Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-18] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 18, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019513.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019513-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019513-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019513-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019513-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019513-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019513-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 10841  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  18 January 1989  Vancouver Registry  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  Columbia, Vancouver, this Wednesday, January 18,  1989.  Calling Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the  Queen at bar.  I caution the witness you are still  under oath.  Mr. Grant.  Thank you.  I'd like to clear up something that you  reviewed that was discussed at the end of yesterday  and that is, I'd like to return to page 22 of your  report, it is at tab 2 of the book you have.  THE COURT:  Page 22.  EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GRANT:   (Continued)  Q    Page 22, my lord.  And you state there that:  "Lineage is inappropriate because not all  Houses are composed of a group of unilineally  related kin among whom the exact relationship  is known, with no missing connections and no  adoptions."  And I believe I asked you if that was your opinion.  Is that your opinion?  A    Yes, it is.  MR. GRANT:  Now then, that refers to footnote number 7 on page  95 in which it is stated:  "The ten Gitksan Houses which are composed of  unilineally..."  MR. GOLDIE:  "A group of unilineally".  You skipped the word  "group".  MR. GRANT:  Q    Thank you, Mr. Goldie.  "The ten Gitksan Houses which are composed of a  group of unilineally related kin are:  Dawamuxw, Hanamuxw, Hax Bagwootxw, Tsibasaa,  Amagyet, Wii Mugulsxw, Nikateen, Wii Hlengwax,  Gwagl'lo and Delgamuukw."  Now, when one combines -- firstly, did you -- well,  when one combines that footnote with what you have  defined unilineally related kin, it suggests that 10842  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  13  Q  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  A  30  Q  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  A  38  MR.  GRANT:  39  40  41  42  43  MR.  GOLDIE  44  45  MR.  GRANT:  46  MR.  GOLDIE  47  MR.  GRANT:  those houses are among whom the exact relationship  known with no missing connection and no adoptions.  You follow me?  Yes.  Do you have any comment on that listing of ten  houses that you wish to explain to the court?  Yes, I do.  I am not quite sure how it happened but  I am afraid there has been some included in there  that don't fit the definition given on page 22.  All  of those are consistent -- consist of a group of  unilineally related kin, but some of them include  adopted members on top of the one lineage.  Okay.  Can you indicate to the court which ones fit  the definition, that is, do not have adoptions  included?  If I remember correctly, that would be Dawamuxw,  Hanamuxw, Amagyet, that's three, Gwagl'lo and  Delgamuukw, if you consider all living persons.  Okay.  So the others that you have not named there  include adoptions?  Yes.  On top of the --  Yes, the one lineage plus adopted members.  Okay.  Was that footnote added from the answers you  provided under Rule 28?  Yes , it was.  Okay.  Was the same listing in your answer to the  question under Rule 28?  Yes , it was.  Now, I'd like to turn to page 26 of your report, Ms.  Harris.  And you state:  "In most cases Houses are clearly  distinct..."  It is the very top of the page.  Yes.  "...clearly distinct units with no  misunderstanding about memberships."  Is that your opinion?  You asked her that question and she gave that  answer.  I am sorry, I dealt with that yesterday.  Yes. 10843  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q    Yes, okay.  I am leading into something else, Mr.  2 Goldie, that flows from that.  You indicated  3 yesterday that it was your opinion?  4 A    Yes, I did.  5 Q    Now, part way down that page in the middle of the  6 bottom third of the second paragraph, the only full  7 paragraph on that page, you start the line beginning  8 "of meaning" my lord.  9  10 "The word 'wilnadaahl' is used to refer to  11 members of one's House, the members of one's  12 clan who are from Houses of the same village,  13 clan members from Houses with the same  14 villages of ancient origin, or all of one's  15 clan members."  16  17 Is that your opinion?  18 A    Yes, it is.  19 Q    Now, have you -- have you prepared a diagram with  20 respect to Kliiyem Lax Haa to show these different  21 possible collections of wilnadaahl?  22 A    Yes, I have.  23 Q    Okay.  Now, I am showing you this diagram here and  24 to assist in the -- you prepared this diagram to  25 assist in an explanation of wilnadaahl last evening;  26 is that right?  27 A    Yes, I did.  28 Q    Now, can you by using that diagram explain, and  29 using the house of Kliiyem Lax Haa, explain the  30 different potential meanings of wilnadaahl and when  31 they would be used by, for example, Kliiyem Lax Haa?  32 A    Yes.  I believe an example is the best way to  33 explain it because it is a fairly difficult concept  34 to explain and the relationships between houses  35 which are encompassed by the word "wilnadaahl" are  36 which result in confusion sometimes between who are  37 members of which house.  38 Now, in the sentence that was about two-thirds of  39 the way through the paragraph of the sentence that  40 Mr. Grant read where it says a wilnadaahl can  41 represent anything from one's house to one's clan  42 and several variations in between, this is  43 represented on the diagram.  If you look at the  44 diagram at the top, it says:  45  4 6 "No. 1.  Xhliiyemlaxha."  47 10844  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 So Kliiyem Lax Haa may refer to her wilnadaahl in  2 some situations as being just the members of her  3 house.  4 Q    What type of situation would she refer to them that  5 way?  6 A    She may be talking about having a house meeting with  7 just the members of the house and she may say to her  8 son, "Call the members of our wilnadaahl."  And  9 she's already said it is a house meeting they are  10 having so he would call just the members of the  11 house.  When you combine 1 and 2 --  12 Q    That's sort of the second square or second rectangle  13 on your diagram?  14 A    Yes, and 2 includes 'WiiMuug'ulsxw, Hawaaw, and  15 Xsaxgyoo.  16 Q    As well as "Xhliiyemlaxha"?  17 A    Let me finish.  'WiiMuug'ulsxw, Hawaaw and Xsaxgyoo  18 are three houses that in the fairly recent past, by  19 which I mean the last few hundred years, have  20 subdivided off of Kliiyem Lax Haa so they consider  21 themselves to be very closely related because they  22 were one biological family in the fairly recent  23 past.  So at times, they may refer to 1 and 2  24 combined as wilnadaahl.  If Kliiyem Lax Haa herself  25 is speaking, she may be referring to 'WiiMuug'ulsxw,  26 Hawaaw, that's age, and Xsaxgyoo, and that would be  27 wilnadaahl in the certain context, and she would  28 quite frequently use that meaning of the word  29 because those -- the members of those houses are  30 mostly residing in the village of Kispiox at this  31 time and so they would frequently function together.  32 Now, the third group, Spookxw, Tenimgyet, and  33 Malii, these are Wolf houses that are resident in  34 other villages but in the very ancient past were  35 joined with Kliiyem Lax Haa and they are said to  36 have separated in the adaawk.  It said they  37 separated in the very ancient past and became four  38 separate houses.  39 Q    I am sorry, go ahead.  40 A    So at times, Kliiyem Lax Haa may include this group  41 as well.  So if you look at 1, 2 and 3 together,  42 these are all groups that are said to be actual  43 biological relatives at one time in their history.  44 Q    And what villages are Spookxw, Tenimgyet and Malii  45 from today?  46 A    Spookxw is from Gitanmaax, Tenimgyet is from  47 Kitwangak, and Malii is from Kitwancool. 10845  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q    Was this at one location?  2 A    Thousands of years ago at Temlahamid.  So if Kliiyem  3 Lax Haa is putting up a big feast, Spookxw and  4 Tenimgyet and Malii might come to Kispiox to help  5 her with that so at that feast she may refer to  6 wilnadaahl as including that group of people as well  7 as 'WiiMuug'ulsxw, Hawaaw and Xsaxgyoo.  Now, the  8 ones that are listed in the small box that says 4,  9 Gyologyet, Luus, 'Niist, that should be Amagyet, it  10 says Anagyet, but it should be Amagyet, Baskyalaxha  11 and 'WiiEelast, these are other Wolf houses that are  12 currently resident in Kispiox.  These people are  13 from Kuldo'o which people don't reside in Kuldo'o on  14 a permanent basis any more and these houses have  15 moved down to Kispiox in fairly recent times within  16 the last hundred years mostly.  17 Q    Can I just clarify one point?  18 A    Yes.  19 Q    When you say these houses are from Kuldo, are you  20 referring to the ones that are listed at number 4?  21 A    Yes, the six there from Gyologyet to 'WiiEelast,  22 just those six came from Kuldo'o, but they are  23 currently -- they are currently located in Kispiox.  24 So this is where the drawing becomes a little  25 confusing.  Xhliiyemlaxha, number 1, the houses of  26 number 2, 'WiiMuug'ulsxw, Hawaaw, and Xsaxgyoo, and  27 number 4 houses, Gyologyet to 'WiiEelast, all of  28 those are Wolf clan houses currently resident in  29 Kispiox, so if Kliiyem Lax Haa was putting up a  30 small feast, Spookxw and Tenimgyet and Malii  31 probably wouldn't come from distant villages to help  32 her put up a small feast but all of the Wolf houses  33 that are currently resident in Kispiox would help  34 her so at that feast she may say -- she may thank  35 the wilnadaahl for helping her put up the feast and  36 she would be meaning 1, 2 and 4, all of the houses  37 that are in her clan and currently resident in  38 Kispiox, and then the most --  39 Q    Just before you go to the next level, you say that  40 number 1, 2 and 4 are the Wolf houses resident in  41 Kispiox.  Who holds the name Gyologyet?  42 A    Mary McKenzie.  43 Q    Where does she physically live?  44 A    She lives in Gitanmaax.  45 Q    What do you mean when you say these houses are in  46 Kispiox?  47 A    It ordinarily means that the cedar dwelling of the 10846  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Q  16  A  17  18  Q  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  MR.  GOLDIE:  23  THE  WITNESS  24  25  26  MR.  GRANT:  27  Q  28  A  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  35  A  36  37  Q  38  39  A  40  Q  41  A  42  43  THE  COURT:  44  THE  WITNESS  45  46  47  MR.  GRANT:  house was located in that village in the past.  It  is a concept of village of origin.  In the case of  the Kuldo'o as they call them, the Wolf clan houses  that have come down from Kuldo'o, some of them came  early in this century when people were starting to  reside in nuclear family dwellings and therefore did  not actually build a large cedar plank house in  Kispiox, but they -- generally the members of that  house live in Kispiox and Mary McKenzie herself  would go to Kispiox to put up a feast.  She does not  put up feasts in Gitanmaax hall, she goes to Kispiox  to do that because that is where the members of her  house are ordinarily resident but she is living in  Gitanmaax because she married a man from Gitanmaax.  And —  And women ordinarily reside with their husbands in  their husband's village.  And who's the husband?  Luutkudziiwus.  Is he a chief?  Yes, he is.  Ben McKenzie.  It is on the list.  :  The box that includes all of the names of houses  which would include the names, this is with 1, 2, 3,  4 and 5.  All together?  Yes.  That includes all of the Wolf clan of the  Gitksan and at times Kliiyem Lax Haa could be  referring to the entire clan when she uses the word  wilnadaahl.  When you say 5, is 5 an exhaustive list of the Wolf  houses when you add it in or is it just -- would  there be an et cetera after that?  It's -- I believe it is all of the major Wolf  chiefs.  There could be some smaller chiefs as well.  Okay.  That name after Yagosip, could you pronounce  that?  Xkwooximtxw.  That's Gwoimt?  Yes, that N, too, should be an M.  I am sorry, it is  my writing.  Where is that?  :  The one in number 5 that's spelled with a X-k-w,  the N should be an M, Xkwooximtxw.  I believe it is  Gwoimt in the Statement of Claim. 10847  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  Q    The pleadings would be G-w-o-i-m-t.  A    I am sorry, this is my own spellings.  GRANT:  That's fine.  COURT:  Is this the Gwoimt we have been hearing so much  about?  MR. GRANT:  This is the Gwoimt we have been hearing something  about.  COURT:  With a totally different spelling?  WITNESS:  Yes.  COURT:  How is the other spelling?  GRANT:  G-w-o-i-m-t is in the pleadings.  I think that what  happened is at the time of the pleadings, about the  first and the last parts of this spelling was wrong,  but I think what the witness is saying is that even  with your spelling there is a typographical error  here.  It should be X-k-w-o-o-x-i-m-t-x-w, right.  MR.  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  THE  THE  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  REGISTRAR:  X-i-m?  WITNESS:  Yes, M.  COURT:  No "I".  GRANT:  Q    No "I" there?  A    Yes, there should be an "I".  Q    X-i-m?  A    Yes, Xkwooximtxw.  GRANT:  Okay.  COURT: What do you want to do with this piece of paper?  GRANT: I'd ask that that be marked as the next exhibit.  COURT:  Well, the report is 853 and we have an A.  Perhaps  this should be 853B.  GRANT:  No.  COURT:  That explains —  GRANT:  Maybe 8 —  COURT:  — the report.  GRANT:  The report hasn't been marked yet.  That's the  genealogies which are 853.  Maybe we should reserve  854 for the report and this would be Exhibit 854A.  COURT:  All right.  REGISTRAR:  854A.  (EXHIBIT 854A - LIST "WILNADAAHL OF  XHLIIYEMLAXHA COULD INCLUDE")  MR.  GRANT:  Q  Now, I'd like to move into a new area and I believe  that it's referred to in your report commencing on  page 42, and this is the area of marriage.  First of all, can you explain what marriage means 10848  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  4  5  6  Q  7  8  A  9  Q  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  THE  COURT  18  MR.  GRANT  19  THE  COURT  20  MR.  GRANT  21  Q  22  23  A  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  39  A  40  THE  COURT:  41  THE  WITNESS  42  THE  COURT:  43  MR.  GRANT:  44  Q  45  46  47  in an anthropological sense?  Marriage in an anthropological sense means any  relationship that produces children or any  relationship between a man and a woman that has some  endurance.  And is that what you are referring to when we  discuss marriage?  Yes, I am.  Now, the first section you state that Gitksan --  "The relationship between a Gitksan and his  biological parents is always recognized  regardless of the situation."  And that is your opinion?  Yes, it is.  Where are you?  At page 42.  Thank you.  I am sorry, my lord, the third sentence there, about  six lines down.  And why do you say that?  Because the biological parents determine the house  and the wilksiwitxw of every individual.  The only  exception to that would be when somebody is adopted  out of a house at a later date, but in the majority  of cases the house of your biological mother is your  house for life and the house of your biological  father is your house even if the marriage of your  mother and father was short-term or essentially  non-existent, that's still your wilksiwitxw, the  house of your biological father.  The only time  there would be an exception to that is if your  biological father was not Gitksan and in that case  the house of your mother's father becomes your  wilksiwitxw.  How many marriages approximately are recorded on the  genealogies, Exhibit 853?  1,550.  I am sorry?  :  1,550.  Is what?  Is the number of marriages recorded on the  genealogies which are Exhibit 853.  Now, the first section under marriage, you talk  about gaats and you state that the Gitksan have both 10849  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  THE  COURT:  31  THE  WITNESS  32  MR.  GOLDIE:  33  34  35  36  37  THE  COURT:  38  39  MR.  GOLDIE:  40  41  MR.  GRANT:  42  Q  43  44  45  46  A  47  marriage proscriptions, and that's  p-r-o-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-o-n-s, and preferences:  "The essential law involved in Gitksan marriage  partner choice is the proscription against  marriage within the clan; this is called  gaats by the Gitksan and incest by  anthropologists."  Is that your opinion?  Yes, it is.  And what is the basis for that opinion?  The Gitksan will tell you and the genealogies will  demonstrate that one should not marry into his own  clan.  He can marry anyone outside of his clan but  not within his own clan.  How many -- did you estimate or calculate on the  Exhibit 853 genealogies how many gaats marriages if  any are shown there?  Yes.  I believe there were 58 at the time that the  report was written.  At the time of the genealogies?  At the time the report was written.  Okay.  Now, just to be clear, because there was the  January '87 report and the April '88 report, so  which of those two?  I believe it was the first report.  Okay.  So it may have --  A gaats marriage is interclan, is it?  :  Yes, within the clan, yes.  Unless I understood my friend's question, the  question was, do the genealogies show how many  marriages.  And I would ask my friend to indicate  how those marriages are shown on the charts because  I don't recall that as being stated.  I am sorry, I think the evidence is that there are  58 gaats marriages in the genealogies.  I understood the question though was as indicated  on the charts.  I understand what Mr. Goldie is saying.  Yes, I  asked how many gaats marriages are shown on the  charts and is there -- how are they shown on the  charts?  If you know the membership, the clan membership of  each house, it would be indicated.  If you are 10850  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  9  A  10  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  A  22  MR. GRANT:  23  MR. GOLDIE  24  MR. GRANT:  25  Q  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  45  46  47  looking at a genealogy at a Fireweed house, say  Gutginuxw, and you see somebody from Woos' house  married to somebody from one of the other Fireweed  houses such as Antigulilibix or Guxsan or any of the  others, then you would see that those are gaats  marriages.  You didn't mark them in some separate way from  another marriage?  No.  You would have to know which houses belong to  which clan.  And you analysed it in that sense.  You went through  the genealogies and determined that?  Yes, I did.  Now, on the bottom of page 43 and the top of page  44, you state:  "Gaats marriages occur far less often than  would be expected by chance."  Is that your opinion":  Stopping there  Yes, it is.  And —  Well, yes, all right  Go ahead.  I am going to go from that.  Why do you say that?  I didn't do a precise statistical analysis.  It is  not required within the discipline of anthropology  and I think it's so obvious that it's certainly not  necessary, but if you consider the fact that the  Eagle clan is very small and the other three major  clans, the Wolf, Frog and Fireweed, are roughly the  same population, if there was no prohibition or if  it was not being followed at all, you could expect  that approximately one-third of marriages would be  within a clan when in fact it's between three and  four percent.  Okay.  Now, is it your opinion that, and I am  referring to the next part of that sentence, that  marriage laws as part of the Gitksan social system  are still strong?  Yes.  And why do you say that?  Why is that your opinion?  Because gaats marriages are still not common today.  They may be more common than they were in the early  years of this century, for example, but they are  still not coming anywhere near to approaching what  could be expected if marriage was discovered by 10851  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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. GOLDIE:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  MR. GOLDIE:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  chance.  Now, have you observed and through your research  found factors that would discourage gaats marriages,  factors that still go on today?  Yes.  Can you explain those?  The young people approaching marriageable age are  warned by relatives continually about marrying  against someone within the clan.  The young people  put it as, "My mother tells me this person or that  person is my cousin."  It is commonly the way they  put it, and there are -- there are serious  consequences that discourage gaats marriages as  well.  The consequences include such thing as --  well, the most serious consequence is the fact that  if a child is produced from a gaats marriage the  whole system of relationships, everybody has to have  a house and a wilnadaahl, I mean -- pardon me, a  house -- wilnadaahl and a wilksiwitxw, and that's  most obvious when someone is buried but there is  many other circumstances where you have to have  these two groups that are different clans, and if  children are produced from a gaats marriage then  that relationship isn't there.  When you have a  system where the father's side, the wilksiwitxw  provides burial services and then the wilnadaahl  pays them back, you can't do that if they are both  the same and that's the most serious and enduring  consequence.  And there are lesser consequences as  well, such as public criticism.  My lord, I thought that Mrs. Ryan gave us all of  this .  Well, she certainly -- somebody did.  I have  certainly heard it all before.  Well, I am -- all I am dealing with here, my lord,  of course is that -- is the -- you did hear the  evidence from Miss Ryan, I concede, and I am not  endeavouring to repeat that evidence.  What I am  saying is if this is a general phenomena --  Well, Mrs. Ryan stated it was Gitksan law.  Yes.  Well, that's not -- Mrs. Ryan did not do the  genealogies or determine how many gaats marriages  existed today.  There has been evidence before your  lordship of the --  Mr. Grant, there is no general prohibition against  having two witnesses give the same evidence if it is 10852  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  necessary and it may be that you want the witness to  comment in a general sense, and there is no -- there  can be no serious objection to that.  It's the  detail that we seem always to fall into that may be  objected to.  I don't think that -- I was not intending to go into  the type of detail that you have heard before, my  lord.  Thank you.  Now, first of all, you talked about this as a result  of your research determining that persons of  marriageable age are told who or who's not a  relative.  Was this a common or rare occurrence in  your research; in other words, did you find it on a  few occasions or several occasions?  Many occasions.  You also raised the question of, I believe,  community criticism just before Mr. Goldie  interjected.  You described the impact at the feast  and this third factor of community criticism.  Can  you explain what happens there?  People will point out those who are gaats and speak  of them in a critical manner because of it.  How, if a person -- if a couple is involved in a  gaats marriage, this would impact on their children,  you have already explained that.  Would that impact  in any generation beyond their children?  Yes, it can be affective, it could last for several  generations.  Can you explain that?  Yes.  If a person is putting up a headstone to  honour the person from whom they took their name  which would generally be an uncle or sometimes a  great uncle, mother's brother, they have to honour  the wilksiwitxw of that person, and again you cannot  give gifts in the feast to someone who is the same  clan as you are, so that impact could be felt for  three or four generations if the first holder of the  name had been the product of a gaats marriage.  I'd like to refer you to page 45, the paragraph on  the bottom, or I should start with the paragraph  immediately above that, the last sentence.  You  state:  "If a gaats person is chosen by his House to  take a high name, the other members of his 10853  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 clan will show their disapproval in part by  2 contributing far less than usual at the feast  3 of his investiture."  4  5 Is that your opinion?  6 A    Yes, it is.  7 Q    And you found occasions of that --  8 A    Yes.  9 Q    -- where that occurred?  10 A    Yes, I have.  11 Q    Going on to the next paragraph:  12  13 "There also seemed to be self-imposed methods  14 of handling gaats relationships.  Those who  15 become in a gaats relationship usually do not  16 marry legally."  17  18 And I will say, you don't have the numbering here  19 with you, it appears there is a number of things,  20 a) :  21  22 " not marry legally, as if not admitting  23 that they have a marriage relationship.  24 Another method is to have a temporary gaats  25 relationship when young, abandon it later and  26 have a 'real' serious marriage at maturity."  27  28 Is that your opinion?  29 A    Yes, it is.  30 Q    And have you found situations of that?  31 A    Yes, I have.  32 Q    In your research?  33 A    Yes.  34 Q    Okay.  Then you go on to state:  35  36 "Some people or their families attempt to  37 remedy a gaats relationship by adopting one  38 partner into another clan but this can never  39 completely ameliorate the situation."  40  41 Is that your opinion?  42 A    Yes, it is.  43 Q    And you have seen situations of that?  44 A    Yes, I have.  45 Q    Why do you say it can never completely ameliorate  46 the situation?  47 A    Well, the confusion again still remains about the 10854  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  wilksiwitxw of the children that were produced of  that marriage.  They still have the situation of --  they would have to be adopted as well to change that  situation.  MR. GRANT:  Then you state:  "The only type of gaats relationship not taken  too serious ..."  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  Is it necessary to read all this to the author?  Well, my lord, I am just trying to -- all I am  trying to do is select out the opinions.  I don't  want to go into the detail of that.  Well, I am not going to instruct you how to conduct  your examination, Mr. Grant, but it doesn't seem to  me necessary to read in all these long and shorthand  opinions to the witness.  Ask her comment on the  matter.  I will ask her to comment on it without reading it.  Is there, as a result of your research, is there  degrees of seriousness of gaats relationships?  A    Yes, there is.  Q    And can you explain that?  A    Yes.  One type of gaats relationship that is not  taken too seriously is when elderly people past the  age of child-bearing take up a gaats relationship.  It is seen essentially as companionship in their old  age, and since offspring will not result, it is not  as seriously problematic.  And another type that's  not too serious is when two people are from the same  clan but of a different nation such as Gitksan and  Niska, and that is not regarded as being extremely  serious.  And the other end of the scale, if two  people between whom the biological relationship was  known, such as a first cousin or a second cousin,  were to marry, people would be very upset and  shocked.  And then there are the more common type  that occur and sort of fall in a more mid range of  prohibition, would be between members of two  different houses, of two different villages.  Q    Can you give an example of two elderly people long  past child-bearing age where it has not been  considered that serious?  A    Yes, Jessie and Charles Sterritt were married in  their 50s or 60s, and were of the same clan.  Q    Now, I think you described the greatest degree is 10855  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  A  6  7  8  Q  9  10  A  11  Q  12  A  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  A  18  19  20  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Q  37  A  38  MR.  GRANT:  39  MR.  GOLDIE:  40  41  THE  WITNESS  42  MR.  GRANT:  43  Q  44  45  46  A  47  THE  COURT:  where there is -- well, is there the most -- what is  the most approximate gaats marriage, that is the  most serious gaats marriage in terms of  relationship?  It would be between people who actually knew the  biological relationship between each other but I  don't know of any such marriages having occurred.  Okay.  Now, do you know of any occasions of a gaats  relationship of two people in the same house?  Yes, I know of two occurrences of that.  And which occurrence -- which houses were those in?  'Niik'yap and Gutginuxw.  And is that shown on their genealogies?  Yes, it is.  Do you recall the persons who were involved without  looking at it?  Mariah and William McLean on 'Niik'yap's genealogy  and on Gutginuxw', Ralph Wale, I believe it was.  I  am sorry, I can't recall the names of the people in  Gutginuxw', but it is there.  Possibly we can look at that tab in Exhibit 853, tab  11, let me just --  Oh, yes.  -- just refer to where -- some of the page numbers  aren't on so if you just say the top or who's on the  page?  It is page 8 if you have the page numbers and it's a  page that's mostly blank, there is only a few people  represented on it, and on the right-hand side of the  page you see Freida Mowatt and Ralph Lattie and then  because of the nature of these diagrams, those same  two people would be represented again on the same  genealogy because Freida is shown here as the sister  of Sylvia Mowatt and Ralph will be shown later as  the brother of his brothers, he would appear again.  That's fine.  Okay.  I don't think you have to show it.  It would be helpful if she could tell us where we  can find it.  :  It is on again, the page number is 12.  The line that starts one line, two lines, but one  with two names Tommy Lattie and Ralph Lattie and  Freida Mowatt are the three persons; is that right?  Yes.  I am sorry, where is that? 10856  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GRANT  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  THE  WITNESS  6  MR.  GRANT:  7  Q  8  A  9  THE  COURT:  10  11  MR.  GRANT:  12  13  14  THE  COURT:  15  16  17  18  MR.  GRANT  19  THE  COURT  20  MR.  GRANT  21  THE  COURT  22  MR.  GRANT  23  Q  24  25  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  A  31  Q  32  33  A  34  35  36  Q  37  38  A  39  Q  40  41  42  A  43  44  45  46  47  The 12th page in, it's here.  Could you just show  him the page?  How many pages forward from where we saw them  before?  :  Four.  Four?  Five -- four.  I don't think I have that page.  No, I don't have  that page.  Let me see it.  My lord, that copy that I have is unmarked and you  can substitute the two, if you would, unless you  have noted your own.  No.  I am sorry, I am looking at it.  I thought that  was page 8 but that's page 12 apparently so I didn't  have that page.  Let me go back four pages.  I  should find it again, should I?  Yes.  Yes, all right.  You have them both, my lord?  Yes.  Do you know of the situation, that is the location,  of the Gutginuxw people and the 'Niik'yap people or  let's talk about 'Niik'yap.  'Niik'yap's house.  Where were they in the days of Mariah and William  McLean?  They lived in the north, in the Bear Lake area.  And were there other houses there at that time?  Very few.  Is the actual biological relationship between Mariah  or William known?  I don't believe it is, or it wasn't to the  individuals at least.  I'd have to look at the  genealogy to be positive if it was known at all.  What about the biological relationship between Ralph  Lattie and Freida Lattie?  It's quite distant.  Okay.  Do you know of any circumstance where two  persons from different clans, two Gitksan persons  from different clans, could not marry?  The only circumstance where that would occur is when  a man had married two different women from two  different clans and there were children from both  marriages, and those children who had the same  father in common could not marry even though they  were in different clans. 10857  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q    And that would be a prohibition in the Gitksan  2 system?  3 A    Yes.  4 Q    What about if those children had children, that is,  5 the original father's grandchildren?  Would that  6 prohibition apply thereunder to the Gitksan?  7 A    I have never heard of it actually occurring that  8 children in that situation married, but I have not  9 heard the Gitksan say that it is against the law  10 because it is possible for two people with a  11 grandfather in common to marry.  12 Q    Now, you talk about in this section of your report a  13 marriage preference.  Is that -- is a preference  14 here a term, an anthropological term?  15 A    Yes, it is.  16 Q    Can you explain it?  17 A    Yes, a marriage preference is -- it is not a  18 requirement that one marry into the preferred group  19 but it is just what it says it is, it is a  20 preference; it is preferable to marry into that  21 group rather than other groups but it is not  22 absolutely required.  23 Q    And on page 48, you refer to a marriage preference  24 and this is where you describe in detail the  25 cross-cousin of marriage and say:  26  27 "The Gitksan have a marriage preference as well  28 as a prohibition.  One should marry into one's  29 father's House, one should marry his/her  30 father's sister's child.  This is cross-cousin  31 marriage and occurs when the children of a  32 brother and sister marry."  33  34 And that's your opinion?  35 A    Yes.  36 Q    Can that apply in the case -- in other words, would  37 that marriage -- would such a marriage be allowed in  38 the case of first cousins as we know first cousins?  39 A    Technically, yes, but it is very rare for first  40 cousins to actually marry.  The term cross-cousin  41 marriage does not necessitate that the cousins be  42 first cousins but can include far more distant  43 cousins and can just generally refer to two members  44 of a related group, in the case of the Gitksan,  45 that's houses.  46 Q    I'd like to refer you to tab 15 of Exhibit 853, the  47 Gwiiyeehl genealogy.  Is there an example of a first 1085?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  Q  6  A  7  8  Q  9  10  A  11  MR. GRANT:  12  THE COURT:  13  THE WITNESS  14  15  MR. GRANT:  16  Q  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  29  A  30  Q  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  cousin marriage in the Gwiiyeehl house?  Yes, I believe there is.  Can you show it to -- refer it to his lordship?  Yes, on the second page.  Yes.  Frances Wesley and Rennie Morrison have a daughter,  Arlene Morrison.  Yes.  Over on the far left of page 2, the far right,  I am sorry?  Far right, yes, Arlene Morrison.  Are you there, my lord?  Yes.  :  And her husband, now ex-husband, was her first  cousin, Nobby Turner.  And how -- who's his mother?  His mother is Arlene's father's sister.  So this marriage would show up on the Miluulak  genealogy as well?  Yes, it would.  Okay.  And is that the only example of a first  cousin marriage that you came across where they are  literally first cousins?  Yes, the only one I know of.  Now, you state on page 50 of your report, and you  have already explained with respect to table 1 and  2, what's meant by cross-cousin marriage the other  day?  Yes.  And that's what you are referring to.  On page 50 of  your report, you talk about something under the same  section but may or may not be directly related which  you state:  "A cursory examination of house members'  marriages ..."  I am in the second paragraph, my lord:  "...indicates that most Houses have another  House with which they marry far more often  than would be expected by chance:  percentages  of known marriages of one House's members to  members of another House sometimes exceed  20%. "  And you refer to footnote 12 in which you list a 10859  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 series of houses.  Are these the houses where the  2 marriages of one house member to members of another  3 house exceed 20 percent?  4 A    Yes.  5 Q    Footnote 12 is on page 97.  Now, can you go through  6 that list on footnote 12 and advise -- and tell me  7 which houses those people marry -- like, it shows  8 Baskyalaxha, for example.  Which house do they marry  9 greater than 20 percent?  10 A    I probably can't remember all of them but I can  11 certainly remember some of them.  Baskyalaxha.  I am  12 sorry, I don't remember.  13 Q    By looking at the genealogy, you would be able to  14 determine that?  15 A    Yes, I could, but I can name some of them.  Wiigyet  16 marries Delgamuukw.  17 Q    Wiigyet marries Delgamuukw?  18 A    Yes.  'Niist marries Tsibasaa.  Kliiyem Lax Haa  19 marries Gutginuxw.  20 Q    Just slow down a bit for the court.  Wiigyet marries  21 Delgamuukw?  22 A    Yes.  23 Q    That's the third one.  'Niist marries Tsibasaa?  24 A    Yes.  25 Q    Do you recall Lelt offhand?  26 A    No, I am sorry, I don't.  27 Q    Okay.  Kliiyem Lax Haa?  28 A    Married Gutginuxw.  2 9 Q    Okay.  You have Delgamuukw?  30 A    Yes, and this isn't a repeat of the other one or a  31 reverse of the other one.  It's -- Delgamuukw does  32 marry Wiigyet but in both cases the marriages are  33 more than 20 percent of the marriages known within  34 the house.  In some case such as Gutginuxw and  35 Kliiyem Lax Haa, it doesn't work both ways because  36 of the house of the Gutginuxw is so large that  37 although the marriages between Kliiyem Lax Haa and  38 Gutginuxw are more than 20 percent of the Kliiyem  39 Lax Haa has marriages that are not more than 20  40 percent of Gutginuxw' marriages.  41 Q    Okay.  But in this case, you are saying  42 Delgamuukw -- more than 20 percent of Delgamuukw's  43 marriages are to Wiigyet?  44 A    Yes.  45 Q    And more than 20 percent of Wiigyet's marriages are  4 6 to Delgamuukw?  47 A    Yes. 10860  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GRANT:  2  THE  COURT:  3  THE  WITNESS  4  MR.  GRANT:  5  Q  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Q  14  A  15  16  Q  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  28  29  Q  30  A  31  32  33  Q  34  A  35  36  Q  37  38  A  39  40  41  MR.  GOLDIE:  42  43  44  45  46  MR.  GRANT:  47  Q  Luutkudziiwus to Wii gaak.  I am sorry?  :  Luutkudziiwus and Wii gaak.  And Nikateen?  Gutginuxw and you can see there that both Kliiyem  Lax Haa and Nikateen, more than 20 percent of their  marriages are to the same house and that's possible  because Gutginuxw is such a large house.  Wii  Minosik, Tsibasaa, I believe, and again that's a  large house and that's why it's been named twice as  the marriage partner of two houses.  Tsibasaa, you are referring to?  Yes.  Gitludahl, I am sorry, I can't recall that  one.  Xsgogimlaxha is Nikateen.  Okay.  Maybe we could just -- I would ask if you  would look at tab 3 from Exhibit 853, the  Baskyalaxha tab.  And subsequently, I will refer you  to tab 26 and to tab 10, but starting with tab 3.  By reference to that, does that assist you in  determining which house group Baskyalaxha connects  to more than 20 percent of their marriages?  And I  am not asking you to do a count at this point but  just if you can -- you know, as Ms. Koenigsberg  says, I am not asking you to speculate either.  This is marriages that where the houses between the  two are known.  As you can see there are many where  the houses are not known.  Yes.  Which is indicated by the fact that there is no  house name in brackets under the person who's shown  as a spouse.  Yes.  So I believe it is Wii Minosik in this case.  You  can see two right on the first page.  Okay.  Just go through it.  There appears on page 2  and 3 to be a number of Gutginuxw as well?  Yes.  I had them all counted up at one time.  Yes,  Gutginuxw, two -- oh, yes, it is Gutginuxw, you are  right, three, four, five marriages.  My lord, I wonder if I might ask my friend to  clarify the base to which 20 percent is applied in  the case of Baskyalaxha.  Did I understand the  witness to say it is 20 percent of the marriages  where the house affiliation is known?  Or 20 percent of all the marriages.  I understand 10861  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  9  MR.  GOLDIE:  10  THE  WITNESS  11  THE  COURT:  12  13  THE  WITNESS  14  15  16  17  18  MR.  GRANT:  19  Q  20  21  22  23  24  A  25  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  THE  COURT:  35  MR.  GRANT:  36  37  38  THE  COURT:  39  MR.  GOLDIE:  40  THE  COURT:  41  THE  WITNESS  42  MR.  GRANT:  43  Q  44  A  45  THE  COURT:  46  MR.  GRANT:  47  Q  the question, yes.  Yes, I have no difficulty with  that.  I was going to ask that in any event.  What  is the base, in other words, the 20 percent of  the -- of those marriages where you know the other  house or 20 percent of all the marriages in the  house?  Yes, obviously the known marriages.  I can't  determine if I don't know.  So it is 20 percent of known?  :  Of known.  I am sorry, 20 percent of known marriages or 20  percent of marriages where the house is known?  :  Where the house is known, yes, the house of the  people marrying to the members.  In that case, it  was Baskyalaxha, so 20 percent of the marriages of  the members of the house of Baskyalaxha where we  know what house they married to.  Okay.  So that if you had 50 marriages shown on the  genealogy and 25 of those or 20 of those marriages  you knew the house to which the spouse belonged,  would it be 20 percent of all of the marriages shown  or 20 percent of those -- of the 20 marriages?  Twenty percent of the 20 where the spouse's house  was known.  Yes.  Maybe we can go to tab 26, please, the Lelt  genealogy, and if you could, just by reference to  that, advise which house you were referring to that  they most commonly marry, I should say, marry  greater than 20 percent?  Malii.  Malii?  Yes.  I am sorry, which one was that.  Lelt, the house known as Malii, and I think the  other one was Gitludahl, it was tab 10, I believe.  I am sorry, were you looking for the tab number?  No.  That's Malii of Kitwancool, is it?  Yes.  :  Yes.  That would be the Malii —  That's right.  The other one, we weren't given his --  Gitludahl, that's at tab 10.  Which house group did 10862  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 they marry greater than 20 percent into?  2 A    Luus.  3 Q    Luus?  4 A    Yes.  5 Q    That's Luus, the chief in Kispiox, Jess Harris  6 Senior?  7 A    Yes.  8 Q    Now, does that -- well, I am going to just read you  9 this statement and ask you to explain it.  On the  10 bottom of page 50 and the top of page 51, you state  11 after that statement:  12  13 "The hard statistics do not demonstrate the  14 strength of these relationships because in  15 some cases a House may marry into two or three  16 closely related Houses of the same  17 wilnadaahl."  18  19 And that's your opinion?  20 A    Yes.  21 Q    And can you explain that?  22 A    Yes.  When you count the actual houses, that gives  23 you one figure, but two houses could be very closely  24 related such as Kliiyem Lax Haa and Wii Mugulsxw,  25 functioning together in many aspects of their  26 existence, and so it could in fact be that the  27 actual relationship between the closely related  28 group of Kliiyem Lax Haa and Wii Mugulsxw at one  29 other house was stronger than indicated by the  30 figures because the figures strictly went by house  31 and didn't consider those very close relationships  32 that exist between some houses.  33 Q    Can you give an example of that, of a house where  34 they may have married often into another house,  35 another group of houses which is part of the same  36 wilnadaahl?  37 A    I believe a example of that would be 'Niist and Wii  38 gaak combined together have married very many times  39 with Antigulilibix.  40 Q    Antigulilibix, and that's the same as Tsibasaa?  41 A    Yes.  42 Q    Now, on page 52, you state:  43  44 "Some marriage alliances are far more important  45 than others."  46  47 And that's your opinion? 10863  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A    Yes.  2 Q    And can you explain that, why you have that opinion  3 and what -- first of all, maybe you could explain  4 what you mean by, "some alliances are far more  5 important than others"?  What do you mean by "far  6 more important"?  7 A    When two individuals marry allying two houses, the  8 marriage may have much greater influence than if two  9 other individuals of those two houses married, and  10 those cases would be if it was the chief of the  11 house, a person who's very influencial in the  12 affairs of the house, or if the marriage resulted in  13 many children, that would affect far more people.  14 So in the case of a marriage, such as the marriage  15 between the current Tsibasaa and the current Haiwas,  16 they had many children, so with them both being  17 chiefs and them having many children, that has a  18 fairly great effect on the two houses and cements  19 them together in quite a solid relationship.  20 Q    I'd like to go to the next page, and you state, and  21 it may be better than asking you, I will state the  22 definition you have written.  It is a new section of  23 levirate and sororate, and you state that  24 Levirate -- start again:  25  26 "The levirate is the practise of a widow  27 marrying her dead husband's brother or other  28 male relative.  The sororate occurs when a  29 widower marries his dead wife's sister or  30 other female relative."  31  32 And that is a definition used in kinship studies?  33 A    Yes, it is.  34 Q    And it is an accepted definition in the field of  35 kinship and anthropology?  36 A    Yes, it is.  37 Q    You then you go on to state:  38  39 "This is a very common practise among the  40 Gitksan that does not seem to have declined  41 much with time."  42  43 Is that your opinion?  44 A    Yes, it is.  45 Q    And can you tell us why you came to that conclusion?  46 A    Because as documented on the genealogies, there are  47 many occurrences of that in marriages that have 10864  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  29  Q  30  A  31  MR. GOLDIE:  32  THE WITNESS  33  THE COURT:  34  MR. GRANT:  35  Q  36  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  occurred fairly recently where one spouse is  deceased and the surviving spouse marries another  member of the same house, a brother, sister, uncle,  aunt, nephew.  I'd ask you to refer to page 98, footnote 13, pages  98 and 99.  There is 19 names in the left-hand  column and 38 on the right.  And are those -- do  those list all of the levirate and sororate on the  genealogies?  No.  They were -- they were just examples that I  knew offhand.  I wouldn't know of all of the  examples of that, necessarily.  Okay.  Now, did -- maybe you could just advise --  this would include old ones I gather.  For example,  I see Rhoda Johnson, the man from Delgamuukw's house  and Joshua Johnson, that would have been an earlier  one?  Yes.  Because you weren't certain who the man was?  Yes.  Can you go through the list and advise ones where  either of the marriage partners on either column are  still alive, that is, ones that are current or  recent levirate and sororate?  Yes.  Alvin Weget and Dorothy Johnson.  Yes.  Linda Stevens and Freddie Kale.  Linda Patsey and  Ted Mowatt.  How old approximately would Linda Patsey be?  Thirty-five.  She is a widow, is that right?  :  Yes.  I am sorry, she is married to Ted Mowatt?  Yes.  Maybe explain that using that example.  Linda  Patsey was married to one of those?  To David Anderson.  He died?  He drowned when he was 25.  And then?  She remarried Ted Mowatt, who's his uncle.  Who's David Anderson's uncle?  Yes.  Go ahead.  Roy Williams and Dora Tait.  Yes.  And what was the relationship between Dora and  and Maryanne, Dora Tait and Maryanne Brown? 10865  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  6  A  7  Q  8  A  9  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  MR.  GOLDIE:  15  16  THE  WITNESS  17  MR.  GRANT:  18  MR.  GOLDIE:  19  THE  WITNESS  20  MR.  GRANT:  21  Q  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  A  45  Q  46  A  47  Q  Aunt and niece.  Maryanne was the aunt?  Yes.  That Richard Benson that's referred to there, he was  the chief who died just recently?  Yes, he was.  His wife also just died recently.  Grace Sexsmith?  Yes, just within the last two or three years.  Wallace Johnson and Mary Wilson on the next page.  Yes.  Ira Good and Darlene Wright.  Yes.  And that's it.  If the witness can do it, can she give us the  charts on which these marriages would appear?  :  Certainly.  Just --  Just of the recent ones.  :  Oh, okay.  Just a moment here. I have got no problem with that  but I will do it in the context of the question I am  going to ask.  Can you just explain who the relationship of the  persons in the left-hand -- or the right-hand column  that is I take it that the first name is -- was the  first wife or husband?  Yes.  And that person died and then the second name is the  more recent one?  Yes.  Okay.  And that applies throughout?  Yes.  Okay.  Now, can you explain by starting with Nellie  Wilson and Violet Derrick what was the relationships  between Nellie and Violet were?  Nellie and Violet were mother and daughter, but of  course Ernest Harris was not marrying his own  daughter, it was his wife's daughter by a previous  marriage, and that is the same for the first three  cases .  Where the first named person was the mother and the  second was the daughter?  By a previous marriage in all cases.  What about Peggy Johnson and Dorothy Johnson?  They were sisters.  And which genealogy would that show on, Alvin Weget? 10866  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A    The two sisters would appear on Luus -- well, they  2 would appear with Alvin on the Gitludahl or  3 Gutginuxw, I mean, but Peggy and Dorothy would be on  4 Luus.  5 Q    Now, you mentioned that first of all any marriage  6 would appear twice; is that right?  7 A    Yes.  8 Q    Because it would be on both spouse's genealogy?  9 A   At least -- yeah, any one marriage, that is right.  10 Q    Any one marriage I am saying?  11 A    Right.  12 Q    You mentioned Alvin Weget.  What name does he hold  13 today?  14 A    Niisgiminguu.  15 Q    N-i-i-s-g-i-m-i-n-g-u-u.  And which house or which  16 genealogy or genealogies would he appear on?  17 A    Gutginuxw.  18 Q    And was he adopted into another house?  19 A    Yes.  He was in the house of Gitludahl.  20 Q    So he may appear on that as well?  21 A    Yes.  22 Q    Linda Stevens married Joe Wesley and Freddie Kale.  23 What was their relationship and which genealogies  24 would they appear on?  25 A    Linda Stevens is on Baskyalaxha and Joe Wesley and  26 Freddie Kale are on Gutginuxw, and they were uncle  27 and nephew.  2 8 Q    And whenever you are saying uncle and nephew, you're  29 going from the first person to the second in the  30 list?  31 A    Yes.  Joe was the uncle and Freddie was his sister's  32 son, I believe.  33 Q    Could you -- which genealogy were Joe and Freddie  34 on?  35 A    Gitginuxw.  36 Q    Linda Patsey and David Anderson and Ted Mowatt,  37 which genealogy would they be on?  38 A   Again, Linda Patsey is Delgamuukw and David Anderson  39 and Ted Mowatt are Djogaslee and David was the  40 nephew and Ted was the uncle.  David is the son of  41 Ted's sister.  42 Q    Bob Robinson and Louise May and Molly May, what  43 genealogy would that show on?  44 A    Louise May and Molly May, I believe it's Spookxw, I  45 am not absolutely positive, and Bob Robinson is Frog  46 clan.  I can't remember the house, I am sorry.  I  47 can't remember Bob Robinson's house. 10867  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  Q    I am going to ask you to look at tab 35 which is the  Spookxw genealogy?  A    I am not positive of that one actually.  It is  Spookxw or Wii gaak, one of the closely-related Wolf  houses from Gitanmaax.  Okay, 35?  I will see if it's on there.  Maybe, my lord, it -- maybe what we will do is I can  go on and then leave that for the break.  No, I am sorry, it is not that one.  It must be Wii  gaak.  We will look at that at the break.  Do you want to take the adjournment now?  That may be appropriate.  Thank you.  Q  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess,  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15 A.M.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein, transcribed to the  best of my skill and ability.  TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter  United Reporting Service Ltd. 1086?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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.  REGISTRAR:  COURT:  Mr  GRANT:  Q  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 11:30)  Order in court.  Grant.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  Thank you, my lord.  I ask the witness to refer to tab  12 of Exhibit 853, the Guuhadak-Yagosip genealogy.  Can you refer to page 4 of that genealogy, Miss  Harris.  And there's a reference there to Walter Bob  Robinson and Louisa.  Is that the -- is that the Bob  Robinson referred to in footnote 13?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And that -- what house is he in?  A   Nika teen.  Q   And Louise and Molly would be in which house?  A   Yagosip and Guuhadak.  Q   If you turn to page 5; is that the same Walter Bob  Robinson?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And Louise -- Molly, it appears from this, is the  adopted daughter of Louise's sister?  A   Yes.  Molly was originally from the coast related  house of Wii Gaak.  Q   So in these circumstances where a person marries into  the same house twice there -- is it -- you've shown  here Walter Bob Robinson twice on the same genealogy  as a spouse.  Would that always be the case where  you have that situation of Levirate Sororate?  A   Yes, it is.  GOLDIE:  Mediterranean countries.  GRANT:  My friend is referring to thousands of years ago, I  presume.  GOLDIE:  With as much knowledge as the witness.  GRANT:  That's unnecessary, Mr. Goldie.  Going on to the  next listing, Roy Williams and Maryanne Brown and  Dora Tait, what is the relationship between Maryanne  and Dora?  COURT:  We have that.  GRANT:  Q   I'm sorry.  A   Yes.  Q   And okay, I'll just refer you to the next page,  Wallace Johnson, Laura Gawa and Mary Wilson.  Do you  recall the relationship between Laura and Mary?  A   Yes.  Laura was Mary's niece.  Q   And what house are Laura and Mary in?  A  Antguililbix. 10869  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And Wallace?  2 A   Niist.  3 Q   And Ira -- Myrna Davis and Darlene Wright; what is  4 their relationship?  5 A   They're sisters.  6 Q   And what house are they from?  7 A   Luutkudziiwus' house.  8 Q   I would like to go back to the source of that, into  9 the footnote.  Does the fact that Sororate and  10 Levirate marriages still occur, did that have an  11 influence on your conclusions or opinion?  12 A   Yes.  I believe it shows that the traditional marriage  13 patterns of the Gitksan are still strong today.  14 Q   Now, then you summarize or you refer to other factors  15 that influence marriage on page 54.  And let me just  16 ask you this:  Traditionally -- or I should say in  17 the past were marriages arranged?  18 A   Yes, they were.  19 Q   Are marriages arranged today?  20 A   Not overtly.  21 Q   When you say "not overtly", why do you say it that  22 way; what do you mean?  23 A  Well, I believe that there is still some influence  24 felt of the older relatives.  They do not say to  25 young relatives you must marry this particular  26 person and then that becomes so as in the past, but  27 because of the fact that the traditional marriage  28 alliances seem to be continuing and because of the  29 fact that the Levirate Sororate seem to continue to  30 be practised that there must be some influence felt.  31 Q   Now, on page 55 you state:  32  33 "Another factor affecting choice of marriage  34 partner is rank."  35  36 What -- is that your opinion?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   That's the second full paragraph there, my lord.  What  39 do you mean by "rank", and if that's an  40 anthropological term, if you can explain what it is;  41 just explain what you mean by how it's used?  42 A   Yes.  It is an anthropological term.  Ranking is a  43 system of statuses that is somewhat flexible in that  44 in a ranking system people can move up and down the  45 scale of statuses.  It's more flexible than a class  46 system or a caste system.  47 Q   What do you mean by "class or caste system"?  Is that 10870  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 one or two alternatives?  2 A   Those are two other alternatives.  3 Q   And are those anthropological terms you're using here?  4 A   Yes, they are.  5 Q   What do you mean by a "caste system"?  6 A  A caste system is a rigid system in which it is  7 impossible to move out of your caste.  8 Q   Now, you say that rank affects the choice of a  9 marriage partner in the Gitksan system?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Why do you say that?  12 A   Because the children of chiefs or the nephews and  13 nieces of chiefs, those closely related to chiefs  14 are more likely to marry each other.  15 Q   Um-hum.  Now, on page 56 at the bottom you say  16 "High-ranking Gitksan":  17  18 "The trend towards high-ranking Gitksan marrying  19 others of high rank is still strong today."  20  21 And that is your opinion, is that right?  22 A   Yes, it is.  23 Q   And why do you -- what's your basis for that opinion?  24 A   I'm sorry, I was trying to find it on the text.  25 Q   At the bottom of page 56 there?  26 A   Oh, I'm sorry.  27 Q  28 "The trend towards high-ranking Gitksan marrying  29 others of high rank is still strong today."  30  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Why do you say that?  33 A  Well, you can see on the genealogies that the children  34 and the nephews and nieces of chiefs do marry each  35 other.  36 Q   You state above that on page 56 in the fourth line  37 down on the first paragraph there:  38  39 "From the Gitksan point of view, however a person  40 is not chosen to take a chief's name because he is  41 wealthy; rather he is wealthy and is chosen to  42 take a chief's name both for the same reason,  43 which is right-living."  44  45 I would like you to -- that is your opinion?  46 A   Yes, it is.  47 Q   And what is the basis for that conclusion? 10871  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A  Wealth is a -- is a factor in selecting a person to  2 take a chief's name because they have to have --  3 they have to be in the financial position to hold up  4 the name, to put on the feasts that are necessary,  5 and in traditional times the wealth came from the  6 land but in current times part of that wealth is  7 cash income, which is usually earned by wage labour.  8 But the Gitksan perspective is that one is well off  9 because he does the right things.  He works hard and  10 saves his money and works at his job for cash income  11 and spends his weekends or evenings cutting his own  12 wood and catching fish or going hunting, producing  13 other wealth.  And the chief is always working and  14 always busy, and so the characteristic of being hard  15 working and thrifty to himself is they're both  16 characteristics that are required of the chief, and  17 those result in a chief being wealthy.  The chief  18 can't buy a chief's name because the position -- the  19 biological relationship between the possible heir  20 and the former chief is usually the most important  21 criteria, and the amount of money that's put in at  22 the feast is determined by who will or will not get  23 the name, and that is determined before a feast  24 occurs.  25 Q   Well, but the fact that the decision as to who will be  26 the chief occurs before the feast occurs, a person  27 who's selected -- could not a person before the  28 feast occurs be selected because of his wealth, is  29 what I'm asking?  30 A   No, because the most important criteria is the  31 relationship -- the biological relationship or  32 social relationship between the chief and the heir.  33 Q   And what is the basis for your opinion on this, what  34 you've just described?  35 A   You can see on the genealogies that the heirs of  36 chiefs, the people who inherit from chiefs, are  37 often very closely related in that they may be the  38 child of the former chief's sister, or if the former  39 chief is a woman, it may be her own son or daughter.  40 Q   Can you refer to any example where a person more  41 closely related but not as well off financially is  42 chosen over a person that's not as closely related  43 but is better off financially?  44 A   Yes.  This would commonly occur where an elderly  45 person is chosen who's already retired and therefore  46 is not as substantially well off, such as Mary  47 Johnson inheriting the name Antgulilbix when she was 10872  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  A  8  Q  9  10  11  A  12  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  A   '  17  MR.  GRANT:  18  19  20  21  MR.  GOLDIE  22  MR.  GRANT:  23  MR.  GOLDIE  24  25  26  27  THE  COURT:  28  MR.  GRANT:  29  30  31  THE  COURT:  32  MR.  GRANT:  33  Q  34  35  36  37  A  38  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  A  already over 70 and retired.  Yes?  Eva Sampson recently took Kliiyem lax haa.  That was within the last year?  I believe.  Or a year and a half ago?  Yes.  I believe a year and a half ago, I suppose.  And who was the person -- who would be a person in the  case of Eva Sampson who would be better off and more  distantly related, for example?  Eva's son would be one step further removed from the  former chief, or Eva's nephew, John Olsen.  I see.  Fairly well-off person.  Can you just give another example?  Within the same house or --  No.  Another example of where -- of this analogy to  demonstrate what you've explained that a person  closer biologically is more often chosen, even if  there is somebody more distant but more wealth.  :  Did the witness say more often or --  My friend's maybe objecting to my question.  :  My concern is the question summarizes or purports  to summarize what evidence has been given, and I  don't remember the witness giving evidence in quite  those words.  No.  I don't think she said quite that.  No.  And I wasn't trying to put the words in her  mouth, my lord, notwithstanding -- okay.  Maybe I  will leave it to you just to --  Can you give another example?  Give another example where a person is selected  because of a closer biological relationship, even  though there's somebody that's more distantly  related but more wealth?  Jerry Gunanoot was selected to take David Gunanoot's  chief's name.  That's Nii Kyap?  Yes.  And what was -- what was their relationship  biologically?  Jerry is David's sister's son.  And was -- was there other persons that were better  off that could have taken it; that is financially  better off?  Yes. 10873  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  1  7  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  15  A  16  Q  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  MR. GOLDIE  22  MR. GRANT:  23  Q  24  25  26  27  28  A  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  MR. GOLDIE  38  39  40  41  MR. GRANT:  42  Q  43  44  45  A  46  47  Such as?  Sorry, I don't remember the names, but relatives who  live in Kitsegukla.  Would they be on the Nii Kyap genealogy?  Yes.  Maybe I can just refer to that for a moment.  That is  tab number 31.  Yes.  I was referring to --  Can you give a page reference?  Yes.  People found on page 2 and 3, Clifford and  George Sampare.  Clifford is near the bottom  right-hand side.  The second line from the bottom on the right-hand side  of page 2?  Yes.  And the lowest line on page 3 of the left side?  Yes.  George and Clifford are brothers; is that right,  George and Clifford are brothers?  I'm sorry, yes, they are.  :  And you said that they are wealthy?  Can you explain when you do use the terminology in  your report, "wealth", "wealthy", and we're talking  about I narrowed it to financial wealth; can you  explain what you mean by that term as for a Gitksan  what wealth is in financial --  In Gitksan terms a person with steady employment is  far better off than many of his neighbours, and  certainly if a person has a steady job or is a  commercial fisherman and then traps in the winter to  add extra income, his spouse works and contributes  income to the family, and as I said before, if he  hunts and fishes and produces his own wood, this  person would be considered well off in Gitksan  terms.  :  Well, my only question was are we to take it from  the evidence that Clifford and George Sampare to be  characterized in whatever terms they want as wealthy  people; is that for the purpose of the example?  I'll ask.  When you compare Clifford and George  Sampare to Jerry Gunanoot, which are the -- which  are better off financially?  The Sampare brothers are better off financially than  Jerry Gunanoot, who relies almost entirely on  trapping. 10874  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Now, if you look -- would there be examples of this  2 where a person not as well off financially would  3 have been chosen in the Wii'goob'l house?  I'm  4 sorry, not in the -- in the Gyetm Galdoo house?  5 A   Yes.  The current Gyetm Galdoo, Sylvester Green.  6 Q   Yes?  7 A   He's not as well off as possibly Charlotte Sullivan or  8 Charlotte's sister -- sorry, I can't remember her  9 name, Cora Gray.  10 Q   And was he more closely related to the -- biologically  11 to the former Gyetm Galdoo?  12 A   Yes, he was.  13 Q   I would like to move into the next -- the final area  14 on the marriage.  I'm not going to make reference in  15 direct evidence, my lord, to the -- of course I will  16 be seeking to tender this document as an exhibit,  17 but I'm not going to make direct reference to the  18 witness on the post-marital residence section at  19 all, I just go directly to page 62, where there's a  20 brief section on divorce.  And the last --  21 second-to-last sentence on page 62 you've stated:  22  23 "Once divorced, a Gitksan person is free to marry  24 as if he or she had never been married before."  25  26 And that is your conclusion as a result of your  27 research?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Now, is this any different than if the spouse dies?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Can you explain that?  32 A   Yes.  If the spouse dies, the traditional marriage  33 rule is that one should marry into the same house,  34 but there's no such regulation for people who  35 divorce.  And in cases where people divorce, quite  36 often that person does not renew the ties with the  37 same house.  If they remarry they marry into a  38 completely different house.  39 Q   You said that it's a traditional marriage rule where a  40 person dies.  What do you mean by that?  Is that --  41 A   That's the practise of the Levirate and Sororate.  42 Q   Would that be considered among the Gitksan law or  43 preference?  44 A  A preference.  45 Q   In Gitksan terms?  46 A  A preference.  47 Q   I would like to turn now to the next section in which 10875  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 you talk about inheritance.  Now, you state in the  2 very beginning there that:  3 "Gitksan inheritance of House property is through  4 the matriline.  A chief is usually a man and his  5 heir is usually his sister's son.  When the chief  6 is a woman her own son or daughter is usually the  7 heir.  Variations are quite common."  8  9 Those are your opinions and conclusions as a result of  10 your research and work?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Now, what do you mean there -- what are you talking  13 about when you talk about "House property"?  14 A   House property would be land, fishing sites, crests,  15 adaawk, songs, regalia.  16 Q   Now, you go on to state that -- at the bottom of that  17 same paragraph, the last sentence:  18  19 "Possible permutations are numerous but always  20 within the rules of matrilineal inheritance; only  21 House members inherit the chief's name except in  22 the case of a House which is virtually extinct."  23  24 And that's your conclusion?  25 A   Yes, it is.  26 Q   And at footnote 14 you refer to 14 -- or you refer --  27 I'm sorry -- to nine examples which you state are  28 exceptions in recent times that House members  29 inherit the cheif's name?  30 A   These aren't examples, they're the only exceptions.  31 Q   I'm sorry, thank you.  That's what you say as well?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   Now, could you just to explain this, I don't want you  34 to go through all of them, I will take the last one  35 you've listed, Ma'uus, can you just -- it's on page  36 100, you state that:  37  38 "The House of Ma'uus came out of the House of  39 Luutkudziiwus at sometime in the past so  40 when Ma'uus came close to extinction about 40 to  41 50 years ago, they adopted members from  42 Luutkudziiwus' House.  The current Ma'uus, Jeff  43 Harris Jr., is one of them."  44  45 Possibly we can look at that genealogy, which is tab  46 number 29 -- I'm sorry, I may be -- it is tab 29 of  47 Exhibit 853.  Can you just, with reference to what 10876  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  Q  12  13  14  A  15  16  Q  17  A  18  MR.  GRANT  19  20  THE  COURT  21  MR.  GRANT  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  MR.  GRANT  28  THE  REGIS1  29  A  30  31  THE  REGIS1  32  A  33  MR.  GRANT  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  GRANT  you've -- can you just indicate to the court what  you're showing about where inheritance of the  chief's name did not follow the -- I don't -- the  House member, only house member inherit in this  case?  This house was virtually extinct of its original  members in the early years of the century; I'm  thinking in particular around the 1920's and 30's.  There were very few living house members left, and I  believe they were all men at the time, which --  Yeah.  This one -- this genealogy, I just note, my  lord, appears the second page is upside down on my  copy.  I don't know if it is --  It's the -- it's upside down, and I believe it's  the -- is it the second page?  Yeah.  That's the second page.  Or is it the third page?  I don't know, but this -- yeah.  This one here was  in the file, appears to be the right one.  There are only three pages, are there not?  Yes.  Are yours all the same in the size?  No, one is smaller.  Yeah.  I think it came through a Fax, it appears, but  the copy I have here --  That one's right.  Yeah.  Maybe you can just refer to that one.  ERAR:  This one's better than that.  Yeah.  This one has one small page and this one has  the appropriately sized pages.  ERAR: I'll stamp this one.  That's better.  Can you explain on that genealogy where the  inheritance went to someone who was not a house  member?  Yes.  Not born a house member?  Not born a house member?  I believe we were still putting it incorrectly.  As I  explained, this house was becoming extinct of its  original members, and I believe by the 1920's and  30's that there were no women left at all in the  house, there were a few men living, and of course  men don't contribute descendants to their own house,  so Jacob Morrison, who you see on the first page in  the right-hand side --  Yes?  Do you have that, my lord? 10877  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  THE  COURT  2  A  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  THE  COURT  14  A  15  THE  COURT  16  MR.  GRANT  17  THE  COURT  18  MR.  GRANT  19  Q  20  A  21  22  23  THE  COURT  24  A  25  THE  COURT  26  A  27  THE  COURT  28  A  29  30  THE  COURT  31  A  32  THE  COURT  33  MR.  GRANT  34  35  THE  COURT  36  MR.  GRANT  37  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  THE  COURT  41  MR.  GRANT  42  Q  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  A  Yes.  He adopted Emma Brown.  Emma Brown was a member of the  House of Luutkudziiwus, which was very closely  related to Ma'uus in that Ma'uus had subdivided from  Luutkudziiwus in the past.  So they went back to the  house they had come out of to replenish the house.  Um-hum?  And they did this by adopting Emma Brown.  And her  son, Jeff Harris Jr., became Ma'uus.  And that's shown on the first page?  Yes.  That's on the first page as well.  And that's the kind of -- so --  She wasn't Ma'uus herself?  No.  Who was?  Before Jeff Harris Jr.?  Yes.  There was --  Mathew Morrison and Daniel Gawa.  I don't remember the  order, I don't remember who was the last one before  Jeff.  I can't find one.  On the second page.  Is it?  Oh, yes.  Mathew Morrison.  Yes?  And Daniel Gawa.  Daniel Gawa's mother was also  Ma'uus.  That's Elizabeth?  Yes.  And Daniel, where is he?  Right under Elizabeth and Kliiyem lax haa there, my  lord.  Oh, yes.  Possibly the exhibit could be handed up to his  lordship.  No.  I can follow it.  You can follow it?  Yes.  So under footnote 14 you describe the exceptions and  what happened with the exceptions in each case?  Yes.  Is that correct?  And those descriptions are your -- a  synopsis of those exceptions?  Yes. 1087?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  THE  COURT  2  3  4  A  5  THE  COURT  6  A  7  MR.  GRANT  8  Q  9  10  11  A  12  THE  COURT  13  MR.  GRANT  14  Q  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  A  45  46  Q  47  This description is quite accurate, is it?  The  current Ma'uus, Jeff Harris Jr., you say is one of  them.  He wasn't adopted, was he?  His mother was.  His mother was?  Yes.  He was the descendant of an adopted person.  So you're referring to that -- this example shows that  persons other than those in the biological lineage  have succeeded, and in this case it was an adoption?  Yes.  Thank you.  Now, you state that  on the top of page 64 that:  "Before contact it could also be expected that  heirs would be socially ready to accept their  responsibilities."  This is a conclusion that you've come to in your  opinion  9  Sorry, where was that?  Top of page 64, the second line?  Oh, yes.  And what's the basis for that conclusion?  In the past children were raised to be chiefs' heirs.  From even before they were born it was sometimes  determined that they would become a chief's heir,  and certainly when they were very young, and they  would be raised and trained to take up that  position.  Um-hum.  And you've described subsequent to that on  page 64 some of the elders who told you this and  some of the details of the pre-contact?  Yes.  Now, I -- just before that you state on page 63 that:  "North America was relatively disease-free at that  time and Gitksan society had long periods  of stability."  Now, the first part of that you make a reference to  Wirsing.  He's an anthropologist?  I'm not positive.  He would possibly be an  anthropologist specializing in medical anthropology.  So that's an assumption you make based on the readings  you have done? 10879  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Q  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  MR.  GRANT:  28  MR.  GOLDIE  29  30  MR.  GRANT:  31  Q  32  A  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  MR.  GOLDIE  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  MR.  GRANT:  42  43  44  45  MR.  GOLDIE  46  MR.  GRANT:  47  Q  Yes.  And also just to refer to volume 1 -- well, no, I'll  come back to that later.  But you go to -- then you  say that there was long periods of stability in  Gitksan society.  And what is the basis for your  opinion there?  The adaawk indicated in that when you read a fairly  complete cycle of adaawk, by which I mean not just  the history of one incident that occurred but the  history of a fairly complete history of one house,  for instance --  Yes?  In these cycles they will tell you about a  catastrophic event that occurred at one period of  the history, and then they will make statements  saying "And we lived in peace and prosperity for  many centuries", and then they will tell you about  another catastrophic event and they will describe  that there were periods of many centuries of peace  and prosperity as it's commonly said.  Now, on the top of page 65 you state that:  "With European-Canadian contact the Gitksan  encountered a period of unprecedented disruption."  Yes.  Is this something that you base upon your readings?  :  Well, just ask her the source of that opinion,  please.  Sure.  Can you just say what -- why do you say that?  Okay.  The anthropological literature describes it.  Yes.  Is that --  :  What literature, please, I'm very sensitive about  this point, my lord.  We've had the disease-free  aspect as -- is given by an author, which is the  approved and authorized way of doing things, and in  anthropological literature this statement has no  authority given for, and I would like to be precise  about it.  Well, the witness was in the middle of her answer,  and I think -- and I appreciate very much your point  and we're going to come to it, if you don't  interrupt the answer.  :  Well, I want to make clear what my concern is.  Thank you.  I appreciate your concern.  Go ahead? 10880  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A   '  2  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  THE  COURT:  11  MR.  GRANT:  12  MR.  GOLDIE  13  Q  14  15  THE  COURT:  16  MR.  GRANT:  17  Q  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  25  A  26  MR.  GRANT:  27  MR.  GOLDIE  28  29  MR.  GRANT:  30  Q  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  A  43  44  45  46  Q  47  A  Wilson Duff certainly does talk about population  decline in his book "Impact Of The White Man".  I would like to refer you at this point to tab 35 of  volume 1 of your document book.  It's actually the  one that you have there, tab 35.  Now, that -- the  title page of that is "The Impact Of The White Man",  B.C. Provincial Museum, author Wilson Duff.  Are you  familiar with that work?  Yes, I am.  Do we know the date of it?  That is 19 —  :  '64, my lord.  '64.  Sorry, my lord, I didn't put the inside  reference.  All right.  And I have photocopied here only one chapter, which is  chapter 2, relating to population.  And are you  familiar with that chapter you've read as part of  the book?  Yes, I am.  And in this chapter he describes -- he goes into  changes since 1835 on page 40 and talks about rapid  decline.  Are you familiar with that?  Yes.  Just a moment.  :  It's sufficient for my purposes if the witness says  "This is what I relied upon".  And then on page 44 he refers to a graph.  Is this one  of the sources upon which you relied?  Yes.  And you can see in that graph, which says "Indian  population trend 1835 to 1963", and here of course  he's talking about, I believe, the province.  You  can see the dip, the population dip in the area of  1885 through what seems to be a bottoming out, 1885,  1929 and then a rise up towards 1950.  Now, is that  kind of a trend from your genealogical research; is  that what you observed amongst the Gitksan in that  period from looking at your genealogies?  I can't document in the genealogies the decline that  you see on this chart which starts at 1800, because  very few actual individuals are represented on the  genealogy that lived at that time.  Yes?  But the fact that the population was low and started 10881  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  12  13  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  22  THE  regist:  23  24  25  26  27  28  MR.  GRANT:  29  30  31  MR.  GOLDIE  32  33  34  35  36  THE  COURT:  37  MR.  GOLDIE  38  THE  COURT:  39  MR.  GOLDIE  40  41  THE  COURT:  42  MR.  GOLDIE  43  44  THE  COURT:  45  46  47  for  to rapidly increase from the 1930's onward is  demonstrated on the genealogies.  Is this -- are there other anthropological sources  your -- about the population decline caused by  disease which you've referred to?  Yes, there is.  Relied on?  What are they?  I'm just trying to think of some references.  Um-hum?  Simon Fraser University, Professor Robin -- I'm  sorry -- he wrote about the effect of the gold rush  on the Indian populations of British Columbia and he  documents a decline as well.  And is that the author -- that's not the author of  "Contact and Conflict"?  Yes, it is .  Robin Fisher?  Yes.  We should mark Exhibit 35 as the next exhibit.  Diamond Jenness also discusses population decline in  his 1932 work "Indians of Canada".  RAR:  It will be Exhibit 855.  854 has been reserved  for the report.  EXHIBIT 855  White Man"  Document entitled "Impact of the  Is it generally accepted in the anthropological  field about the -- about the population decline of  Indian people in British Columbia?  Well, I object to that question, my lord.  I have  asked my friend to be precise about the references  that the witness relies upon because this is a  matter clearly beyond her personal experience or  memory, or basically of any living informant.  Well —  The fact of depopulation is well known.  Yes.  All I'm asking is what are the sources that she  relies upon?  I understand she has given three names.  That's what I have now is Duff, Robin Fisher, and  Diamond Jeness.  Yes.  It seems to me, Mr. Goldie, that Mr. Grant is  entitled to ask the witness whether what she has  said here is accepted anthropological learning.  It  may be disputed, but that's -- if that's her belief 10?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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. GOLDIE:  THE COURT:  MR. GOLDIE:  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  MR. GOLDIE:  THE COURT  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  that that is a given in the anthropology, can't she  say that?  Well, if her -- if her evidence is that it is  generally accepted in the literature, and I'm  referring to page 64 -- or --  We're at the top of page 65 actually.  65, if she can indicate that statements made in  that paragraph are found in literature, then if she  wants to make a general statement I'll deal with  that in cross-examination.  I think that's what she's been asked to do.  Yes.  All right.  Is the opinion that Gitksan encountered or that --  let me -- I should say in a broader way that the  Indian people of British Columbia?  No, I'm sorry.  Well, you go, but I was addressing  his lordship with respect to the opinion stated in  the report:  "The Gitksan encountered a period of unprecedented  disruption."  Now that's -- if that is supported by other than the  references we've been given and my friend wants to  get a general statement, I said I will deal with  that in cross-examination, but that's what I was  directing my attention to.  Could you confine your question to the Gitksan, Mr.  Grant?  I'm going to step back from it a bit, my lord, and  endeavour to move up to it again.  You've referred  to the Duff data which talks about population  decline?  Yes.  Among Indians in British Columbia.  And you've  referred to Fisher and you've referred to Jenness?  Yes.  Can you recall now of any other sources that you  relied upon?  I can't think of them offhand.  Are the -- is it accepted within the anthropological  field that there was a major population decline in  British Columbia as set out by Duff?  Yes.  And Duff refers in his scales to the Tsimshian as one 10883  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 of the groups?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Would that include the Gitksan?  4 A   Yes, it does.  5 Q   Is it accepted in the anthropological field that the  6 Gitksan encountered a period of population decline  7 post-contact?  8 A   Yes, it is.  9 Q   Is it -- is that a disputed issue in the  10 anthropological field?  11 A   No.  12 Q   Now, you state on page 65 that the Gitksan encountered  13 a period of unprecedented disruption, and you said  14 that was your opinion.  We have dealt with the  15 question of population decline, that's what we  16 focused on right now.  Did you mean anything else  17 when you say unprecedented disruption?  18 A   Yes, I did.  19 Q   Can you explain what you mean by that?  20 A   Yes.  Their usual institutions and practises were  21 disrupted by practises such as removing Gitksan  22 children to residential schools.  23 Q   Yes?  24 A   By the destruction of their lands or fishing sites for  25 the purposes that they were formerly used for, such  26 as logging, making hunting or trapping impossible.  27 The -- even the day school education system removed  28 children from the traditional training that they  29 used to receive.  3 0 Q   Um-hum?  31 A   There was a general state of ill health as well that  32 prevailed in the early to mid decades of this  33 century, such as the common incidence of  34 tuberculosis, and alcoholism has become a factor.  35 Q   Now, what is the basis for your -- and I would like to  36 actually refer you -- although it's not referred to  37 here, I think it comes up later when you deal  38 with -- you restate this actually on page 66 of your  39 report where you refer to considerable social,  40 economic and biological disruptions, and you refer  41 to footnote 16 on page 100 and 17 on page 101.  Are  42 those the disruptive influences that you are  43 referring to?  44 A   Yes, they are.  45 Q   And on -- just look at both of those.  It's not  46 necessary for me for you to reread those.  What is  47 the basis for your opinion that those are the social 10884  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  A  8  MR.  GOLDI  9  MR.  GRANT  10  Q  11  A  12  13  14  MR.  GRANT  15  THE  COURT  16  17  A  18  MR.  GRANT  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  34  35  36  A  37  38  39  40  41  Q  42  43  44  45  A  46  Q  47  A  and economic disruptive influences on the Gitksan?  In other words, that is a conclusion that you've  come to?  Yes, it is.  What is the basis for that conclusion, looking at all  the sources that I referred you to yesterday?  Well —  EI:  Don't lead, please.  I'm not leading, I'm just trying to get --  As well as having read the literature and the elders  having informed me, I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure  what you're getting at.  Is that what you're --  :  Yes, go ahead.  :  The question is what are the sources for the  statements you make in footnote 16?  The literature and what the elders tell me.  Now, what the elders tell you is based on those  research and interviews that you've talked about?  Yes.  What -- you talk about the literature.  What  literature are you referring to?  The ones I referred to previously.  Just now?  Yes.  Duff, Fisher, Jenness?  Yes.  And you assume that what those authors have written  about these factors are true?  Yes.  Now, what about the era between the 1920's and 1950's,  has there been any population changes that you could  determine as a result of your genealogical work in  that era?  Yes.  There was a rapid rise in the population at that  time, and this is -- you can see this in the  genealogies, and certainly it's obvious in the  records, such as the Indian census records and the  band lists .  Now, you refer at the end of your report, Appendix A,  to a document list, and are these the document  records that you referred to, the page is 103, my  lord, when you talk about a census and band lists?  Yes, 103 and 104.  And 105?  Yes. 10885  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Now, I would just like to refer you to page 66 of your  2 report.  It says, the fifth line from the bottom of  3 that page that:  4  5 "A large proportion of heirs who are not their  6 successors' sisters' sons are at least from the  7 same lineage within the House."  8  9 And there's a typographical error there.  It should  10 say "predecessors" sister's sons", is it?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And that's your opinion?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   Now, you then go on to describe, and you've noted that  15 you've seen that, my lord?  16 A   Yes.  17 THE COURT:  Yes.  18 MR. GRANT:  19 Q   You then go on to describe that the heirs are:  20  21 "Chief's heirs were clearly recognized in the  22 past."  23  24 And describe how they sit at the front of the seat.  25 Now, do chiefs still make recommendations as to who  26 their successors will be?  27 A   Yes, they do.  2 8 Q   And have you seen this?  2 9 A   Yes, I have.  30 Q   And are their recommendations generally followed?  31 A   I wouldn't know how often they were followed, I  32 wouldn't have any precise figures, but they  33 certainly are followed in many incidents that I know  34 of.  35 Q   Okay.  Can you give some examples of instances where a  36 chief who has now died made a recommendation, public  37 recommendation as to who his successor should be and  38 that person was chosen?  39 A   Yes.  Jeffrey Morgan proclaimed Art Mathews Jr. as his  40 heir.  41 Q   Um-hum?  42 A  Who else?  43 Q   Yeah.  To which name would that be?  44 A   I'm sorry, to Axtii Hiik -- sorry, Tenimgyet.  45 Q   What about -- can you recall any other houses?  46 A   I'm trying to think who has passed away recently.  47 Yes.  Moses Morrison had proclaimed Pete Muldoe as 10886  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 his heir.  2 Q   And that's to which name?  3 A   Gitludahl.  4 Q   What about Delgamuukw?  5 A   Yes, that was another example.  Albert Tait had  6 proclaimed Kenny Muldoe as his heir, and Kenny spoke  7 in Delgamuukw's place when Albert was still alive,  8 indicating that that was what would happen.  9 Q   These are all examples that you've observed yourself  10 that have occured in the recent past while you have  11 been present?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   That is while you've been doing the research.  On page  14 67 you state "A young man" -- this is the second  15 paragraph, my lord.  I'll say the first two  16 sentences:  17  18 "When an old chief and the House members meet to  19 decide the new chief, they will almost always  20 choose someone from the chiefly lineage.  A young  21 man (in Gitksan terms aged 35 to 45) with  22 potential and from the correct lineage will  23 usually be chosen over an older, experienced man  24 from a more distantly related lineage within the  25 House."  26  27 And is that your opinion and conclusion?  28 A   Yes, it is.  29 Q   And what is the -- why do you say that?  30 A   I've seen examples of this.  I can think of recently  31 the name Simultseen was inherited by Lester Moore,  32 who was from the same lineage closely related as  33 Joshua Campbell, who was his mother's brother,  34 and —  35 Q   Which genealogy would that show on?  36 A   Luutkudziiwus.  And he was chosen over more distantly  37 related older men that could have been potential  38 heirs.  39 Q   Now, you state on page 48 -- or I'm sorry -- page 68,  40 at the very bottom:  41  42 "There are no absolute rules of succession."  43  44 And I'm going to read there:  45  46 "There's no absolute rules of succession as in  47 succession to the English throne, but there are 10887  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  A  6  Q  7  A  8  9  10  Q  11  A  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  MR.  GRANT:  23  THE  COURT:  24  25  MR.  GRANT:  26  27  THE  COURT:  28  29  MR.  GOLDIE  30  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  35  36  37  THE  COURT:  38  39  MR.  GOLDIE  40  41  THE  COURT:  42  43  44  45  46  47  clear preferences and criteria which are used  by the chiefs to choose successors."  Is that your opinion and conclusion?  Yes, it is.  Can you explain it?  Yes.  The line -- there are not absolute laws in  Gitksan society that set out the line of  inheritance.  Um-hum?  The most absolute of the rules concerning inheritance  is that the heir should be a house member, unless  there are no house members to inherit, as in the  case of a house that is actually extinct of original  members or approaching it.  And there is a  preference for an heir being the sister's son of the  former chief if the former chief was a man, but it's  not an absolute, and sometimes a more distantly  related person is chosen because they are a more  appropriate choice because they have more chiefly  qualities.  My lord, it may be an appropriate time to break.  All right.  Is it useful to inquire how we're  getting along and --  In terms of the direct evidence of this evidence, in  terms of her direct evidence, my lord?  I was thinking more in terms of looking at Mr. Rush  and Mr. Willms and Miss Albright about tomorrow.  :  They're operating -- I don't know about Mr. Rush,  but Mr. Willms is operating on the assumption that  Miss Albright will be called at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.  Is that -- do you share that view?  I spoke with Mr. Rush last night and I haven't  spoken with Miss Albright, but I believe he's  arranging -- he's advised her that she should start  tomorrow morning.  Do you expect to finish her examination in chief  this afternoon?  :  Of Mrs. Harrison?  I certainly anticipate -- I  don't even know if I'll take the entire afternoon.  All right, two o'clock.  Thank you.  (LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT TAKEN AT 12:30)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein transcribed to the 10?  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  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 best of my skill and ability  2  3  4  5  6 Graham D. Parker  7 Official Reporter  United Reporting Service Ltd. 10?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 2:00 P.M.)  THE  THE  MR.  REGISTRAR:  COURT:  GRANT:  MS.  MR.  MS.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  Order in court.  Ready to proceed, my lord.  Mr. Grant.  Just uncertain of where -- I'd like you to refer to  tab -- to volume 1, that's the one you have -- I am  sorry, to tab number 3 and it's labelled a Sample of  Cross-Cousin Marriage Analysis.  And that labelling  I think was my labelling in the preparation of this  document.  So can you explain to the court what  these notes reflect?  They appear to have a number  of codes in the first few pages and then you go on  to -- you have a Smoogelgem and Gisteewax.  It  appears you have Wet'suwet'en and Gitksan names.  KOENIGSBERG:  Sorry, which tab?  GRANT:  Tab 3 of the volume 1.  KOENIGSBERG:  You have given it a label.  WITNESS:  It's not that, Peter.  It's not called  cross-cousin.  GRANT:  Q    The index says that it is sample of Cross-Cousin  Marriage Analysis but that's not the correct name  for it?  No, it isn't.  What I was saying is that's something I had put on  the index or had put on the index, my lord.  Just  can you explain what it is?  What should it be labelled?  :  It would be Analysis of Inheritance Patterns.  Analysis of Inheritance Patterns?  Yes.  Thank you.  Okay.  Now, can you by reference to it explain to  the court what, for example, the first page  represents?  What's done there?  Yes.  Those are rough figures that were taken from  genealogies some time ago.  This was before they  were complete.  Just to give me an indication, if  the traditionally proclaimed pattern of inheritance  by a nephew from his uncle, in other words, from a  man to his sister's son, if this was actually the  case and you can see these labels on this page say  Wet'suwet'en Western Gitksan and Eastern Gitksan,  so --  Z represents sister, doesn't it?  A  GRANT:  COURT:  WITNESS  GRANT:  Q  A  COURT:  GRANT:  Q  A 10890  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Q  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  A  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  30  31  32  33  34  A  35  36  37  38  Q  39  40  A  41  MR. GRANT:  42  MR. GOLDIE  43  44  MR. GRANT:  45  Q  46  47  A  Yes, it does.  So these in the standard usage in  anthropology, M is mother, Z is sister, D is  daughter, S is son.  I believe that's the only ones  that are represented there.  And I just went through  the genealogies as they existed at that time and  noted the inheritance of house, chief's name and  wrote down the inheritance pattern and that's what  those figures represent, ZS; M M Z D D S, et cetera.  What about the box on the right-hand side of each of  them and the bottom under Eastern Gitksan which has  percentages?  Yes.  When you talk about total relationships, what are  you talking of there?  Of the ones that you see listed here as a rough --  it is a rough calculation of the ones that are  listed here so for the Western Gitksan, for example,  there were one, two, three, four, five, six that say  ZS meaning sister's son, and then there is one, two,  three, four, five, six, seven, eight other  relationships noted, and that's the accumulated  figures there.  The total relationships was 14;  sister's son was six and others were eight;  therefore, approximately 43 percent of those  inheritances were from a man to his sister's son.  Okay.  And similarly with the Eastern Gitksan.  Now, if you could go over and I will take you to the  page labelled 'Wii Hlengwax, it is eight pages over,  I think.  Do you have that?  Now, there is a number  of pages of similar character, I am not going to ask  you to go through all of them, but here is an  example.  Can you explain what that is?  Yes.  This, as it is noted in the corner, this  perfectly follows the traditionally proclaimed  pattern of inheritance from a man to his sister's  son in four generations.  Okay.  And that's indicated from Jim Laxnits to  Mathios to Josiah Bright to Herbert Burke?  Yes.  Just go to --  Excuse me, are these questions?  The last three  lines I can't quite make them out.  They appear to be questions, yes.  Those were your  notations of questions that you had?  Yes, yes. 10891  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GOLDIE:  2  MR.  GRANT:  3  MR.  GOLDIE:  4  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  7  THE  COURT:  8  THE  WITNESS  9  10  THE  COURT:  11  THE  WITNESS  12  MR.  GRANT:  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  30  31  Q  32  A  33  34  35  36  Q  37  A  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Q  47  What do they answer?  Mr. Goldie, you will have lots of opportunity.  Well, it is going to save a lot of time, my lord,  if we get some clarification now.  Well, if it will save some time, I have got no  problems with it.  Do you know what the answer is?  :  I don't know them offhand and I am not sure if  they are --  Let's go on to something else then.  :  -- demonstrated on the genealogy or not.  Axti Hix, in that example, can you just -- there is  a commentary that you have there.  These are  notations based on after you have looked at these  particular draft genealogies, drafts of genealogies,  these notes are taken from the drafts; is that  right?  Yes, that were existing at that time.  Yes.  This one represents an unusual occurrence where the  son of a former Axti Hix --  Who are you referring to?  Charlie -- I am sorry, Charlie Derrick.  Charlie Derrick.  He is on the far right there?  Yes.  Of the chart?  No, I am sorry, I am giving you the wrong name.  Could I see the Axti Hix genealogy?  It is  represented on there.  Tenimgyet genealogy, that would be at tab 36.  I am sorry, it isn't represented on the genealogy  but it is noted in these notes, that the first Axti  Hix that's represented there on the tab 3 again I am  referring to --  Mm-hmm.  The first one on the left-hand side, he died at the  time when the house population was very small, and  his son sat in the place of Axti Hix and protected  the name and the property of the house of Axti Hix  even though he was a member of the Fireweed clan and  he did this for a period of time until the members  of the house of Axti Hix were old enough to take the  name.  So this -- I am sorry, it isn't indicated on  here, there is just a note below.  "From Axti Hix to his only sister's only son. 10892  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Q  12  13  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  MR.  GRANT:  18  19  THE  regist:  20  21  22  23  24  MR.  GOLDIE  25  MR.  GRANT:  26  Q  27  28  29  A  30  MR.  GOLDIE  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  35  36  THE  COURT:  37  38  MR.  GRANT:  39  THE  COURT:  40  41  42  43  44  MR.  GRANT:  45  46  47  THE  COURT:  Then named by old Axti Hix's son.  Paul to his 'nephew'."  Then from  Right.  It is not diagrammed with the arrows there  but there was a period of time in which the name was  held by someone who was not a member of the Wolf  clan, not a member of the house of Axti Hix just to  protect the name and the properties of Axti Hix  while the members -- the real members of the house  grew up because they were children at the time.  Now, the balance of these notes in that tab refer to  notes of genealogies -- notes relating to different  houses and this inheritance pattern of names?  Yes.  And those are your notes based on your research?  Yes.  Those are all your notes?  I'd ask that that  document be marked as the next exhibit.  \R:      Exhibit 856.  (EXHIBIT 856 TAB 3  PATTERNS)  ANALYSIS OF INHERITANCE  This is all under tab 3.  Yes, the documents under tab 3.  That's all one  group of documents -- that's all one grouping of  documents?  Yes, it is .  That exhibit is subject to the same reservation  that we had earlier.  Yes.  Well, I am uncertain.  This is not notes of  interviews with witnesses, this is this witness' own  calculations, my lord.  But based upon the information she's been given  which --  It is based upon the genealogies.  Yes, and I am not sure it fits any exception of the  hearsay rule yet.  It might but the genealogy's a  little different because that's a biological  connection.  What we are talking about here is  chiefly names.  Okay.  Maybe I will ask one or two questions and lay  groundwork and argue it out later when we deal with  it.  I am not sure that's an exception to the hearsay 10893  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  MR.  GRANT:  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  A  13  MR.  GOLDIE  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  THE  COURT:  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  MR.  GRANT:  35  36  THE  COURT:  37  MR.  GRANT:  38  39  40  41  42  43  THE  COURT:  44  MR.  GRANT:  45  46  MR.  GOLDIE  47  rule.  Yes.  The data that is reflected in this in Exhibit  856, where does that data come from, that  information?  From the genealogical research.  Did you take it from earlier versions of the charts  that are Exhibit 853?  Yes, I did.  And did you do those calculations and make the  notations yourself?  Yes, I did.  Well, that doesn't change matters at all, my lord.  The source of her information is from elders or  whatever other source she got, but clearly that's  hearsay.  The calculations are hers but they are  based upon data that has no greater intrinsic basis  than the hearsay represented by the information  given her by from what she constructed her  genealogical tables.  Well, I am presently of the view that the detailed  information she received from chiefs or elders as to  the details of their -- the details of the  progression of the chief's name or a succession of  the chief's name may not be admissible, but her  opinion as to the pattern of chiefly succession as a  matter of anthropology is I think admissible.  Subject to the affirmaties of the source of  information and this is -- I don't think the hearsay  rule would rule out the anthropological opinion but  the detailed information which is contained in these  charts I think would not be admissible as proof of  the truth of the facts stated in them.  You are referring to Exhibit 856, these notes, not  to the genealogies.  Yes.  Well, as I said before, I just wish to raise a few  other questions of the witness and I am content to  leave it until the whole issue of hearsay, which  ultimately will be argued, is dealt with and then  present you with whatever position we take at that  time.  I am content with that.  All right.  I don't think it is of merit to argue it right now  because I am not pursuing it any further.  I am not arguing the point.  I am simply saying it  is to be described in the same way as we earlier 10894  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  THE COURT  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  MR. GRANT  13  14  15  THE COURT  16  MR. GRANT  17  Q  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Q  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  A  described the documents.  I think there is a distinction between the  genealogical or biological succession on the one  hand with the succession of a chiefly name on the  other hand.  One may well be an exception to the  hearsay rule, I am not sure about the other one, but  I am hearing the evidence particularly such as the  type contained in Exhibit 856 because the witness is  explaining the basis for the opinion but insofar as  I am concerned at the moment, the only thing that's  admissible is the opinion itself.  Well, I am content right now with that, my lord,  because I think that's of course what I am trying to  do with that.  All right.  And I'd like to go back to your report, tab -- I  think it is at tab 2, and refer to page 69, I  believe this is where I left off at the break.  You state in the top of the second paragraph:  "Although biological relationship to the former  chief is the primary criterion for an heir, it  is not the only one.  Merit can determine  whether or not a potential heir is an  appropriate heir."  Is that your opinion and conclusion?  Yes, it is.  And why do you say that?  The elders say that there are certain  characteristics that chiefs must have.  Chiefs have  to be knowledgeable in the culture, in the language,  they have to know the territories and fishing sites;  they should have knowledge of how to run feasts and  the other chief's names; they have to have personal  characteristics such as wisdom and patience,  kindness, generosity.  All of these characteristics  are considered as well as the biological.  Okay.  Is the element of merit as opposed to the  biological factor for inheritance, has it changed in  importance over time?  I believe it has, yes.  Can you explain why?  Yes.  Why you say that?  In times passed, children were raised from childhood 10895  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 to be heirs and when -- before the period of  2 population declined, in most cases they probably  3 could be expected to live to adulthood and become  4 the chiefs that they had been raised to be, but  5 since population declined and the society is, being  6 the Gitksan society, is being pressed by outside  7 influences, I think that merit has become a more  8 important consideration because sometimes the  9 potential heirs are living away or they don't have  10 the knowledge that's necessary to be a good chief or  11 they may have a problem with alcohol or they may not  12 be able to afford to hold up a name.  Any number of  13 reasons could exist that would have been uncommon or  14 non-existent in the past.  15 Q    I'd like to go to page 71 of your report where you  16 talk about -- and in the middle paragraph there:  17  18 "When a chiefly title is inherited all property  19 owned by the House is inherited with it.  The  20 primary property owned by the House is its  21 territory or territories and its fishing  22 sites."  23  24 And is that your opinion?  25 A    Yes, it is.  26 Q    Based on your research?  27 A    Yes.  28 Q    Then you also -- now, you also refer to other  29 property as blankets and other regalia?  30 A    Yes.  31 Q    Is that what you are referring to as the house  32 property?  33 A    Yes.  34 Q    Why did you come to that conclusion?  What is the  35 basis of that?  36 A   At feasts, when it's the funeral feast of a chief  37 and his heir is taking his name, the blanket is --  38 the old chief's blanket is put on to the new chief,  39 I have witnessed that at feasts, and the chiefs of  40 the house of the younger person taking the name or  41 as well as the other chiefs that are witnessing the  42 feast, will describe the properties of that house  43 and tell the young chief that he has to protect  44 those properties.  45 Q    Now, you go on to say that there is property that is  46 personal in nature, that can be inherited in a  47 manner not matrilineal, the bottom of page 71, my 10896  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 lord.  Is that your opinion and conclusion?  2 A    Yes, it is.  3 Q    Now, what property are you talking about there?  4 A    Commonly it would be a house in the village, or  5 tools, a boat, an automobile, personal property.  6 Q    Okay.  And what is the -- why do you say that?  7 A    I have seen incidents where property of a deceased  8 person was inherited by someone not from their house  9 as in the case where a man's son inherits his  10 property.  11 Q    This kind of property?  12 A    Yes.  I mean like a house in the village or an  13 automobile.  14 Q    Okay.  You go on to say that as your opinion that  15 this kind of property being transferred outside of  16 the house is not -- is permissible by Gitksan law.  17 Why -- that is your conclusion?  18 A    Yes.  19 Q    And why do you say that?  20 A    Because I have seen -- I am sorry, I am just  21 going -- I was going to answer the same way, I am  22 sorry.  23 Q    I understand you have seen it happen.  Why do you  24 say such a transfer is permissible by Gitksan law?  25 A    I am sorry, because no one complains when it  26 happens.  If somebody tries to pass the house  27 property on to someone who's not from the house,  28 people would be very upset and it would be spoken  29 about in the feast hall but people don't ordinarily  30 argue about the transmission of a house, meaning a  31 dwelling in the village to -- from a man to his son.  32 Q    I'd like to turn to the next area that you have  33 given opinion evidence about in your report, and  34 it's adoption.  Can you explain to us whether the  35 English word "adoption" has -- how many meanings the  36 English word "adoption" has to the Gitksan?  37 A    Yes.  There is -- the English word "adoption" is  38 frequently used to mean two very different things to  39 the Gitksan.  Sometimes when the English word  40 adoption is used, it's referring to the bringing in  41 of someone from outside of the house into the house,  42 adoption into the house, making someone a member of  43 that house.  That is, the Gitksan word for that is  44 Ts'imilguudit.  45 Q    That's the word on the fourth line for madam  46 reporter in page 73.  47 A   And the other usage of the English word adoption is 10897  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  Q  3  A  4  5  6  7  8  9  THE  COURT:  10  THE  WITNESS  11  MR.  GRANT:  12  Q  13  14  15  A  16  17  18  THE  COURT:  19  20  THE  WITNESS  21  22  23  MR.  GRANT:  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Q  40  41  42  43  44  A  45  46  47  to refer to sihlguxhlxwst.  The word on the second line.  And that is when someone raises a child not their  own and that could refer to someone raising a child  that is not their own child but was already a member  of the house, or it could refer to someone raising a  child that was not their own and was a member of a  different house.  House and clan, I suppose.  :  Yes.  Okay.  Sorry, you raised a different house and clan.  They would be a different clan as well in  sihlguxhlxwst?  They could be either.  I am saying with  sihlguxhlxwst, it can refer to raising any child  regardless of their clan or house.  Does raising a child in this way make that child a  member of the house?  :  Not necessarily.  No, they would have to be  Ts'imilguudit as well if they did not come from the  same house to begin with.  Does sihlguxhlxwst, the word beginning with S, does  it affect the population of a house the person is  raised in or adopted in any way?  No.  Why not?  In most cases, children who cannot be raised by  their own biological parents are raised by another  member of the same house.  That was a traditional  practise and it seems to be very strong to this day.  And if in fact someone did raise a child from a  different house which does occur on occasion, that  child would have to be adopted into the house as  well.  That child would have to be Ts'imilguudit as  well to affect the population of the house of the  person taking the child in.  If a person -- if a child is raised as a  sihlguxhlxwst, still on that point, would the chief  of the house of the natural mother and the mother  that's raising the child be involved in that  decision?  If the child was from -- if the child was being  raised by somebody from the same house as they were  from -- to begin with, this would not be a major  issue of concern in most cases especially with the 1089?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 most common form of sihlguxhlxwst which is where the  2 person raising the child is the biological mother's  3 sister or mother.  Did that answer the question?  4 Q    Thank you.  I'd like to go to Ts'imilguudit which  5 you have now explained as well and explain why  6 Ts'imilguudit occurs; that is, what do the Gitksan  7 use Ts'imilguudit which I take it is within the  8 Gitksan description of formal adoption?  9 A    Yes, an adoption into the house.  The most important  10 time of Ts'imilguudit is when a person or persons  11 are taken into a house to raise the house population  12 because the house is facing a serious population  13 decline.  That's the most important type.  It has  14 the most serious consequences for the society.  The  15 other type of Ts'imilguudit that is fairly common is  16 when a person is intimately involved in Gitksan  17 society such as the spouse of a Gitksan person and  18 they have no -- they can't be a complete member of  19 the society without having house membership.  They  20 can't be a Gitksan without having house membership.  21 They would have no place to sit in the feast hall  22 and so that person is adopted into a Gitksan house,  23 that may be a person from another Indian nation or a  24 non-Indian.  25 Q    Can you give -- just to be clear, I know you have  26 given examples of these but just some of the  27 examples you have referred to, can you give an  28 example of each of those circumstances, that is,  29 where Ts'imilguudit is to protect the house from  30 declining population?  31 A    Yes.  Some of the ones that have had great  32 consequence in recent years have been the adoption  33 of Mable White into the house of Baskyalaxha which  34 we spoke about earlier in which the majority of the  35 house members had descendants of Mable White now so  36 that adoption resulted in the filling up again of  37 that house, and there is a similar situation with  38 the adoption of Lattie Muldoe from Luus' house into  39 Delgamuukw's house.  40 Q    Those are both shown -- Delgamuukw would be shown on  41 its genealogy as well as you showed the other day?  42 A    Yes.  43 Q    What about with a day where -- a case where the  44 individual adoptee is married to a Gitksan?  45 A    That was my own situation and it is a situation of  46 Isabel Muldoe, Elaine Muldoe, many others.  47 Q    Okay.  Now, in this case where a woman is adopted 10899  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  A  Q  A  MR.  MR.  GOLDIE:  GRANT:  Q  into a house, the Ts'imilguudit case and  particularly for the first reason with declining  populations, are the chiefs of the houses involved  in that decision?  Yes.  If a person was being adopted into the house  but they were from outside of the society, then the  chief's mainly concern with the decision would be  the chiefs of the house that is adopting that  person, but if a woman was being adopted from  another house as in the two cases we mentioned which  was Mable White and Lattie Muldoe who in fact were  both adopted out of the same house which was Luus,  in that case the chiefs of the house of Luus would  also have to be involved in the decision and give  their consent that they were willing to let go of  one of their house members.  I'd like to refer you -- this is in the adoption  section but to go on to page 79, the middle  paragraph.  You state that, and I am paraphrasing,  the fourth line down:  Before contact the ideal family size was  considered to be four children and these  children would often be spaced over 20 years  or more.  Is that your opinion?  Yes, it is.  And what is the basis for that opinion; in other  words, why do you say that?  I have been told by the elders that this was the  practise and you can see on the earlier people  represented on the genealogy that this seems to be  apparent.  The reason that it was practised was that  the Gitksan travelled to their territories which  were sometimes long distances which they travelled  on foot and, in any society that travels about like  that, it is very difficult to have many small  children so the spacing of children was quite  considerable.  It may also have been to keep the  population to an optimal level for the resources as  well.  Is that also from the --  Now, you say that -- just a moment, I am going to  deal with it, yes.  You say that you were advised of  this by the elders, that is, the ideal family size? 10900  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  9  MR.  GRANT:  10  11  12  13  14  MR.  GOLDIE  15  MR.  GRANT:  16  Q  17  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  A  31  32  33  34  MR.  GRANT:  35  THE  COURT:  36  MR.  GRANT:  37  38  39  MR.  GOLDIE  40  MR.  GRANT:  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  Yes.  And now I asked you why that was and you have  referred to the travel, for example.  What is the  basis for your opinion that that would have been one  of the causes?  Was that from elder's interviews or  from other research or both?  From both, I am sorry, that was the -- oh, that the  travel was the cause?  Well, that -- I am going to paraphrase and hope I  get it right but what you said was that one reason  why the number of small children in a family unit  would be kept small was because of travel of long  distances.  On foot.  On foot.  Was that based on information from the  elders, was it based from your anthropological  research, or was it based on both?  That where it directly concerns the Gitksan, it was  based on information from the elders but it is  common in other societies throughout the world that  the number of small children must be kept low and  births must be spaced by several years if people are  to be able to travel freely.  And was there from your research -- do you have an  opinion as to whether there were birth control  methods among the Gitksan?  Yes.  Breast-feeding was used to inhibit fertility.  Yes.  Children were breast-fed for four years commonly and  there was also the practise of sesatxw whereby  sexual abstinence was practised for long periods of  time.  I believe that's s-e-s-a-t-x-w.  I'm sorry?  s-e-s-a-t-x-w.  I am not going to pursue what that  is because evidence of sesatxw has been presented,  my lord.  And that is also from the elders?  The concept -- well, yes, what's the source of your  information?  Again, is it anthropological research,  the elders, or both with respect to that?  The elders.  Okay.  Now, I'd like to refer you now to page 80,  the last paragraph, first sentence there, you say: 10901  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 "In extreme cases where natural increase and  2 ts'imilguudit are not sufficient means to  3 ensure a Houses' continued existence, a final  4 resort may be the amalgamation of a small  5 remnant of a House with a related House."  6  7 Is that your opinion and conclusion?  8 A    Yes, it is.  9 Q    And why -- and why do you say that?  I focus here --  10 why do you say, "a final report may be the  11 amalgamation"?  12 A    Yes, because natural increase is the method that  13 would be the most desirable for maintaining the  14 existence of a house in that the house has a healthy  15 population of its own biological relatives.  That  16 would be the most desirable situation, and when that  17 fails to maintain the existence of the house  18 properties, the houses adopt people to fill up the  19 house and, if that fails, then they go to the most  20 extreme measure, what they, the Gitksan, consider  21 the most extreme measure which is to amalgamate the  22 remaining populations of two or more houses.  23 Q    Is that based on your analysis of the genealogies  24 and the genealogical work that you did and the  25 kinship?  26 A    Yes, some of the genealogies demonstrate that.  27 Q    Why would adoption -- like you actually have set up  28 a sort of category natural increase and if that  29 fails then ts'imilguudit is what you say here, if  30 they are not sufficient means to ensure a houses'  31 continued existence.  I understand why natural  32 increase may not be sufficient means.  Why would  33 adoption not be of sufficient means?  34 A    If a house adopts a woman and it -- they wait  35 patiently for her to reproduce and there are not  36 many children produced, then that would be viewed as  37 an adoption that failed to fulfil its purpose and  38 therefore by that time their population may be so  39 perilously low that they would be forced to  40 amalgamate with another house.  41 Q    I am going to -- this is the last sector of your  42 opinion that I want to review with you and it is the  43 next section, Division and Amalgamation of Houses.  44 First of all, I'd like to refer you to page 81 where  45 you say:  46  47 "Throughout Gitksan history, Houses have 10902  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  divided because of excessive population and  wealth or because of quarrels."  That is your conclusion?  A    Yes.  Q    And what is the basis for that conclusion?  In other  words, why do you say that?  A The adaawk documents both of these reasons for the  division of houses. One example that we have used  frequently here is Kliiyem Lax Haa, when we looked  at our chart earlier, what was the --  Q    Yes, Exhibit 584A?  A    The reasons for the divisions of Kliiyem Lax Haa and  other related houses were given in the ancient past  and in the more recent past and the division in the  ancient times was because of quarrels.  Q    And which was that a division of Kliiyem Lax Haa and  which groups?  A   And group 3, which was Spookxw, Tenimgyet, and  Malii.  Q    Yes.  A   And the more recent division of Kliiyem Lax Haa and  'WiiMuug'ulsxw , Hawaaw, and Xsaxgyoo, that was  because of excessive population and wealth.  MR. GRANT:  Now, I'd like you to refer to page 101, footnote 20,  and there you list some examples of divisions, and  my lord, there is a word "and merge" and I think  that that should not be in there after the first  eight.  That's a typographical error.  THE COURT:  The "and merge".  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  "Some examples of division are:  1. Yal from Tsibasaa;  2. Malii, Spookw and Kliiyem Lax Haa;  3. Kliiyem Lax Haa, Xsaxgyoo and Hawaaw';  4. Tsibasaa from Hax Bagwootxw;  5. Amagyet from Gyolugyet;  6. Ksemgaakhl from Wii Elaast;  7. Ma'uus from Luutkudziiwus;  8. Haluus from Wii Hlengwax."  A    Yes.  Q    Is that your -- that forms part of your opinion?  A    Yes.  Q    And those -- that isn't an exhaustive list but some  examples; is that right? 10903  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  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  A  Q  A  Q  A  Yes.  Now, you state on the page 81 that:  "The division and amalgamation of Houses was  probably rare in precontact times."  And that is your conclusion.  This is the first  sentence of the second paragraph?  Yes, it is.  Why do you say that?  Why did you come to that  conclusion?  The division and amalgamation of houses is a common  subject for the adaawk and having read several  hundred of them, I can see that they weren't very  common in precontact times.  Now, I'd like to go to page 83 and you state there  that:  "Throughout Gitksan history the..."  First full paragraph:  "...the amalgamation of Houses has been used to  maintain the existence of Houses threatened  with extinction."  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  MR. GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Is that your opinion?  Yes, it is.  And why do you say that?  opinion  9  What's the basis of that  I have heard it  I have seen it in the adaawk and  from the elders.  Okay.  Going back to the same footnote 20 on page  101, you list examples of amalgamations which  include --  Surely you don't have to read them again, do you?  No, that's the second set of nine.  I don't have to  read them for the record, they are footnote 9.  Those are the ones you wanted to make reference to?  :  Yes.  Those are examples that you wished to make reference  to.  Now, has the rate of amalgamation changed?  Yes, I believe it has.  Okay.  And why do you say that?  I believe that the recent period of Gitksan history  is a period of unprecedented population decline and 10904  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  MR.  GOLDIE  16  MR.  GRANT:  17  Q  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Q  35  36  A  37  MR.  GRANT:  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  THE  COURT:  47  MR.  GOLDIE  it has forced more amalgamations than have ever been  known in any short period in Gitksan history.  On page 84, and I am only reading this as it appears  that it may be misleading as it is read.  It says at  the top:  "The process of amalgamation accelerated with  population decline during the last century."  Should that read, "during the last 100 years"?  Yes.  You are not referring to the eighteen hundreds, you  are referring to the nineteen hundreds?  I mean the last hundred years from this date.  1889, not 1989.  That seems to be the right calculation.  Now, can you -- do you recall, and if you wish to  refer to 101 footnote 10, any of the amalgamations  that have occurred within the last hundred years,  just take one as an example and as to what you  determined from the adaawk and the genealogies and  all of your research as to why that amalgamation  occurred, just take one example?  The first one, number 1, Yal had separated from the  house of Tsibasaa but due to population decline they  were forced to go back into the house of Tsibasaa.  The main part of the house of Yal was a family who  had I believe there were eight brothers and one  sister.  The sister was childless so that was  essentially the end of the house of Yal, and so the  names and properties of the house of Yal went back  to be protected by the house of Tsibasaa.  Okay.  Now, is that shown on the genealogy of  Antigulilibix?  Yes, it is.  That's at tab 1 of Exhibit 853.  Maybe you could  just refer to that tab.  I think -- well, I think I  referred to footnote 10 and I actually meant  footnote 20 for the record.  Can you just  indicate -- there is one page, my lord, which we had  reproduced which was a small copy, it was page 3,  and you would have it as an eight-and-a-half by  eleven.  I am not sure if I gave it to you  yesterday.  No.  No. 10905  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GRANT:  2  THE  COURT:  3  4  THE  WITNESS  5  THE  COURT:  6  THE  WITNESS  7  THE  COURT:  8  MR.  GRANT:  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  Q  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Q  29  A  30  THE  COURT:  31  MR.  GRANT:  32  MR.  GOLDIE:  33  34  35  MR.  GRANT:  36  37  38  39  40  41  THE  COURT:  42  MR.  GRANT:  43  44  THE  COURT:  45  46  MR.  GRANT:  47  Q  Okay.  What am I to take from the legend or title page,  plan Tsibasaa?  Does that mean house?  :  No, that's on the errata.  It was just a mistake.  What should it say?  What does errata say?  :  It should say Gisgaast.  Thank you.  This is page 3, is it?  That's page 3 and it was --  Yes.  This is from here but I don't need it.  All right.  I don't think the witness is going to be  referring to page 3 in answer to this question  anyway.  Is that Yal shown there?  Yes, it is.  What page is that on?  Page 7.  Thank you.  Can you just direct us to which part of  page 7?  Most of page 7.  You can see -- pardon me, it was  seven brothers and one sister, not eight brothers.  The brothers and sisters side by side there from  Albert Mowatt to David Mowatt.  They were members of  the house of Yal but as you can see they have left  no descendants, so with the demise of that group of  relatives who made up Yal, the properties of the  house of Yal went back to the house of Tsibasaa from  which it had originally subdivided.  And Martha had no children, the only sister?  That's right, she had no children.  I am sorry, Martha was the daughter?  She is the only daughter, my lord.  There appears to be some writing that is indistinct  under Charles Mowatt.  Perhaps the witness could  clear that up for us.  Well, what this is, my lord, I thought I -- what  this is is a photocopy of Exhibit numbered 17(1) and  page 3, the small pages because when I had it  photocopied I had -- that page, my copy, didn't have  it.  The exhibit actually does have it.  That is why  that may be indistinct there.  Copy of Exhibit 17(1).  17, yes.  The genealogy identified by Mary Johnson  in May of 1987.  Yes.  Those blurred words will show up there, will  they?  I presume so.  If they don't, then they are my notes 10906  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  6  MR.  GOLDIE:  7  THE  WITNESS  8  THE  COURT:  9  THE  WITNESS  10  MR.  GRANT:  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  A  16  17  Q  18  19  20  21  A  22  23  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  MR.  GRANT:  29  THE  COURT:  30  MR.  GRANT:  31  Q  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  44  45  46  A  47  Q  but I don't think they are my notes.  It is a birth date and a death date.  Do you recall what they are?  I think I can read it.  It says 1881,  died 1928.  This is Charles Mowatt?  :  Yes, it is.  Born?  :  1881 and died 1928.  born 1881,  the  And what about under Sara, do you know what  bracket there?  It says Biiyoon, a chief's biiyoon.  Yes.  And Spookxw in brackets which is the house that she  came from.  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, you have been talking about Yal.  Do you  know how many persons hold the name Yal today,  Gitksans?  Oh, Wilfred Gawa holds the name of Yal in the house  of Tsibasaa and George Turner from the house of Hax  Bagwootxw also holds the name of Yal.  When you were referring to the Yal breaking off and  then coming back to Tsibasaa, which antecedent Yal  was it, George Turner or Wilfred Gawa?  Wilfred Gawa's.  Okay.  What was Mr. Gawa's first name?  Wilfred.  And Wilfred Gawa is shown on the genealogy  shown as holding it.  He is on that genealogy?  Yes, he is.  Okay.  Now, I'd like to refer you to the genealogy  of Sakxum Higookx, tab 34.  And you know who holds  the name Sakxum Higookx?  Yes, I do.  It is Bernard Smith.  What clan is that?  Eagle.  Now, this is also Exhibit 425, my lord, and the  writing in the upper right-hand corner was added to  it as our copy of Exhibit 425.  Now, in talking about amalgamation, I'd like to  ask you about whether the concepts of amalgamation  of houses among the Gitksan apply to the Eagles?  Yes, it does.  Can you explain that? 10907  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  4  5  Q  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  11  A  12  MR.  GRANT  13  14  15  THE  COURT  16  MR.  GRANT  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  30  A  31  Q  32  33  A  34  35  Q  36  37  A  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  Q  41  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  A  Yes.  The Eagle clan was composed of four houses in  the not too distant past but they suffered greatly  from population decline and were forced to  amalgamate and act as one house today.  Okay.  Just stepping back a moment, when you say  four houses, who were the chiefs of those four  houses?  Sakxum Higookx, Giila'wa, D'ewelasxw and Simidiiks.  Thank you.  Now, and are all of those chiefs  represented on this genealogy, Exhibit 425?  Yes, they are.  I may say, my lord, just to make it clear because  there is an Exhibit 425A which was page 17, it is  also on this genealogy.  All right.  Now, why did they -- how many persons are there  alive now in the combined Sakxum Higookx house or  the Eagle houses?  About 80 to 85 people.  80?  80 to 85.  Now, can you -- I'd like to refer you to page 4 of  that, and you see there you have a Simidiiks,  Ligiinihla, married to Maryanne Simidiiks.  You see  that on page 4?  Yes, I do.  And yet that is not connected to the other rest of  the lineage?  Yes.  And it appears to be born around 1856 and the wife  in 1871.  Why is that not connected in this case?  Because no living house members remembered how that  Simidiiks was related to other members of a house.  And you have a similar situation on page 13 with  George Moore and Ada Moore; is that right?  Yes.  On what page?  Page 13.  And finally, when you turn to page 17, you  have a group that does not appear to be connected to  the rest of the group.  This is Ada Alexander  Fowler.  You follow me?  Yes.  So it is a bit of a larger group but it is still not  connected?  That's right. 1090?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  THE REGISTRAR:  How did you know that?  How did you conclude that  this group on page 17 plus George Moore and Ada  Moore and the others, the Simidiiks, were part of  the Sakxum Higookx house group?  Because I was told that they were members of the  house and they held house owned names and the first  Simidiiks we discussed the one that had Luuginaxhait  as well was also described by Barbeau as being a  member of the Eagle clan.  When you say you were told that they were members of  the house, would you go -- would you have used in  this case only one source or a different source,  more than one source?  No, several sources.  Does it tell you anything or can you come to any  conclusions about Eagle houses when you find these  three examples that I have referred you to of  persons not connected to the rest of the lineage?  Yes.  All of the persons represented on these pages  are the remnants of the formerly independent Eagle  houses.  Why do they not remain as Eagle houses?  With only --  I mean separate Eagle houses is what I mean?  With only 80 to 85 people, that's not a great enough  population for four houses to function separately.  It takes a certain number of people to put up feasts  or to protect the territories and resources and that  number of people is not sufficient for four houses.  Are we taking the afternoon adjournment, Mr. Grant?  Oh, yes.  Order in court.  Court will recess,  (AFTERNOON ADJOURNMENT AT 3:00 P.M.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein, transcribed to the  best of my skill and ability.  TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter  United Reporting Service Ltd. 10909  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  THE REGISTRAR:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 3:15)  Order in court.  Mr. Grant.  Thank you, my lord.  I would like to refer you to page  85 of your report where you say:  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  "There was a period at the turn of the century when  amalgamations became quite common in order for  Houses to survive.  Today, this process has once  again slowed as an increasing Gitksan population  renders such moves less necessary."  Is that your opinion?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And conclusion?  Why do you say that?  A  Mainly because the house populations are rising again  in most cases.  Q   Um-hum.  And I would like to refer you to page 86, and  you state there that -- you talk about division of  houses you're talking about here, and you say at the  last two lines of that middle paragraph:  "The process of division was arrested and the  members" --  I'm sorry, I'll start with the beginning of the  sentence:  "In the phase of declining numbers and without the  dwelling to define the people as separate from the  members of the parent House, the process of  division was arrested and the members were  essentially reabsorbed back into the original  House."  That is your opinion and conclusion?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And does that refer to a general trend from your  research?  A   Yes.  Q   And what is the reason -- are there any other reasons  why divisions have declined, the number of divisions  of houses have declined?  A   I believe that's the main reason for the number of  divisions declining, because house populations are 10910  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 rising again -- I'm sorry.  The other thing is that  2 they are not common.  Divisions have not been common  3 throughout the history because the solidarity of the  4 house is valued and people attempt to maintain the  5 solidarity of the house whenever it's possible, but  6 they are forced to divide when the number of people  7 becomes too great for the resources and property  8 that's available.  9 Q   Now, I would like to refer you to again the  10 reabsorption of houses -- or I guess this is part of  11 the divisions.  You say at the top of page 88 that:  12  13 "Some Houses today have become very large (over 200  14 people); they have lineages which are quite  15 separate, they have names which each lineage  16 uses exclusively and there may be disagreement  17 among them."  18  19 Was that your opinion and conclusion?  20 A   Yes, it is.  21 Q   And what is the basis for that conclusion, why do you  22 say that, in other words?  23 A   The size of these houses is demonstrated on the  24 genealogy, and the separateness of the lineages and  25 the maintenance of some names within each lineage  26 can be seen on the genealogy.  27 Q   Now, you state that as part of your conclusions on  28 page 88:  29  30 "Another factor which may be involved in the lack  31 of recent House divisions is, essentially,  32 that it is just not yet time."  33  34 The first sentence of the second paragraph:  35  36 "It has probably been less than 100 years since  37 the division of a House was last seen and such  38 divisions have probably been rare enough in  39 Gitksan society that another should not be  40 expected so soon."  41  42 Then you go on to say:  43  44 "A third factor may be the partial usurpation and  45 destruction of the resource bases of some  46 chiefs.  A chief who has been deprived of access  47 to his House territory does not usually 10911  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  MR.  GRANT:  8  9  MR.  GOLDIE  10  MR.  GRANT:  11  MR.  GOLDIE  12  MR.  GRANT:  13  Q  14  A  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  MR.  GOLDIE  22  23  MR.  GRANT:  24  THE  COURT:  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  MR.  GRANT:  33  34  35  THE  COURT:  36  MR.  GRANT:  37  THE  COURT:  38  39  MR.  GRANT:  40  THE  COURT:  41  MR.  GRANT:  42  THE  COURT:  43  MR.  GRANT:  44  THE  COURT:  45  46  47  THE  REGIST  command the wealth needed for the feasts necessary  for the division of a House."  Are those two factors that I have just read, are those  parts of your conclusion?  Yes.  And why -- can you expand on why the loss of  resource bases would be a reason for less division?  :  Well, she states it right there.  I asked if she can expand on it.  :  Well, that wasn't your question.  I think it was.  Considerable wealth is necessary to put up the feasts  that are required for subdivision of a house to  establish itself as a separate entity, and this kind  of wealth could come from one's territories, but if  one's territories are logged off or in other ways no  longer productive to the Gitksan, then this could  make it difficult to put up feasts.  That's either speculation or -- my lord, or it's  repeating what somebody told her.  I'll comment in a moment, my lord.  Don't we have this trouble, Mr. Grant, when a  witness has put in a hundred-page report and then  seeks or is asked -- doesn't seek, but is asked to  discuss it there's going to be a lot of repetition,  and understandable, dichotomy between counsel about  whether this should happen or not.  Are we really  doing -- I mean is the witness really telling me  anything that isn't in her report?  Well, I am endeavouring to focus on those parts of  her report which are the central underlying  opinions.  I understand that.  And trying to expand on that.  She has given a very full explanation of what she's  talking about here.  I'm not going to pursue that any further, my lord.  All right.  I'm just looking for the trial record, my lord.  That's the last one I've seen.  Yes.  I think that is the last one.  I never have understood why the defence seems to be  in incomplete form, but that's what it seems to be.  I assume there's a defence somewhere.  LR:  May 11th of '87. 10912  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GOLDIE  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  6  MR.  GOLDIE  7  THE  COURT:  8  9  MR.  GRANT:  10  THE  regist:  11  MR.  GRANT:  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  MR.  GOLDIE  20  21  THE  COURT:  22  MR.  GRANT:  23  24  THE  COURT:  25  MR.  GRANT:  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  COURT:  :  While my friend is looking at that, does your  lordship's record not contain a defence?  Oh, yes, it's there, but it doesn't look to me to be  any more than a draft, but maybe I -- I haven't  looked at it for some time.  :  The one I have is stamped August 22nd, '88.  When Mr. Grant's finished with it I'll look at it  again to see if it's the --  I'm not interested for this purpose in the defence.  RAR:  This is August 22nd, '88.  My lord, I actually am not going to refer -- I don't  need to refer to the trial record.  I'm sorry.  I  just wanted to check it.  Mrs. Harris, what is,  based on your research and all that you've described  and the different parts of the social structure that  you've described to the court, what is your opinion  about the survival of the Gitksan social structure,  in particular over the last 150 years?  :  Well, how can -- does that fall within your  lordship's ruling?  I'm sorry.  I raised that very point yesterday or the day before  about -- about the question.  Could you give me the question again?  I asked what is her opinion on the survival of  the -- of Gitksan social structure, in particular  over the last 150 years, based on her research.  She's giving opinion evidence on social structure  and I submitted on January 16th that -- and in fact,  we dealt with this very point, except instead of the  word "survival" it was the word "stability", and Mr.  Goldie, as I say at page 10742, I said in  submission:  "It is relevant and my learned friend certainly  doesn't disagree with that because he says that  the stability of social structure is an issue that  you must decide.  But it's not that this witness  is going to make the argument.  What she is  going to bring to it is an ethnographic analysis  of the research she did."  Basically my learned -- this is the penultimate  question based on all of her research, what is her  opinion regarding the stability of the Gitksan  social structure.  I would have thought there was a vast difference 10913  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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:  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  COURT:  GRANT:  GOLDIE:  COURT:  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  MR. GRANT  THE  MR.  THE  THE  COURT  GRANT  COURT  between "stability" and "survival".  "Stability" is  a state of affairs an observer notes and describes.  "Survival", it seems to me, is a matter of  prediction, looking into the future, and I confess,  I don't know whether anthropologists purport to  predict the future or whether they merely discern as  best they can the past, and also, I should think,  describe present practises as part of their analysis  of human behaviour, but I simply don't know whether  a part of anthropology is predictive or not.  Okay.  Maybe -- I have no difficulty in rephrasing  the question by the use of the word "stability" over  "survival", but I want to make clear, my lord, I  think you may be under a misunderstanding that I'm  asking this witness to predict the future, and I'm  not interested in that at all.  That's what I would take from "survival".  I was asking over the last 150 years.  No.  But "survival" is into the future.  That's what I would have thought.  Certainly -- I  certainly don't think your friend disputes, from  what he said yesterday, that -- or the day before  that "stability" is a matter falling within the  general discipline of anthropology, and you can  certainly pursue that.  Thank you, my lord.  Miss Harris, what is your opinion  on the stability of the Gitksan social structure  based on your research?  I believe that there certainly has been changes in the  Gitksan social structure, but all of the basic  features and institutions are still existing and  that in spite of considerable disruptive influence,  that the institutions are still there, the marriage  patterns are strong, and the feast system is  thriving and the houses are working to maintain  their existence in members and their properties.  I  believe that all of the basic institutions are  thriving.  Thank you.  Those are all my questions of this  witness, my lord.  Oh, yes, maybe I could deal with  the report to be marked as Exhibit 584.  Yes, all right.  854.  854, I think.  REGISTRAR:  354 10914  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  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  THE  THE  THE  MR.  THE COURT  THE  THE  MR.  MR. GRANT  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MS.  THE  MS.  THE  EXHIBIT 854 - Heather Harris report  GRANT:  And just one moment, my lord.  I believe that all of  the documents, except -- except tab 4 are marked as  exhibits, is that correct?  REGISTRAR:  Um-hum, yes.  GRANT:  In volume 1, my lord.  COURT:  I don't think -- I haven't got a note of tab 6 being  marked, if that's what it was?  REGISTRAR:  Tab 5 is up to 34.  COURT:  All right.  REGISTRAR:  Is 852.  GOLDIE:  Those are the documents said to represent her  methodology, my lord.  Yes, that's right.  I have that marked opposite tab  5, 852 to tab 35, Evidence of Methodology, yes,  they're all marked.  REGISTRAR:  To tab 34.  35 is a separate — 35 is 855.  COURT:  Yes, all right.  GOLDIE:  I don't think Exhibit 4 — or tab 4 need be  maintained.  It's an extract from the --  No.  It's just there -- I would ask to leave it in  because --  It's not marked, it can stay.  It's not marked, I'm not asking to have it marked.  All right.  Thank you, Mr. Grant.  My lord, it goes to the question now I think of the  scheduling of the continuation of the  cross-examination of this witness.  Yes, all right.  And I would ask my friends --  Why don't we let your friends --  I just need in their comments, I would ask if they  can also give some idea of how long they intend to  be.  Yes.  What's your position, Mr. Goldie?  I'm not prepared to comment at this time, my lord.  What about continuation?  Well, I thought we had agreed upon that, my lord.  I thought we were continuing on Monday.  Well, I would hope that to be so.  KOENIGSBERG:  I'm prepared to anytime next week.  COURT:  You think you can start?  You're going to start,  Miss Koenigsberg?  KOENIGSBERG:  Probably.  COURT:  I see.  That was mentioned to me once before I think  in your absence.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT:  GOLDIE:  COURT:  GOLDIE:  COURT: 10915  Submissions  1  MS.  KOENIGS  2  3  4  THE  COURT:  5  6  MR.  GOLDIE:  7  8  9  THE  COURT:  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  MR.  GRANT:  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  THE  COURT:  42  43  MR.  GRANT:  44  MR.  GOLDIE:  45  THE  COURT:  46  MR.  GRANT:  47  BERG:  Probably.  And I would anticipate being under  two days.  It's difficult right now if I will be one  day or one and a half days.  All right.  Then you can't say whether you can  finish next week then, Mr. Goldie?  Oh, I have every incentive to finish next week,  because I have some other things to do the week  following.  Yes.  Well, I think that we should start considering  early in the week whether we would sit some evenings  then.  I think counsel should be ready for that.  I  regret to say that I think I have two evening  engagements next week that I don't think I can  escape, but I will have to look at that and see, but  certainly we should start thinking about that and be  ready for it.  Well, I have another concern on behalf of both Mr.  Rush and myself, my lord, and that is this:  In  November when you indicated that we would have two  weeks sitting in January, we followed that up with a  proposed schedule of witnesses.  Now, in the  cross-examination process, my lord, what we did, and  got agreement from counsel, was we proposed a  schedule of the witnesses to be cross-examined and  estimated half a day each, and we got a response  from the defendants as to whether the witness would  take a half day or a whole day, and we adjusted the  schedule accordingly.  My lord, I cannot under --  overstate this, that the impact of what our  experience has been in the last two weeks, where  counsel in the Sylvia Albright case made no comment  when we estimated one week for her evidence and have  now gone -- I understand they will go for another  three days, and in this case we still don't know  whether Miss Harris will take three days or a week,  and in November -- and subsequently they remained  silent when we estimated that the entire evidence of  this witness would be a week.  The effect of that is  nothing short of totally disrupting the plaintiff's  proposed witness schedule.  Well, Mr. Grant, are you in a position to complain  in view of the litany of documents?  It's not a question --  I think my friend ought to sit down, my lord.  Well, I —  My lord, it's a question of if there can be some --  you know, my lord, it's a question of if there can 10916  Submissions  1 be -- it's not a question of the adjournment, I'm  2 not speaking to that.  I understand that, and that  3 relates to all of the documents.  But it's a  4 question of we operated on this assumption, that if  5 we estimated one week for a witness, that we assumed  6 the witness would take two and a half days on direct  7 and two and a half days on cross.  We've been  8 operating on that basis.  If we're wrong in that,  9 for example, we've proposed Mr. Daley for two weeks,  10 again we assume half and half.  If we are wrong in  11 that, and my friends of course have the summary  12 reports of all of these witnesses well in advance,  13 then all I'm saying is that they must inform us or  14 they should inform us that we are way out of line.  15 For example, as soon as it became obvious that Miss  16 Albright was going to take six days to be  17 cross-examined instead of two and a half, that  18 clearly meant that what we had proposed was  19 totally —  20 THE COURT:  She has only been cross-examined three days now.  21 MR. GRANT:  And Mr. Willms, as I understand, estimated another  22 three days, that makes six.  23 THE COURT:  Well, that may be.  24 MR. GOLDIE:  No, he didn't.  25 THE COURT:  The fact is Miss Albright was three days in chief  26 and then she was three days and one evening in  27 cross.  But you see, the whole picture has been  28 distorted, from my perspective, because I don't know  29 what effect this late delivery of documents has had,  30 and I don't know whether I can ask your friends to  31 commit themselves if they're going to be faced with  32 this kind of problem in the future.  Now, I don't  33 know whether there are documents waiting to arrive  34 with respect to Dr. Daley, I don't know.  35 MR. GRANT:  My understanding from the correspondence, Mr. Rush  36 has been dealing with it, is he informed all the  37 documents have been delivered with respect to Mr.  38 Daley, and with respect to Mr. Cary, except for  39 correspondence -- the listing of correspondence  40 between counsel and the witness, which was the ones  41 where we had indicated it was a matter of privilege,  42 and there was an agreement after your lordship's  43 ruling that those documents would be listed.  But  44 the notes -- the underlying notes which are the key  45 here, which is where the area of problem appears to  46 be of greatest significance, my instructions are  47 that they have all been delivered. 10917  Submissions  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. GOLDIE:  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  MR. GOLDIE:  THE COURT:  MR. GOLDIE:  THE COURT:  That's the first confirmation we've had, my lord.  We've been writing seeking confirmation we've got  everything in respect of Daley.  I now take it my  friend is advising us for the first time that that  is so.  Well, I'm relying on correspondence between Mr. Rush  and Mr. Willms in this matter.  I think the short answer to all this, Mr. Grant, is  I would yes indeed expect your friends to let you  know if they have an indication or if they arrive at  an indication that they're going to take longer than  the estimated time.  I'm terribly terribly anxious  to avoid the difficulty that so often happens in  some other activities where the referee only sees  the retaliation and doesn't see what caused it, and  because I don't see what's behind the scenes I don't  want to over-react to what may be a retaliation, but  I don't understand why the documents were delivered  so late with respect to Miss Albright and the  present witness, and I don't understand fully what  consequences flow from that.  But I don't feel that  I can press your friends to stay within any kind of  an express or tacit agreement about time when that  sort of thing occurs.  If it doesn't occur, then I  would expect your friends to either stay within --  reasonably within the time that's been estimated or  to give timely notice that they're not going to.  That's all that we need, and that's all we seek,  because then we can -- if, for example, Mr. Daley  actually is going to go three weeks, take two weeks  for cross-examination instead of one week, that's  very important for us to know now in terms of -- in  terms of it.  And we've informed them, and I don't  know when it became apparent to my friends that Miss  Albright would not be able to be done in the three  days, I don't know.  It became apparent during the cross-examination and  documents were not produced.  Now, my lord, I don't  think there's any point --  I don't think I ought to get into it.  It is quite profitless to pursue this, and I  advised my friend a few minutes ago it would be  better for him to sit down.  I think perhaps we'll adjourn.  Before we do so, Mr.  Goldie, the records I had of your defence was, for  example, in the third line of the first page I see a  symbol I don't recognize, and I see it again on page 1091?  Submissions  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.  GOLDIE  COURT:  2 and again on page  the third line.  Third line on page  9  well, it goes on somewhere on  I don't  On page 1 and I see it again on page 2,  know what that means.  GOLDIE:  Oh, yes, that means a deletion.  COURT:  Oh.  GOLDIE:  And it is a deletion in respect of what preceded  it.  In other words, this is an amended version.  THE COURT:  Yes.  I see that.  But when I saw that I thought it  was a symbol that a secretary gave to herself to  correct up on the final draft, so I stopped reading  when I got to the second symbol that I didn't  understand.  MR. GOLDIE:  There has been a further amended defence filed in  August of '88, my lord.  The one your lordship is  looking at is filed on May '87.  THE COURT:  I don't know that that defence has ever been brought  to my attention except right now.  I have it now.  It's not in the trial record, and I'll put it there  now so I'll know that it's there.  MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  That may be the explanation, my lord, that it  doesn't formally become part of the trial record.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  You think that I can confidently  expect Mr. Rush and Mr. Willms to be here tomorrow  morning?  GRANT:  Mr. Rush will be available.  COURT:  With the witness?  GRANT:  If there's any difficulty he'll be here and we will  have some explanation.  COURT:  All right.  GRANT:  And I just ask that my friends do determine their  timing with Miss Harris.  GOLDIE:  I wish my friend would let well enough alone.  COURT:  Gentlemen, I think we should -- on that happy note,  I think we should adjourn.  And Miss Harris, you  will be back with us Monday morning next, unless you  hear otherwise.  Thank you.  REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until 10:00  a.m. tomorrow.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 3:40)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein transcribed to the  best of my skill and ability  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  THE 10919  Submissions  3 Graham D. Parker  4 Official Reporter  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


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