THE CHAIRPERSON: Any questions, Mr. Christie?

MR. CHRISTIE: I wonder if there are any other parties or intervenors who want to ask any questions. Normally, I would think they might be in common interest with the Commission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Do any other parties have any questions? Seeing none, Mr. Christie, please.

MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. You say that you wanted to see it all, so you spent a couple of hours looking at the material on the Zundelsite. Is that what you said?

A. That is what I said.

Q. Did you see it all?

A. I saw a lot.

Q. How much?

A. The amount that filled the two hours that I spent.

Q. Do you know how many documents there are on the Zundelsite?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Who picked them out for you so that you could look at them?

A. The staff person of the committee.

Q. Who was that?

A. Janice Dembo.

Q. Actually, in two hours I doubt very much that you could see 5 per cent of the Zundelsite documents. Would you agree?

A. I don't know.

Q. You have no idea how much of a representative sample you saw then?

A. I saw enough that I believed that it was appropriate for me to sign the Complaint with the allegations in it.

Q. What do you consider a representative sample to be?

A. I didn't say it was a representative sample. I said that I saw enough that convinced me that it was appropriate for me to sign the Complaint. In the Complaint I was swearing as to a belief, and that was satisfied by the time I spent looking at material.

Q. Your Complaint refers to three specific documents, doesn't it?

A. It refers to "several pamphlets including" and then it names three specific documents.

Q. What were the several pamphlets you were referring to?

A. I don't have the names of them.

Q. Do you recall them?

A. The names? No, I don't. I never knew them.

Q. You never knew them?

A. I never knew the names of the pamphlets. I looked at specific comments which, in my opinion, were hateful or likely to incite.

Q. How were they selected for you?

A. I believe we selected them at random. We called up the site and started going through it.

Q. Obviously, if you have acknowledged that Janice Dembo picked them for you, you must be acknowledging that she directed you in some way. Is that accurate or not?

A. She was the person who brought the site up on the computer. As I said, we went to the beginning and selected parts of it along the way.

I think what was significant to me was that I saw a number of statements that supported the allegation in the Complaint that the material discriminated against persons on the grounds of race, religion, national or ethnic origin.

Q. Do you remember my question?

A. Your question was related to the selecting of material.

Q. That is what it was. It was specifically who selected the material. Originally, you said that Janice Dembo did and then I asked you if you made the selection of the passages that you looked at, and I don't know what your answer is to that yet.

A. I answered your question.

Q. What was your answer?

A. My answer was that Janice Dembo brought up the site and that we started at the beginning.

Q. So by what means did you make your selection, just random?

A. That is possible.

Q. You don't recall?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you swear your oath of office on the 8th of December, 1994?

A. Whatever the date; I don't know the date.

Q. Do you know the terms of your oath of office?

A. Not offhand. To serve the people of Toronto. Beyond that, I don't know the details of the oath.

Q. Were you aware of the fact that you swore an oath to be impartial, not to exercise any partiality?

A. Now that you remind me of that, yes, I am aware of that.

Q. It also included an unusual word called "malversation." Do you know what that word means?

A. No, I don't.

Q. In your oath it says that you are to exercise impartially, without any malversation or undue execution, in your office. "Malversation", as I understand it, is a word that refers to a variety of things such as corruption, exaction, larceny or concussion, whatever that means. Were you familiar with any of those terms when you swore your oath?

A. I didn't go to the dictionary ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you any more familiar than Mr. Christie is?

THE WITNESS: I took from it overall a belief that I was swearing to uphold my duties in a way that was honest, was fair, was within the law.

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. Impartial?

A. Impartial.

Q. With regard to impartiality, are you familiar with the principle ‑‑ you are a lawyer, aren't you?

A. I am.

Q. Have you ever heard of the term "audi alteram partem", to hear both sides?

A. Okay.

Q. Are you familiar with that expression?

A. I am.

Q. Did you ever ask for or communicate with Mr. Zundel on any of these issues?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever ask for an explanation from him?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever contact him in any way to give him an opportunity to defend himself against the accusations brought by Mr. Kurz?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever allow him to appear before the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Race Relations?

A. He was never invited to appear.

Q. Did he ask to appear?

A. I believe at one time on another issue he asked to appear.

Q. Was he allowed?

A. It was not an issue on which deputations were heard.

Q. In relation to the position of Mr. Zundel, were you at any time familiar with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on his publication of the booklet, "Did Six Million Really Die:"?

A. Not in any detail.

Q. Were you aware that the majority of the Supreme Court had held that all communications which convey or attempt to convey meaning are protected under section 2(b) unless the physical form for which the communication is made, for example, a violent act, excludes protection and the content of the communication is irrelevant? The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation and self-fulfillment. Were you aware of that?

A. Not in any detail.

Q. Were you aware that immediately after the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1992 Karen Mock and Mr. Kurz had a news conference? Are you familiar with Mr. Kurz, Marvin Kurz?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And he was speaking at that time for B'nai Brith, as he is here today, but he was also joined by Janice Dembo, Co-ordinator of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations. Are you familiar with those events?

A. With the press conference?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Were you aware that the person on whom you relied to make the selection, the person you mentioned as Janice Dembo, was at that time urging the Mayor's Committee, of which at that time you were not the representative, to pass a resolution urging police to investigate and prosecute Mr. Zundel under the Criminal Code anti-hate law? Were you aware of that?

A. Again, not in any detail.

Q. Do you think that Ms Dembo may have had an axe to grind in selecting the portions she wanted you to look at from the Zundelsite?

A. No. From my experience, Ms Dembo does not have an axe to grind. She, like me and many citizens in our community, abhors racism and anti-Semitism. When there is a suggestion or evidence of it, she, like many other citizens, takes action to try to get rid of it or to see that the laws of the country are enforced.

Q. Is it normally your view that it is part of your job to prosecute people?

A. It is not part of my job to prosecute people. I see it as a part of my job to bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities, such as, for example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, breaches of the law or regulations as I see it. I am not a prosecutor, but citizens often come to the Mayor or to City Council requesting that we bring a whole range of actions to the attention of the authorities.

Q. And it does not trouble you in the least that Ms Dembo, who you had assist you to make your selection, was the same person who even before the Supreme Court had issued its judgment was already demanding prosecution for Mr. Zundel? That does not trouble you at all?

A. No, it doesn't.

Q. And it doesn't trouble you equally that she was seeking the committee to obtain allocations of all necessary resources toward those goals of having Mr. Zundel charged? That doesn't trouble you?

A. I would see that as her doing her job, which was to bring to the committee's attention actions or behaviour in the community that was seen to promote racism or anti-Semitism.

Q. With regard to the Toronto Mayor's Committee, of which you have been Chair, you also, I understand, granted or arranged for moneys to be paid to a group called Anti-Racist Action. Is that correct?

You can't remember that?

A. I am just trying to recall whether it was the Mayor's Committee or Council itself. I know there was a small grant made to a group to assist them in holding a conference that brought together young people in the city to address this issue of anti-racism.

My hesitation was only as to whether it was the Mayor's Committee or Toronto City Council that assisted in that way.

Q. Am I right in understanding that a grant was made by one or the other to a group called Anti-Racist Action?

A. Some resources were certainly ‑‑ and, again, I am not trying to evade it. I know, for example, that assistance in Xeroxing and some other resources were made available. There may have been a small financial grant as well. I just don't recall the details, but there was some assistance given to that group for the holding of a conference.

Q. Perhaps this might refresh your memory. About $8,000 ‑‑ do you remember that, and a long debate that took place before the Council?

A. I don't recall the amount, I am sorry.

Q. Do you remember the debate at all?

A. I remember a debate.

Q. I don't mean "a" debate, I mean "the" debate.

A. A debate on that issue.

Q. Thank you. Were you aware that this organization was not incorporated and had to have its moneys held in trust by another organization from Vancouver?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you aware that the representation that that organization was incorporated was not true and that it was not incorporated? Do you remember that?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Were you aware that the group known as Anti-Racist Action that received these funds through your committee, on the recommendation of your committee and by approval of that committee, was condemned as a violent and hateful group by a number of school boards?

A. I don't remember that specifically. I do remember that the group was considered to be controversial.

Q. Controversial or was categorized by, for example, the Durham Board of Education as a hate and violence group whose tactics involve physical confrontation and extreme violence that has led to bodily injury and police intervention? Are you not familiar with that?

A. No, I am not.

Q. It doesn't trouble you that that is so?

THE CHAIRPERSON: If it were so. You are putting it to her as a proposition.

MR. CHRISTIE: That's right. I am putting it to her as a fact and asking her if that is so, and I have reason to believe that it is.

Q. Does that not trouble you?

A. Violence always troubles me.

Q. How about the fact that your committee approved and requested a grant of funds for that organization? Does that trouble you?

A. The committee recommended funds for a very specific conference, and the information before us was that that was a positive thing to do.

Q. With the information I have put before you, you would do it again, would you ‑‑ if it is true, as the Chairman says?

A. I would always look at all the information that was available before me before I made a decision.

MS ZAYID: I don't know whether Mr. Christie is going to continue with this line of cross-examination but, if he is going to put propositions to this witness which she does not accept or is not able to confirm, I think Mr. Christie should be asked to undertake to call evidence later if it is relevant at all to this Hearing, which I doubt very much.

MR. CHRISTIE: The issue of good faith, the issue of whether this is a frivolous or vexatious complaint is before the Tribunal. The good faith of the person laying the complaint is open to question, and that is how it is relevant. It is not necessary to undertake to call evidence before asking a question. I only need to have reasonable grounds to believe what I say is true, and I do.

I don't intend to cease and desist in this line of cross-examination.

THE CHAIRPERSON: All I am suggesting to you, Mr. Christie, is that you are not here to give evidence to this Tribunal. Whether you believe it to be true or not is not relevant. You can put the proposition to the witness and, if she can confirm that that proposition represents a state of fact, that is fine. If she does not, then the force of the proposition that you advance to her is lost.

MR. CHRISTIE: Unless its proof is subsequently provided.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: I haven't called my case yet.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that.

MR. CHRISTIE: I have a duty to put to various witnesses for the Complainants issues and information that I have. That is all I am trying to do. I agree with you ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not what I am suggesting. Counsel is suggesting that, if you are going to pursue this line with this witness, then you should be prepared to put it in the appropriate evidentiary form, namely, that you put the proposition to her. If she cannot affirm that that proposition is within her knowledge, then I think that is the end of that line.

MR. CHRISTIE: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I can put it to her as a hypothetical and ask to examine the state of her mind in light of that hypothetical because I can later prove that the hypothetical is true, and then that bears upon her state of mind. If good faith is an issue, I have to put to her facts that I have a means to prove and I have to have the means to prove it, which I do, and I have the right to prove it later.

If her state of mind as to the good faith of this complaint is in issue, I have to be able to put to her things that I will later be able to prove in order to examine whether this is a good faith complaint, whether there is mala fides, whether there is unbiased application of some altruistic concern for the public good, as the witness affirms, or whether that is not so.

MS ZAYID: The second point that I was trying to make earlier is that it may be that Mr. Christie is entitled to examine this witness about the good faith of bringing this complaint, but questions about funding to some community group in a totally unrelated matter, in my submission, cannot assist you today in determining the good faith of this complaint. I objected on that ground as well.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the Tribunal has made its position clear on how this line should proceed.

Continue, having in mind what the ruling is.

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. You are aware that Mr. Zundel's house was set fire to; is that right?

A. Yes, I happened to ride by on my bicycle at the time that the firefighters were there.

Q. And your presence there was noted in the newspapers, together with a photograph of yourself pointing to the house; is that right?

A. I recall there was a photograph. I don't know what I was doing in it.

Q. Perhaps to refresh your memory, this is a photograph and article. I think it has you and your husband pointing at the fire. Is that right? Can you see it?

A. I don't have my glasses on. You can show me.

I am certainly pointing at something, and that is my husband.

Q. It says: "Unplanned stop. Mayor Barbara Hall and husband Mac stop at the fire scene." You don't remember where you were at the time?

A. You asked if I was pointing at the fire. I said that my husband and I went by the fire, and I am pointing. From the photo I can't tell exactly what we are pointing at. I am pointing and we are looking at something. We were at the fire.

Q. The same organization, for which this same committee approved the receipt of the funds, I suggest, also distributed a poster on how to soak gasoline and set fire with a Molotov cocktail and gave the location of Mr. Zundel's house. Does that not concern you, or do you take the view that that is not anything to do with your committee or that you are not responsible for that?

THE CHAIRPERSON: There is quite a few questions rolled in there.

MR. CHRISTIE: I will put it to the witness this way.

Q. I am now producing and showing to you a poster which I will later endeavour to show is produced by the Anti-Racist Action group you gave the money to. Do you recognize that poster at all?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Let's say for the sake of argument that I can show that that is a poster from the organization that your committee granted the money to. Does it concern you that that organization would distribute a poster like that?

A. It concerns me that any organization would distribute a poster such as this. The newspaper copy you just gave to me, when I looked at it, I see there is a quote from me there saying that I am disturbed when violence is used in any form, even to fight violence.

Q. I am asking you a specific question for a specific reason. This is not just any violent group. This is a group to which your committee, the same committee that brought this complaint, approved grants of money. I just wondered if you had any specific concerns, not just a general concern about violence and what a terrible thing it is, that your committee which laid this complaint approved money to that organization which distributed that pamphlet. Does that concern you specifically?

A. It would disturb me if this committee or Toronto City Council did anything that promoted or supported violent action.

Q. So you don't take any particular concern because it was a committee that you gave money to, the same committee?

A. I said that I would be concerned if this committee or City Council did anything that promoted violence.

Q. And you don't feel in any way responsible for doing so from the facts that I have put before you. Is that right?

A. At the time that City Council and this committee made decisions, I did not believe that the decision we were making promoted violence.

Q. So you had no knowledge of this group being involved in any of the things that I have suggested they were involved?

A. No.

MR. CHRISTIE: Could that which is in front of the witness be marked as the next exhibit.

MS ZAYID: Mr. Chairman, that exhibit has not been identified and perhaps it should be marked Exhibit "A" for later identification if it can be proven.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You have introduced this document. It cannot be introduced without an appropriate identification by a witness. Are you undertaking to do that?

MR. CHRISTIE: If it is marked "A" for identification, it can be later identified.

THE REGISTRAR: The poster entitled "Bored?" will be marked "A" for identification, to be later identified.

EXHIBIT NO. "A" (for Identification): Poster entitled "Bored?"

MR. KURZ: Could we ask that copies be made for the parties. I certainly have not seen any of these documents.

MR. FREIMAN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, it does raise a concern with regard to the Tribunal's order on disclosure of documents. There has been a number of documents that we have never heard of or seen.

MR. CHRISTIE: Of course, that is true, but that is true for me as well. It seems that the rule doesn't apply. I just got documents this morning, the three things that were introduced. I had never seen them before, and I am not going to make a fuss about it.

MR. EARLE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to that comment, my friend's client has obtained all those documents through a disclosure letter that I sent back in August pursuant to your direction on disclosure.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal is prepared to identify it as "A" for identification. We will reserve any ruling with respect to its ultimate fate.

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Kurz was a representative of B'nai Brith?

A. That he was involved with B'nai Brith, yes, I was.

Q. Did he disqualify himself from the vote on the issue of this complaint?

A. I am just looking at the minutes to determine whether he declared a conflict. There is no indication in the minutes of that.

Q. Were you present at the meeting?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Can you tell us?

A. The meeting was on May 1, 1996, and I have been to thousands of meetings since then. I don't recall by memory who did and did not declare a conflict at that meeting, so I need to depend on the minutes. There is no indication there.

My belief is that Mr. Kurz did not declare a conflict.

Q. With regard to other committees that he served on, he had disqualified himself with regard to any voting for the Toronto Mayor's Race Relations Committee, had he not?

A. I am not familiar with Mr. Kurz' involvement in other committees.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Kurz attended the ARA conference that the committee funded?

A. No, I wasn't. I am aware that a member or members of the Mayor's Committee attended some or all of the conference, but I am not aware of individual members.

Q. Are you aware that B'nai Brith has a very workable and amiable relationship with the ARA despite their tactics?

A. I am aware that B'nai Brith is involved with many groups in the community who share their mandate around dealing with anti-racism and anti-Semitism, but I don't have specific knowledge about their relationship with any particular group.

Q. Are you aware that Darren Thurston, who was named in an Information to Obtain a Search Warrant in respect of the bombing of such institutions as the Mackenzie Institute and Alta Genetics in Alberta was also attendant at the ARA conference that the City paid for?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Does that concern you in any way?

A. I would need to know more about it before I could say whether I was concerned or not.

Q. Who is Allan Tonks?

A. He is the Chairman of Metropolitan Council.

Q. Were you aware that the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith wrote to that person and supported the grant of $8,000 for ARA?

A. No, I am not privy to Chairman Tonks' correspondence.

Q. Would you have encouraged or participated in the efforts by Mr. Kurz himself to encourage Metro Council to approve funds for the ARA conference?

A. I am a member of Metro Council. I supported the grant to ARA for their youth conference at Toronto City Council. I don't recall whether nor not I was present at Metro Council when the vote was taken there on funding for that item. If I had been, with the information that was available before me at the Mayor's Committee or at Toronto City Council, I would have supported it there also.

Q. I have a letter from Janice Dembo of March 6, 1996 which says:

"The Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations at its meeting on May 1, 1996 considered the communication from Ajith Aluthwatta on behalf of Anti-Racist Action requesting the committee's support for the Youth Against Hate Conference to be held in Toronto on June 22 and 23, 1996."

Were you aware of those events?

A. Which events?

Q. The May 1, 1996 meeting at which Mr. Aluthwatta appeared requesting support of the committee.

A. I guess that is the same meeting ‑‑ yes.

Q. Were you in attendance then?

A. I was. I chaired that meeting.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Aluthwatta was shouting "Burn Zundel down" outside his house not long after you were there?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Aluthwatta, representing himself as ARA, was unincorporated and could not receive the grant?

A. You referred to that earlier. I believe I was aware of that.

It is not unusual for community groups who are not incorporated to have a relationship with another group that is in order to receive funds.

Q. Is it customary to give funds from the City of Toronto to organizations from British Columbia who purport to be incorporated?

A. I am not sure that it is a common practice.

Q. Do you remember the group called CARES? That is an acronym; I don't know if you are familiar with it. Are you familiar with that?

A. No.

Q. I noted in the minutes of May 1, 1996, which we were just given today, that you sent copies ‑‑

MR. EARLE: Mr. Chairman, I am just going to repeat ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: I heard what my friend said. If he has an objection ‑‑ I don't agree with his position. If we are going to have an argument about it, maybe we should do that some other time.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what the objection is yet.

MR. CHRISTIE: Sorry.

MR. EARLE: I am just going to object to my friend's comment that this is a document he received today. His client received the documents a long time ago. In my letter of disclosure in August I listed these documents along with other documents that were provided to Mr. Zundel. I never received any letter from Mr. Christie saying that he had a copy of these minutes, which was his right to do.

MR. CHRISTIE: I disagree with my learned friend's understanding of the facts. I don't agree with him in any way. That is my position.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring, counsel, to HR-7?

MR. EARLE: Yes, HR-7, the minutes of the meeting of May 1.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I recognize the validity of your objection. However, having in mind that it is a public document, I assume, I am not sure that the Tribunal is prepared to take a rigid position on this. Counsel do know that we ‑‑

MR. EARLE: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that in the interests of ongoing co-operation between counsel and in carrying out this Hearing in a civilized manner those kinds of comments are not helpful.

MR. CHRISTIE: With all due respect, neither are my learned friend's, because I don't agree with them. If we are going to argue about that, we are not going to get on with the cross-examination.

THE CHAIRPERSON: There are standing orders of this committee concerning productions, and the Tribunal expects those to be complied with. In the meantime, carry on with your cross-examination.

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. Why was a copy of the document, the May 1 minutes, sent to Seigmund Reisler?

A. Which page is that?

Q. Page 5, May 1, 1996, 3.7.

A. I don't know.

Q. Wasn't that because Seigmund Reisler is the B'nai Brith representative on the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

A. As I have said, I don't know.

Q. Was it to attempt to influence the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

A. I have said I don't know.

Q. Whose decision was it, then, to send to the specific people you have named there ‑‑ actually two, to Max Yalden, the Chief Commissioner, and then a copy to one member of the Commission and then one other member of the Commission, Marvin Witter. Why was that?

A. I don't know.

Q. Who would know? I assume there is a reason for things that are done. I have a pretty good idea what the reason is.

A. I assume there is also, but you are asking me and I am telling you that I don't know the answer.

Q. Who would?

A. I don't know. Maybe the Clerk of the Committee.

Q. Wouldn't the committee decide who they were going to send this correspondence to, make a decision in the course of the minutes, because it is recorded in the minutes?

A. It is. I am answering your question in an honest way. I don't know why the communication was sent to those particular people. For example, my name is on there. I don't know why it was sent to me.

Q. It doesn't even indicate what is being done there, does it? I suppose it says "cc" and then "Seigmund Reisler, Canadian Human Rights Commission; Marvin Witter, Canadian Human Rights Commission; Mayor Barbara Hall; Marvin Kurz; Marianne Chandler; Kevin Lee, May 16, 1996."

Does that imply or mean that you all got copies?

A. That is what it looks like.

Q. Then that was a decision made in the course of the minutes themselves, rather than just some clerk's decision later.

A. No, I think it was ‑‑ my understanding is that what is in brackets is an indication of who received communication of that. This is a public document. The item was dealt with in a public meeting. That is an indication of subsequent to the meeting who received copies of the action of the committee with respect to that.

Q. I understand that. I am suggesting that it was sent to Seigmund Reisler for a reason, the reason being‑‑

A. And I am saying that I don't know what that reason is.

Q. Was Mr. Kurz a representative of B'nai Brith on the Toronto Mayor's Committee?

A. No, he was not there representing B'nai Brith. He was there as a citizen interested in particular issues, who also had an involvement with B'nai Brith.

Q. Did you select him?

A. The committee has a selection process. I was not personally a part of the selection process.

Q. I thought the process you described was that the Mayor proposes the members to the Council who ratify it.

A. That's right.

Q. Well, you proposed him, didn't you?

A. That is right, on the recommendation of a subcommittee of the committee that deals with nominations.

Q. Was that Janice Dembo again?

A. No, it wasn't the staff who did that. It was citizen members of the committee or citizens from the broader community who were appointed to a committee to make recommendations on membership.

Q. Who was that?

A. I don't know who those individuals were at that particular point in time.

Q. In your Complaint you say that one of the several pamphlets you complain about is "Did Six Million Really Die:" I would like to show you that pamphlet.

Have you ever looked at that before?

A. I have never seen it like this.

Q. Do you deny that that is what you saw on the Internet?

A. I don't deny that. I said I had never seen this in this form.

Q. I am not suggesting that you have seen it in the form. I am suggesting that, if you actually did look at whatever is on the Internet under the title of the term "Did Six Million Really Die:" then you looked at those same contents.

Having sworn that you did look at it, are you saying, "That is not correct, Mr. Christie; it's a different book," or what are you saying?

A. No, I am not saying that at all. You handed me something, and I said that I had never seen it before.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mayor.

She has not had a chance to compare it with the Internet downloaded copy, so I don't think it is fair to put it to the witness in the way you have.

What are you seeking to obtain from this witness with respect to this pamphlet? Do you wish her to do a comparison with the downloaded copy?

MR. CHRISTIE: What I am expecting to get from this witness is not something that I want to say in front of her for the moment.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I was very specific in what I asked you. Carry on.

MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.

Q. Do you recall anything about the pamphlet you complained about, "Did Six Million Really Die:"?

A. I recall a portion of the web site entitled that.

Q. If you recall a portion of the web site entitled that, I suggest to you that it involved the content that you have in front of you in written form. Did it or didn't it? Have a look.

MR. KURZ: We have before us at tab 1 of Exhibit HR-2 what is alleged to be that actual pamphlet downloaded from the Internet, rather than some other document. I wonder why it is necessary to put the pamphlet to this witness rather than the exhibit that is already before the Tribunal.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to take our morning break, and we will allow the witness an opportunity to examine the exhibit entitled "Did Six Million Really Die:"?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, while I am doing that, I am not sure what I am meant to be examining it for.

MR. CHRISTIE: At this point ‑‑ and I thought my question was clear: Is it the same document? That's all. If that is not clear, I will ask it in another way.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are being asked whether the pamphlet appears to you to be the same as the one in the exhibit.

THE WITNESS: So I should compare the two.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 10:46 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:09 a.m.

MS ZAYID: Before we begin, I think it was raised yesterday that Mayor Hall is only available until noon today. I don't know whether the cross-examination is likely to be finished by then, but we should be aware of that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's see how we make out and we will deal with that issue later.

MR. CHRISTIE: Just for the record, as an example of the process of disclosure, the next witness is, I am told, Ian Angus. In the break I was given a booklet of materials called "The Commission's Brief of Materials for Ian Angus." In it there is some which I received the day before yesterday or maybe yesterday, but there are 27 new pages of complicated graphs, charts, diagrams, explanations of what is the Internet in graphic form. All this material is deposited on me at this moment. If I am to cross-examine this expert, one would have to have the opportunity to have this in advance and discuss with some other expert as to whether there is a possible area of mistake or whether there are areas of question.

Just as an example of what really occurs in the process, I would submit that that is hardly 10 days' notice.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, I am not going to comment about that at this time. Let's finish this cross and then we will deal with that issue.

MR. CHRISTIE: Very well. Thank you.

Q. Before you made your decision to lay this complaint, you asked to read the materials or some materials from the web site. You said at one point that you wanted to look at it all. Did you consult any experts in history?

A. No.

Q. Did you contact anyone who might have been familiar with the first Zundel trial or the second Zundel trial or the Supreme Court of Canada judgment regarding this very document that you put in your Complaint, "Did Six Million Really Die:"?

A. No.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to compare it with the one that is in the book?

A. I have. There is certainly a lot of similarities between the two. There are pictures in the book that are not in the materials. There is an index in the book; there doesn't appear to be an index in the material. I have not read the entire thing, so I can't say that it is identical. For example, the headings are the same.

Q. Rather than deal with what I gave you, we will try to refer to the text, as Mr. Kurz has advised.

A. This would be tab 1.

Q. I am going to suggest to you that, if you took two hours, you probably couldn't have read this booklet in its entirety.

A. That is correct.

Q. I suggest to you that there are 2,000 documents in the site that is known as the Zundelsite. Are you aware of that?

A. I am not aware of the exact number. I know there are a lot.

Q. Even one of them ‑‑ many of them are books which have hundreds of pages in them.

A. It is pretty dense stuff.

Q. I take it that, having looked at the site for two hours. you wouldn't really have looked at much.

A. I was not looking at it to really review the historical information on it. My concern and the complaint was messages contained within it that, in my belief, exposed people to hatred. What I wanted to look at was enough to satisfy myself that there were such messages contained within it. I guess, in a sense, if I had seen one, that would satisfy me. I saw more.

Clearly, it was an overwhelming amount of material. I saw the index and a number of things that there were, but you are correct that I have not read every word or many of the words contained here.

Q. Obviously, somebody must have pointed you in the direction of these three documents you refer to.

A. I had this Complaint Form in front of me. It was contained in a book of signing things. I said, "I don't want to sign this until I have seen the Net." I was being required to sign something saying that I had read the allegation and that, to the best of my knowledge, it was true. I looked at enough to satisfy me that it was true.

Q. Did you look at the item called "Did Six Million Really Die: Truth at Last - Exposed:"?

A. I looked at it.

Q. What did you find in there that was hateful?

A. I would have to read that entire piece in order to tell you that. When I reviewed the material, I did not necessarily find items in each of the named publications, but I did within the totality of what I looked at see a number of statements that, in my opinion, fostered hate.

Q. Can you direct me to any?

A. Within the overall material as opposed to the "Six Million?"

Q. In the material that is entitled "Did Six Million Really Die: Truth at Last - Exposed:", I wonder if you could direct me to anything that you say there promoted hatred.

A. What I am saying to you is that I would have to read through it in order to do that.

Q. I agree. To do that, I suggest, unless you are a particularly fast reader, it would take more than two hours.

A. I am a fast reader, but you are right; it's a long, dense publication.

Q. Did you take the two hours to read this one?

A. No, I did not read the totality of this.

Q. Were you aware that in the back are the corrections that arose out of the two trials that involved this book and exact quotations from the prosecution historian, Christopher Browning? For example, in Part 8 ‑‑ on the Internet the various components are divided into parts of the booklet. If we go to Part 8, if you go to page 3 of 5, you see, "What's Wrong with Did Six Million Really Die?" It says:

"After 10 years of wrangling, what follows is the essence of what was found wrong with the pamphlet by the prosecution witnesses. In italics are the primary parts of the pamphlet disputed by the prosecution followed by evidence given by expert witnesses on both sides. 1. By 1939, the great majority of German Jews had emigrated, all of them with a sizeable proportion of their assets. Never at any time had the Nazi leadership even contemplated a policy of genocide towards them...Had Hitler cherished any intention of exterminating the Jews, it is inconceivable that he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave Reich territory with the bulk of their wealth."

Then it says:

"prosecution historian Christopher Browning's ‑‑"

Have you found the spot?

A. No.

Q. You see that it is divided into parts. It starts with "Part 1" at the top.

A. And it is Part...?

Q. Eight. On the Internet you can't put more than a certain number of documents in a part. At Part 8, page 3 of 5 ‑‑ down at the bottom it says "3 of 5" and then the heading "What is Wrong with Six Million Really Die?"

A. Right.

Q. It gives an account of what prosecution historian Christopher Browning's opinion was, that slightly over half ‑‑

A. I see that now.

Q. Were you aware that that was all included in the ‑‑

A. No. You see, the complaint is not related to the historical debate, per se. The complaint is related to the suggestion or the statement within these materials that is found in a number of places that an identifiable group of people, the Jewish people, have conspired for their own benefit, fraudulent benefit, of fund-raising or whatever to deceive or manipulate the world.

Q. Is that in "Did Six Million Really Die:"?

A. I can't point to it there, as I said, in order to say whether it is specifically in that portion of the materials. I would have to read it.

Q. And you were not aware, apparently, that the contradictions to the pamphlet itself are published within the pamphlet derived out of two major trials. You are not aware of that?

A. I am aware ‑‑

Q. I am referring to what is set out in Part 8 at page 3 of 5.

A. Yes.

Q. You weren't aware of that?

A. I was aware that there were some corrections contained within the material.

Q. Were you aware that they were published and did you read the corrections?

A. I don't recall if I did or did not. But, as I said, the complaint, in my mind, was not related to the details of the historical facts. This is not about disputing or objecting to a debate on history. It is about statements made against an identifiable group of people.

Q. Can you show me any statements in that particular publication that allege ‑‑

A. I have answered that question several times. I can't without reading the entire "Did Six Million Really Die:"

Q. I suggest that you really never read it.

A. Well, what I have said to you is that I did not read that entire portion of the site at that time.

Q. What did you read out of that?

A. I can't tell you exactly what I read on that day. I read enough to show me that it was appropriate for me to sign the Complaint.

Q. We will come to that.

Is this your oath of office?

A. It is.

Q. Did you sign it?

A. This is my oath of office as a member of Metro Council, not as Mayor of the City of Toronto. It is my oath as a member of that council, and I signed it on the 8th of December.

Q. 1994?

A. 1994, yes. That is my Metro oath.

Q. Do you have a similar oath as Mayor?

A. Yes, I did sign an oath as Mayor. I can't tell you if it is exactly the same or not.

MR. CHRISTIE: Could that be made an exhibit, please.

Q. With regard to impartiality, I take it that you are aware that you have many ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, we will mark the exhibit.

THE REGISTRAR: The copy of Mayor Hall's oath of office dated 8th of December, 1994 will be filed as Respondent Exhibit R-2. I will provide copies to everyone later today.

MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you. I would have liked to be able to do that, but I didn't have a chance.

EXHIBIT NO. R-2: Copy of Barbara Hall's oath of office as Member of Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, dated December 8, 1994

MR. CHRISTIE:

Q. I take it that you are aware of the existence in the city of Toronto of German groups as well.

Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Friday, December 12, 1997

at 9:35 a.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everyone.

There are two applications for interested party status. The Tribunal will deal with those on Monday morning.

Are you in charge this morning?

MS ZAYID: As far as it goes, to the extent that you are not in charge, Mr. Chairman.

I am Caroline Zayid. I apologize, Mr. Freiman is making some last-minute arrangements for our next witness, so I am here to deal with the witness we are going to call immediately this morning.

I wonder, before I call our first witness, whether I could ask Mr. Christie to deal with a matter that was touched on yesterday. For scheduling reasons we were trying to get some indication of how long Mr. Christie might be with Irene Zundel, and I wonder whether we could deal with that first.

MR. CHRISTIE: It would be a very wild estimate, but I would say three to four days.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You have a wild estimate now, so you can be guided by it.

MR. CHRISTIE: I wouldn't recommend it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The word "wild" characterizes the whole thing.

MR. CHRISTIE: Because I am obliged to say, that is as close as I can come, but I don't think it is very reasonable to expect a person in my position to know before we start cross-examination.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand the limitations of counsel's ability to estimate how long things are going to be.

MS ZAYID: Perhaps, we could ask Mr. Christie to update that estimate as we go along because we are arranging to bring witnesses from out of the country.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether you are going to get that. All I can suggest is that you do the best you can to have witnesses here on call so that, if there are to be some interruptions, they be as short as possible. I understand the problems associated with having witnesses stacked up in the corridor. All we can do is the best we can.

MS ZAYID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our next witness is Barbara Hall.

SWORN: BARBARA JOAN HALL

Toronto, Ontario

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF

MS ZAYID:

Q. Ms Hall, I understand that you are the Mayor of the City of Toronto?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you took that office on December 1, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. I also understand that one of the responsibilities that you have as Mayor is to serve as the Chair of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations.

A. Yes.

Q. And that that committee is one of the complainants in these proceedings?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Aside from yourself as Chair, Mayor Hall, can you tell the Panel who else sits on that committee?

A. A number of citizens who are recommended by the Mayor to City Council and confirmed by Council.

Q. In brief, what is the role of that committee? What does your committee do?

A. Very broadly speaking, to work to maintain harmony amongst the diverse peoples of our city; to address issues of racism; to deal with a whole range of issues that divide people in a diverse community, with a focus on anti-racism.

Q. I would like to show you a document. At the top line it says "Appendix 'A', City of Toronto Executive Committee Report No. 7." Do you recognize that document, Mayor Hall?

A. It is a copy of the actions of the City of Toronto Executive Committee dated January 1981, which establishes the Mayor's Committee.

Q. Could I ask you to turn to the second page of that document and over to the third page, to the words that appear under the title "Terms of Reference." Could you just review those and tell us whether that accurately describes the mandate of the Mayor's Committee.

A. It does.

MS ZAYID: Mr. Chairman, could we mark this document as the next exhibit.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Any objection?

MR. CHRISTIE: No.

THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "Appendix 'A', City of Toronto Executive Committee Report No. 7," pages 1054 to 1061, will be marked as Commission Exhibit HR-5.

EXHIBIT NO. HR-5: Document entitled "Appendix 'A', City of Toronto Executive Committee Report No. 7," pages 1054 to 1061

MS ZAYID:

Q. With that document in front of you, Mayor, I wonder if you could expand a little further on what the functions of this committee are and how it goes about doing its work.

A. Reading from the terms of reference, the general function of the committee is to promote understanding and respect among racial, cultural, ethnic, religious and community groups in the city; to seek solutions to problems concerning citizens with a view toward providing an environment in which each citizen has equal opportunity to grow to his or her maximum potential; a broad responsibility to combat racism and other activity which may lead to intergroup tension and conflict in the city.

Q. Could you tell the Panel briefly how specific items for debate actually come before the committee.

A. They can come from a number of different directions. Sometimes City Council directs items to the committee. Sometimes they come from citizens in the community who write or contact members of the committee. Sometimes they come from members of the committee themselves. Sometimes city staff raise issues and bring them to the committee.

Q. Insofar as the complaint before this Tribunal is concerned, how did that matter come before your committee?

A. It came via a letter from a member of the committee, Marvin Kurz. He sent a letter to the committee raising the issue.

Q. I am showing you a document, a fax letter dated March 26, 1996. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes, this is the letter I just referred to from Marvin Kurz sent to me as Chair of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations.

MS ZAYID: Mr. Chairman, could I ask that that document be marked as the next exhibit.

THE REGISTRAR: The fax letter dated March 26, 1996 addressed to Madame Chair and signed by Marvin Kurz will be filed as Commission Exhibit HR-6.

EXHIBIT NO. HR-6: Fax letter dated March 26, 1996 addressed to Madame Chair and signed by Marvin Kurz

MS ZAYID:

Q. Following receipt of this letter, Mayor Hall, can you tell us what, if anything, the committee did with it?

A. There was a discussion at the committee. The staff person to the committee and some members of the committee indicated that they had surfed the Net and seen the postings that Mr. Zundel had on the Net. On the basis of that, the committee made a decision to make a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about the materials.

Q. I would like to show you next a document headed "Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, Minutes, Meeting No. 96-03." Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes. These are the minutes of the meeting at which that discussion occurred and at which that decision was made to formally lay a complaint.

Q. Could I ask you to turn to item 3.7 of the minutes which is at the top of page 5. Does that minute accurately summarize the decision that was made by the committee at that meeting?

A. Yes.

MS ZAYID: Mr. Chairman, could this document be marked as the next Commission exhibit.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, Minutes, Meeting No. 96-03" will be filed as Commission Exhibit HR-7.

EXHIBIT NO. HR-7: Document entitled "Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, Minutes, Meeting No. 96-03"

MS ZAYID:

Q. You told us that the decision that the committee made was to lay a complaint. Was a complaint subsequently laid?

A. Yes, it was. The staff prepared it, and it was brought to me as Chair of the committee to sign.

MS ZAYID: Could the witness be shown Exhibit HR-1.

Q. Mayor Hall, would you turn to tab 2 of that document. At tab 2, is that the Complaint that you just referred to, Mayor Hall?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Do you recognize the signature at the bottom of that document?

A. Yes, both the signature and the date are in my handwriting. The signature is mine.

Q. That Complaint, under the heading "Particulars" refers to some specific documents. Did you have occasion to review those documents prior to signing the Complaint?

A. Yes. When the Complaint Form was brought to me, I said that, before I signed it, I wanted to see the materials on the Internet, so I did that.

Q. Other than the three documents that are specifically named there, did you more generally review the web site that we are calling here the Zundelsite?

A. I did. I am actually not an experienced user of the Net and I guess, when I actually saw the material there, I wanted to see it all, so I actually spent a couple of hours looking at the material.

Q. Mayor Hall, since making the complaint and bringing it forward to the Tribunal, have you also had a chance to familiarize yourself with the documents that the Commission has put forward, which I think we are referring to as HR-2?

Perhaps the witness could be handed that document.

A. Yes, I have. I have gone through this material, the vast majority of it.

Q. Could you tell the Panel briefly why the content of the Zundelsite that you have reviewed ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you raise your voice a bit, please.

MS ZAYID: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Q. Could you tell the Panel Members why the contents of the Zundelsite that you have reviewed led the committee to make the complaint which we are dealing with here today.

A. It describes or makes allegations against a whole religious group or community of people in a way that I view as hateful, in a way that the average person reading it ‑‑ and in that respect I consider myself to be an average person ‑‑ would be suspicious of or potentially react against an entire group or community of people, in a way that would be reasonable for them to be fearful.

Q. We looked earlier at the terms of reference and mandate of the committee. How do you feel the bringing of this complaint relates to that mandate?

A. I think that it would contribute to attitudes that would pit people against each other in our city. It would cause or potentially cause a whole community of citizens within our city to be subject to potential violence or hostility. It would not promote peace and harmony in the city but, on the contrary, would destroy harmonious relations in the city.

MS ZAYID: Those are all my questions.