sigma Xi, which, I guess, has members all over the world. It is a society where people engaged in scientific research come together and exchange ideas at meetings and the like.

The process of election follows by nomination from members. The University of Alberta has a fairly active chapter of this society. I was asked to submit documents for nomination. I was approached by the President of that year of our local chapter of Sigma Xi and asked to provide documents so that my nomination could go forth, and it did. I don't know, frankly, what the procedures are for accepting or rejecting nominations.

Q. Just following down the page, Doctor, I note that in 1993 to 1996 you also had a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant.

A. Yes.

Q. Following down, in 1991-92 a McCalla Research Professorship. Could you describe that, Doctor.

A. Our university, as many universities I suppose, has a small set of research professorships which are awarded annually. There are two or three generally awarded, and these are awarded by someone making a nomination of an individual scholar, and they are adjudicated by a committee.

I was nominated by my department chair and my Dean of Arts for this award, and I was fortunate enough to receive it. It involves full-time attention to research and no teaching duties in that particular year.

It provided me with an opportunity to get a lot of work finished, which was nice.

Q. I will just take you over to page 3 where your Awards, Grants and Fellowships continue. I note throughout those more Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grants.

A. Yes.

Q. I note there a Fulbright-Hayes Grant to Japan. I think you mentioned that earlier, the third one from the bottom of that list.

Could you describe what the Fulbright-Hayes is.

A. It is a fellowship program open to American citizens. It involves either having scholars who are American citizens go abroad to teach or to study or to have scholars from foreign countries come to the United States to teach or to study. The number of countries involved, as you may know, is large. There is a large contingent of Fulbright-Hayes research grants to many countries.

I was nominated for this just after I had finished my doctoral thesis and was invited to Japan in the function of being both a teacher and a researcher, primarily a teacher in this instance, teaching linguistics at two universities on the west coast of Japan, Tottori and Shimane Universities. I spent a year in Japan doing that and carried out more research on Japanese syntax as well.

Q. Just to take you down to the headline, "Publications, Books and Monographs," I won't take you through each of these, but could you describe the first one, the one you authored with Mr. Baker.

A. This is a research monograph that my colleague Bill Baker and I wrote. It is a research monograph in the extent that it reports on several sets of experiments, psycholinguistics experiments, that we conducted in both English and a some smaller set in Japanese and Ukrainian. I don't know Ukrainian but, fortunately, we had people who do in our research group.

The issue, really, that was the focus of the study is the way English structures are processed and how variants in these structures contribute to or inhibit processing, what the function of short-term memory is in this processing, and what is the function of expectation of canonicality of grammatical structures, lexical choice and the like, how they relate to processing.

The book talks about six studies that we carried out, as I say, primarily on English, but some in other languages as well. Korean was another language we used in one study.

What we tried to show, the thrust of the study, was that there are a couple of cognitive processing principles that can be shown to be active, primarily, in comprehension. Those principles have to do with how propositional information is encoded and interrupted or not, what information is construed to be shared or not, and whether the canonical forms of the relative clauses themselves contribute to that process and complexity.

I don't know if that made sense.

Q. The next one, Doctor, is the book "Psycholinguistics: The experimental study of language." Could you describe that one.

A. That is a textbook, Mr. Taylor. It was a book that I was asked to write by Croom Helm. It is an undergraduate survey text dealing with the basic issues in psycholinguistics dealing with processes of language, comprehension, language production, to a modest extent language acquisition. It was an attempt to bring together certain theoretical concerns that were current at the time with experimental methodology.

The book is now out of date, in my view, but it was used pretty widely when it was first published.

Q. Used widely at the college and university level?

A. Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: I note that it is almost 12:30, Mr. Chairman. I am in your hands as to when you would like to take the luncheon break. I am about one-third through the examination on Professor Prideaux' CV.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We were planning on rising at one o'clock and coming back at 2:30, if you want to continue.

MR. TAYLOR: Very well, thank you.

Q. Doctor, could I take you now to the entries under the headline "Refereed Articles" and ask you to describe the one that is at the bottom of page 3.

First of all, Doctor, could you tell us about the International Journal of Psycholinguistics and give us a sense of where that stands in the hierarchy of these refereed publications.

A. It is a good journal; it is an international journal, as the title says. I would say that it is probably, within the psycholinguistics segment, one of the top three journals.

Q. And the content of that article?

A. The issue I was addressing was, again, language processing and, in particular, language production in this case.

There is a current theory in language processing which suggests that in the processes of comprehension, as opposed to production, when one is listening to a sentence, if that sentence has some ambiguity in it, some sort of local ambiguity, such as a sentence like, "John knows that answer" versus "John knows that answer is wrong," where you have two possible structures after the verb "know," one current theory of language processing, a very influential one, suggests that in comprehension there is evidence for serial processing -- that is, that one takes a certain structure and tries it and, if it works, fine, and, if it doesn't work, he restructures the system.

That serial processing has been challenged by some recent work in cognitive science. What I was trying to do in this particular study was to elucidate that issue by some experimental evidence -- that is, by evidence which would suggest that, in fact, we have evidence for parallel processing or parallel activation. When a person encounters a sentence that is locally ambiguous in that fashion, what happens is that both structures are activated in parallel and are weighted according to some sort of expectation constraints, given the context and the like.

Many of the results of the earlier theoretical position can be accommodated by this position as well; whereas, some of the problems with the earlier theoretical position cannot be.

Q. Could I turn you to page 4 and ask you about the fifth one down, a 1995 article with Hogan, "Constraints on the form of oral narratives." Could you describe the journal and then the content of that article.

A. The journal focuses primarily on socio-linguistic issues. It is published in Germany. Its major interest is in, I think, what one might call applied linguistics, but applied linguistics from a theoretical perspective. The journal is widely distributed; it is known in all linguistic domains.

Dr. John Hogan and I had shared a research grant, a SSHRCC grant, for three years, and we carried out a series of experiments on oral narratives and the production of oral narratives. We asked our subjects to engage in a kind of experiment in which one participant would describe some set of events to another participant.

The social constraints that we looked at were questions of how the narrative structures differ, not the quality but the structures, when the participants in the conversation are either friends or not -- that is, intimates or not -- or same sets or different sets. Those are the social domains.

We also looked at some of the cognitive factors -- that is, issues having to do with attention focus, memory, narrative structure, organization, and the like.

In this particular paper we summarized the work on the social factors and demonstrated that, under certain kinds of controls, you get no punitive sets difference although you often get an intimacy difference in terms of the kinds of interaction you get. There was no gender difference at all across the cognitive domains -- that is, the information focusing, comparative strategies in our task were virtually identical for all the participants.

Q. Could I draw your attention next to the article which is eleven from the bottom, just below the middle of the page, a 1993 article. "Subordination and information distribution --." Again, could you describe that journal.

A. You will notice that this was the first issue of the journal. I was one of five or six people invited to contribute to the première edition. The journal has gone on now to become quite influential, especially in the study of pragmatics. It is one of the journals that I read relatively faithfully, not just because my paper was in it.

The paper looked, again, at the way subordinate clauses, not just relative clauses but subordinate clauses, are distributed in b