Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1988-03-10] British Columbia. Supreme Court Mar 10, 1988

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019330.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019330-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019330-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019330-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019330-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019330-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019330-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 4390  Proceedings  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  VANCOUVER, B.C.  March 10, 1988  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  Columbia, Thursday, March 10th, 1988.  Delgamuukw  versus Her Majesty the Queen at bar, my Lord.  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  MR. GRANT:  Yes, my Lord.  Before my friend proceeds, the  witness is not in the witness box because, as my  friend indicated, he wished to make an argument which  may take some time regarding some of those issues.  I  saw no need for her to have to sit in the box while  that is going on.  The other matter I wish to raise  with your Lordship this morning, and now my friends  have given me an estimate that this argument may take  some time, and Mr. Mackenzie estimates he won't be  finished until noon, Mr. Macaulay will take the bulk  of the afternoon, and I will have some redirect.  But  what I -- last week you suggested whether or not we  should take the Friday afternoon off last week and  what I was going to suggest to the court, in light of  some of the comments that you've made, in light of the  fact that the next witness upon the completion of Miss  Wilson-Kenni, if we could have the day tomorrow and  commence the next witness on Monday.  Now, if she's  not finished today then we'll finish her tomorrow  morning, but I wanted to raise that with your  Lordship.  I don't know if a full day will assist you  in your problems more than a half day, but if I could  use the analogy of frequent-flier points, if you gave  me credit for a half a day last week I was going to  combine them all tomorrow.  THE COURT:  Well, I'm -- subject to what your friends say, I  would not be concerned about not starting a fresh  witness until Monday, if that's convenient for  everyone.  There are the crisis of course of ten in  the morning, if we're still going at ten it doesn't  really do any good at all, because we're either going  to be sitting here or somewhere else, but if we're --  if we're finished, whenever we're finished the  witness, today or tomorrow, and if you want to stand  it down until the next -- until next Monday that's  satisfactory to me, if it's all right with your  friends.  MR. GRANT:  It may -- I want to consider some points you've  raised this week, and it may help in that matter.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  Mr. Mackenzie. 4391  Proceedings  1 MR. MACKENZIE:  Thank you, my Lord.  As my friend indicated, I  2 wish to make some submissions on the questions about  3 the financial statements.  Before I do that I have a  4 couple of housekeeping matters and the response to Mr.  5 Grant's suggestion about Friday.  We're in the court's  6 hands, your Lordship's hands on that, as we always  7 are.  My friend, a couple of days ago, said that he  8 was going to be searching his files for a map of --  9 another map of Spookw's territory.  I'm going to ask  10 my friend whether he's had any luck in that and what  11 his prognosis is.  I ask that because I expect to be  12 finished my cross-examination shortly after the  13 completion of our submissions and argument this  14 morning, probably before the noon hour.  15 THE COURT:  Would you like —  16 MR. GRANT:  I can deal with that at the break, my Lord.  I have  17 the material, I haven't had the opportunity to look at  18 it.  19 THE COURT:  Thank you.  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  One other matter, my Lord.  Yesterday we  21 referred to Seeley Lake territory, and Wiigoobl,  22 Jessie Sterritt commission, and for your Lordship's  23 convenience I'm handing up a copy of page 65 of that  24 commission, which goes at document book number 1, tab  25 18.  2 6 THE COURT:  Which volume?  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  Document book number 1.  2 8 THE COURT:  Yes?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  Tab 18.  30 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  I don't think it's 18, was it?  Tab 18 is  31 Exhibit 341, which is the minutes of a public meeting  32 at Kitwancool.  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Sorry, my Lord.  It's volume 2, I beg your  34 pardon.  35 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Volume 2 tab 18?  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  37 THE COURT:  Yes.  38 MR. GRANT:  My Lord I just want to know, before my friend  39 proceeds, what Mr. Macaulay's position is regarding --  40 maybe silence is -- no news is good news.  41 MR. MACAULAY:  About tomorrow?  42 MR. GRANT:  About tommorrow.  43 MR. MACAULAY:  I have no objection, my Lord.  44 MR. GRANT:  Just so I can make arrangements.  45 THE COURT:  Yes, thank you.  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  My Lord, I refer to Mr. Grant's objection  47 yesterday, and it appears in volume 70 of these 4392  Proceedings  1 proceedings at page 4354, line 20.  2 THE COURT:  4 3 —  3 MR. MACKENZIE:  4354, volume 70, yes, my Lord.  At that time Mr.  4 Grant objected to the relevance of any questions  5 relating to the financing of the Tribal Council  6 Association, and I wish to respond to that objection,  7 my Lord.  I wanted to make it clear that we are  8 speaking only about the financial statements of the  9 Tribal Council Association, there is no objection to  10 questions about the activities of the Tribal Council  11 Association.  And another point, my Lord, in my  12 submission, apart from Mr. Grant's objection, all the  13 documents in this file be admissible under the  14 Evidence Act, Section 32, which deals with public  15 books and documents which are admissible when  16 accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate  17 officer.  18 THE COURT:  What section is that again?  19 MR. MACKENZIE:  Section 32, my Lord.  2 0    THE COURT:  Thank you.  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  These are records which are on file with the  22 Registrar of Companies.  They're open to any member of  23 the public, anyone who wishes to conduct a search of  24 that file.  So the only question seems to be the  25 relevance of the financial statements and their  26 contents.  Any reference to the pleadings, in my  27 submission, my Lord, will show that evidence on the  28 tribe and its activities are highly relevant, and I  29 think my friend will acknowledge that.  I'll refer in  30 summary to the statement of claim, paragraph 52, which  31 appears in the trial record at page 11.  There are a  32 couple of points in paragraph 52.  One is that the  33 Gitksan chiefs represent all the Gitksan people except  34 for the Kitwancool.  Another is that the Gitksan share  35 a common language, laws, culture, economy and  36 authority.  Paragraph 54 is a similar allegation with  37 respect to the Wet'suwet'en chiefs.  They share a  38 common language, laws, culture, economy and authority.  39 My Lord, paragraph 57 subparagraph C alleges that the  40 plaintiffs and their ancestors since time immemorial  41 have governed themselves according to their laws.  42 That paragraph continues at subparagraph D alleging  43 government on the territory according to their laws  44 and spritual beliefs and practises.  Paragraph 57F  45 alleges that the plaintiffs maintain their  46 institutions and exercise their authority over the  47 territory through their institutions.  And those -- 4393  Proceedings  1 all the allegations in those paragraphs are denied by  2 the defendant Province, and for your Lordship's  3 convenience I will refer to the statement of defence,  4 which appears at tab 7, and particularly page 48 in  5 the trial record.  6 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what section?  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  It's page —  8 THE COURT:  48?  9 MR. MACKENZIE:  48 in the trial record, my Lord.  And at  10 paragraph 4 there is a denial of the -- of paragraph  11 52 in the statement of claim.  There is a denial of --  12 at paragraph 6 of paragraph 54 in the statement of  13 claim.  At paragraph 9 there is a denial of the  14 allegations in paragraph 57 of the statement of claim.  15 In paragraph 10 there is a further denial of -- or  16 correction -- there is a further response to the  17 allegations in paragraph 57 of the statement of claim,  18 and in my submission, my Lord, the allegations to  19 which I've referred in the statement of claim have  20 been denied and the matter is clearly -- those matters  21 are clearly at issue.  As I have submitted, my Lord,  22 in my submission if the evidence about tribal council  23 activities is relevant it follows that evidence  24 related to the financial activities of the tribal  25 council, the increase in the size and scope of its  26 concerns, and arguably the sources of support for that  27 organization are also relevant.  I would submit that  28 those subjects are inextricably related to the Tribal  29 Council Association, to its identity, to its  30 activities, and to the whole purpose of the  31 organization, and that relates directly to the  32 plaintiff's allegation that the hereditary chiefs  33 govern the territory according to their laws and  34 institutions.  35 Having said that, my Lord, in my submission it  36 seems therefore that the plaintiff's only real  37 objection can be a floodgates argument and the spectre  38 of endless detailed analyses of these financial  39 statements which Mr. Grant has raised.  My Lord, that  40 is not the intention of the province and it's not my  41 intention as instructed by my clients.  42 I am now going to list the general areas and  43 subjects disclosed in the financial statements in  44 which we have an interest and which we say are highly  45 relevant to this discussion of the Tribal Council  46 Association.  We are interested in these significant  47 sources of support for that organization.  I may say 4394  Proceedings  1 we're not particularly interested in the amount of  2 money but only the relative amounts from significant  3 sources.  We are interested in the scope of the  4 programmes funded through the Tribal Council  5 Association, and we are interested in the increase in  6 the size of the organization, the number of employees  7 and independent contractors.  Our interest is solely  8 to establish the nature, the degree of activity and  9 really the identity of the tribal council and its  10 relationship to the laws and institutions of Canada  11 and British Columbia, and of course to the laws and  12 institutions alleged by the plaintiffs.  Now, my Lord,  13 these questions, as with my other questions related to  14 the tribal council, respond to the substantial amount  15 of evidence led by the plaintiffs about the laws and  16 institutions of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people.  We  17 have heard detailed evidence about the finances of the  18 feast system, we have examined in great detail feast  19 books; for example, Exhibit 317, which is tab 4 in the  20 plaintiff's document book for Mrs. Wilson-Kenni.  We  21 have examined contributions made to the running of  22 that particular feast on October 10, 1987, we have  23 discussed in great detail the identity of several of  24 the contributors to that feast, we have reviewed in  25 detail the expenditures related to that feast, we have  26 heard evidence about the proceedings on that occasion  27 and the authority of the various participants in that  28 feast, and your Lordship will recall, we heard about  2 9 the Andumenuk.  We heard about the spouses of the  30 house members and the contributions they make during  31 the procession to the actual cemetery.  Now, my Lord,  32 the reference to that evidence appears in volume 67,  33 pages 4112 to page 4117, 4127 to page 4140, and on  34 4174.  A substantial amount of the day on Friday,  35 March 4 of this year was devoted to an analysis of  36 that record and to those events.  37 Now, my Lord, in my submission, to complete this  38 argument it would be appropriate for me to review  39 briefly the types of information that are found in the  40 financial statements which are the subject of this  41 submission.  I don't intend to go into the financial  42 statements in detail, but a brief review will give a  43 flavour of the information that arises out of these  44 types of documents, and for that purpose, my Lord, I  45 wish to refer to the file of documents which is  46 document 1323, containing certified copies of the  47 Tribal Council Association documents.  And my first 4395  Proceedings  1 reference is to page 145, the financial statements for  2 1978.  These are the first financial statements that  3 we see, and it appears at page 145 that the principal  4 activity in that year related to land claims.  That is  5 the only financial statement apparently filed at that  6 time.  At page 149 it appears that revenue in the  7 amount of $57,000, in excess of $57,000 was received  8 by the tribal council for those purposes.  At page 151  9 it appears that 80 percent of those research funds  10 came from a single source.  If you compare that to the  11 financial statements at March 1983, those financial  12 statements appear on pages 22 to 58 of the document.  13 There are 36 pages of financial statements four years  14 later in 1983, and my Lord, the revenue as shown on  15 page 25 has increased to in excess of $1,185,000.  My  16 Lord, that's a 20-fold increase, over 2,000 percent.  17 And the financial statements in 1983 show that the  18 tribal council is involved in a broad range of  19 activities, including Kemano 2 Research, fish  20 management studies, scholarship programmes and  21 convention related activities, and other activities  22 apparently of benefit to all the member bands in that  23 area.  And this is where the evidence lies in the  24 financial statements.  My Lord, those financial  25 statements show that the tribal council, the Tribal  26 Council Association is the recipient of large sums of  27 money for land claims activities.  There is no  28 reference in any of the documents to the hereditary  29 chiefs, and we went through the constitution and  30 bylaws yesterday.  My friends did not object to that.  31 The financial statements are also significant.  Other  32 types of information which appear in the financial  33 statements, my Lord, would include, for example, in  34 the financial statements March 1982 at page 84 it  35 appears that one of the sources of funding is the  36 Legal Aid Society of British Columbia.  Well, my Lord,  37 that evidence is not going to appear anywhere else in  38 these proceedings, and I would have no knowledge of  39 that information unless I had examined the financial  40 statements and was able to put that evidence -- put  41 that information in evidence.  The Legal Aid Society  42 of course is supported primarily by the Provincial  43 Government of British Columbia.  Other significant  44 sources of information include the Law Foundation of  45 British Columbia, which appears at page 99 in the  46 March 1981 financial statements.  The Law Foundation  47 is funded by interest from lawyer's accounts, lawyer's 4396  Proceedings  1 trust accounts in British Columbia.  There is also  2 funding received from the B.C. First Citizen's Fund,  3 and that appears on page 113 in the financial  4 statements for 1981.  5 And so, in summary, what those types of facts I  6 will illustrate is the significant role that the  7 Tribal Council Association is playing in the  8 administration of projects and programmes of interest  9 to the Indians and the bands in the Skeena and Bulkley  10 Valley.  It shows that -- there's a reference, for  11 example, to the Minister's meeting which we heard  12 about yesterday in which the Tribal Council  13 Association, according to Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, presented  14 a lands claim declaration of proposal to the Minister  15 of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources.  16 My Lord, I've completed my review of the financial  17 statements.  That is my brief review to show the types  18 of information that appears in that source.  The  19 Tribal Council Association, according to Mrs.  20 Wilson-Kenni's evidence, represents its member bands.  21 We heard Mrs. Wilson-Kenni confirm several statements  22 indicating that directors come from the villages to  23 various villages for the bands in that area, and it  24 could be argued that the Tribal Council Association  25 may be an operation that's independent of the  26 hereditary chiefs.  It may be argued that the Tribal  27 Council Association represents its member bands, it  28 may be argued that the Tribal Council Association  29 represents the most significant political voice for  30 the Indian people of the Bulkley and Skeena River  31 area.  What is the relevance, my Lord?  That evidence  32 clearly falls within the allegations or relates to the  33 allegations about institutions, laws, and the  34 jurisdiction of the hereditary chiefs.  That evidence  35 clearly responds to the evidence called in chief about  36 the Tribal Council Association.  That evidence clearly  37 responds to extensive evidence in chief in detail  38 about the feast system of governance and the authority  39 and role of hereditary chiefs.  Finally, my Lord, if  40 this floodgate, all the documents are admissible,  41 there will be no questions about insignificant  42 details.  The court retains its authority to restrict  43 and to guide counsel in the conduct of this type of  44 examination.  In my submission, this matter and any  45 questions related to it can be dealt with in 10 to 15  46 minutes before testimony in cross-examination.  In my  47 submission, there is not necessarily the need to reply 4397  Proceedings  1 in detail that Mr. Grant has suggested.  The fact of  2 those statements is not prejudicial, they're open to  3 everybody in the province, anyone can go and look at  4 them.  The documents are public.  And in conclusion,  5 my Lord, it's my submission that the financial  6 statements are relevant, the evidence of activities  7 and character and nature of the Tribal Council  8 Association as revealed by the financial statements is  9 relevant, and there is no need for concern about a  10 deluge of insignificant details holding up the  11 operation and the progress of this trial and causing  12 concerns such as Mr. Grant has mentioned.  13 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Macaulay, do you want to make any  14 submission before I call on Mr. Grant for his reply?  15 MR. MACAULAY:  My Lord, I want to make a submission that it  16 appears from the evidence of this witness that the  17 activities of the tribal council are an integral part  18 of the activities and institutions way of life of  19 hereditary chiefs, and any major -- and I'm not  20 talking about minor detailed matter, any major matter  21 that relates to the activities of the tribal council,  22 each of the hereditary chiefs is prima facie relevant  23 to the issues before the court.  I don't rely so much  24 on the pleadings as on the character of the case that  25 has been -- the evidence that has been led by the  26 plaintiffs, and that not at least why your Lordship  27 should as a practical matter as to this aspect of the  28 cross-examination, which maybe turn out to be  2 9 important in the end when your Lordship comes to  30 assess the broad questions of whether the feast  31 system, if I can call it that, exists or survives  32 intact that governs the society today or whether it is  33 being so significantly modified as to bring your  34 Lordship to other conclusions on the question of  35 ownership and jurisdiction.  36 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant.  37 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my Lord.  My Lord, I, with respect,  38 differ with both of what -- with what both my friends  39 have said, and I wish to start with this point.  If  40 the finances of the tribal council are found by you to  41 be relevant the next step is the finances relating to  42 this very litigation.  It's -- if one is relevant the  43 other is, my Lord, and that my friend has already  44 referred to land claims activities and funding for  45 land claims activities, and that is part of once you  46 get into that, my Lord, we are very close to moving  47 into the area where we say that it is not only not 4396  Proceedings  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  relevant, it is highly prejudicial to the plaintiff's  case for that kind of disclosure, and rest assured, my  Lord, that my friends now are relying on these public  financial reports, but in the discovery of Mr.  Sterritt they prodded and poked in much more detail on  this, and I think that this is the opening of the  door.  And that's the first danger.  The second danger  is that my friend says well, ten minutes in  cross-examination will take care of this.  Yes.  Ten  minutes of cross-examination, my Lord, will suit his  purpose, but the plaintiffs may have something to say  about that, and the plaintiffs may have some  explanations beyond ten minutes, and it forces us into  a situation -- it forces the plaintiffs into a  situation of saying well, we will sit back and hope  that this court doesn't find there's much weight to  this in the end of the day, which I say is a risky  course, because it's precluding or prejudging what  your views will be early in the day, or we must  protect ourselves through evidence, and it's that  responsive evidence, and my friend said "Well, I'll  just give you a brief overview", and he starts by the  Legal Aid -- one of his examples is the Legal Aid  Society, $10,000.  MACKENZIE:  Sorry, my Lord, I didn't refer to the amounts of  money.  He referred to page 94 or 84.  I would have assumed that that was money that was  expended for conventional legal aid purposes and  nothing to do with this lawsuit.  I'm sure it hasn't.  Well, I know what that money was spent for and I  don't want to be pressed into what it was spent for,  but the point of it is is that once he says that "Well  you see, they're getting money from this", well, the  next logical question, and we want to say "Well, if  you find that there is money from Legal Aid and money  from the Law Foundation and this is relevant, then we  would like you to know why, and so then maybe that  will move it from relevance to irrelevance, and that's  the point, my Lord, it puts us in an impossible  position, because then we must make a judgment call  either that you don't think this is important, even  though you find it tangentially relevant, you don't  think it's important enough for us to call any  evidence, and then that at the end of the day my  friends will come out with I'm sure a much more  compelling argument than they have today, and with  MR.  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT 4399  Proceedings  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  respect, I cannot see where they have relied except on  the pleadings of the plaintiff in that they governed  themselves by common language, laws, culture, and  authority and governed themselves according to their  laws.  That's the -- only references in 57D and F and  their denials of the plaintiff's pleadings is the only  references that are made.  Now, that, my Lord, is why  when they asked about who the board of directors was  and what other activities these people are involved in  I didn't object.  But my friend has not gone on and  said why the financial statements, why the funding and  the finances of the tribal council is relevant.  Who  cares whether -- what relevance does it have to  whether the plaintiffs have ownership and jurisdiction  if they received the money from the Government of  Canada, the Government of British Columbia, and I'm  not saying the plaintiffs, the tribal council did, or  the government of Luxembourg; who cares.  And my  friends have not answered that issue.  They've  answered the issue well, the activities of the tribal  council are important and they say for our case we're  going to say here, this might be the most important  body that exists, and the witness has answered  questions about that; the tribal council is involved  in this and in that.  But the other danger, my Lord,  is this:  The financial statements are misleading.  The financial --  :  That's a terrible submission to make, Mr. Grant.  :  Not about the finances but about the activities.  I'm not challenging the auditor's reports.  :  I'm glad you're not.  :  Although maybe we'll get to that stage if we keep  the doors open.  The financial statements are -- my  friends say "Well, you can see", and of course they  ask for Mrs. Wilson-Kenni's opinion that the financial  statements show the rises and falls and the vitality  of an organization, but the financial statements don't  reflect everything.  So again, what we have to do then  is go to a non-party, and I must say a non-existent  non-party at this point.  It's a voluntary  association, an unincorporated association at this  point in time, and we must explain what this non-party  has been doing for the last ten years.  And the  parties that you have before you are the hereditary  chiefs.  Now, if I have retained in my office a  messenger to -- that I hire to go running around and  doing a bunch of things and then an office manager to 4400  Proceedings  1 do some other things and then I build up my office to  2 increase the number of people I have doing these  3 gopher things for me, buying computers or whatever,  4 does that -- is that relevant to the ownership and  5 jurisdiction, and I think you referred to it in the  6 burned-cabin situation, what about say a catastrophe  7 as wide as the burning of Atlanta.  Who cares?  And my  8 friend -- I have left leverage, don't get me wrong.  I  9 don't agree that this is relevant.  I think at the end  10 of the day the activities of the tribal council are  11 not relevant at all, and that will be shown.  It's not  12 at this point that we can say that, and I think you've  13 made it clear you must hear what that is for the  14 defence's theory, and that's one thing, but when they  15 get into the finances, my Lord, rest assured that my  16 friend has given example after example of very very  17 minor financial matters, and it puts the plaintiffs in  18 a situation where we must explain a whole bunch of  19 things that this tribal council does or does not do,  20 so that you have it -- so that you're not misled by  21 some pieces of paper that are thrown in front of you,  22 and that quite simply is not relevant.  He can ask  23 Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, and he has asked her, did they do  24 land claims, did they do the fish management, did they  25 do these things.  We didn't object.  That's all you  26 need to know.  Do you need to know that X was spent on  27 wages and this was spent photocopying and all of this?  28 I submit that that's not relevant, and I don't --  29 quite honestly, my Lord, I don't trust the position of  30 the defendants on this point, because they say "Well,  31 we won't worry about the detail", but who knows what  32 they're going to say in the final argument.  Once the  33 evidence is before you we can't stand up and say "You  34 didn't say you were going to refer to all of these  35 things".  They have every right to refer to them all  36 and every bit of detail, and my friend has given you  37 an example of the kind of detail he will get into.  38 And I take -- I would submit, my Lord, that it is very  39 very dangerous on those grounds.  Are we -- my Lord,  40 are we the plaintiffs entitled because if this is --  41 this claim is for ownership and jurisdiction over this  42 territory, and my friend says "Well, the funding of  43 this tribal council", this sort of agents, as they  44 say, and I say a gopher, this gopher of the chiefs, as  45 the witness has described them, that the evidence of  46 the tribal council's funding is relevant?  Well, maybe  47 it's also relevant, my Lord, how much the Provincial 4401  Proceedings  1 defendant has spent within the territory in the last  2 hundred years.  Maybe it's relevant how much wealth  3 has been extracted from the territory by the  4 Provincial government over the last hundred years.  5 But, my Lord, we haven't ventured into that field.  I  6 mean we see that as the floodgates, but what is good  7 on one side may well be good on the other, my Lord,  8 and this really widens in a very very risky way the  9 scope of the trial.  And I think -- I submit, my Lord,  10 that my friend can get what he needs by asking the  11 witness about the activities about who's on the board,  12 and he's done all of that.  You need nothing more, my  13 Lord.  And the reason I say these statements may be  14 misleading is because it's all these -- there's  15 interconnections.  These matters may be -- there may  16 well be explanations about what A is and what B is,  17 but these -- the disclosure of these funds to this  18 court will clearly deal with the question of funding  19 which is directly or indirectly related to this  20 litigation.  And I submit that that's highly  21 prejudicial, unless my friends, the Provincial  22 defendant, is prepared to disclose -- if we say "Well,  23 maybe it's relevant how much the Provincial defendant  24 has decided its worth to fight the plaintiff's claim",  25 well, is that relevant?  I don't think so.  So is it  26 relevant how much the plaintiffs have decided it's  27 worth for them to put this claim forward?  I submit  28 the same position applies.  And, my Lord, I don't want  29 to get into the detail because I don't think it's  30 going to really help at the end of the day, but if my  31 friends raise these documents, my Lord, I'm afraid the  32 plaintiffs will have to give some answers to explain  33 to you the context in which you look at those  34 documents, and that's what I say is the danger, and  35 all of my friend's points on the pleadings on the  36 relevance go to the activity of the tribal council or  37 the composition of the board.  Well, he's got all that  38 evidence here, he doesn't need the financial  39 statements to pursue that evidence.  My friend refers  40 to the fact that the Tribal Council Association  41 presented a claim to the Federal Government.  Of  42 course it wasn't even incorporated at that time, my  43 Lord, so this organization didn't exist then and it  44 doesn't exist today.  My Lord, I would be very very  45 worried that if my friend's position could be taken  46 that "Give me 15 minutes and we will solve it",  47 because certainly the plaintiffs then would be in a 4402  Proceedings  1 position that we have to make a judgment call on  2 whether or not we had to respond in detail or not, and  3 I can't tell you that right now, but I see that as a  4 very real possibility, and I don't like it.  I don't  5 see why we should be spending this trial dealing with  6 the finances of a society that is not even a party to  7 the action.  8 THE COURT:  Why did we spend the time we spent on the financing  9 of the feasts?  10 MR. GRANT:  Well, that's a good point, my Lord.  The plaintiff's  11 claim --  12 THE COURT:  It would be — it was to show that the feast, the  13 institution of the feast is still alive and well and  14 functioning, and this was -- this proposition was  15 buttressed with some detail about how it operates,  16 including the financing.  17 MR. GRANT:  But it's much more than that, my Lord, it's much  18 more than that.  It's not just that the feast is alive  19 and well and functioning, it's that the feast is the  20 centrepiece of the chief's authority.  It's how their  21 authority stretches into the territory and the  22 community, my Lord.  The feast is the basis upon which  23 those decisions are made, it's how they govern  24 themselves, it's how they govern the territory, it's  25 how they enforce their laws, it's how they deal with  26 the problems created by, for example, the destruction  27 of Hagwilget rock by arranging their whole trade and  28 recompense, it's how the chief's authority and power  29 is ultimately demonstrated.  It's in the feast, it's  30 not just saying well, the feast is a nice thing that  31 is continued, the feast is the centrepiece of the  32 authority.  33 THE COURT:  But that's your case, but in paragraph 14 of the  34 Province's defence they say that if the chiefs, the  35 plaintiffs owned or exercised jurisdiction over the  36 territory or the resources and their authority over it  37 in accordance with Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en laws or  38 otherwise they do not now continue to do so.  That  39 issue is squarely raised.  You say "That's why we  40 called evidence about the financial circumstances of  41 the feast, because we say that shows that this was  42 part of the laws and institutions of the chiefs  43 system".  And the defence say if that was ever so it's  44 not the case today, and say the alternative -- I  45 suppose to argue the alternative is the band council  46 and the tribal council.  47 MR. GRANT:  The band council exists and the tribal council 4403  Proceedings  1 exists, and they have -- the tribal council has, at  2 least up to recently, had a board of directors,  3 there's -- it's been led -- all of that is in.  And  4 they can say "Here's this other institution, the  5 tribal council, that does these things", but does it  6 make any difference that the tribal council has 35  7 employees who push paper and type reports and file  8 reports with different branches of different  9 organizations, or that the tribal council lobbies the  10 government for money for the bands and decides should  11 we put in a sewer or housing project?  Now, maybe  12 that's important too, but the fact that that's what's  13 done --  14 THE COURT:  I think — I took it, Mr. Grant, that you weren't  15 suggesting that the defendants couldn't adduce that  16 kind of evidence?  17 MR. GRANT  18 THE COURT  19 MR. GRANT  What I've just described?  Yes.  That they can adduce, but then they're saying "Let's  20 get into some more detail here, let's find out how  21 much the federal government has paid to the tribal  22 council to support the land claims of the plaintiffs".  23 Okay.  Then we get into the question of what is the  24 arrangement, my Lord.  What is the types of agreements  25 between the tribal council and the Federal Government,  26 what are the conditions on that agreement, when did it  27 stop, what happened.  Then we get -- we're right on  28 the edge, we're right on the edge, my Lord.  29 MR. MACAULAY:  I didn't understand that any of this involved  30 funding for land claims, my Lord.  31 MR. GRANT:  Well, my friend should read the exhibit because  32 certainly that's what was raised and that's definitely  33 right in those documents.  The Federal Government's  34 funding of land claims is in, that's why I was  35 surprised by my friend's position, because this seems  36 to go maybe to what my two friends are fighting over  37 and not what we're fighting over, and that's what we  38 don't want this litigation to include at this stage.  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  My Lord, I don't hesitate to stand, but I didn't  4 0 mean to imply and I don't think I said at any time  41 that there's any interest in the funding for this  42 litigation or any intention to even approach --  43 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant says you can't read the financial  44 statements without being aware of them.  I take it  45 that that's what you say.  Mr. Grant?  46 MR. GRANT:  That's right, my Lord.  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well — 4404  Proceedings  1  MR.  2  MR.  3  MR.  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  THE  16  17  18  19  20  MR.  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  MR.  38  39  40  41  42  THE  43  MR.  44  45  46  47  THE  GRANT:  My friends —  MACKENZIE:  I disagree with that.  GRANT:  My friends have led evidence and have cross-examined  Mr. Sterritt extensively on discovery on the very  activities of the tribal council in the preparation  for their litigation, and these financial reports go  to the financial aspects of that very question, my  Lord.  And my friend referred to the question of the  tribal councils involved in the land claims.  It's the  very issue of the history of what we're here to do,  and -- but the activities of the tribal council  they've dealt with.  Why -- why does my friend need  the financial statements themselves; why does he need  those?  Why does --  COURT:  What he says is that they compendiously show the  range and scope of the activities of the tribal  council.  You spend a million dollars you're a  substantial organization by some standards.  Some  people still --  GRANT:  Yes, maybe the provincial government is a  substantial organization too, but should we deal now  with whether -- what is the debt load versus the asset  load, and all of these things of the tribal council?  I mean if my friends are setting up the tribal council  as the government that's replaced the hereditary  chiefs, I mean the financial aspect of the, as I say,  of the defendants in terms of within the territory,  that may be relevant too.  I mean maybe we should be  pursuing that with them.  But there has to be some  limits here, and I submit, my Lord, that this is a  reasonable point to make the limit.  If my friend  wants to ask -- he's already asked the witness was  there a fish management programme, was there a  scholarship fund; the witness answered, we didn't  object to that, was there this, was there that.  He  can talk about those activities.  MACAULAY:  I don't understand what these statements had to  do with this claim.  I'm aware that the tribal council  and its -- I think there is a document in evidence,  the tribal council has made a comprehensive land  claim.  I think --  COURT:  1978 or —  MACAULAY:  Yes.  Which I don't know where that is, and it's  not relevant to this action.  I didn't know that --  the extent to which it was being pursued and had never  inquired.  COURT:  I'm sorry, Mr. Macaulay, I'm not sure that I caught 4405  Proceedings  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  the significance of your description of the  comprehensive land claim.  I think that's a term of  art now, and I'm not sure we have a comprehensive land  claim in evidence.  We have a claim made to the  Secretary of State in 1978, I think.  I'm not sure  that's what's called a comprehensive land claim,  although --  MR. MACAULAY:  Yes, it is.  THE COURT:  That's it?  MR. MACAULAY:  Yep.  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. MACAULAY:  There are two categories, and that happens to be  the comprehensive.  I assumed that that's -- there is  a reference to land claim there, funding for that.  This litigation didn't start until sometime in 1984,  and I didn't know, I just learned now that perhaps  that has to do with this litigation.  I agree with Mr.  Grant that their funding for this litigation is not to  be before this court.  The plaintiffs themselves have  had to raise it in connection with applications --  interlocutory applications, the topic as your Lordship  well knows, but I would -- I agree with Mr. Grant that  there should be nothing before this court about that  claim subject to the extent, as I learned being -- if  I'm being told now by Mr. Grant that this 1983  financial statement has to do in any way with this  action, the funding, it should not be a subject of  cross-examination nor of any evidence.  THE COURT:  Well, my problem is I haven't looked at these  documents, and Mr. Grant says it springs out of the  documents and Mr. Mackenzie says it does not.  GRANT:  Well —  COURT:  I will have to rely on what counsel tell me.  GRANT:  Yeah.  Well, I just had it, my Lord.  MACKENZIE:  Well, I've gone through these things in a lot of  detail, my Lord, and I can assist my friend or your  Lordship --  GRANT:  I can take care of my own --  MACKENZIE: I'll just deny that this apparently relates to  this litigation. In fact, there's very little of  anything in -- in the financial statements for 1983.  All of a sudden the land claims financial statements  seem to have disappeared, but up until that time you  can see the increase of that activity.  MR. GRANT:  There is reference on the -- with regards to the  1983 financial statements of land claims, and of  revenues, substantial revenue and expenditures, and my  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR. 4406  Proceedings  1 Lord, that's -- that is getting into this case.  I  2 mean that's the trouble.  That's what we're getting  3 into, and I -- what concerns me, my Lord, is that my  4 friend has made some good reasons why he wants a  5 cross-examination on what the tribal councillor is  6 doing, he wants to cross-examine on who the board of  7 directors, and he's done all of that without  8 objection.  Where does this take him?  Now, he says  9 "Well, it helps me to find out that the Legal Aid  10 Society or some other groups gave money". Well, he can  11 ask the witness "Did you get money from the Legal Aid"  12 maybe, but what's the relevance of the third parties  13 that give money to it?  I mean he hasn't said what the  14 relevance is.  I mean he --  15 THE COURT:  No.  With respect, Mr. Grant, he said "I want the  16 amounts to be in evidence because they indicate the  17 range of activities".  18 MR. GRANT:  Right.  19 THE COURT:  You can't run a substantial operation on a  20 shoestring, and "To show that this is a substantial  21 operation I want to show that their annual revenue is  22 in excess of a million dollars", and it shows that  23 it's not a -- it's a substantial deal and supports our  24 denial and various paragraphs of the paragraph 14.  25 MR. GRANT:  I must say, my Lord, that there -- as I indicated,  26 this document was last raised on February 25th, '87.  27 It was then given to me yesterday morning.  There's  28 never been notices to admit relating to the  29 substantialness of -- the substantial nature of the  30 tribal council.  My friends have had the document for  31 well over a year.  32 MR. MACKENZIE:  The documents are admissible, my Lord.  33 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  I understand that, Mr. Mackenzie.  The  34 documents can be proved, and that's not the issue  35 we're dealing with here.  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  The notices to admit don't relate to relevance,  37 in my submission.  38 THE COURT:  Well, documents are admissible to -- subject to  39 relevance.  40 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Subject to relevance.  That's the very issue  41 we're on here.  The point is this:  What I'm saying,  42 my Lord, is he can, through the activities, describing  43 the activities, he can demonstrate the substantial  44 nature of the operation, but he's moving into this  45 area of such detail, once the financial statements are  46 in there's such detail there that the plaintiffs, you  47 know, are going to have to speak to that, and with all 4407  Proceedings  1 due respect, I don't think that, you know, hopefully  2 it can be dealt with briefly, but it may not be able  3 to, and I submit that that's a risk, and that that's  4 not -- that there should be some reasonable limits put  5 on the scope of the admissibility, and this is a  6 reasonable limit.  He can get what he wants through  7 the description of what the organization is doing.  He  8 can get all of what he wants that way, and he's done a  9 lot of that already.  And the plaintiffs will have  10 something to say about that, of course, in evidence,  11 but be that as it may, the financial statements is  12 just going too close, cutting too close to the bone,  13 and it's cutting very close to the bone, my Lord, and  14 I just think that that's highly prejudicial to the  15 plaintiffs and it should not be allowed in, it's just  16 not relevant.  Those documents are not relevant to the  17 proceedings, and I think that they take a major risk.  18 Those are my submissions.  19 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Mackenzie.  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  My Lord, the objection is to questions relating  21 to the financing of the Tribal Council Association,  22 so, my Lord, Mr. Grant's concern seems to be  23 principally with the financial statements being  24 admitted, but I understood he was and the objection  25 was to any questions.  Now, a compromise position  26 would be to permit me to question the witness on these  27 financial statements and to reconsider having the --  28 all the statements put in as evidence, that's possibly  29 a second position that could be taken.  But in  30 summary, my Lord, I'm not going to respond any further  31 to what Mr. Grant has said except to say that I think  32 that it is a floodgates argument he's making, and in  33 my submission in view of the evidence called in chief  34 and in view of the -- your Lordship's continuing  35 authority to restrict the abuse of process, delays,  36 unnecessary delays, that's not a concern that should  37 prevent your Lordship from permitting these financial  38 statements.  3 9    THE COURT:  Thank you.  40 MR. MACAULAY:  May I say, my Lord, that I have to make myself  41 clear in my interjections with my -- when my friend,  42 Mr. Grant, anything prejudicial like either  43 cross-examination or disclosure of figures dealing  44 with matters relating to this claim, it, in my  45 submission, would be prejudicial and not proper for  46 the court -- and not relevant.  If it were relevant  47 the admissibility -- the relevancy would be so slight 4408  Proceedings  1 in comparison with the prejudice that it should not be  2 admitted.  3 THE COURT:  Thank you.  It seems to be common ground that the  4 activities of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council  5 are a relevant and legitimate question for  6 cross-examination of knowledgeable witnesses,  7 including Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, who is now under  8 cross-examination at the present time.  What is in  9 dispute is the relevance of the financial statements  10 of the tribal council which Mr. Mackenzie says show  11 the scope of the activities of the council and which  12 Mr. Grant says should not be admitted because they  13 show or provide information from which inferences  14 could be drawn as to the gross details or worse of the  15 plaintiff's funding for this action.  Mr. Grant raises  16 in addition a floodgates argument, which is not at all  17 terrifying to me in this case, having regard to the  18 numerous floods of evidence which have occurred and  19 which will reoccur in the future.  Inasmuch as it is  20 common ground that the activities of the tribal  21 council are relevant to the defence of the province as  22 set out in the various sections to which Mr. Mackenzie  23 has made reference and Section 14 of the defence of  24 the province, it is necessary for me to consider  25 whether the actual financial statements are necessary  26 or whether I should balance the logical argument for  27 admissibility against the risk of prejudice.  I'm not  28 at all convinced that there would be any prejudice and  29 I'm not concerned that there would be a flood of  30 otherwise unnecessary evidence, but it does seem to me  31 that the scope of the activities of the tribal council  32 can be demonstrated other than by the financial  33 statements.  I had in mind at one time of a middle  34 ground by allowing the plaintiff to put in the total  35 figures, but if, for example, the total figure of  36 revenue for a particular year was a million dollars, I  37 picked that figure really at random because it's been  38 thrown about during argument, then it may be that that  39 isn't any indication of the activities of the tribal  40 council, because Mr. Grant might then feel constrained  41 to show that of the million dollars 950,000 were spent  42 on this lawsuit.  I don't suggest that's so, but there  43 is that possibility, in which case the activities of  44 the tribal council, apparently a million dollars worth  45 of activity for relevant purposes is really only  46 $50,000, and that risk and that possibility lead me to  47 conclude that it might be better if I restrict the 4409  Proceedings  1 plaintiffs -- or I'm sorry -- restrict the defendant  2 to evidence about actual activities without actually  3 adducing the evidence of the financial statements.  4 That being so I propose without limiting the province  5 to inquire into the activities of the tribal council  6 not to permit the financial statements to be adduced.  7 Shall we take the morning adjournment.  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  My Lord, may I ask for a clarification of your  9 Lordship's reasons?  My Lord, as I mentioned, the  10 question was -- the objection was the question  11 relating to the financing.  Now, does your Lordship  12 include, in your Lordship's declining to admit the  13 documents, does your Lordship include all questions  14 relating to information in the documents?  15 THE COURT:  I don't think I care where they get their money  16 from, I don't think it's really very relevant to this  17 lawsuit.  I don't have to leave my common sense in the  18 parking lot in the morning.  They have an office and  19 they have 35 employees, and I know they can't do that  20 on $12.50 or some similar insignificant amount.  I  21 think that you have all the scope you need to get you  22 by, Mr. Mackenzie, inquiring into the activities  23 without the amounts and the sources of the funding.  24 MR. MACKENZIE:  Thank you, my Lord.  25 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  26  27 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15)  28  29 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  30 a true and accurate transcript of the  31 proceedings herein transcribed to the  32 best of my skill and ability  33  34  35  36  37 Graham D. Parker  38 Official Reporter  39 United Reporting Service Ltd.  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 4410  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO MORNING ADJOURNMENT)  2  3 DORA WILSON-KENNI, resumed:  4  5 THE REGISTRAR:  Ready to proceed, my lord.  I caution the  6 witness, you are still under oath.  7 THE COURT:  Mr. Mackenzie.  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  Thank you, my lord.  9  10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MACKENZIE (Cont'd):  11 Q   Now, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, yesterday we were speaking  12 about the Feast at Kitwanga.  Do you recall that?  I  13 am sorry, the meeting at Kitwanga?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And can you confirm now that that meeting was in May,  16 1983?  17 A   Yes.  Would be around there.  18 Q   Now, can you confirm also that in preparation for that  19 meeting the Gitksan chief sent out messages to invite  20 the Nishga chiefs to that Feast?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Yes.  And what happened as you indicated at the Feast  23 is that the Gitksan hereditary chiefs presented their  24 histories?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And they presented their Adaawk?  27 MR. GRANT:  Is he referring to all of them that were there or  2 8 some of them?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  30 Q   Some of the chiefs who were present from the Gitksan  31 Nation.  32 A   I don't remember that part.  33 Q   Okay.  And they identified their territories, do you  34 recall that?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Yes.  And the Nishga chiefs came by car and by bus to  37 Kitwanga --  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   -- for that meeting?  Yes.  And Jessie Sterritt, who  40 is Wii 'goob'l, was one of the Gitksan chiefs, made a  41 presentation at that meeting?  42 A   She could have.  I can't remember that.  43 Q   And there were also Kitwancool hereditary chiefs at  44 that meeting?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And some of them made presentations about their  47 territories? 4411  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  A  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  A  8  MR. GRANT  9  A  10  THE COURT  11  MR. macke:  12  Q  13  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  40  A  41  42  43  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  I am sorry, I don't remember that.  Do you know Solomon Marsden?  Yes, I do.  Is he a Kitwancool hereditary chief?  Yes.  Did he make a presentation to your recollection?  He may have, yes.  :  I didn't hear that answer, my lord.  He may have.  :  She said he may have.  JZIE:  And following the presentations by the Gitksan chiefs  and the Kitwancool chiefs, the Nishga hereditary  chiefs replied, did they not, some of them?  Yes.  And at that time they said they would, as you  mentioned, they would hold a Feast on the Nass?  Yes.  They would invite the Gitksan hereditary chiefs?  Yes.  And the Nishga chiefs would do a presentation of their  histories and where they saw the boundaries?  Yes.  And can you recall -- I know you weren't at the  meeting, but can you recall that that meeting, second  meeting, was held in October 1984?  Yes, it was over a year after that when the Kitwanga  had the one in the Nass.  And were -- are you aware that about a hundred  hereditary Gitksan chiefs went to that meeting in  October 1984?  There was quite a number of them that went, yes.  Now, have you attended any other Feasts with the  Nishga people?  No.  No.  Have you attended any Feasts in Terrace?  In Terrace, not Feasts.  Have you attended any meetings with the Tsimshian  Nation in Terrace?  I went to a meeting in Terrace, but I think there was  quite a number of -- I think different tribes that  were there.  It seems to me it had to do with speaking  to the minister.  Speaking to the minister?  Speaking to the minister.  Have you been to any meetings in Terrace relating to  the boundaries between the Tsimshian people and the 4412  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Gitksan people?  2 A   No.  3 Q   Have you been to any meetings in Terrace dealing with  4 the boundaries between the Nishga people and the  5 Gitksan people?  6 A   No.  7 Q   Have you been to any other meetings relating to  8 boundaries between the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and  9 the neighbouring people in addition to the ones you've  10 discussed?  11 A   No.  12 Q   Excuse me, my lord.  13 Now, as the manager of the Hagwilget reserve, are  14 you generally familiar with other Bands and Indian  15 reserves in the Gitksan/Wet'suwet'en land claims area?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Can you confirm that the Takla Lake Band has a reserve  18 in the Bear Lake area?  19 A   Oh, I don't -- I thought you meant our immediate area.  20 Q   Oh, yes.  21 A   No.  I don't deal with them.  22 Q   Have you ever had any contacts with the Takla Lake  23 Band?  24 A   The Takla Lake Band?  I don't remember.  25 Q   Have you had any contacts with the Band who has a  26 reserve at Bear Lake, Fort Connelly.  27 MR. GRANT:  Which Band is that?  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  29 Q   I am sorry, I am just asking the question in that way.  30 A   No, I have never had contact with them.  31 Q   And can you confirm that there are Indian reserves in  32 the Bear Lake area?  Do you have any knowledge of  33 that?  34 A   No, I don't.  35 THE COURT:  Is that Takla or Telkwa?  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  Takla, my lord, T-a-k-1-a.  37 THE COURT:  Thank you.  38 MR. MACKENZIE:  39 Q   Now, are you aware of a Band -- I am sorry, I will  40 rephrase that question.  Earlier in your evidence you  41 referred to the Nee teh Ben Band.  Do you recall that?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Do you have a spelling for that?  Perhaps you would  44 spell it.  Mr. Mitchell has it.  45 THE TRANSLATOR:  I have the spelling here.  326.  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  326, my lord.  47 Q   You met members of that Band when you were at Burns 4413  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Lake, didn't you?  2 A Yes.  3 Q Yes.  And are you aware that that Band has reserves  4 near Francois Lake?  5 A Yes.  6 Q And do you know that Band has a reserve near Skins  7 Lake?  8 A No, I don't know that.  9 Q And are you aware that that Band has reserves on  10 Uncha, U-n-c-h-a, Lake?  11 A They may have.  I don't know what Bands they have.  12 Q Now, can you agree with me that the reserves of the --  13 or reserve of the Nee teh Ben Band near Francois Lake  14 are within the Gitksan/Wet'suwet'en land claims area?  15 A I am not too sure about the boundaries there.  16 Q And you are certainly familiar with the Broman Lake  17 Band, aren't you?  18 A I have heard a lot about it.  19 Q Yes.  And you are aware also that the Broman Lake Band  20 is a member of the Carrier Sikani Tribal Council?  21 A Yes.  22 Q And you are also aware that the Broman Lake Band has  23 reserves at Decker Lake Palling, P-a-1-l-i-n-g?  24 A I am afraid I don't know what other reserves they  2 5 have.  26 Q Now, are you also familiar with the Burns Lake Band?  27 A Yes.  28 Q Okay.  And are you -- can you confirm that Burns Lake  29 Band has reserves in the Burns Lake area?  30 A Repeat that again.  31 Q Can you confirm that the Burns Lake Band has reserves  32 in the Burns Lake area?  33 A Yes.  34 Q Are you also -- can you also confirm that some of the  35 reserves of that Band are within the Municipality of  36 Burns Lake?  37 A Yes.  38 Q Are you familiar with the Cheslatta Band?  39 A No, I'm not.  40 Q Do you know about the Stellaquo, S-t-e-1-l-a-q-u-o?  41 A I have passed by there, yes.  42 Q And that reserve -- have you passed by that reserve?  43 A Yes.  44 Q Where would that be, please?  45 A That's on the way to Prince George.  46 Q I see.  All right.  Can you say whether that's within  47 the Gitksan/Wet'suwet'en land claims area? 4414  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 A   I don't know.  2 Q   Now, I have some questions on a new topic, briefly  3 this deals with the Spookw, the territory of Spookw.  4 MR. GRANT:  Spookw.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Spookw, I beg your pardon.  6 MR. GRANT:  My friend has spoke.  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  Sorry.  8 Q   Can you confirm to his lordship that the Village of  9 New Hazelton has a population of about 800 people?  10 THE COURT:  8 00?  11 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  12 THE COURT:  In New Hazelton?  13 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  14 Q   That's about the figure?  15 A  Approximately, yeah.  16 Q   And the Hagwilget reserve has about 170?  17 A   That's on the reserve?  18 Q   Yes.  19 A   There is about 185.  20 Q   185.  Now, do you know whether the Village of South  21 Hazelton is in the Spookw territory?  22 A   I think so.  23 Q   And can you confirm that the population of South  24 Hazelton is about 500 people?  25 A  Approximately, yeah.  26 Q   Yes.  The Village of Hazelton I take it is outside  27 Spookw's territory, is that correct?  28 A   Yes.  29 MR. MACKENZIE:   Now, my lord, I am instructed that the size of  30 these territories, the Seeley Lake/Spookw territory is  31 according to my friends' map about 15.6 square miles.  32 And —  33 MR. GRANT:  Are you asking a question?  34 MR. MACKENZIE:  No.  I am just confirming to his lordship.  35 THE COURT:  Is this a matter of agreement?  36 MR. GRANT:  Well, no, it isn't a matter of agreement, and I  37 didn't know -- my friend says he is instructed about  38 something.  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, yes, we have mentioned it several times  40 before, my lord, about giving your lordship the  41 calculation of the areas of the territories for your  42 lordship's information.  43 THE COURT:  Well, I am not sure I should receive information  44 this way.  If it's a matter of agreement, then I would  45 hope it would be and I don't see why there should be  46 any difficulty about it.  47 MR. GRANT:  We might be able to agree on it.  It's just the 4415  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 first time these figures have been given to me, so I  2 can't agree now.  If my friend gave me, you know,  3 notification of it, I could check it and agree.  4 MR. MACKENZIE:  Thank you, my lord.  5 THE COURT:  I would like to know — I would like to have the  6 information.  7 MR. GRANT:  Yes, I appreciate that, my lord.  And it will — I  8 anticipate that that information will come out in  9 evidence to you ultimately in any event.  10 THE COURT:  I am very patient and I can afford to wait.  11 MR. GRANT:  Thank you.  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  13 Q   Now, you testified that Spookw territory bordered  14 Wet'suwet'en territories, do you recall that?  15 MR. GRANT:  I —  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  Volume 66, page 4067.  17 MR. GRANT:  4067?  18 THE COURT:  Whereabouts, please?  19 MR. MACKENZIE:  Volume 66, page 4067, my lord.  That's at line  20 three.  21 Q   Do you recall making that statement?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   Yes.  And looking at the map, tab 13 in Volume 1 of  24 the document book, this is Exhibit 5.  Now, the Spookw  25 territories at least on that map are outlined in  26 yellow.  Could you tell his lordship, please, Mrs.  27 Wilson-Kenni, whether any of those territories border  28 the Wet'suwet'en territories?  29 A   Not the way it's shown on here.  30 Q   Thank you.  31 MR. GRANT:  My lord, for the record, as my friend refers to the  32 13, that — that —  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  It's tab 13.  34 MR. GRANT:  Tab 13, Exhibit — the excerpt of Exhibit 5, if you  35 look at that one below Porphry, you see Porphry?  3 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  37 MR. GRANT:  And there is a boundary there that is Wah tah K'eght  38 territory on Exhibit 5.  It's not shown on this  39 extract and that's of course a Wet'suwet'en chief.  40 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  41 THE COURT:  It can't be Wah tah Keg'ht, could it?  It was Wah  42 tah Keg'ht originally, but hasn't it shown to be  43 Caspit?  44 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's on the other side of the river, my lord.  45 THE COURT:  Is it?  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  47 THE COURT:  I see.  It's on the other side. 4416  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  GRANT:  If you went down there is the Djogaslee Axtiidzeek  and you go down to Porphry Creek and of course the --  MACKENZIE:  We need a spelling for that, I am sorry, Mr.  Grant.  GRANT:  Porphry, P-o-r-p-h-r-y.  MACKENZIE:  Sorry, for the chief's name.  GRANT:  Axtiidzeek.  Axtiidzeek.  MACKENZIE:  We have to get the spelling for the reporter.  GRANT:  Oh, I'm sorry.  MACKENZIE:  That was the reason I am commenting.  COURT:  D-j-o-g-a-s-1-e-e, new word, A-x-t-i-i-d-z-e-e-k.  GRANT:  And I just note the context of the question at 4067,  line 3, 4 is the previous question:  "Is that territory close to or far from the  Wet'suwet'en territories?"  And she said:  "Close to."  MACKENZIE:  Well, my lord, I think that's re-examination,  but there is a question at line three:  "Q     Does it border on the Wet'suwet'en  territory?  A     I think so."  And I may have misinterpreted my friend, but I didn't  hear him to say that Spookw bordered on the  Wet'suwet'en territory.  Yes.  My only comment, my lord, is that my opinion it is  irrelevant on the point.  I think this is all irrelevant, too.  I don't know  what it's all about.  I don't see any dispute, any  problem.  MACKENZIE:  Well, I am sorry, the dispute is, my lord,  that -- yes.  I will leave that, my lord.  COURT:  He said, "Does it border on the Wet'suwet'en  territory?"  And she said, "I think so."  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Well, I think it does not border on a  Wet'suwet'en territory.  COURT:   Yes, but you see, she didn't say it did.  MACKENZIE:  I think she said she thinks it does.  COURT:  Well, that doesn't say —  MACKENZIE:  All right, my lord.  COURT  GRANT  THE COURT  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR. 4417  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 THE COURT:  You see, that's the problem with cross-examination.  2 The people assume these words have magical qualities.  3 They don't.  The average witness doesn't speak the way  4 lawyers expect them to speak.  The way that they speak  5 is the way lawyers speak when they are not in the  6 witness box.  7 A   Sometimes we don't understand what the lawyers are  8 saying either.  9 THE COURT:  Oh, well, listen carefully and you will understand.  10 MR. MACKENZIE:  11 Q   Now, just carry on with this question of the  12 territory, and I am going to refer you to tab 7 in  13 Volume 2 of the document book.  And referring to the  14 territory -- to the diagram there, which is a diagram  15 of the New Hazelton territory of Spookw.  You see --  16 sorry.  You have got Seeley Lake territory there.  I  17 am talking about Spookw east, which is the New  18 Hazelton territory as shown on Exhibit 5.  Now, you  19 see Rossvale Lake on that map which is at tab seven.  20 Does your lordship have Rossvale Lake?  21 THE COURT:  No, I don't.  Not yet.  22 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, my lord, it's just off the Highway 16 just  23 to the north of Highway 16, and it's in lot 1584, and  24 there is a -- on this map there is a dashed line  25 around that lake.  2 6 THE COURT:  Show me where it is.  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  It's right just about the title  28 of the map, Spookw east.  29 THE COURT:  What's the lot number, 1584?  30 MR. MACKENZIE:  1584, my lord.  31 THE COURT:  I have 1583.  Could be next door.  It's not — you  32 are not talking about Six Mile Lake?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  No.  It's just down.  Just below 1583, my lord.  34 Just down to the south.  Just a mile or so.  The next  35 lot down from 1583.  36 THE COURT:  Is it surrounded in yellow?  37 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  38 THE COURT:  Oh, yes, I have it.  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's Rossvale Lake.  40 THE COURT:  Is that what that says?  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  42 Q   Now, do you know Rossvale Lake, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni?  43 Have you been there?  44 A   No, I haven't.  I have been to Ross lake.  45 Q   Oh, yes.  Ross Lake is Six Mile Lake, is that right?  46 A   I don't know.  I only know it's Ross lake.  47 Q   Yes.  You have already testified about the provincial 4418  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  MR.  Q  A  GRANT  THE COURT  MR  park at Ross Lake and talking about that.  Now, just  across the highway from Rossvale Lake in lot 1586, I  am instructed that the dashed line going through there  is the road permit, the road site to the Glen Vowell  Band logging.  Have you looked at that?  Are you aware  that that's where the Glen Vowell Band logging is  taking place?  No.  I didn't know where they were taking --.  Oh.  Can you tell his lordship where the trail you  took to Blue Lake is on this map?  Did it go along Mud  Flat Creek, do you recall?  We went up there -- this kind of a map I am lost on.  I can't use a map like this.  I'm not --  Yes.  It's a little —  -- familiar with this kind of map.  The witness was pointing to the very heavy lines on  the southern part of the map, my lord, where it's the  topographical lines when she said that answer.  Is Blue Lake on this map?  MACKENZIE:  There is not — I am instructed that that name  doesn't appear on a map in this area, government maps,  my lord.  So I have no knowledge at the present time  where Blue Lake is.  Q   Can you say whether Blue Lake was up towards Hagwilget  peak, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni?  Where is Hagwilget peak?  Oh, I see.  Yes.  Hagwilget peak I am instructed is  the peak that towers over New Hazelton.  I think you  call it Stek'od'in?  Stek'od'in.  Yes, it's in behind there.  Blue Lake is in behind Stek'od'in?  Yes.  Well, we won't go into that.  Have you been on any  recreational trails in this area behind New Hazelton?  No.  No.  You don't have any knowledge about recreation  sites in that area?  In where?  In the Spookw area behind New Hazelton?  No, I don't.  Oh.  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I am finished with  that, please.  Well, this map, the heavily contoured area at the  very bottom of this map marked Spookw east, that would  be Stek'od'in, would it not?  MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  You can see Hagwilget peak right  in there.  Sort of just over from Spookw east, you can  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. 4419  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 see Hagwilget peak which towers above the town of New  2 Hazelton.  It's right down in this part of the map.  3 THE COURT:  Is that what that says?  Does that say Hagwilget  4 peak?  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  6 MR. GRANT:  Does it say it on the map?  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  It says it on — yes.  Can you see that,  8 Mr. Grant?  It's right here.  9 MR. GRANT:  All right.  10 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  11 THE COURT:  Hagwilget peak is different from Stek'od'in, is it?  12 MR. GRANT:  Maybe this blue book will help illustrate it, my  13 lord.  14 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Grant.  That's a good idea.  16 I have a book of photographs of this area, my lord.  17 MR. GRANT:  Very good photographs, I might say, my lord.  My  18 friend is getting better all the time.  19 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm not —.  20 Q   And could you turn to page one, please -- to tab one,  21 please, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni.  Can you recognize that as  22 Ross Lake Park?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Yes.  Tab 2, can you recognize that as the C.N. New  25 Hazelton location?  26 A   Yes.  27 MR. GRANT:  Sorry, which one was that?  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  Tab 2.  29 Q   Tab three, can you recognize that as the entrance to  30 Seeley Lake Park?  31 A   Yes.  32 THE COURT:  Looking north?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Looking towards New Hazelton, my lord.  34 MR. GRANT:  You may get some clarification on the mountain there  35 with that photo.  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  37 Q   Do you know which mountain that might be, Mrs.  38 Wilson-Kenni?  39 A   That's part of Stek'od'in.  4 0 THE COURT:  Sorry?  41 A   Stek'od'in.  42 MR. MACKENZIE:   You see the sun is just setting there behind  43 the photographer, my lord, gives you an idea of the  44 direction.  45 Q   Tab four, can you identify that as the Esso Bulk Sales  46 Agency at New Hazelton?  47 A   Yes. 4420  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Q   And can you tell his lordship the name of the mountain  2 in the background, the tall mountain?  3 A   Stek'od'in.  4 THE COURT:  Could I have the spelling, please?  I have been  5 using a phonetic spelling.  6 THE TRANSLATOR:   It's S-t-e-k-'-o-d-'-i-n.  7 THE COURT:  I-n?  8 THE TRANSLATOR:  I-n.  9 THE COURT:  S-t-e-k-'?  10 THE TRANSLATOR:  Yes.  11 THE COURT:  Thank you.  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  13 Q   Tab five.  I think we will skip over tab five and tab  14 six.  Tab seven.  15 MR. GRANT:  Which one?  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  17 Q   Tab seven, can you identify that building?  18 A   Tab seven?  19 Q   Yes.  Is that —  20 A  Where are we missing a couple of pages here?  This is  21 tab seven?  22 Q   Yes.  23 A   Looks very familiar.  24 Q   Is that the Band Council office in Hagwilget?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Tab eight, is that the bridge at Hagwilget?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   That's just across from the reserve, isn't it?  29 A  What do you mean across?  30 Q   Across the highway.  That's across the highway from  31 the Roman Catholic church?  32 A   Yes.  If you had taken a picture a little further up  33 the road over this way you would have taken in the  34 power poles that I was talking about earlier that they  35 put in when they dug up those grave sites.  36 Q   Yes.  You can see the power lines on that map, can't  37 you?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   I am sorry, you can see the power lines in that  40 photograph?  41 THE COURT:  Yes.  42 MR. GRANT:  I am sorry, the witness was indicating -- I believe  43 she indicated the bottom left-hand side of the photo.  44 MR. MACKENZIE:  45 Q   Yes, I am sorry.  The witness was indicating --  46 A   This way.  47 Q   -- the bottom left-hand side of the photograph, my 4421  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  THE  MR.  MR. GRANT  lord, behind the photographer.  Tab nine, is that the sign outside the New  Hazelton municipal offices?  A   Yes.  Q   And there is a -- yes.  Tab ten, that's one of the  restaurants in New Hazelton?  MR. GRANT:  My lord, I would point out to the court with regards  to this photo --  THE COURT:  Which one?  MR. GRANT:  Tab ten, that I believe it is photograph -- just one  moment.  70 -- 79 of the statement of claim on page 16  that the plaintiffs are not making claims to lands  transferred to third parties and held in fee-simple as  of October 23, '84.  So I would question the relevance  of this particular photograph.  MACKENZIE:  Well, my lord, these are -- going through these  quickly to show the features within the Spookw  territory.  Your lordship may be familiar with these,  but other --  COURT:  Oh, yes, I have been.  MACKENZIE:  Other courts may not be familiar with them, my  lord.  No, I am not objecting to all the photographs.  This  photograph is one that's covered by paragraph 79.  The  subject matter of this photograph is covered by  paragraph 79 in the statement of claim and I don't see  any relevance to the existence of this restaurant in  this place or this photograph.  That's what I am  objecting to go.  MACKENZIE:  Well, the photograph shows the Highway 16 and  shows other businesses in New Hazelton and evidence  has been given that New Hazelton is in Spookw  territory, my lord.  I think that it may be admitted.  That doesn't in  any way weaken the force of your objection, Mr. Grant,  or the legal position you have described.  It's a  picture of a part of the area in question or adjacent  to it and for that reason it's -- I don't think it's  objectionable.  Admitting it doesn't in any way  detract from the position you have taken.  MR. GRANT:  Yes, my lord.  THE COURT:  I want to make a note of that, though.  MR. GRANT:  That was paragraph 79, my lord.  THE COURT:  Yes.  Thank you.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Q   Tab ten that you are looking at, that's a picture  taken in New Hazelton?  MR.  THE COURT 4422  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  6 MR. GRANT  7 THE COURT  8 MR. GRANT  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Tab 11, that's the New Hazelton post office.  Yes.  3 That's right.  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Yes.  Tab 12, that's New Hazelton R.C.M.P. office?  Similar objection, my lord.  All right.  Just for the record, as to tab ten.  9 MR. MACKENZIE:  10 Q   And tab 12 is the R.C.M.P. office in New Hazelton?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   What's that mountain in the background?  13 A   That's the one we know as Nine Mile.  14 Q   Yes.  15 THE COURT:  I am sorry?  16 A   Nine Mile Mountain.  17 THE COURT:  Nine Mile Mountain?  18 A   Yes.  19 MR. MACKENZIE:  20 Q   And Nine Mile Mountain is not in Spookw's territory,  21 is it?  22 A   I don't think so.  23 Q   At tab 13, is that the New Hazelton elementary school?  24 A   Too bad you don't have Lax sop' bi g'il d'at on there.  25 That's New Hazelton.  26 MR. MACKENZIE:   I think we need some spelling for that.  27 THE TRANSLATOR:  Do it again?  28 A   Lax sop' bi g'il d'at?  29 THE TRANSLATOR:  L-a-x s-o-p-' b-i g-'-i-1 underline d-'-a-t.  30 THE COURT:  And what is that, please?  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  32 Q   What does that mean?  33 A   New Hazelton.  That's the name that was used.  Someone  34 named it New Hazelton, I guess.  35 Q   And that's the elementary school at New Hazelton?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   Tab 14, is that the intersection of the Highway 16 and  38 the highway to Hazelton village?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And that's Stek'od'in in the background again?  41 A   Yes.  This is where we went to go berry picking.  We  42 went in behind this mountain here.  43 Q   Referring to the mountain on the left, my lord.  And  44 Mrs. Wilson-Kenni is assisting us in response I think  45 to the earlier questions --  46 A   Yes.  47 MR. GRANT:  Maybe the witness can just point it to the judge. 4423  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT:  Oh.  A   Yes.  MACKENZIE:  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  COURT:  The mountain on the left?  A   Yes.  Right here.  On the side of that mountain?  Go in behind there.  Perhaps we can --  COURT:  Is that where Blue Lake is?  A   Yes.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Perhaps you could indicate that with -- here's a red  pen.  Could you just put a letter "X" on the mountain  you were referring to, please, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni?  To indicate what?  The mountain that you went to go -- went behind to go  to Blue Lake berry picking.  Oh.  Okay.  Oh, very good.  Now, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni has put  "X" right on the left-hand border of the  photograph, my lord, where the skyline comes down.  Yes.  But for the record, what she had indicated was --  It would have been further down, but the picture -- it  would have been off of the picture.  Yes.  Around the side of that mountain?  Yes.  Yes.  And she indicated going behind --  Yes.  -- with her finger going behind the mountain that's  in the picture.  Thank you.  On the left-hand mountain.  MACKENZIE:  Thank you.  Q   And this -- still looking at that picture, tab 14,  that's -- you see a lot of logging trucks going  through Spookw's territory like that?  Yes.  A lot of the resource are going by every day.  Yes.  Tab 15, is that St. Mary's school that you spoke  about?  Yes.  And tab 16, is that the highways maintenance yard near  Hazelton, New Hazelton, near the Hagwilget reserve?  Yes.  Just looking at it makes me think how they don't  even maintain our village roads.  Yes.  And tab 17 is the Roman Catholic church on the  Hagwilget reserve, is that correct?  Yes.  Yes.  And those are -- can you identify whose homes,  A  Q  A  MACKENZIE:  her  COURT:  GRANT:  A  COURT:  A  COURT:  GRANT:  A  GRANT:  COURT:  GRANT:  A  Q  A  Q  A  A  Q 9    MR. GRANT  10 THE COURT  11 MR. GRANT  4424  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 those are in the background on the left, please?  2 A   That's right here on the left is --  3 Q   Referring to the white house?  4 A  Well, it's two-tone green.  5 Q   I beg your pardon.  Two-tone green?  6 A  And that's Jack -- Jack Michell's house.  7 Q   I am going to ask you to put an "X" on Jack Michell's  8 house, please.  It's the one on the edge of the picture, my lord.  Yes.  On the left side.  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  13 Q   And the next house over to the right?  14 A   George Dominick.  15 Q   George Dominick.  Could you put a "Y" there, please.  16 Thank you.  Does your lordship have those?  17 THE COURT:  Yes.  18 MR. MACKENZIE:  Thank you.  19 Q   Tab -- skip over tab 18.  That is just another picture  20 of the bridge, isn't it, at Hagwilget?  Can you see  21 your power poles on there?  22 A   Yeah.  The power poles are still there.  23 Q   Yes.  And tab 19 —  24 A   The original bridge was built by Gitumskanees.  25 Q   Yes.  Referring to the picture at tab 18, my lord,  26 Mrs. Wilson-Kenni commented on that.  27 MR. GRANT:  Do you have a spelling for Gitumskanees?  28 THE TRANSLATOR:  194.  2 9 MR. GRANT:  19 —  30 THE TRANSLATOR:   194.  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  32 Q   Finally at tab 19.  Is that the arena at New Hazelton?  33 MR. GRANT:   Objection to tab ten would apply equally here, just  34 for the record.  35 THE COURT:  That's the arena where?  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  37 Q   At New Hazelton, is that correct?  38 A   Yes.  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  My lord, we skipped over tabs five and six.  4 0 THE COURT:  And 18.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  And 18.  Mrs. Wilson-Kenni made a comment about  42 18.  4 3 THE COURT:  Yes.  44 MR. MACKENZIE:  But subject to that, my lord, I would request  45 that that booklet be marked as an exhibit.  And if you  46 just take out those tabs at the break, if that  47 would -- 4425  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  Yes.  Which ones did you skip over?  THE REGISTRAR:  Five and six, my lord.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Five and six.  MR. GRANT:  No objection to the balance being identified, my  lord, except the five and six.  THE COURT:  All right.  The booklet will be —  THE REGISTRAR:  343, my lord.  THE COURT:  Thank you.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  (EXHIBIT 343:  Booklet of photographs re Dora  Wilson-Kenni's evidence)  COURT:  I will give you your pictures back, Mr. Mackenzie,  thank you.  MACKENZIE: Thank you. And moving to one final — one  further subject. And this is in Volume 2 of the  document book.  My lord, as a matter of information, at tab eight  there is a composite map consisting of excerpts from  the plaintiffs' trapline map, that's Exhibit 24A for  identification, and --  COURT:  I am sorry?  MACKENZIE:  I am sorry, the defendants'.  COURT:  The defendants' tab eight.  MACKENZIE:  No.  It's Volume 2.  COURT:  Yes.  MACKENZIE:  Of the defendants' book of documents.  COURT:  Yes.  MACKENZIE:  And it's at tab eight, my lord, and it's a  composite map showing registered traplines in the  Spookw territories and that map is comprised of  Exhibit 24A, which is a defendants' exhibit.  GRANT:  For identification.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  For identification.  We have a difference  of opinion about that, I understand, but I'll leave  that, as my friend says.  And Exhibit 5, which is a  plaintiffs' document.  So my submission, my lord,  those have been marked as exhibits and this is simply  for the court's convenience to show the coincidence,  if any, of traplines with respect to the Spookw area.  And that's the subject of my questions now.  COURT:  Yes.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Now, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, are you aware that your uncle  Alfred Wilson has a trapline in the Spookw area?  A   Yes.  Q   And are you aware that that trapline is reported as 4426  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 number 609T045 in the provincial records?  2 A   No.  I don't know what number.  3 Q   Fine, thank you.  And speaking of the Spookw/Seeley  4 Lake area, are you aware that people from Kitsegukla  5 have traplines in that area?  6 A   No.  7 Q   No.  Do you know anything about trapping or traplines  8 in the Seeley Lake, Spookw/Seeley Lake?  9 A   No.  10 Q   Now, can you --  11 MR. GRANT:  My friend suggested more than one.  If his map is  12 any indication it appears that in that Spookw/Seeley  13 Lake area there is one trapline in that area.  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  My friend is correct.  15 THE COURT:  Yes.  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  My instructions are that there is one trapline  17 which covers the Spookw/Seeley Lake area and that's  18 trapline 0609T062.  I am instructed that's registered  19 to Mr. William Milton.  20 MR. GRANT:  It's not admitted, my lord.  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  22 THE COURT:  Did you know that your uncle Alfred Wilson's  23 trapline is said to include all of Spookw's easterly  24 territory plus some more?  Do you know what the range  25 of your uncle's trapline is?  26 A   No, I don't know what the range is.  27 THE COURT:  I see.  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  29 Q   Do you know that your uncle had a trapline in the New  30 Hazelton area?  31 A   I just know he had a trapline, but I don't know  32 exactly where.  33 Q   Is it near New Hazelton, do you recall?  34 A   Probably.  35 Q   You spoke about trapping in the Spookw territory?  36 A   Uh-huh.  37 Q   Did you ever trap with your uncle on his trapline?  38 A   No.  The area that I was at is just -- how did they  39 describe it.  It's like where the reserve is there  40 is -- there is -- let's see.  I am mixed up on my  41 directions.  Anyway, it was in behind where my cousin  42 used to live, Mary Duncan used to live.  And it was in  43 behind there that he had the line.  44 Q   Did she live on the reserve?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Yes.  Now, referring to tab nine, these are extracts  47 from the Provincial Government files, and it's on the 4427  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Provincial Government's list of documents as document  2 1276.  Can you identify your uncle Alfred's signature  3 on that application dated November 17, 1982?  4 A   Yes, it looks like his signature.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Oh, this is — I have just been advised, my  6 lord, this is already an exhibit.  7 THE COURT:  Oh, is it?  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  And Miss Sigurdson is going to tell me.  I think  9 it went in for Alfred Joseph and perhaps I could  10 advise your lordship of it after the noon hour  11 adjournment, if that's appropriate.  12 THE COURT:  All right.  13 MR. MACKENZIE:  I understand it's Exhibit 94A.  14 THE COURT:  Thank you.  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  16 Q   And the next page is a document apparently -- I beg  17 your pardon, apparently signed by Sylvester George  18 dated November 17, 1982.  Are you aware that Sylvester  19 George had this trapline before your uncle Alfred?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Yes.  And he transferred it to your uncle Alfred, did  22 he?  23 A   Yes.  I think that's -- I think that's the territory  24 that Unl oh' was allowed to use.  25 MR. MACKENZIE:  Could — do we have a spelling for that?  I  26 think Mr. Mitchell is looking for a spelling for that  27 word -- that name, my lord.  2 8 THE COURT:  Yes.  29 THE TRANSLATOR:   101.  3 0 THE COURT:  101.  31 Q   That's Cecilia George, is that correct?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And Cecilia George was Sylvester George's wife?  34 A  Mother.  35 Q   I beg your pardon.  Sylvester George's mother?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   Do you recognize Sylvester George's signature there on  38 this document?  39 A   I don't know what Sylvester's signature looks like, I  40 am sorry.  41 Q   Now, moving over two pages to a handwritten document  42 dated September 8, 1982.  This is Exhibit 84C in this  43 trial, my lord.  44 MR. GRANT:  Which, the one you are now referring to?  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  46 Q   Do you -- this says that Sylvester George agrees to  47 sell his trapline to Mr. Alfred Wilson.  Do you recall 4428  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 that happening?  2 A   No.  3 THE COURT:  Should we adjourn Mr. Mackenzie, please.  4  5 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED PURSUANT TO LUNCHEON  6 ADJOURNMENT)  7  8  9 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  10 a true and accurate transcript of the  11 proceedings herein to the best of my  12 skill and ability.  13  14  15  16  17 Laara Yardley,  18 Official Reporter,  19 United Reporting Service Ltd.  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 4429  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  THE  MR.  THE COURT  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 2:00)  REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty  the Queen at bar, my Lord.  COURT:  Mr. Mackenzie.  MACKENZIE:  Thank you, my Lord.  I just have a housekeeping  matter after your Lordship's reasons.  I have a  proposal to make about submitting the documents for an  exhibit, and my proposal is that this registrar's file  be marked as an exhibit having all the financial  statements deleted, and also I have a list of those,  and also all the documents following page 158 which  deal with the chattel mortgages and that sort of  documentation, so I would submit --  Well, why not -- are you tendering some of the  documents in that book without the financial  statements?  MACKENZIE:  All the financial statements to be deleted, to  be taken out, and then a new book or collection handed  up to your Lordship.  Any problem with that, Mr. Grant?  I thought that this document, a number had been  reserved for it, but I didn't know.  I don't think so.  What I would suggest is this is, what I propose a  number be reserved for it, my friend take the document  back that was the exhibit, and then put together all  of the documents he thinks should be in, and then --  Let you see it.  And then let me see it, and I'm sure we will be able  to agree.  All right.  I'll give you back your copy.  He can edit it as he wants and I will look at it.  REGISTRAR:  You want to reserve a number, my Lord?  COURT:  Yes.  What's the next number?  REGISTRAR:  344.  COURT:  Exhibit 344.  MACKENZIE:  344?  COURT:  Yes.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  EXHIBIT 344  Set of documents  MACKENZIE:  Q   Now, we were talking about traplines before we broke  for lunch, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, and now I would like to  refer you to the documents at volume 2 tab 10.  Yes.  You've got the application there, Mr. William D. 4430  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Milton, and I'm instructed that this gentleman, that  2 his company holds the trapline, covers the  3 Spookw-Seeley Lake area.  Do you know William D.  4 Milton?  5 A   I don't know William D. Milton.  6 Q   Do you know Jimmy Ryan, whose name also appears?  7 A   No, I don't know.  8 Q   And are you aware that -- you say you don't know him.  9 Do you know that he is Don Ryan's brother?  10 A   I didn't know that, I didn't know that.  11 MR. MACKENZIE:  And the next document to which I wish to refer  12 is at tab 11 of volume 2, and we're going to turn over  13 the page to the -- turning to the fourth page in this  14 document, which is an application for registration of  15 a trapline by Charles Austin.  I have the original  16 document, which I'm going to show my friend, because  17 the signature seems to be clearer on that original  18 document.  Does the original have a date on it?  Where, date of application?  Anywhere.  13th of March, '79.  Just a moment, my Lord.  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  The original application appears — the front or  24 the first page appears in the document book.  I note  25 that there is a reverse as well to this document, but  26 looking at the --  27 MR. GRANT:  Which is not —  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  Which is not shown.  29 MR. GRANT:  Which is not in the document book.  30 MR. MACKENZIE:  31 Q   Which is not in the document book.  I'm showing you  32 the front side of the document, which is an  33 application for registration of a trapline, and it's  34 dated March 13, 1979, and it appears to be signed by  35 Charles Austin.  Can you identify that as your  36 father's signature, please -- I'm sorry -- your  37 stepfather's signature?  38 A   Yes.  39 THE COURT:  Do you recognize it?  40 A   Yes.  41 THE COURT:  Want to put in the original?  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, I think that —  43 MR. GRANT:  Well, the copy, yes, given that the copy that you  44 have in front of you, my Lord, isn't really -- I  45 wouldn't say is a true copy, because the back of it  46 isn't shown anywhere.  The original should go as an  47 exhibit.  I'm going to ask my friend to provide me  19 THE COURT  2 0 MR. GRANT  21 THE COURT  22 MR. GRANT 4431  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 with a copy of both sides in due course.  2 MR. MACKENZIE:  Might I ask that a number be reserved for this  3 document and we'll provide copies.  4 THE COURT:  355?  5 MR. GRANT:  Well, you can probably —  6 THE REGISTRAR:  345, my Lord.  7 THE COURT:  345.  8 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 11 reserved.  9 THE COURT:  Yes.  10  11 EXHIBIT 345 - Application for registration of a  12 trapline dated March 13, 1979  13  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  15 Q   Now, I'm referring to the -- I'm going to refer to the  16 document Exhibit 345, and perhaps I will hand this up  17 to your Lordship after we've referred to it, because  18 this is the reverse, which doesn't appear.  On the  19 reverse of that document, Exhibit 345, there's a  20 notation:  21  22 "By virtue of a Hagwilget Band Council motion  23 dated 1, February, '77 this trapline transferred  24 to Austin, Charles on 13, March, '79."  25  26 Now, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, the document Exhibit 345 also  27 indicates this was formerly the trapline of Joseph  2 8 Seymour.  Did you know Joseph Seymour?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And are you aware that this trapline was transferred  31 from Joseph Seymour to your father?  32 A   No.  33 Q   Your stepfather?  34 A   I didn't know that.  35 THE COURT:  You didn't know that?  36 A   No.  37 MR. MACKENZIE:  38 Q   Did you know that Joseph Seymour had the trapline  39 before your stepfather ever took it over?  4 0          A   No.  41 Q   Do you know when -- did you know when your father took  42 over the trapline?  43 A   No.  That's the first time I've seen this too.  44 Q   All right.  Does your Lordship wish to see the  45 original document?  46 A   Not just now, no.  47 Q   My Lord, we will have a copy.  And moving to another 4432  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 subject and finally on this topic, as follows from his  2 Lordship's ruling this morning, I want to ask you  3 briefly about some of the activities of the Tribal  4 Council Association.  Could you tell his Lordship what  5 the activity known as the Fish Management Programme  6 was?  7 A   It was -- I think that's the study that's done on fish  8 management.  9 Q   Do you know anything else about it?  10 A   No.  That's all I know.  11 THE COURT:  A study done by the tribal council?  12 A   Yes.  13 MR. MACKENZIE:  14 Q   You don't know what the reason was for that study?  15 A   No, I don't.  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  Can you tell his Lordship what the project known  17 as the Pearse Commission related to?  18 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Pearse has had many commissions.  Which  19 one are you talking about, Mr. Mackenzie?  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's correct, my Lord.  I'm talking about the  21 one --  22 THE COURT:  The fish or the forestry?  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  24 Q   That's what I was -- that's why I was asking the  25 question, my Lord.  With respect to the tribal  26 council, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, can you tell me what  27 project the tribal council may have had relating to  28 the Pearse Commission?  29 A   He appeared in Prince Rupert, I think, and submissions  30 were made to him by different peoples, and I think --  31 I think it was in the fishery.  I'm uncertain about it  32 though.  33 Q   Well, did the tribal council make representations?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   Yes.  And can you tell his Lordship what the project  36 known as Kemano 2 Research was?  37 A  Well, that is the -- that's that project that was  38 going to take place, and I thought everybody knew what  39 that was, Kemano 2, there's so much talk about it in  40 the media.  It's to do with what effects it would have  41 on our rivers.  42 Q   And what was the tribal council --  43 A  And especially the salmon, what would happen.  44 Q   Oh, yes.  And what did the tribal council do with  45 respect to that project?  46 A   There was many meetings on it, but I can't remember  47 the outcome of it now, right this minute. 4433  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 Q   Can you recall why the tribal council may have been --  2 sorry -- what the involvement of the tribal council  3 may have been with respect to the Kemano 2?  Was the  4 tribal council conducting research related to that  5 project; do you know?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And did they have a purpose for that research; do you  8 know?  9 A  Well, one of the reasons is that the chiefs were  10 concerned about the effects, like I said, what would  11 happen as a result of that project if it went through.  12 Q   Was it proposed that the tribal council would make  13 recommendations to some government or group related to  14 that project?  15 A  Well, they had to do this research, and from there the  16 chiefs would be told what the report was about and  17 what the effects were from that project, or would be,  18 and then to take it from there.  19 Q   Can you tell me what programmes the tribal council  20 might have had which could be characterized as band  21 training?  22 A   Band training?  23 Q   Yeah?  24 A   It's for different workshops that would -- help  25 different band staffs.  26 Q   When you say --  27 A   It would get different resource people in to put on  28 for training programmes.  29 Q   Was that done for your band, for example?  30 A  Well, usually certain members of staff would attend,  31 depends on what the workshop was about.  32 Q   Members of the Hagwilget band staff would attend  33 workshops sponsored by the tribal council; is that  34 fair to summarize?  35 A  Well, the tribal council would have been instructed to  36 set it up, yes.  37 Q   And what subjects did the training involve?  38 A  Well, there's -- let's see.  The different programmes  39 that -- we were right in the band office, get an  40 education, social development, and sometimes housing.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  Now, there apparently was a tribal council  42 programme or activity known as the Education Society.  43 Would you know what that was, please?  44 MR. GRANT:  When is my friend referring to?  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  46 Q   In 1983?  47 A  Well, the type of thing that the Education Society did 4434  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  was, for instance, the setting up the N.I.T.E.P.  programme.  Q   What would that be, please?  A   The Native Indian Teachers Education Programme.  And  that was one programme that was quite successful in  that they had a large number of students from an area  that trained right in our own area and then completed  down in Victoria, University of Victoria.  Q   And can you tell us, please, what an activity with the  initials N.N.A.D.A.P. might be?  A   N.N. — oh, that's N.N.A.D.A.P.  Let's see, that's the  alcohol and drug abuse counselling programme.  Q   And is that a service that the tribal council provided  for the member bands?  A  Well, I can't say that it was just for the bands,  because that also included non-Indian people who went  in there for counselling, as far as I understand.  Q   And can you tell us about a programme which was  described as Habitat Investigation?  A   No.  I don't know too much about that one.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Now, without commenting at all on the money or  funding, can you summarize for his Lordship what in  1983 the tribal council was doing in its land claims  activities?  MR. GRANT:  Well, my Lord, I would object to this question to  the extent that it will touch upon preparation of  research and work, the preparation of the plaintiffs  for this litigation to that extent.  In other words,  I'm not saying my friend can't touch the subject at  all, but I think he must be very careful in moving  into it, and it's going to be hard.  THE COURT:  I don't see what the difficulty is.  MR. GRANT:  In terms of privilege, what I'm stating is I don't  want my friend to touch on the --  THE COURT:  If it is a question of privilege I expect to hear  from him, but I don't see where the risk of privilege  is at the moment.  MR. GRANT:  What I'm saying is, my Lord, that at that point in  time there was preparations going on in contemplation  of litigation.  I don't want my friend to venture into  that realm.  THE COURT:  But the privilege can only relate to whatever the  lawyers were doing in preparation for litigation, it  wouldn't apply to an organization such as the tribal  council, the way I see it at the moment anyways.  MR. GRANT:  My Lord, it would to the extent that persons working  at the tribal council were working under the 4435  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 instructions of a lawyer and preparing work and  2 material for the lawyers.  In my submission that would  3 apply, and the research was being conducted at the  4 instruction of the lawyers.  I think that is  5 privileged.  6 THE COURT:  No doubt that the material they prepared, the fact  7 that they were doing, I shouldn't think should be  8 privileged, would it?  9 MR. GRANT:  I don't know how far my friend wishes to delve into  10 it.  11 THE COURT:  All right, let's find out.  12 MR. GRANT:  I'm giving him a caution, that's what I'm saying  13 now.  14 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right, Mr. Mackenzie.  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  16 Q   Thank you, my Lord.  In your last year as a  17 vice-president in 1982 and 1983 can you summarize for  18 his Lordship what activities the tribal council was  19 conducting relating to land claims?  20 A   Not if it was in research and -- researchers were  21 going to the -- to the different elders who knew about  22 the different boundaries, that was part of it.  23 Q   So is it fair to say that at that time tribal council  24 researchers were investigating the boundaries of the  25 Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en territories?  26 A  What do you mean "Investigating"?  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Was it fair to say they were researching  28 the location?  29 THE COURT:  Collecting information?  30 A   Yes.  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  32 Q   That's correct, my Lord.  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And the researchers, among other sources, had Alfred  35 Joseph -- sorry -- Alfred Joseph and Leonard George  36 were two of these researchers, weren't they?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And they went, and as you say, they conducted  39 interviews with elders of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  40 people; is that correct?  41 A   Yes  42 Q   And they interviewed the elders to find out about  43 the -- their histories and the locations of the  44 various territories; is that fair to say?  45 A  Well, I don't know what method they used.  I just know  46 that they were out collecting information.  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Now, my Lord, I've spoken to my friend 4436  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 about this next document I propose to -- which I  2 propose to refer, and there is I think some question  3 about this in view of your Lordship's ruling this  4 morning.  This is a document which appears at book  5 number 1 volume 1 tab 11, and it's dated July 11 --  6 sorry -- it's dated July, 1977.  Now, this is a  7 document, my Lord, as I'm instructed, that was  8 prepared by the predecessor to the Tribal Council  9 Association, that is the Gitksan-Carrier Tribal  10 Council, and as I understand it it was prepared in  11 preparation for the submissions of the comprehensive  12 land claim to the federal government in 1977.  This  13 document contains on some of the -- at least two pages  14 a reference to a request for funds, but in my  15 submission that portion of the document I made a note  16 of, it could be deleted or excised without -- it could  17 be deleted and excised and the remainder of the  18 document, which is -- could be used or introduced.  It  19 is a summary of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and  20 Carrier people's position over the years on aboriginal  21 title.  It speaks about the collection of evidence to  22 support the claim for aboriginal title, speaks about  23 aboriginal title, research of the eight villages, and  24 refers to the historical basis for the claim being  25 prepared, and it goes into the chronology at page 4  26 and 5 of the aboriginal title claims, and on page 7  27 there is a reference to traplines and the relationship  28 of traplines to the concept of aboriginal title.  2 9 THE COURT:  On what basis do you put it forward?  30 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, my Lord, I am going to be — first point  31 is that it was marked as Exhibit 7 on Mr. Sterritt's  32 examination for discovery.  33 MR. GRANT:  For identification.  34 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  And Mr. Grant refused to permit any  35 questions to be answered relating to this document.  36 And Mr. Grant can state his position much better than  37 I, but in summary his position was that this document  38 was related to funding and therefore no questions  39 would be permitted on the material in this document,  40 which as I have indicated contains --  41 THE COURT:  Well, apart from what it contains, what basis do you  42 put it forward as admissible?  43 MR. MACKENZIE:  It's been put forward, and I propose to put it  44 to the witness, my Lord.  The first point, it's a  45 document of the tribal council before it was  46 incorporated, and it's intimately related to the  47 activities of the current association and to -- 4437  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 certainly to the activities referred to -- activities  2 which have been referred to in evidence today,  3 specifically the submission by the tribal council of a  4 claim to the federal government in 1977 to the  5 minister.  We've had exhibited in evidence now the  6 declaration that was presented at that time, the map  7 that was presented, and excerpts from Mr. Sterritt's  8 affidavit relating to that map and to that  9 presentation, and also excerpts from band bylaws  10 relating to that presentation.  That's all intimately  11 related to -- of course to this document which leads  12 up to that presentation.  So I would be asking the  13 vice-president of the tribal council to confirm this  14 document was submitted and to commence the land -- to  15 commence the land claims research.  16 MR. GRANT:  I will point out, my Lord, that this document on its  17 face appears to have been prepared in July 1977, two  18 years before this witness gave evidence, and was  19 prepared by -- my friend colloquially calls it the  20 predecessor of the tribal council.  It was prepared by  21 a group of people, it's what -- it was prepared by --  22 presumably there was no incorporated entity at all,  23 but that's not the principal point.  The principal  24 point is that my friend suggests that somehow he can  25 tie this document into this witness.  Well, this is  26 two years before this witness was involved at all.  27 THE COURT:  No.  It can be tied to the plaintiffs.  28 MR. GRANT:  This document -- well, he -- the question is how can  29 he introduce this document to this witness, a document  30 that was introduced -- prepared two years before her  31 involvement?  I mean, you know, I mean my friend may  32 be jumping the gun on it, he may well be able to  33 establish it through a witness, but this isn't the  34 witness.  35 THE COURT:  I think he's entitled to try.  36 MR. GRANT:  He's entitled to try, okay, let him try, but my  37 Lord --  38 THE COURT:  You see, I don't think — I don't want anyone to  39 reach the conclusion that because there's some  40 possibility that funding might be touched that it  41 therefore becomes forbidden territory.  Funding or the  42 details of funding are only incidently involved.  43 That's not going to create a bar to admissibility.  44 The question here is whether or not it's a document  45 that the witness knows about and in what circumstances  46 it might fairly be taken to be evidence that would  47 relate to any issues that are -- that are relevant in 4438  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. GRANT  this case by reason of being attributable in some way  to the plaintiffs.  It may well be that the plaintiffs  could not adduce it themselves.  It might be  self-serving or there maybe other reasons why it could  not be adduced by the plaintiffs.  That doesn't stop  opposing council representing parties adversely from  seeking to have it admitted in.  That it is some  evidence that in some ways affects the case.  There's  opposing -- I think Mr. Mackenzie is entitled to  examine the witness about it and make a determination  whether it's admissible or not.  Yes, I agree, my Lord, on this.  On a quick review  of this document it appears to me that it is not a  document -- and I haven't had a chance to look at it  closely or I have not looked at it closely, but it  does not appear to me that it refers to budgets or to  funding in that sense.  It's part of a document  relating to requests for funding, and I -- I just  suggest that the point about its admissibility, that  I'm not going to concede that it could be admitted  because of all the statements my friend has said.  I'm not either, but I think your friend --  Certainly he can ask the witness about it.  Mr. Grant, what is the noise I hear outside?  I don't know.  Can you find out what it's about.  I'm not going to  allow that sort of noise.  There are many many trials  going on in this courthouse.  I don't think you can  lightly allow that to happen.  We will adjourn for a  few minutes, please.  (SHORT BREAK TAKEN)  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  MR. GRANT:  Yes, my Lord, I can advise the court for the record,  I spoke with my clients at the break, and my clients  were not the persons involved at all.  All right.  They didn't know anything about it.  Well, I've called for the sheriffs.  They'll look  All right, go ahead, Mr.  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  after it, I'm sure  Mackenzie.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Q   Thank you, my Lord.  Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, before I turn  to this document at tab 11, can you tell me in 1978 or  1979 when you started as vice-president how many  employees the -- there were at the tribal council? 4439  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 A   I can't remember.  2 Q   Was there under five, can you remember that sort of  3 thing?  4 A   Could be.  5 Q   And in 1983 when you completed your term as -- your  6 term as vice-president, how many employees would there  7 be?  Would you say more than five?  8 A   Yes.  More than five.  9 Q   Would you say more than ten?  10 A   In '83?  Yes.  11 Q   Would you say more than 15?  12 A   There's more than ten, that's all.  13 Q   Okay.  And in 1978 can you say how many researchers --  14 or when you say employees, you're not speaking about  15 the researchers, are you?  16 A  Well, I was including them.  17 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  And the tribal council also commissioned  18 the professional people to prepare reports for the  19 land claims research, did it not, the historians?  20 MR. GRANT:  When is my friend speaking of?  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  22 Q   I'm speaking during the period 1979 to 1983?  23 A   Yes.  They have employed different people.  24 Q   They had a contract with Professor John Cove, the  25 anthropologist; do you recall that?  26 A   Yes.  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  And he —  28 THE COURT:  C-o-e?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  C-o-v-e, my Lord.  3 0 THE COURT:  Thank you.  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  32 Q   And the tribal council also sent researchers to  33 Carlton University to be instructed by Professor Cove;  34 is that true?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Yes?  And those researchers were instructed in  37 research relating to land claims; is that true?  38 A   I wasn't told what their courses were, I just know  39 they went.  40 MR. GRANT:  My Lord, I just wonder if -- we're now moving into  41 the depths of the level of detail that is beyond sort  42 of the scope of --  43 THE COURT:  No.  I don't think so, Mr. Grant.  This can't be  44 very offensive at all.  45 MR. GRANT:  It's only going to be offence, my Lord, if my friend  46 starts to list --  47 THE COURT:  Don't worry about what's offensive, or we would 4440  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  never have a lawsuit, nobody could say anything about  the other side.  Don't be quite so sensitive, Mr.  Grant.  This isn't —  GRANT:  No, my Lord.  If my friend is trying to get  disclosure as to experts who are preparing work in  anticipation of this litigation --  COURT:  He already knows who this is apparently.  He didn't  get the name of this person from the witness, he knew  it already.  GRANT:  Yes.  COURT:  Come on, let's keep going, if we can.  MACKENZIE:  My Lord, again it's a question of the last  word --  COURT:  Let's not worry about the last word.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Yes, my Lord.  Thank you, my Lord.  And in 1979 when  you started as vice-president, Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, did  the tribal council have offices?  A   Yes.  Q   And where were those offices?  A   In Hazelton.  Q   Hazelton?  And by 1983 had they moved to new offices?  A   I can't remember when they moved.  Q   They moved at sometime?  A   Yes.  Q   And did they move to their present offices at that  time?  In '83?  No.  Yes.  Do you know where the tribal council is now?  A  Q  A  Q  No.  Have you been to the offices the tribal council has  now?  A Yes.  Q   Yes.  And you're aware that there's a large library  that has been developed in the tribal council offices?  A   Yes.  Q   You do have occasion to just to use that library as a  reference tool or a resource?  A   No.  Q   Now, referring to tab 11 in document book number 1,  volume 1, now, are you aware that before the  association was formed there was a group of people  known as the Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council?  A   Pardon me?  Q   The Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council existed and carried  on business before the association was formed in 1978,  didn't it? 4441  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 A   I don't understand what you mean?  2 Q   There was a tribal council?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   For the Gitksan-Carrier people before 1978, wasn't  5 there?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Yes.  And then when you returned in 1979 you became a  8 director of the Tribal Council Association, didn't  9 you?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Now, you indicated in your evidence that the tribal  12 council have presented a claim to the federal  13 government in late 1977; do you recall that evidence?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   Yes.  And you're aware that the tribal council applied  16 for support to enable it to prepare research for that  17 meeting and to prepare that claim; is that the case?  18 A   Could you —  19 Q   You knew that the tribal council had to have some  20 support, financial support and funding, to prepare its  21 land claims submission to the federal minister, didn't  22 you?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Yes.  Now, this document is a -- it appears to be a  25 request for funding for research by the  26 Gitksan-Carrier Land Claims Committee.  Do you see  27 that on the front page?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Yes.  And are you aware that Mr. Neil Sterritt  30 prepared this application for funding for the Tribal  31 Council Land Claims?  32 A   I don't know who prepared this, but I just see his  33 name written on here.  Is this the same page that --  34 MR. MACKENZIE:  Oh, yes, I think so.  35 THE COURT:  But she's looking at the name on the exhibit stamp.  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  37 Q   Yes.  You're looking at the name on the exhibit stamp,  38 aren't you?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Yes.  So my question is you were aware that this  41 application for funding was made.  Have you seen this  42 particular document before?  43 A   I might have.  I would have to look at it all first.  44 Q   Look at it.  The first page -- first paragraph deals  45 with -- just go through the document with you here.  46 The table of contents refers to the summary and the  47 introduction and basis for the claim, and then a plan 4442  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 and schedule which sets out the way that the tribal  2 council is going to go about preparing its claim.  3 Then the next page, which follows the table of  4 contents, is a list of appendices, different documents  5 that were -- I haven't seen but apparently were added,  6 and the next page is a -- has the first numbered  7 paragraph, is a summary, the summary of the -- who the  8 tribal council is and who they represent.  Do you see  9 that?  10 A   Isn't this the page you showed me yesterday?  11 Q   No.  This is a different one.  12 A   Oh.  All the papers are starting to look the same.  13 Q   Yes.  I understand that.  And the next page is an  14 introduction and it's -- it describes the  15 Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council, and it talks about the  16 eight villages and it speaks about over the years  17 before this time the villages having a working  18 committee preparing -- working on land claims.  Down  19 at the bottom it says that the Hagwilget and  20 Moricetown are Carrier villages and that the Carrier  21 nation wishes to have Hagwilget and Moricetown joined  22 in submitting a proposal to Ottawa.  And then over the  23 next page there's a reference to Kitwancool and the  24 mention that Kitwancool will have their own claim, and  25 then down at paragraph 3 there's a discussion of the  26 basis for the --  27 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Mackenzie, if you want the witness to read  28 the document, if she hasn't already done so, maybe you  29 should do so.  It doesn't seem to me to be useful to  30 give her this kind of a piecemeal summary unless it's  31 for the purpose of reminding her of the document or  32 something.  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's the reason I was.  34 THE COURT:  Well, please, either she should read it or maybe she  35 recognized it.  We haven't asked her if she recognized  36 it or not.  37 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  My Lord, she says she might have seen it.  38 THE COURT:  Yes.  Did we — can we not explore that further  39 without going through a somewhat long prolonged  40 description of what it is.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  42 Q   Yes, my Lord.  Mrs. Wilson-Kenni, have you seen that  43 document before?  44 A   No.  I haven't seen this in its -- like this.  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  Fine, thank you.  46 THE COURT:  May I inquire whether it's feasible for the parties  47 to prepare a list of documents and ask the other side 4443  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 to admit them?  There must be many documents that  2 we've had to identify here that could be done in a  3 more expeditious way.  Have there been no requests for  4 documents?  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  There have been extensive requests for  6 hundreds and hundreds of documents.  7 THE COURT:  Maybe you can —  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  I don't know, I can't say about that, my Lord.  9 THE COURT:  Well, it's not for me to say, but maybe we're taking  10 more than the amount of time gestating trying to find  11 out what somebody -- somebody knows about a document  12 when a good many of them the witness eventually says  13 yes, that's somebody's signature, and in it goes.  It  14 seems to me it need not be the subject of examination  15 or cross-examination at all.  I can't be more -- do  16 more than just make that suggestion out of a feeling  17 of defensiveness that I have that we're taking far  18 more time than we need to for some of these relatively  19 straightforward and possibly not controversial pieces  20 of evidence, but that's -- as I say, that's easy for  21 me to say.  22 MR. GRANT:  My Lord, I can say that this is a matter that we  23 have preferred to deal with as well, and I must say  24 that with this one, as with the corporate records we  25 are -- we were dealing with yesterday the difficulty  26 is that the approach appears to be that these  27 documents are all listed, but there's tens of  28 thousands of documents listed and we don't have the  29 luxury of the time to go through them all, but if my  30 friends have specific documents they want admitted it  31 would certainly help us if we had in the form of  32 notice to admit with the documents, and then we could  33 look at the specific documents.  We've also tried to  34 deal with an issue about the admissibility of certain  35 records, and that correspondence commencing last  36 February between Mr. Rush and Mr. Goldie is an ongoing  37 correspondence.  I've just seen the latest letter from  38 Mr. Goldie on that matter.  We had a proposal we  39 thought would resolve many of these matters in terms  40 of documents, and I agree, we don't want a witness  41 sitting in --  42 THE COURT:  I haven't much doubt that this is a document that  43 is in the records of tribal council and which is  44 probably admissible, but I suppose we can spend half  45 an hour on it now.  46 MR. GRANT:  And this document, to my knowledge, has never been  47 put to a notice to admit to us either, and that's the 4444  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 point, anymore than the corporate records, and if that  2 was the approach my friends would take which would  3 require some disclosure on there part it could  4 expedite matters.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  My Lord, I said, my Lord, that this has been  6 done and notices to admit have been sent, and with  7 that -- with the plaintiff's reaction to those notices  8 council for the Province realized that it's been a  9 frustrating and impossible proposition to get  10 admissions.  11 THE COURT:  I wonder, if it's been tried and you've given it a  12 fair try, I shouldn't have anymore to say.  All right.  13 Shall we take the afternoon break, please.  14 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  15  16 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 2:55)  17  18 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  19 a true and accurate transcript of the  20 proceedings herein transcribed to the  21 best of my skill and ability  22  23  24  25  26 Graham D. Parker  27 Official Reporter  28 United Reporting Services Ltd.  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  4 7 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT) 4445  Proceedings  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  GRANT:  COURT:  GRANT:  THE COURT  MR.  REGISTRAR:  Ready to proceed, my lord.  COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant.  Yes.  I just wanted to clarify a couple of points,  my lord.  The status of -- there are discussions  through correspondence of archival documents.  Yes.  And I confirmed with my friend at the break that the  document at tab 11 Exhibit 7 on Mr. Sterritt's  discovery has not been put into a Notice to Admit and  Mr. Rush was endeavoring -- we were endeavouring to  try to get an agreement on the archival documents and  deal with the other documents, and documents have been  delivered to us for Notices to Admit by way of list of  documents, and in the bundle of documents that we were  endeavoring to get the first agreement set up to avoid  certification problems.  But I think it's -- I concur  with your comments.  I think it would be helpful if we  don't have to put signatures to witnesses and things  like that.  The time we have wasted on trapline applications and  permits and things of that kind which are documents  that are provable one way or another, either as  business records or some other way, and this is a long  trial, but it doesn't have to be this long.  Yes.  Well, I we have Notices to Admit to our  friends as well and we are not -- I didn't want the  impression left with the court that we had slammed the  door shut or something like that on our friends,  because we are endeavoring to get an agreement on  archival documents now.  It seems to me it is possible to have a series of  Notices to Admit as you go along too.  I don't know  when this collection of documents is prepared, Mr.  Mackenzie, but if it was done a week ago, it might be  that all or some of them could have been copies sent  to your friends and asked them to admit them.  Then I  am not pointing fingers.  I am sure there is reasons  for what happens and I don't want to put blame on  anyone.  I am beginning to feel that we're spinning  our wheels here on things that are taking far longer  than they need to take.  MACAULAY:  On this subject I might explain something from  our point of view anyhow.  Although we don't put in  many documents occasionally we do.  We don't know what  documents to select to consider putting to a witness.  Generally speaking, we don't know that and until we  get the genealogy.  And so that's a what, a -- I won't  MR. GRANT  THE COURT 4446  Proceedings  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  THE COURT  MR  THE  MR.  MR.  call it a constraint.  But it's a limiting factor on  when we can deliver a set of documents to the -- to  other parties asking for them to admit them.  That's a  long winded way of saying the earlier we get  genealogies and the like the easier it would be to get  documents back and say will you please indicate  whether you will admit these documents or any of them.  I am sure without having the last word, Mr. Grant  understands the force of your comment, Mr. Macaulay.  Yes.  I only refer to the interrogatories which both  parties have had over a year, my lord, and that would  certainly give our friends a very big head start on  both the immediate families of the witnesses as well  as the house members.  Well, all right.  Let's see if we can move along,  please.  Mr. Mackenzie.  MACKENZIE:  My lord, I will have no further questions, and I  do not want to complete my cross-examination until my  friend advises your lordship and us about this map of  Spookw that he was searching for.  COURT:  All right.  Well, you can reserve that position.  MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  GRANT:  Maybe I can deal with it now especially when my  friend invites me to take the last word on it.  My  lord, I have confirmed with my office, I just wanted  to confirm with Mr. Rush's office, and I want to  advise the court.  My friend has introduced these two  maps.  The map that I have -- well, let me say this  is -- that I cannot determine which of those two maps  was intended to be appended.  But I can advise and  assure the court of this, that what has happened is  that in the file, and I probably cannot do that until  I return to my office and investigate the backup  files, but in the file relating to this interrogatory  it appears that both these maps were put in and  through inadvertence in my office that when copies  were made for the Federal Crown, because copies of all  these interrogatories were delivered around, when  copies of the interrogatory was made for the Federal  Crown a map different than that that had been appended  to the copy to the Provincial Crown was appended.  And  it was through inadvertence.  And so that is what  happened.  And I have the map with the interrogatory  that I have in my file, but that is the only  conclusion I can come to.  And if I had been alerted  to this somewhat earlier, it would have helped,  because I might have been able to get a better answer. 4447  Proceedings  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie  1 But there is no way I can really provide any more  2 answer than that.  And I have checked with my own  3 office up north and with Mr. Rush's office and files  4 and I think that's all I can advise the court on.  5 That —  6 THE COURT:  Well, the way it stands now, Mr. Mackenzie says that  7 the map attached to tab six Exhibit 335 was attached  8 to the interrogatories of Stephen Robinson, which were  9 delivered to the Provincial Crown and the map which is  10 attached to tab seven Exhibit 336 for identification  11 was attached to the interrogatories of Mr. Robinson,  12 delivered to the Federal Crown.  That's the way it  13 stands at the moment.  14 MR. MACAULAY:  I can confirm, my lord, that the latter map was  15 the one delivered to the -- to us, yes.  16 THE COURT:  Well, that being so, without precluding your  17 opportunity to call further evidence or make further  18 explanations, in which case things can be changed, it  19 seems to me that I ought to mark 336 for  20 identification as Exhibit 336.  21 MR. GRANT:  I think that's appropriate that it's the one.  But I  22 just have to say that I am not certain --  23 THE COURT:  Well, you don't need to speak to the matter.  So 336  24 for identification is now 336.  25 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  26  27 (EXHIBIT 336:  Formerly Exhibit 336 for  28 Identification)  29  30 MR. MACKENZIE:  My lord, with respect, that leaves open the  31 other aspect of that map question which Mr. Grant  32 raised and that is I think Mr. Grant was saying that  33 he thought that a map of the New Hazelton Spookw  34 territory had been sent and neither Mr. Macaulay for  35 Canada or I for the Province received any other map.  3 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  37 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  I am sorry, my lord, that's quite true.  I did  38 not -- that was my misunderstanding and I understand  39 that neither map was sent, and from a review of my  40 files that's what was sent was --  41 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  42 MR. GRANT:  It wasn't that there was an inadvertence.  43 Everything has been sent in terms of the maps related  44 to the interrogatories.  45 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Macaulay.  46  47 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MACAULAY: 4448  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 Q   Witness, when you were a director of the Tribal  2 Council, do you remember the formation or  3 incorporation of the Northern Native Fishing  4 Corporation in 1982?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   And was it your understanding that the -- that  7 corporation was to purchase a lot of salmon licences  8 and fishing vessels?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And that corporation was established by three Tribal  11 Councils including your own?  12 A   That's right.  13 Q   And the other two Tribal Councils were the Nishga  14 Tribal Council and the North Coast Tribal Council, is  15 that right?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   I should explain, my lord, that the North Coast Tribal  18 Council is the Tsimshian Nation Tribal Council.  19 MR. GRANT:  I think there is another one called — there is  20 another Tsimshian.  21 MR. MACAULAY:  Another one.  22 Q   Well, at any rate, it was the North Coast Tribal  23 Council was the third member of that?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And the -- these licences were -- rather, the vessels  26 were sold to members of these three Tribal Councils?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   The initial vessels?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And I am told that in 1982 a total of 79 salmon  31 fishing vessels were either owned or operated by  32 members of your Tribal Council.  Does that -- do you  33 remember that or does that seem about right?  34 A   Seems about right, yes.  35 Q   Yes.  And in fact, one of the persons who operated a  36 fishing vessel under that program was the chief of  37 your House, that is Mr. Steve Robinson?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   He had been an active fisherman for many years before  40 that, hadn't he?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   He was a commercial fisherman?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   With many other members of your House commercial  45 fishermen, the House of Spookw?  4 6 A   No.  47 Q   Was he the only one? 4449  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 A  As far as I know, yes.  2 Q   And up to the time that you left the Tribal Council,  3 was it 1983?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   That program was going on, was it?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And do you remember what happened to the licences held  8 by the Northern Native Fishing Corporation, the  9 fishing licences, were they given out to individuals  10 or were they held by the corporation?  11 A   I am not too sure.  I am afraid I can't answer that.  12 Q   I take it that although you knew this was going on you  13 weren't particularly active in running that?  14 A   That's right.  15 Q   Who was it in the Tribal Council who took a -- on your  16 Tribal Council who took a special interest in that  17 enterprise?  18 A   It was mainly the president at the time.  19 Q   Was that Neil Sterritt?  20 A   No.  It was Ray Jones.  21 Q   Ray Jones.  22 THE COURT:  Were these salt water fishing vessels?  23 A   Yes.  24 MR. MACAULAY:  Yes.  Perhaps I will clarify that.  25 THE COURT:  Gillnet boats or seine boats or do we know?  2 6 A   I don't know.  27 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  2 8 MR. MACAULAY:  29 Q   Well, I will ask the witness.  Perhaps she will  30 recall.  31 Q   The vessels in question were gillnet and trolling  32 vessels?  33 A   That sounds like it, yes.  34 Q   And the licences included some licences for a special  35 licence for herring or do you remember?  36 A   I don't know that.  37 Q   Okay.  But the -- this was a commercial fishing  38 enterprise, wasn't it?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And that's all done on the coast?  41 A   Yes.  42 MR. MACAULAY:   My lord, when we talk of the coast generally  43 speaking in this trial we were referring to Prince  44 Rupert and the approaches to Prince Rupert and the sea  45 beyond.  46 THE COURT:  Well, I don't know how far up the Skeena they fish  47 by gillnetters. 4450  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1  MR.  MACAUL  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  6  MR.  GRANT:  7  THE  COURT:  8  MR.  GRANT:  9  10  THE  COURT:  11  MR.  MACAUL  12  13  THE  COURT:  14  MR.  GRANT:  15  16  THE  COURT:  17  MR.  MACAUL  18  Q  19  A  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  34  A  35  Q  36  A  37  Q  38  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  A  AY:  Nor do I, my lord, but I don't think it's very  far.  Tide water, I believe.  I am spoiled.  I gillnetted in rivers and inlets and  we went at long way in the inlets, so I don't know  what they do on the Skeena.  Some witness some day --  I am sure we will come to that.  We will come to it.  I think there is also commercial fisheries much  further inland than my friend suspects.  I do too, but we will find out from that witness.  AY:  There is none, as I understand it, in the claim  area that I have heard of.  We'll see.  We'll see.  I don't know if my friend is correct or  not.  Something for you to look into it.  AY:  I learn something new every day in this trial.  Now, Mr. Steve Robinson is the -- has the name Spookw?  Yes.  And his sister also has a name. I pronounce it  Yagosip, Y-a-g-o-s-i-p. Do you know that or --  Yes.  Do you know her?  Yes.  And is she a chief in her own right, a hereditary  chief?  Yes.  So she is the head of another House?  Yes.  Also the Wolf Clan?  Yes.  And as you understand it, Steve Robinson represents  her House, that is his sister's House, in this action?  Yes.  Do you know where she lives, Yagosip?  In Hazelton.  Oh.  And during your evidence, and I don't remember  whether it was in cross-examination or when Mr. Grant  was asking you questions, you were asked about a  person whose name -- and I'll spell it, because I  can't pronounce it, M-e-d-i-g-i-m-g-y-e-t.  Do you  recognize that name?  Yes.  And is that somebody in Yagosip's House?  Guuhadak.  Not in Yagosip's House?  No. 4451  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 Q   And here is another name I will spell, and both these  2 names appear in Mr. Steve Robinson's interrogatory  3 answer.  The next name is M-e-d-e-g-e-m-g-a-t.  Is  4 that the same person or another person?  5 A   Same.  6 Q   It's the same?  7 A   Yes.  Just spelt different.  8 Q   And if Mr. Robinson were to say that that person, the  9 name I can't pronounce, was in Yagosip's House he  10 would have been mistaken, is that right?  11 A   I don't know if he was mistaken.  12 Q   Well —  13 A   I don't know if he said that.  14 Q   Did you read the answers he gave on interrogatory when  15 the Province gave him interrogatories?  16 A   Only when he was going through it with me.  17 Q   But not before that?  18 A   No.  19 MR. GRANT:  Indicating Mr. Mackenzie, my lord, for the record.  2 0    MR. MACAULAY:  Yes.  21 Q   Well, I have a copy of that and I will read you what I  22 understand to be Mr. Robinson's answer to a question.  23 The number is 32.  Now, the question was as you can  24 see, if you have a copy there, question:  25  2 6 "If you -- "  27  28 Well, I suppose you have to go back to question 31 to  29 put it in context, and the question 31 is:  30  31 " Do you know any hereditary chiefs of the  32 Gitksan who are not plaintiffs in this  33 action?  34 A Yes."  35  36 Question 32:  37  38 " If you do, identify them and state why to  39 your knowledge these hereditary chiefs of  40 the Gitksan are not plaintiffs."  41  42 And then there is a long answer about the Kitwancool  43 chiefs and we all know that they are not plaintiffs.  44 But then it goes on, the answer goes on and the  45 second -- well, the last sentence in the answer reads:  46  47 "I am authorized to speak for Yagosip.  The other 4452  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1  2  3  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  15  THE  COURT  16  MR.  GRANT  17  THE  COURT  18  MR.  GRANT  19  THE  COURT  20  MR.  GRANT  21  22  MR.  MACAU  23  MR.  GRANT  24  MR.  MACAU  25  Q  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  36  A  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  A  chiefs in Yagosip's House are Haydda; Medigmgyet;  Beon."  You see that part of the answer 32?  Yes.  And it appears that name Medigmgyet according to Mr.  Robinson's information is in Yagosip's House.  That's  what it seems to say, isn't it?  That's what it seems to say, yes.  But you don't agree with that?  Just shows that I have to research it more, I guess.  Oh, all right.  That's the way I understood it that it was in  Guuhadak's House.  Could I have a spelling for Guuhadak.  Guuhadak.  Yes.  G-u-u-h-a-d-a-k.  Thank you.  I wonder if my friend is going to be putting this  answer in or filing this answer.  AY:  No, I don't.  I can deal with it on redirect then.  AY:  Now, Yagosip is of the same House as Steve Robinson,  belongs to the same House and clan?  Same clan, yes.  Same clan but different House?  Well, I thought that her House was another extension.  You mean a wing?  Yes.  A wing of Spookw?  Yes.  Oh.  Is that what you had heard in the Feast hall  that —  No.  That's what I just understood.  Well, Spookw is your House?  That's right.  And in fact you are a chief in Spookw?  That's right.  And at the Feast the wings are always there, aren't  they?  Yeah.  And she has her own House.  But was it your understanding from all the Feasts you  have attended that Yagosip, the House of Yagosip, was  really a wing of Spookw?  Say that again? 4453  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 Q   Well, up to now, up till today, was it your  2 understanding that Yagosip, the House of Yagosip --  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   -- was a wing or in some way a part of the House of  5 Spookw?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   I see.  8 THE COURT:  But a separate House?  9 A   Yes.  10 THE COURT:  So really a wing of the clan then?  11 A   Yes.  12 THE COURT:  Can you have wings of clans as much as wings of a  13 House.  14 A   No.  Not wings of clans.  15 MR. MACAULAY:  No.  16 A   She is Steven's sister.  And --  17 THE COURT:  So why aren't they in the same House?  They have the  18 same mother.  19 A   I can't explain it, but there are cases where there  20 are like a different House.  21 THE COURT:  All right.  22 MR. MACAULAY:  2 3 Q   And —  24 A   But they are very close.  25 Q   Well, you are very close to a Wet'suwet'en House?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   But they are not a wing of your House?  2 8 A   No.  29 Q   No.  Although that closely associated Wet'suwet'en  30 House is the same clan?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   They are Wolf Clan?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   Now, Robert Robinson is Chief Steve Robinson's brother  35 or was?  36 A  Was, yes.  37 Q   And he died three years ago?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Now, his Feast, the Feast after he died, what House  40 gave that Feast?  41 A  Well, we were all there.  Spookw gave it.  Steven was  42 in charge of the House -- I mean the Feast.  43 Q   And so it was the House of Spookw --  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   -- that gave the Feast?  46 A   That's what I understood when I was there.  47 Q   So Robert Robinson is a member of the House of Spookw? 4454  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 A No, he isn't.  2 Q He isn't?  3 A No.  4 Q But he is Steve Robinson's brother?  5 A Yes.  And the Steve also is holding Medigmgyet.  6 Q Well, don't all brothers and sisters belong to the  7 same House?  8 A Yes.  9 Q Well, why then is Robert not in the same House as  10 Steve?  11 A Because the House of Spookw Steve is just holding that  12 name for us.  13 Q Is he not a member of the House of Spookw by ancestry,  14 Steve?  15 A We are still researching that.  16 Q You are not sure if he is or not?  17 A No.  18 Q Oh.  And how about Perry Robinson who died in 1981,  19 that's another brother of Steve Robinson?  20 A Yes.  21 Q And who put on the Feast then?  22 A Steven.  23 Q Steven put on the Feast?  24 A Yes.  25 Q But did he put on the Feast -- did the Spookw put on  26 the Feast, whole House put the Feast?  27 A Well, I was there because I was a House of Spookw and  28 Steven was putting on the Feast.  29 Q Yes.  30 A Now, he could have been putting that Feast on under  31 his responsibility to Medigmgyet.  32 Q Has he got a name in Medigmgyet?  33 A Well, that's the name Medigmgyet that he also has.  34 Q That's the name that's in Guuhadak's House?  35 A Yes.  36 Q Well, then is Steve a member of Guuhadak's House?  37 A Well, he's also holding that still.  38 Q Well, have you ever asked Steve Robinson which House  39 he belongs to?  4 0 A No.  When you put it that way I never thought to come  41 straight out and ask which House.  I just know that he  42 is holding those names.  And my family are researching  43 it.  44 Q I see.  Now, his answers to interrogatories, Steve  45 Robinson -- I am now going to do 22, 23 and 26.  I  46 don't have a copy for the witness.  I will give mine  47 to the witness.  I'm showing you the -- this is his 4455  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 answers to the interrogatories again and it's -- I am  2 going to deal with parts of the 22 and 23 and 26,  3 but -- on the answers.  And 22, the question is:  4  5 "What is the nature of your authority as  6 hereditary chief of your House?"  7  8 And his answer is a lengthy one.  But let's see.  One,  9 two, three -- the fourth paragraph -- you turn the  10 page over to page 6, the fourth paragraph starts with  11 the sentence:  12  13 "The chief decides when his House will hold a  14 Feast."  15  16 Do you agree with that?  17 A   Uh-huh.  18 Q   And so Steve Robinson decides when Spookw will hold a  19 Feast?  20 A  A lot of these Feasts happen when someone dies.  21 Q   I understand that.  But the timing is something that  22 somebody has to decide?  23 A   Yeah.  So —  24 Q   This -- those are his words, not mine.  25 A   Uh-huh.  I understand that.  26 MR. GRANT:  I think that — I think if my friend is putting that  27 to the witness he should put the entire paragraph and  28 only this, because --  2 9    MR. MACAULAY:  Yeah.  30 MR. GRANT:  The paragraph describes when the chief decides to  31 hold a Feast, my lord, that's all.  32 MR. MACAULAY:  33 Q   Well, I will read the paragraph and that will perhaps  34 put it respectively.  The paragraph reads:  35  36 "The chief decides when his House will hold a  37 Feast.  The Feast is usually called when a member  38 of the House dies or when a name is being  39 transferred, when a headstone is put up or when a  40 totem pole is erected.  We also have Feasts  41 when someone important in our House is shameed in  42 public to reinstate back into our society a person  43 who has broken a Gitksan law or if a rule is  44 broken in the Feast hall.  If someone from my  45 House complains at a Feast then I as chief have to  46 put up a Feast to compensate for the disrespect."  47 4456  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 You see that, that's the whole paragraph?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   About the Feasts.  Now, there is the full answer.  4 There are apparently a number of circumstances unlike  5 Funeral Feasts where the chief will have to decide  6 when a Feast ought to be held, is that right?  7 A   Uh-huh.  8 Q   And in your House it would be Steve Robinson who would  9 decide if a Feast ought to be held and when?  10 A  Well, like in the case of -- in the case of our Stone  11 Feast and that, my mother goes to speak to him and he  12 is -- he is made aware of it.  13 Q   Your mother has a name in the House?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   She's a chief?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And what you are saying is that she -- they both  18 consult?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   But in the end I will put it ultimately, the head  21 chief, that's Steve --  22 A   Uh-huh.  23 Q   -- has the sole authority to make the final decision,  24 is that right?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And Steve has the power to adopt, that's adopt persons  27 into the House?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And he has the power to assign the use of the  30 territory to this person or that person?  31 A   Uh-huh.  32 Q   And he speaks for everyone on important matters?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   Okay.  And Steve Robinson has the authority of the  35 high chief of your House?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   Now, in -- he is also the moderator of the laws that  38 govern your House?  39 A  What do you mean moderator?  40 Q   Well, if you look at 26 -- this isn't the term I  41 thought up.  If you look at the answer to 26, the  42 question -- I should put the question in.  The  43 question was:  44  45 "What do you understand the word hereditary to  46 mean as it is used to describe you in paragraph  47 two of the further amended statement of claim?" 4457  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1  2 His answer is this:  3  4 "As hereditary chief I am the leader and head man  5 of the House and the moderator of our laws and  6 land.  This is an ongoing authority since the  7 beginning of time.  It is passed on ever since our  8 people existed in this country.  It has to do with  9 blood relationships and the strength of the House.  10 It is our law to pass on the name, the land,  11 fishing and berry picking territories to our new  12 chief."  13  14 That's the first paragraph of the answer and then the  15 second paragraph is:  16  17 "A hereditary chief has to be a blood relationship  18 from your mother's side.  According to our law the  19 mother is the one who passes on the strength of  20 the wolf to her sons and daughters, not the  21 father, and through that we have the power to  22 inherit our grandfathers's name."  23  24 There is the full answer he gave to that question, and  25 you asked me where did I get the word moderator.  26 Well, you can see where I got the word moderator.  27 That's his answer.  The first part of his answer.  28 A   Okay.  29 Q   Do you -- so do you agree with that answer?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And you agree that then he is the moderator of your  32 laws or do you not quite know what he means by that?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   You agree with that?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And you agree that a hereditary chief has to be blood  37 relationship from the mother's side?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   But you are not sure if he is?  40 A   Not sure if who is?  41 Q   Steve Robinson?  42 A   He could be represented to us.  We're still  43 researching that.  And this is why I think there is a  44 lot of confusion is that we call each other brother  45 and sisters, the Indian people, and you know, brother  46 and sisters to you is as non-Indian person is brother  47 and -- brother and sister. 4458  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 Q   Same mother and father?  2 A   Same mother and father.  But with us it's different  3 and so sometimes it might be even our second, third  4 cousins.  5 Q   Okay.  6 A  And also we -- we call our uncle "grandfather" or, you  7 know, and on the mother's side where you will just say  8 uncle.  9 Q   All right.  10 A  And this is why we have to do research ourselves to  11 try and follow up what exactly it is and write it down  12 for you people so that it could be understood.  13 Q   What do you -- now, using the words in your sense, not  14 in mine, what do you call Steve Robinson, do you call  15 him a brother or grandfather or uncle or -- ?  16 A  Well, he would be like my uncle.  17 Q   Uncle?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   And —  20 A  And he may be once we find out what the relationship  21 is, but we still have a lot of work to do.  22 Q   Now, you have been very careful to describe him as the  23 caretaker or as holding the name in the sense of being  24 caretaker of the name.  In what way does he differ  25 from a chief who's not just a caretaker of the name?  26 A  Well, there is ones where there is definite people  27 that are taking the names and like with for instance  28 Johnson Alexander, he was my uncle.  29 Q   Yes.  3 0 A  And now --  31 Q   In what way is Steve different?  32 A  Well, no, my uncle Johnson Alexander was my  33 grandmother's first cousin.  34 Q   Yes.  35 A  And when he died his nephew was not well and couldn't  36 make it to the funeral and so it was decided by the  37 other chiefs that Steve would take the name and look  38 after it until we were ready for it.  39 Q   All right.  But his powers are the same as any other  40 hereditary chief's powers?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   So that he has as many powers in the House of Spookw  43 as, say, Mary McKenzie has in her House?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   What is -- well, what's the difference, then?  Can you  46 explain the difference if he has got the same powers,  47 what's the difference between Steve Robinson's 4459  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  A  10  11  12  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  THE  COURT  34  MR.  GRANT  35  THE  COURT  36  MR.  GRANT  37  MR.  MACAU  38  Q  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  THE  COURT  46  47  MR.  GRANT  position as head chief of Spookw and Mary McKenzie as  head chief of her House?  There is no difference right now.  None at all?  No.  So that when you say somebody is just holding the name  or taking care of the name, there is no big -- no  great difference, is there?  No.  What I'm talking about is he'll know when to pass  the name.  Like Guuhadak, for instance, he's got that  now holding and that a decision has to be made on that  as well.  He's the head chief?  On who -- on who is going to get that name.  Oh.  But he's not the head chief of Guuhadak, is he?  Well —  Has he got that name?  Well, he's holding it.  Well, he's holding it till there is a Feast?  Yes.  And somebody is given the name?  That's right.  Because the chief has just died recently?  That's right.  But that's not the case with your House?  That's right.  He has been chief for 16 years?  That's right.  Yes.  Is he temporary head chief of Guuhadak, Steve  Robinson, or do you not know?  I don't know how to put that term.  Well, I don't either.  I don't either.  That's an admission.  I don't either.  There may be a Gitksan term for it.  LAY:  Well, if there is, by all means if you have a word  that expresses it.  As soon as I find out.  But, no, if you have a word now in Gitksan that  expresses the answer to my question, which I know you  understand --  I can't think of one right now.  :  Do you want to know if there is a Gitksan word for  acting chief?  :  Well, I think it's holding the name seems to be the 4460  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 phrase.  2 THE COURT:  All right.  3 MR. MACAULAY:  I am trying to find out in this context it seems  4 up to now we have had situations somebody holds the  5 name for a brief time till --  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 MR. MACAULAY:  -- the appropriate arrangements are made, but  8 this doesn't seem to be that kind of a case.  9 Q   Now, in your evidence about the - turning to another  10 subject - about the portable sawmill on the Bulkley  11 reserve, do you remember that?  You told the court  12 about the Bulkley reserve sawmill?  13 A   Yeah.  14 Q   And nothing is being done with it because there is  15 this clear cut problem?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   All right.  Was the original idea to log, start  18 logging on the reserve itself?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And did the authorities in charge of reserves tell you  21 that it had to be a clear cut logging program when you  22 are cutting on the reserve?  23 A  Authorities, like who do you mean?  24 Q   Well, whoever is in charge of the reserve.  I suppose  25 it's Indian Affairs, isn't it, who is in charge?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   They hold the title to the land in trust?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Well, did Indian -- did the Department of Indian  30 Affairs or some official from the Department of Indian  31 Affairs tell you or tell the Band Council that if you  32 logged on the reserve it had to be a clear cut logging  33 system?  34 A   No.  We weren't interested in just on the reserve,  35 because we were told that the timber on the reserve  36 wasn't merchantable timber even though, well, we  37 thought otherwise.  And we were going to get timber  38 from elsewhere and that's when the problem arose.  39 Q   So it wasn't Indian Affairs.  It was --  4 0 A   No.  41 Q   It was the Forestry Department, B.C. Forestry  42 Department that raised that problem?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And what you are saying is that there is not enough  45 usable timber on the reserve to start that operation  46 going?  47 A   That's right. 4461  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 Q Is it a question of disease in the trees or -- ?  2 A No.  It's just the -- it could be part of that, yes.  3 Q Well, there is some disease going through the timber  4 in the Bulkley valley, isn't there?  5 A Yes, there is, in some areas.  6 Q Has that spread to the Bulkley reserve, that disease?  7 A I don't think so.  8 Q Was it some sort of for forester's report --  9 A Just —  10 Q -- That you got about the timber on the reserve?  11 A Just the person that works as a forestry person down  12 at the Department of Indian Affairs in Hazelton.  13 Q That's who told —  14 A He went out there, yes.  15 Q Oh?  16 A And discouraged us.  17 Q He said it wasn't worth starting it up?  18 A That's right.  19 Q How was it that you got so far as to establish a  20 portable mill before finding that out?  21 A Pardon?  22 Q Well, there is a portable mill on the reserve?  23 A Uh-huh.  24 Q On the Bulkley reserve?  25 A Uh-huh.  26 Q Has it been there for a long time?  27 A No.  It's been there a few years.  28 Q For a few years?  29 A Yes.  30 Q And has it ever operated?  31 A No.  32 Q How many years has it been there?  33 A When you must have that licence or application or  34 whatever there, right around that time.  35 Q Oh, the Provincial --  36 A Yes.  37 Q -- licence?  But did the Band -- perhaps you can't  38 answer this because you weren't there, but did the  39 Band spend the money on the mill before finding out  40 from a forester whether or not logging can be carried  41 on?  42 A Yes.  43 Q Now, in order to be a member of your House, does it  44 matter where you were born, where a Gitksan was born?  45 I'll use a practical example.  If a Gitksan woman, a  46 member of the House of Spookw happens to be living in  47 Prince George and has children, are they members of 4462  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 the House of Spookw?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   So it doesn't matter where they are born?  4 A  As long as she is from the House of Spookw, yes.  5 Q   All right.  And we will carry that a little farther.  6 If a girl is born in Prince George in those  7 circumstances and automatically becomes a member of  8 the House of Spookw, when she has children do her  9 children become automatically a member of the House of  10 Spookw?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And it doesn't matter whether they can speak the  13 Gitksan language or not?  14 A   That's right.  15 Q   And it doesn't matter what religion they are or if  16 they believe in any religion?  17 It wouldn't matter what their citizenship was, to  18 use the same example, the Prince George example and  19 transfer that to Seattle and if they were --  20 A   That Gitksan woman can be at Hong Kong, that baby  21 would still be Gitksan.  22 Q   And it doesn't matter whether or not they ever  23 attended at the Feast?  24 A   It doesn't matter.  25 Q   And so you might have members of your House of Spookw  2 6 anywhere in the world?  27 A   Could be, yes.  28 Q   And no record was kept of ladies from the House of  29 Spookw 50 years ago leaving for the Lower Mainland  30 where they ended up, nobody kept a record of that, did  31 they?  32 A   The record was kept up here and that's pretty hard to  33 beat in most cases.  It's just the problem of putting  34 it down on the paper.  35 Q   Yes.  36 A   The ones that we have are ones that we know of and  37 like you said, there could be more than and that's  38 what we are researching by talking to our elders of  39 our House.  40 MR. MACAULAY:  I see it's four o'clock and I might go on with a  41 few more questions, but it would take three or four  42 minutes.  43 THE COURT:  Well, we have re-examination and --  44 MR. MACAULAY:  Oh, yes.  45 THE COURT:  -- I see counsel here on another matter that I have  46 at four o'clock so I am afraid we'll have to resume  47 tomorrow anyways so ten 10 o'clock, please, and we 4463  D.Wilson-Kenni (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay  1 will adjourn.  2  3 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1988 AT  4 10:00 A.M.)  5  6  7 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  8 a true and accurate transcript of the  9 proceedings herein to the best of my  10 skill and ability.  11  12  13  14  15 Laara Yardley,  16 Official Reporter,  17 United Reporting Service Ltd.  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items