Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-17] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 17, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019514.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019514-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019514-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019514-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019514-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019514-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019514-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 10762  Proceedings  1 Vancouver, B.C.  2 January 17th, 1988.  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  In the Supreme Court of British Columbia,  7 Vancouver, this Tuesday, January 17, 1989.  Calling  8 the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen  9 at bar, my lord.  10 I caution the witness, you are still under oath.  11 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, I've been ruminating about this problem  12 we have -- that you have, and --  13 MR. GRANT:  I was about to say which one, my lord, after  14 yesterday.  15 THE COURT:  And I've given the matter some further thought.  16 What I'm going to say now may not add anything to what  17 I said yesterday, but to try and bring some order into  18 our lives.  It seems to me that having ruled that the  19 witness may give opinion evidence on both genealogical  20 and anthropological matters it is open to you to, as  21 you already have, to qualify the witness and to  22 explain what she has done in a general way, and to  23 give her opinion or opinions on the matters for which  24 she has been qualified.  But it does not seem to me at  25 the moment, I say this subject to whatever submissions  26 you may make, that it's open to you to lead detailed  27 evidence of the information she received from others  28 which is the basis for her opinion.  And that it is  29 not open to you to prove matters such as the  30 occupation of the long house, which I mention only  31 because it's an example of what we embarked upon  32 yesterday.  Although, I should think that you could  33 take an example such as Martha Brown, I think it was  34 Martha Brown, if I have the name right, and go  35 through, as you were doing yesterday, what she did  36 with that particular witness as an example or as a  37 typical case.  And that in the course of that there  38 may be some hearsay spillage, as there often is, but  39 it would not be admissible as proof of the truth of  40 the facts stated in it.  It would then, however, be  41 open to your friends to attack the opinion by going  42 into the source of the information she received and  43 the details of it, if they wish.  44 Now, I draw an analogy in part from the fact that  45 if, for example, someone was calling you an historian  46 surely the historian can say what research he or she  47 had done and could give an opinion for which the 10763  Proceedings  Submission 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  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  historian is qualified, but could not give in chief,  at least, all the details that led up to the formation  of the opinion.  Now, I would like counsel to tell me if -- if that  is a mis-statement of the law relating to the  admissibility of this kind of evidence.  I think we  ought to get that straightened out now not just for  this witness, but for other expert witnesses who may  be called for the plaintiffs and later perhaps for the  defendants.  Mr. Grant.  Thank you, my lord.  I appreciate you helping  crystallize what you were raising yesterday.  I don't  have copies of it at the moment, but I do wish to  refer to this point, because I do think it is  important, as you say, not only for this witness, but  for others.  Firstly, I wish to be very clear that, of course,  and I wanted to speak to you about the agenda or  timetabling of this witness' direct evidence to  completion this morning, but before dealing with that  I'll deal with the points you've raised.  That this  witness -- my intent was to use one example to show  the process of methodology, because of what I view as  a serious challenge, and your lordship considered it a  serious challenge to her qualifications yesterday,  which may go to weight.  But I would refer your  lordship to Milirrpum, two decisions which dealt with  this very issue.  And at page 161 of the 17th Federal  Law Reports of the Milirrpum case.  That's 1970  F.L.R..  Its 141.  At page 161 I should say.  I think I'm using a different copy, but I'm in  the -- I'm in the anthropological section.  How does  your passage start?  It starts "Counsel for".  There's a table of  contents, I gather.  "Counsel for the defendants made a weighty attack"?  Yes.  I have that.  You're with me.  "Counsel for the defendants made a weighty  attack on the admissibility of so much of  the experts' evidence as purported to give  an account of the social organization or  'laws' of the aboriginals.  One such ground  of attack was the hearsay rule.  It was  contended that the anthropologists' sources 10764  Submission 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  of knowledge of the facts upon which they  based their opinions included what they had  been told by the aboriginals.  I do not think it is correct to apply the  hearsay rule so as to exclude evidence from  an anthropologist in the form of a  proposition of anthropology - a conclusion  which has significance in that field of  discourse.  It could not be contended - and  was not - that the anthropologists could be  allowed to give evidence in the form:  'Munggurrawuy told me that this was Gumatj  land.'  But in my opinion it is permissible  for an anthropologist to give evidence in  the form:  'I have studied the social  organization of these aboriginals.  This  study includes observing their behavior;  talking to them; reading the published work  of other experts; applying principles of  analysis and verification which are accepted  as valid in the general field of  anthropology.  I express the opinion as an  expert that proposition X is true of their  social organization.'  In my opinion such  evidence is not rendered inadmissible by the  fact it is based partly on statements made  to the expert by the aboriginals."  THE COURT:  But he does not there say that the expert after  saying I have talked with the aboriginals and this is  what they said.  MR. GRANT:  Well, no.  And, of course, I appreciate the  crystal -- as I say, the crystallization of what you  said this morning, because there is, I think, a little  slippage of that only because I'm asking the witness  about methodology.  And what I felt was the easiest  way, because she dealt with 50 genealogies, is to take  one example of what she did.  There may be some  slippage.  I agree this witness, it's not a question  of her saying Martha Brown told me that Wii elaast  migrated down, but this witness can say Wii elaast  migrated down, because in my submission it's part --  MR. GOLDIE:  Excuse me.  She can say in my opinion Wii elaast  migrated.  MR. GRANT:  You'll have your opportunity, Mr. Goldie.  MR. GOLDIE:  But, my lord, if we don't keep the focus on what an 10765  Submission by Mr. Grant  1 expert does --  2 THE COURT:  Yes.  3 MR. GOLDIE:  -- We are going -- my friend uses the word  4 slippage.  That's a very good word.  5 THE COURT:  I called it spillage.  6 MR. GOLDIE:  Spillage.  7 MR. GRANT:  Spillage I think it was.  8 MR. GOLDIE:  We start assuming that this witness can speak to  9 the truth, and that's not the point at all.  10 MR. GRANT:  Well —  11 THE COURT:  Well, I'm not even sure she can say that Wii elaast  12 moved down.  I think she can say -- well, I suggest  13 that she can say as a result of my investigations I  14 have formed an anthropological opinion which I believe  15 to be correct that there was migration.  16 MR. GRANT  17 THE COURT  18 MR. GRANT  Of this house down, for example.  Yes.  And that's why I asked my friend to wait, because,  19 of course, this witness is qualified now as an expert,  20 and what I'm saying is that she is giving her opinion.  21 And the reason for that value of her opinion is to  22 assist your lordship in bringing together, and assist  23 your lordship in the -- in dealing with the body of  24 evidence.  And also assist your lordship in the more  25 general social organization of the Gitksan, to  26 paraphrase the Milirrpum decision.  27 Now, then, of course, his lordship in that case  28 went on to say:  29  30 "My ruling is based on accepting that there  31 is a valid field of study and knowledge  32 called anthropology which deals with the  33 social organization of primitive peoples  34 (the definition will serve well enough for  35 the purpose in hand).  The process of  36 investigation in the field of anthropology  37 manifestly includes communicating with human  38 beings and considering what they say.  The  39 anthropologist should be able to give his  40 opinion, based on his investigation by  41 processes normal to his field of study, just  42 as any other expert does.  To rule out any  43 conclusion based to any extent upon  44 hearsay - the statements of other persons -  45 would be to make a distinction, for the  46 purposes of the law of evidence, between a  47 field of knowledge not involving the 10766  Submission 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  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  behavior of human beings (say chemistry) and  a field of knowledge directly concerned with  the behavior of human beings, such as  anthropology.  A chemist can give an account  of the behaviour of inanimate substances in  reaction, but an anthropologist must limit  his evidence to that based upon what he has  seen the aboriginals doing, and upon what  they said to him."  And not upon what they have said to him.  Hum?  And not upon what they have said to him.  Well, I'm  not -- at the moment I don't see anything different in  what you're saying from what I said, Mr. Grant.  If  you are I'd like to know what it is.  Well, I'm -- no.  I felt that it was important.  I  mean, that's sort of the guidance I'm taking with the  anthropological evidence.  I just wanted to be clear  that -- I was uncertain if your lordship was differing  from that statement of the opinion evidence, because I  mean, if we end up going into a situation, you know,  as I say:  "The anthropologist should be able to give  his opinion, based on his investigation by  processes normal to his field of study, just  as any other expert does."  Now, if that entails -- in this witness that  entails the genealogies, it entails the social  structure.  And, as I say, this witness can give her  opinion about the migration of a house or group of  houses, or anything like that.  That's part of the  social structure and social organization ultimately.  I shouldn't say ultimately.  Among other things her  opinion will be about the organization based on social  structure.  Okay.  And I just refer -- I have only got the  unreported decision of Bear Island and Teme-agama  case.  Page 32 deals with a similar proposition, and  basically restates the same thing.  So the Ontario  Supreme Court --  I don't know if counsel know, but The Bear Island  case is under appeal at the present moment.  I do know that.  I don't think the Court of Appeal  has come down with a decision. 10767  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  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Goldie  Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg  THE COURT:  It's being argued now.  I understand they're  expecting it to last three weeks.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, you don't take issue with what  I've said then, Mr. Grant?  MR. GRANT:  No.  I'm just saying that was the guidance.  I  felt -- I wanted to be sure that we were ad idem on  that point, because I think that's of assistance to  me.  THE COURT:  Let me hear what your friends have to say.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  MR. GOLDIE:  Well, my lord, the objection that was taken  yesterday was to the qualification of this witness to  express an opinion, and that's been dealt with.  The  part of the objection that was made was, however, that  she was -- would simply repeat evidence that had  already been before the court.  And that evidence is  under reserve so far as its admissibility is  concerned.  So far as I'm concerned the present point  is covered in what I said at page 10761.  THE COURT:  That's yesterday?  MR. GOLDIE:  That's yesterday.  "And as far as methodology is concerned, if  that's the purpose of it, then all it is  required to be said is, 'That I interviewed  Martha Brown and I used the information she  gave me.'  And this document..." --  I was referring to one of these documents here.  "Doesn't speak to the truth of the matter at  all, if that's what it's -- if it's to  demonstrate methodology."  THE COURT:  Thank you.  Ms. Koenigsberg.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I think perhaps it's important in dealing with  this type of an expert, and if we are going to be  referring to the Milirrpum case for guidance, to keep  in mind what it is that anthropologists are being  spoken of in that context to be experts in.  It's not  to determine the truth of what's said to them.  It's  to interpret a variety of statements that are said to  them and say what impact does that belief or the fact  that these people are saying this have on the  organizations, whatever organization we're looking at.  That doubley underlines we can't deal with this 1076?  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  Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg  Ruling by the Court  Submission by Mr. Grant  evidence for the truth of it even if one could  otherwise.  It's -- that is not the province -- that  is not the area that an anthropologist is proctored  for.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, I don't find anything at variance  in the submissions of any counsel with what I stated  this morning.  I've listened to what they say and I  don't hear any difference.  That being so, Mr. Grant,  I think you may proceed on that basis.  MR. GRANT:  Well, my friend Ms. Koenigsberg has -- has raised  what I view as a wrinkle, because I differ on that  point.  And, again, going to Milirrpum following on  where the court dealt in the -- towards the end of the  paragraph starting "Coupled with the objection based  on the hearsay rule" so that you can locate it.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  And about ten lines from the bottom.  MR. GOLDIE:  Page?  MR. GRANT:  If you have the Federal Law Reports —  MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  — It's page 162.  MR. GOLDIE:  Thank you.  MR. GRANT:  "In this broad sense, everything that an  expert says within his own field of expert  knowledge is a matter of opinion, including  his account of the 'facts'.  To apply the  analogy to the case before me..." --  Which is a doctor I believe he was using.  "The aboriginals of the subject land  correspond to the patient.  The frame of  reference in which the evidence is being  given - their social organization -  corresponds to the patient's state of  health.  The 'facts' are those selected and  deemed significant by the expert in the  exercise of his special skill.  It seems to me that the question is one of  the weight, rather than of the  admissibility, of the evidence, and the  court must be astute to inquire how far any  conclusion proffered by an expert is indeed  based on facts and to weigh it accordingly;  but the 'facts' include those ascertained by 10769  Submission 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  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  the methods, and described in the terms,  appropriate to his field of knowledge."  The facts there surely is used in a different sense  from evidence.  The expert talks to 400 people, as I  understand this witness did, and then from that  distills an amalgam of fact.  Amalgam of fact.  And she can state what those facts are as a basis  for that opinion.  She can't go through her notes and  tell me what 400 people told her.  No.  Of course, we have no intention of doing that.  I hope that your lordship appreciates that.  I never  had an intention of going through that.  I was just  dealing with methodology.  But in Bear Island at page 32 of that decision, an  unreported decision, the court said:  "Where the facts relating to the current  social organization, language and general  way of life of a band, the antiquity and  lineal descent of the claimants to  membership in a band, and the definition of  the present boundaries of occupation of a  band are in dispute, then the findings of  fact..."  And this is evidence, of course.  "Must be based on weighty evidence from a  number of Indians who can speak to these  matters from their own knowledge and  experience."  Of course you have that.  Then he goes on to say:  "The facts concerning these matters should  be supported by historical..."  Which isn't germaine here.  "Anthropological or other expert evidence,  but the defendants should not rely entirely  on non-Indian historical, anthropological or  other evidence when Indian evidence is  available." 10770  Submission by Mr.  Proceedings  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  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  I'm sure you're satisfied that's not been done in  this case given the number of Indian witnesses.  But  what I'm saying, my lord, is that this witness -- as  you say, this witness is performing a task which  ultimately will aid the court.  That is, as you say,  the amalgam of facts if you can say certain things as  a matter of opinion.  But included in her opinion are  the facts upon which she relies, and that's where I  wanted to -- I think my friend -- with respect, my  friend Ms. Koenigsberg misstated the Milirrpum  principle, or the issue here, because what she is  trying to do ultimately is deal -- is segregate the  situation from another type of expert.  And that is,  for example, the chemist as an example.  And so  those -- I just wanted to make those comments.  I  think that I'm not asking this witness to give details  of what witness A said.  For example, Martha Brown  said something to her.  I agree that's not proof of  that fact.  When she combines 400 witnesses, as she  says, for example the system is matrilineal, that's my  opinion.  But, of course, there's a foundation for  that.  COURT:  Yes.  GOLDIE:  Her selection doesn't prove the facts.  COURT:  No.  All it does is prove or explain the basis for  the opinion she has reached.  Her selection, for example, of these notes.  Yes.  Yes.  And what I am doing here is, I think, so the  court has an understanding of her methodology by going  through these documents.  Then I want to go directly  to the opinions.  All right.  Let's proceed.  Now, my lord, before proceeding I have in mind your  lordship's comments, and the comments of my friends  last week, and subject to how the day goes I'm  hoping -- I'm going to make every effort to complete  the evidence of this witness today in direct.  And  I -- and I've discussed it with the witness, again  subject to how she is feeling, I'm prepared to, if  necessary, go into the evening session if the court  finds it necessary to complete her evidence on direct.  And I would propose then that my friends -- that  tomorrow if that's the case and my friends need time  that we adjourn over tomorrow and we can commence her  cross-examination on Thursday.  And that's the  proposal I make, because I want your lordship to  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT 10771  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Proceedings  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  appreciate that I -- that's one way I feel that we can  move this witness through the court and deal with her.  Well, I can tell counsel I cannot sit this evening.  Yes.  But subject to that what you're suggesting sounds  very inviting, but Mr. Goldie may have something to  say about that.  MR. GOLDIE:  I think -- and I choose my words carefully.  I  think it is outrageous for Mr. Grant having delivered  documents to me on Friday night to suggest that I'm  going to cross-examine according to his timetable.  The very documents that he's looking at here were  delivered long after -- well, I got them on the 9th or  10th, I forget which, but the last batch of documents,  which I haven't even seen yet, came in Friday night.  We're classifying them and indexing them now.  We'll  do, with respect, my lord, exactly what your lordship  directed.  We'll get along as far as we can.  I don't really think we can pursue it beyond that,  can we, Mr. Grant?  Well, I just, as I say, and I think Mr. Rush  explained, I put the last batch -- the last two  batches in documents -- in files so they were to some  degree classified by the genealogy.  MR. GOLDIE:  I do not want to get into a further discussion of  this, but I repeat, it is unacceptable to ask for  documents last year in May and be denied them on the  basis of privilege and then have them turn up as late  as they did.  I've already ruled that we'll proceed with the  evidence in chief and we'll then proceed with the  cross-examination if we can, and if not we'll have to  find another time in which to conduct the  cross-examination.  Yes. If that's the situation that's fine. I just  wanted the court to appreciate the position that I'm  prepared to take.  HEATHER HARRIS, Resumed:  EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. GRANT CONTINUED:  Q   You have the black book in front of you, Ms. Harris?  A   Yes.  Q   I'd like to refer you to tab number eight.  This  appears to be a photocopy of an index card.  And this  notation is in the Kliiyem lax haa file.  Can you just  explain to the court where this notation would have  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT: 10772  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 come from, and why you would have put it on a separate  2 index card?  3 A   This came from an interview with Martha Brown, and it  4 wasn't -- the information that I wrote on the card  5 wasn't directly related to the genealogy.  It's not  6 something that can be recorded on genealogy, but I  7 thought it was an interesting and valuable piece of  8 information so I preserved it for future use or other  9 purposes.  10 Q   I see.  Going to tab number nine, this appears to  11 be -- it's a document entitled "Section VI Rank &  12 Seating".  Is this a document format that you used  13 throughout your research or is it something you used  14 at the beginning or --  15 A   This was, again, something that had been used by  16 previous researchers at the tribal council, and I  17 utilized these forms at first and then later on I  18 changed the format.  19 Q   Okay.  20 A   Did you want -- sorry.  21 Q   Now, I see, for example, at the top Kliiyem lax haa,  22 Martha Brown and it's titled "Rank & Seating".  Is  23 this an effort to demonstrate the seating at a table  24 in a feast hall or is it an effort to show the rank of  25 chiefs in the house, or what?  Can you just explain  26 what the document represents.  27 A   It was an effort to represent the -- the rank of the  28 chiefs' names which is generally indicated by seating  29 in the feast hall, but as I investigated I discovered  30 that the seating in the feast hall sometimes combines  31 several houses and therefore it is not possible to  32 clearly rank all members of several houses.  33 Q   Okay.  Well, I see you have letters down the side; E,  34 E, K, S, K.  I'm just looking at the first page down  35 on the left-hand side of some of the names.  Can you  36 explain what those letters represent?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Why you have those?  39 A   Yes.  Those letters indicate the houses that are  40 listed in the top left-hand corner of the page where  41 it says Hawaaw', Wii mugulsxw, Alyst, Kliiyem lax haa.  42 And that's what those letters represent is the sorting  43 out of the names belonging to each of those separate  44 houses.  45 Q   Okay.  I don't see E at the top.  46 A   Yes, it's A.  It's just a different spelling.  I was  47 learning the orthography at that time. 10773  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  5  A  6  7  8  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  A  15  16  Q  17  18  MS. KOENI  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  MR. GRANT  28  29  30  31  32  33  THE COURT  34  35  36  MR. GRANT  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  45  Q  46  47  Which house does E represent in the column?  Elaast spelled with an A.  A-L-Y-S-T.  At the top you have Gertie S.  What house are you  referring to?  That's Xsaxgyoo.  I didn't know her chief's name at  the time.  The lady's name is Gertie Morrison.  Her  chief's name is Xsaxgyoo, which I represented with an  S.  That's Gertie Morrison?  Yes.  Now, this -- about what time -- can you approximate  when you would have prepared this document?  This  draft of this document I'm talking about.  This would have been in the first six months of the  research I'd say.  I'd like you to go on to the next tab, tab number  nine.  EISBERG:  I wonder if I could interrupt my friend in the  spirit of trying to understand these documents.  If he  could ask the witness, or if we could determine from  whom this information was obtained.  It's apparent on  many, but not all of the documents, and she has just  identified that tab 8 was the interview with Martha  Brown.  And if all things, for instance in the folder  of Kliiyem lax haa, are from an interview with Martha  Brown that would help us a great deal.  :  Firstly, my instructions are they are not.  Secondly, I thought that's what we were dealing with  this yesterday and this morning.  I don't want to get  into the source of each piece of paper that forms part  of the file.  I have no objection to asking this  witness --  :  I think what your friend is saying is is this  something some individual told her or a compilation  from a number of sources.  :  Okay.  That's fine.  This particular document, where did you get the  information for it?  This is a compilation of materials.  Some of this  information came from research that had been done in  feasts by Neil Sterritt, and then it came from  interviews that were done thereafter with Martha  Brown, and I remember that some of it came from Art  Wilson.  Now, the documents in this file, the Kliiyem lax haa  file, did you get all that information -- was that  information from different people? 10774  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  Q  15  16  MR. GOLDI  17  18   :  MR. GRANT  19  Q  20  21  A  22  23  24  Q  25  A  26  27  Q  28  A  29  30  31  Q  32  A  33  34  Q  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  Yes , it was.  Okay.  That will become clear --  As you go on?  -- In some of the documents.  Then you have the next tab, tab number ten, is five  pages of previous name information.  And it appears  that these all refer to persons who held the name  Kliiyem lax haa, this particular sequence of  documents?  Yes.  And it's different persons who held that name?  Yes, it is.  And that was information you did obtain from Martha  Brown?  EI:  Excuse me.  Perhaps my friend would not lead that.  Just ask her where she got the information.  :  Well, I'm only referring to the document itself.  Where did you get the information from these documents  then?  As it says on them the informant was Martha Brown.  These are similar to a document that we looked at  yesterday.  Just trying to see which one --  That was tab number five.  Yes.  You can see it's a similar document.  Number  five was about the current holder of the name.  Yes.  And in the tab we're looking at now this is similar  kinds of information about previous holders of the  name --  M'hm.  -- Going back as far as we knew them to have been  called Kliiyem lax haa.  And when did you get that information?  The documents are dated August 21st and 28th, 1984.  And those are interviews with Martha Brown?  Yes, they are.  Just looking at that first one under names you can see  chief name received from Robert Kaal, date, and then  it seems to be a number of numbers there.  19 -- well,  '45 and 1950 I think I can read, but it's -- can you  explain why those changes?  Yes.  There's also some notations farther up where it  says date of birth according to headstone.  I added  more accurate dates from other sources on to these  forms.  The basic information came from Martha, and  the date that she would give may have been off by a 10775  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 few years and I would get more accurate information  2 from a headstone or from written records and I would  3 put those dates in.  4 Q   Where was Frank Harris buried?  5 A   Gitanmaax, I believe.  6 Q   And who took the information from the headstones?  7 A   I did.  8 Q   And did you examine the headstones in Kispiox as well?  9 A   Yes, I did.  10 Q   And in Glen Vowell?  11 A   No.  Just Gitanmaax and Kispiox.  12 Q   Okay.  Now, then going to the second page there we see  13 the date of death of Robert Kaal under personal  14 information is -- again, it's changed and adjusted.  15 Was that -- again, that corresponds to Frank Harris  16 receiving -- the date of him receiving the name.  It  17 appears that you've made changes to both of those.  18 A   Yes, because the date that Robert Kaal died --  19 Q   Yes.  20 A   -- Would be the date that Frank Harris took the name,  21 because he was the heir of Robert Kaal.  22 Q   And is that information you received from chiefs, that  23 he received the name at the time the other person  24 died?  25 A   Yes.  That is always so.  Nearly always so.  26 Q   Going to the third page.  Edward Sexsmith.  I believe  27 it's the third page.  28 A   No, fourth.  29 Q   Fourth page.  I'm sorry.  Edward Sexsmith on the top.  30 You have a date of birth 1833 approx.?, and then date  31 of death approx.?.  Now, do you recall where you would  32 get that type of information?  33 A   Let's see.  Edward Sexsmith.  Frequent -- oh, yes.  34 Martha Brown would, and other elderly informants would  35 remember approximately when relatives died that had  36 died when they were very young before there were many  37 records available.  And they would -- I would ask them  38 how -- how old was this person when they died to get  39 this rough approximate dates, because obviously 1833  40 is pre-contact.  And there were no written records so  41 that was the best I could do for people who were born  42 in those very early years before contact.  That's why  43 it says approximate, because these are rough guesses.  44 These people were born before records.  45 Q   When you say 1833 were pre-records you are saying  46 there are no census records or --  47 A   No Europeans in the area whatsoever. 10776  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Going to tab 7 -- I'm sorry, tab number 11, document  2 seven.  If you could just take that out of the  3 envelope.  It's document seven out of the Kliiyem lax  4 haa files.  Now, just can you explain what this is or  5 what this represents?  6 A   Yes.  This is a further updated version of the  7 genealogy which has additional information over the  8 previous one from another interview with Martha Brown.  9 Q   Then I would like you to go to the next tab number,  10 please, tab 12.  And what does this notation  11 represent?  12 A   This is part of an adaawk that I received from Mary  13 Johnson.  14 Q   Had you seen this -- had you seen this description of  15 an event occur anywhere else other than the interview  16 with Mary Johnson?  17 A   Yes, I have.  18 Q   Where?  19 A   I've read this in Barbeau's Totem Poles, and I've also  20 read it in, I believe, they're unpublished manuscripts  21 of Barbeau that are collections of oral histories.  22 Q   Now, at the end of that description there's a  23 statement, "This wasn't because of disagreement but  24 just because they were so wealthy."  It appears it's a  25 description of Xsaxgyoo, Hawaaw' and Wii mugulsxw  26 building their own houses separate from Kliiyem lax  27 haa.  Did this terminology wealthy, did you come  28 across that often in your interviews with the -- with  29 the elders?  30 A   Yes, I did.  31 Q   What is your opinion as to what that terminology  32 refers to as a result of your interviews with the  33 elders?  34 A  When they say wealthy they mean that the house had a  35 lot of resources and a healthy house population as  36 well.  37 Q   Now, I'd like you to go to the next page.  That is  38 only a typed script of the previous interview?  39 A   It's with additional information.  40 Q   With additional information?  41 A   Yes, from the rough notes which I'm afraid were  42 destroyed.  43 Q   So what you would have done is taken -- you have  44 handwritten notations, and you had other rough notes,  45 and this was at a stage where you were re-transcribing  46 your information and destroying -- discarding what you  47 had already transcribed? 10777  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  A  6  7  8  9  Q  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  Q  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  A  24  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  29  THE COURT  30  MR. GRANT  31  THE COURT  32  MR. GRANT  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  A  41  42  43  44  Q  45  46  A  47  Q  Yes.  I'd like you to go to the next tab, tab number 14.  And what does this reflect?  Who is this an interview  with or research from?  I see the photocopier has cut it off a bit at the top,  but this is also a Mary Johnson interview.  I don't  know if it's clear on the other copies.  Mine is cut  off.  Yes, I see Mary.  And then you have information  relating to a number of people it appears in that.  And why was that put into this -- into this particular  file, into the Kliiyem lax haa file, this data?  Because most of the people discussed here are members  of the House of Kliiyem lax haa.  When you refer to Mary Johnson you're referring to the  person who holds the name Antgulibix?  Yes, I am.  There is reference to Henry Tait and Kathleen Mathew's  mothers.  Can you tell me which house -- in your  opinion and described in the genealogies which house  did you conclude ultimately Henry Tait belonged to  today?  Henry Tait was born into the House of Kliiyem lax haa  and adopted into the House of Tenimgyet.  And do you know what name he holds today?  Yes, he's Axtii Hiikw.  Axtii Hiikw.  Should be on the plaintiff's list.  A-X-T-I-I H-I-I-K-W.  What's the name again, and the spelling?  A-X-T-I-I H-I-I-K-W.  Thank you.  Do you know who the previous holder of the name Axtii  Hiikw was before Henry Tait?  Yes, it was Jeffery Morgan.  At the bottom of that notation you've got a question  "Could the two sisters have been adopted into the  House of Axtii Hiikw?".  Was that a question asked by  you of Mary Johnson or was that your own question?  That was my own question, because I didn't have clear  what I had just said about Henry being adopted from  Kliiyem lax haa's house into Tenimgyet's house.  This  was part of the process of trying to discover this.  Okay.  So at the time of this notation you didn't have  that point?  That's right.  Okay.  The next page in that same tab, is that part of 1077?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 the notations of the same interview with Mary Johnson?  2 A   Yes, it is.  3 Q   Okay.  I would refer you to the next tab.  This is  4 another -- appears to be another draft form of  5 genealogy.  Is this something that you -- that you  6 prepared?  7 A   Yes, it is.  8 Q   And what does it reflect as opposed to the earlier  9 versions?  10 A   It has some additional information that was  11 transmitted to me by Olive Mulwain, and it also has a  12 little bit from Mary Johnson.  13 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Would you just show what tab that is?  14 MR. GRANT:  It's number 11.  15 Q   Now, just so I understand it, this is a copy that you  16 have and the court has.  There's these little  17 notations on the right-hand side of the top and on the  18 bottom.  And what are those?  19 A  Well, I found those little sticky papers a useful way  20 to keep track of small pieces of information that  21 would -- that would come from interviews or from  22 records and I would attach them to the -- whatever was  23 the most updated version of the genealogy that I had  24 at the time, and then when I had time to work on that  25 genealogy then I would assimilate those pieces of  26 information on to the latest version.  27 Q   Okay.  And then you had -- there's sort of an oval  28 shape on the left-hand side with the name Olive  29 Mulwain under it sort of from John, Julian, Miriam and  30 to Florence on that line?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Why did you make that description?  33 A   To indicate that all -- all of the information within  34 that circle was from Olive Mulwain.  35 Q   Okay.  Just a moment.  At the bottom there right  36 underneath that is Mary Johnson and then another  37 little diagram.  You see that?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And does that have any relationship to the information  40 under the Olive Mulwain circle?  41 A   It's -- it's information about the same group of  42 people.  And I don't think that they precisely  43 correspond, so I would keep those two pieces of  44 information until I could confirm which one was  45 correct, or if it was a third alternative that was  46 actually correct.  47 Q   And did you ultimately do that with respect to this 10779  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 genealogy?  2 A   Yes, I did.  3 Q   Okay.  And going to the next tab, which is tab number  4 16, now what does this reflect?  5 A   This is more notes from interviewing Martha Brown.  6 Q   And that was in May 3rd of 1985?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And this relates to the same house group, that is  9 Kliiyem lax haa?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   On the next -- turning to the next page, next tab I  12 should say, tab number 17, there's another one page  13 notation.  Can you explain what this is?  14 A   Yes.  This was a telephone interview with Nancy Angus.  15 I believe she lived in Prince Rupert.  16 Q   M'hm.  17 A  And I wanted the information about her children so I  18 telephoned her for that.  19 MR. GOLDIE:  Is that the page that has Martha Brown?  20 MR. GRANT:  No, no, no.  It's tab 17.  21 MR. GOLDIE:  Okay.  22 MR. GRANT:  23 Q   I'd like you to go back to tab 16, the second page for  24 one moment.  You've got at the top -- there's three  25 lines of writing, then it says Hawaaw', then you have  2 6 Alice Brown and Emma --  27 A   Fluien.  28 Q   Fluien and Rosie Pierre.  What conclusion did you have  29 with respect to Hawaaw'?  In other words, was Hawaaw'  30 a chief in Kliiyem lax haa's house or was it a  31 separate house?  32 A   It's a separate house, but very closely related in the  33 fact that Hawaaw' had in the past separated off from  34 the House of Kliiyem lax haa.  35 Q   From your observations in the feast hall where does  36 Hawaaw' sit in relation to Kliiyem lax haa?  37 A   Hawaaw' sits, I believe it's on the right-hand side of  38 Kliiyem lax haa, if I remember correctly.  39 Q   Is that at the same table or different table?  40 A   Oh, yes, same table very close by.  41 Q   Now, going to tab number 18.  I should say you have  42 these ASS references in tab 17, 18 and that means this  43 information was later assimilated into later versions  44 of the genealogy as you described?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Can you explain what this information represents, and  47 who you would have received the information at tab 18 10780  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  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  from?  This was notes from a house meeting which was attended  by Martha Brown, Art Wilson, Alice Wilson, I believe  Rosie Pierre was there, chiefs of the house, and a few  chiefs who were not house members as well such as Mary  Johnson, and I believe Stanley Wilson was there.  And  these are notes that were relevant for the genealogy  and so I kept those.  GOLDIE:  What's the year, please?  GRANT:  Q   If you go to -- go to the second page it's June 12,  1985 is the date of this; right?  Yes, that's correct.  Now, you go to the second page and you see you have  Hawaaw's names.  And what is that?  In other words, is  that referring to names of the person who presently  hold Hawaaw' or does it refer to names in the house?  What does that refer to?  These are names that belong to the House of Hawaaw'.  Okay. And then you have that -- the fifth name down  'Wiigana'uu. That's '-W-I-I-G-A-N-A-'-U-U, and then  "(Xsaxgyoo's name)". What is your opinion or  conclusion with respect to Xsaxgyoo and Hawaaw'? In  other words, is that one house or --  GOLDIE:  Just let her — don't lead her.  GRANT:  I'm not leading her.  I'm asking in relation to the  house.  GOLDIE:  You were suggesting the answer.  A  Q  A  Q  GRANT  COURT  A  MR.  THE  THE  GRANT:  Q  COURT:  A  COURT:  You didn't let me finish the question.  Gentlemen, gentlemen.  Please.  Hawaaw' and Xsaxgyoo were houses that divided from  Kliiyem lax haa, but due to population decline in the  last hundred years or so Hawaaw' and Xsaxgyoo have  amalgamated.  So that the biological people are one  unit that make up the members of the House of Hawaaw'  and Xsaxgyoo.  They understand and remember that some  of the names and some of the properties such as  crests, and I'm not an expert on territory, but  possibly land are separate.  So it would be possible  in the future to reconstitute Xsaxgyoo as a separate  house from Hawaaw' if their fortunes rose.  Okay.  So -- okay.  I take it both these names have now been  incorporated into Hawaaw'?  Yes, that's correct.  Were they each separate houses at one time? 10781  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  THE  COURT  3  MR.  GRANT  4  5  THE  COURT  6  A  7  8  THE  COURT  9  MR.  GRANT  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Q  21  22  A  23  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  34  35  A  36  37  38  39  40  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  45  A  46  47  Q  Yes, they were.  :  Thank you.  :  That was Xsaxgyoo and Hawaaw' she was describing,  not that 'Wiigana'uu.  :  'Wiigana'uu and Xsaxgyoo are the same thing?  'Wiigana'uu is a name that belongs to the House of  Xsaxgyoo.  :  All right.  Now it's incorporated into the House of Hawaaw'?  I want to make this clear --  That is Xsaxgyoo and Hawaaw' are one house today?  They are one biological group of people, and because  the record of the property ownership is kept separate  if people say they are two houses they're not exactly  wrong if they say that, because the potential there is  to again become two houses as they were in the past.  So one lineage of the family may eventually subdivide  and reconstitute that house.  Where does Xsaxgyoo sit in the feast hall today in  relation to Hawaaw'?  I believe to the right of Hawaaw', or possibly two  places to the right of Hawaaw'.  I can't --  At the same table or different table?  I'm sorry.  At the same table.  Okay.  Now, tab 19, can you explain what that is?  This is a typed version of the notes from the Kliiyem  lax haa, Hawaaw', Xsaxgyoo house meeting.  That is the immediately preceding notes you're  referring to?  Yes.  Go to the second page.  Is that -- is all the  information in tab 19?  Is it -- is there anything  additional?  Yes.  On the second page the photocopy shows that  there was one of those little yellow sticky papers  with an additional note that was just stuck on there  because it belonged to this house, and I didn't want  to lose the information and ended up being photocopied  to it.  That's reference to Nicodemus, Dogogais and Hawaaw'?  Yes.  Do you recall where that information came from?  First  of all, you have dates under the name Hawaaw'?  That's from the headstone, the dates that are under  the name Hawaaw'.  Okay.  And the information that appears there, the 10782  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 information suggests that Hawaaw' -- that Hawaaw' who  2 died in 1917 — is that 1917?  3 A   Yes, it is.  4 Q   Was married to a woman named Anhalagyax,  5 A-N-H-A-L-A-G-Y-A-X.  I'm spelling it as it is on the  6 note.  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Where did that information come from?  9 A   I believe that came from Mary Johnson.  10 Q   Okay.  Is that information reflected ultimately on the  11 genealogy, the final genealogy?  12 A   Certainly Anhalagyax's on the appropriate genealogy,  13 and Hawaaw' I'm not positive -- I'm not positive if  14 Nicodemus Dogogais is on the Hawaaw' Wii'goob'l's  15 genealogy.  I'd have to look.  16 Q   Okay.  Who described the Nicodemus Dogogais as  17 something brother?  18 A  Mary Johnson.  19 Q   Going to tab number 20, this appears again to be an  20 index card, and then there's a sticky on it.  Where  21 did you get the information from the index card?  22 A   This was information from the feast that -- the  23 funeral feast of Jeffery Morgan when the name Axtii  24 Hiikw was passed to Henry Tait.  25 Q   M'hm.  2 6 A  And when Henry's -- when Jimmy Tait took Henry's name.  27 Q   Okay.  Then there is Kliiyem lax haa, Gordon Travers.  28 And "Who is Jimmy Tait - T'siiyee?", who asked that  29 question?  30 A   That's my question, because -- I'm sorry.  I don't  31 remember where it came from.  I had this notation that  32 Jimmy Tait had the name T'siiyee.  I stuck it on to  33 this card because at the time Henry took Axtii Hiikw  34 that he passed T'siiyee on to Jimmy.  35 Q   Okay.  Going to tab 21, my lord.  And where did you  36 get this information on tab 21?  37 A   This information came from the census records between  38 '21 and '31.  Indian census records.  39 Q   And just so to be clear when you're mentioning census  40 records, which census records you relied on, you say  41 are the 1921 1931 Indian census records?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Could you explain what those are?  44 A   Yes.  Records kept by the Department of Indian Affairs  45 to record nuclear family groupings.  46 Q   M'hm.  M'hm.  And what other census records did you  47 refer to in your research other than those two? 10783  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   I had a much earlier census.  The 1881 census.  2 Although it wasn't -- it wasn't possible to utilize it  3 as fully as I had first hoped, because the English  4 renderings of the Gitksan names, which is entirely  5 Gitksan names, is quite poor.  Not surprisingly  6 considering there are 24 sounds in Gitksan that are  7 not found in English.  8 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, I object to this witness giving so-called  9 linguistic evidence.  10 MR. GRANT:  Well, she's —  11 MR. GOLDIE:  She obviously —  12 MR. GRANT:  I'm not tendering her to give linguistic evidence.  13 I'm tendering her to explain what -- why the 1881  14 census was not useful.  15 MR. GOLDIE:  She got that from someone else.  All she had to say  16 is I didn't rely on it because I couldn't read the  17 names.  18 MR. GRANT:  I'm not asking -- asking the witness to give  19 linguistic evidence.  I think I can go more --  20 THE COURT:  I don't know if she ever looked at it.  If so it  21 would seem to me she could possibly say I couldn't  22 make much sense out of it and she could give the  23 reason.  If on the other hand she didn't look at it  24 and somebody told her that it seems to me the  25 objection might be well taken.  2 6 MR. GRANT:  27 Q   Did you look at the 1881 census yourself?  28 A   Yes.  I've gone through it entirely and I used what  2 9 names I could decipher.  Some I could, some I  30 couldn't, the majority, but any that had enough --  31 that were recognizeable I used.  32 Q   Okay.  So you referred to the 1921 census, the Indian  33 census you used, you referred to the 1931 Indian  34 census you used, you referred to the 1881 Indian  35 census, and you looked at it and used it in part where  36 you could.  Any other census you referred to?  37 A   Yes, the 1891 census.  But it also was disappointing  38 because there wasn't a very -- it wasn't very well  39 done.  There would be -- instead of trying to find out  40 exactly what the names were of the people in the  41 villages there was just things like Kispiox Bob,  42 Kispiox Joe, Kispiox Harry which told me nothing.  43 Sometimes there were -- there were useful names, but  44 many were just rendered in that manner.  45 Q   Okay.  I'd like to refer you to -- first of all on tab  46 21 is that -- you say you referred to this -- this  47 came from the census records.  Is that the type of 10784  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 data you would gather from the census records of 1921  2 to 1931?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   Okay.  Tab 22.  Now, this is a one page notation where  5 you -- it says "Ask Celina or Henry how many Tom  6 Harris?"  And then it has "Who was Tom Harris'  7 wife(s)".  Whose questions and comments were those?  8 A   These were my questions, because I had heard the name  9 Tom Harris associated with houses of different clans.  10 And that doesn't make any sense because ordinarily  11 most people spend their entire life just being in one  12 house.  And occasionally someone is adopted from one  13 house to another.  That's not extrodinarily rare, but  14 I had seen his name associated with houses from three  15 different clans and that was absolutely unique in the  16 genealogical research that I did.  And I have a note  17 there to ask Celina, meaning Celina Fowler, or ask  18 Henry Tait.  In fact I asked Olive Ryan about this  19 information and she explained to me how this happened.  20 Q   Okay.  What was your conclusion or your opinion as to  21 which house Tom Harris was in?  22 A   He was born in the House of Kliiyem lax haa.  23 Q   M'hm.  24 A  And as a child he was given a child's name by Solomon  25 Harris who was Lelt from the Frog clan, and then later  26 on when he was an adult he was adopted into the Eagle  27 clan, which was suffering very greatly from population  28 decline.  There had been a cross association between  29 the Wolf and Eagle clans in Kitwanga, and Tom Harris  30 was a resident of Kitwanga and so he was given this  31 Eagle clan name.  So in his life time he was a member  32 of houses of three different clans, which is the only  33 incident I've ever found with that.  34 Q   Okay.  I'd like to refer you to tab number 23.  Now --  35 I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  I don't need to refer to that,  36 my lord.  I'm sorry.  I'll go directly to tab 24  37 rather than the later of the two versions which come  38 right after each other.  39 A   24 did you say?  40 Q   Tab 24.  I'm sorry.  Yeah.  41 A   They're almost the same.  42 Q   This is a working copy or revised number 20 -- no.  43 It's tab 20.  Okay.  Now, can you just explain now --  44 this -- of the ones we've looked at this appears to be  45 the longest of the Kliiyem lax haa genealogies thus  46 far.  Can you just explain when, for example, would  47 you have worked on this draft or had this draft? 10785  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   Gee, I'm sorry, I don't have the date.  But this would  2 certainly be after the previous ones, because of the  3 accumulated information.  This possibly was late in  4 '86.  I'm not positive.  5 Q   Thank you.  6 A  And it was an accumulation of the information from the  7 previous drafts as well.  As I started to put in a lot  8 of dates here from the records that were available to  9 me such as the Indian census records, some church  10 records and band lists.  11 Q   Could you just give the court an example of where you  12 see data from the Indian census records?  13 A   Yes.  You notice that a lot of the dates that are of  14 people who were born pre-contact or in the early  15 period of contact such as Lelt, Solomon Harris, and  16 his wife Joanna Harris that you see up towards the  17 left-hand top part of the house.  You see Solomon  18 Harris was born 1861, Joanna Harris was born 1871, and  19 you see many other dates end with a one or a little  20 less commonly six, because these were guesses on the  21 part of the Indian agent, I assume, who was doing the  22 census records in 1921.  So they would give round  23 figures for ages on the census records.  So they would  24 look at a person and say this person is 50.  25 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, that's pure speculation.  2 6    MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  27 Q   What data did you find on it?  28 MR. GOLDIE:  Excuse me.  What I'm objecting to is a statement  29 "This is what the Indian agent did."  30 MR. GRANT:  Yeah.  I appreciate that.  31 A   Okay.  The census records have on them ages, not  32 dates.  They were recorded in 1921, and they say  33 Solomon Harris is 50, his wife is 40, his daughter is  34 30.  That's what they say.  35 Q   Okay.  So that the ages they refer to are ages in the  36 tense like 20, 30, 40.  Were there any where the ages  37 would be 25, 35, 45?  38 A   Yes, that was common.  Sometimes the ages were  39 accurate.  Many were like this, of older people  40 particularly.  41 Q   I see you have at the top above Lelt Alexander  42 Gitludahl 1854 - 1918.  That doesn't seem to fit that  43 sort of model that you just described.  Where would  44 that information have come from?  45 A   His headstone, which is still standing, in Kispiox.  46 Q   Okay.  Now, then you have a notation here on the upper  47 right-hand corner, page one, "Tommy Harris married 10786  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  35  36  Q  37  38  A  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  45  A  46  Q  47  THE COURT  Sarah (Lelt), Maryanne Loucvitz (Gucsan) (phonetic),  and Tommy had a daughter, Florence Harris who married  Willy Sampare who was Florence's mother."  First of  all, everything up to the question where did you get  that information from?  From Olive Ryan.  And the question, whose question is that?  Was that  hers or yours?  No, that's my question.  Would that have been information that you gathered  after you prepared this revised working draft?  Yes, it would be.  Now, you do show -- you do show on this genealogy,  this draft, Tommy Harris.  This is on the third line  down, Matthew Harris, Florence Harris, Sarah Harris  and Tommy Harris?  Yes.  Ultimately is Tom Harris on the Kliiyem lax haa  genealogy, that is the final that you prepared?  Possibly, but not in that position.  He's -- I --  Okay.  What opinion did you conclude on him?  I concluded that he was not the brother of Florence,  Matthew, Julia, Robert and Frank Harris.  And that was as a result of research subsequent to  this?  Yes , it was.  Does any of the data on this copy reflect -- reflect  information you gathered from the Barbeau records?  And I'm here referring to the -- to either the adaawk  of Barbeau, that is these unpublished ones Barbeau  wrote, or I'm referring to the Totem Poles of the  Gitksan.  I believe that the fact that Tommy Harris was married  to Sarah from Lelt's house, that is found in Totem  Poles of the Gitksan.  Now, the next document, tab 25, can you just indicate  what that reflects?  Yes.  This also was a telephone interview with a young  woman from the House of Kliiyem lax haa to discover  who her -- I believe it's her brothers and sisters and  nephews and nieces were.  And going to the next tab, tab 26, it's -- the  document in the file is number 22.  And what does that  incorporate?  The information that I gathered from Tracy Casimel.  Okay.  :  From who? 10787  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   Tracy Casimel.  2 MR. GRANT:  3 Q   That is the immediately preceding person you  4 interviewed?  5 A   Yes, it was.  6 Q   Now, that interview with Tracy Casimel is dated  7 November 6, 1985.  Can you -- how long after would you  8 have prepared this revision incorporating that  9 information?  In other words, about what period would  10 the document at tab number 26 be --  11 A   I believe it was just the same day or the day after.  12 Very soon thereafter.  13 Q   Okay.  14 THE COURT:  Forgive me.  Is that C-A-S-I-M-E-L?  15 A   Yes, it is.  16 MR. GRANT:  17 Q   I would go directly then to tab 27.  18 MR. GOLDIE:  Excuse me.  Before my friend continues I'd like to  19 make sure I've got located where the information is  20 incorporated.  Is it on page two?  21 MR. GRANT:  Oh, this is the Casimel information?  22 MR. GOLDIE:  Yes, that's right.  23 MR. GRANT:  This is on tab 26.  24 Q   Can you just take a review of that?  25 A   Yes, it is.  Yes, page two.  26 Q   And it shows on the left Tracy Casimel and then a  27 listing along there including children of Janice?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Thank you.  Okay.  Going on to tab 27.  What does this  30 document reflect and --  31 A   This was a list of names of people that I knew to be  32 members of the House of Kliiyem lax haa, and it was  33 from the Duff -- from some Wilson Duff notes.  And he  34 had Indian names in the orthography that I used which  35 I can't read so I took this list to Susan Marsden who  36 can read the Duff orthography and asked her to put  37 these names into the orthography that I can read.  And  38 that's her handwriting, the printed Indian names down  39 the middle of the page.  40 Q   Okay.  Just so that we are clear on this, you've got  41 the name Maggie Kale, Martha Brown and Jessie Olson?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And at the point you found this information was it  44 your opinion they were members of the House of Kliiyem  45 lax haa?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   Then you found a reference to these other names that 107?  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  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  are handwritten with apostrophies on the right-hand  side.  That's the names from the Duff notes?  Yes, it is .  And then the printing underneath you've explained this  is Susan Marsden's transliteration of this?  Yes.  The Duff notes would say Maggie Kale, would have  this name, and I couldn't read that so I got Susan to  write it so I could read it.  Okay.  In the course of your research, Ms. Harris, did  you have to deal with the questions of different  orthographies?  I gather orthographies are different  ways of writing names, Gitksan names, for example?  Yes, they are.  Did you have to deal with the different orthographies?  Yes.  Barbeau's is different and Duff's is different.  Okay.  And in the course of the work did you -- were  you able to -- did you have to do this with the  Barbeau orthography as well or --  Sometimes I would.  I -- I learned some of the Barbeau  orthography.  I have it down fairly well now, but at  first I couldn't read them and I would get Susan to  assist me, because she had been working with them  before and she knew the orthography.  Should we take the morning adjournment?  My lord, it would be convenient.  Thank you.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess,  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Peri McHale, Official Reporter  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 10789  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  THE  COURT  6  MR.  GRANT  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  18  19  Q  20  21  22  A  23  24  Q  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  31  32  33  34  35  Q  36  37  38  A  39  Q  40  41  A  42  43  Q  44  THE  COURT  45  MR.  GRANT  46  THE  COURT  47  MR.  GRANT  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED FOLLOWING SHORT RECESS)  HEATHER HARRIS, Resumed:  Mr. Grant?  I would refer you to tab 20 -- sorry.  Tab 28, which  is the next tab in your document book, do you have it?  Yes.  What is this document?  This is notes taken at a feast by Neil Sterritt.  And this is from his field books?  Yes, it is, his field notes.  And why do you incorporate this into your file of  Kliiyem lax haa?  This was a feast that was put on by Kliiyem lax haa  and members of her Wii 'na t'ahl clan and I thought  there might be useful information for the genealogy.  Now, there is some -- it appears there is some rough  genealogical chart on the first page of it, is that  what you -- did you utilize that data?  Yes, I believe I already had that data but I wanted to  check it against what I had.  Okay.  And was there any other data --  way that you  could use that utilize that either in preparing the  genealogies or formulating your opinions on Gitksan  structure than -- Gitksan kinship and social  structure?  Well, I had hoped I could use the names that are --  the Gitksan names that are listed, but they are only  useful to me if there is an English name with them and  the English names were not listed beside the Gitksan  names in most cases, so I didn't get to incorporate  those names into the genealogies.  This is like on the second page where it has Kliiyem  lax haa and the next one Gawaiylo'op, is that what  you're referring to?  Yes.  Did you attend this feast, do you recall, Henry  Johnson's feast, in December of 1985?  I don't believe I did.  My name should be listed if I  did.  What I would like you to --  What are these numbers?  The numbers beside the names?  Yes.  Mr. Sterritt I believe gave evidence that those were 10790  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  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  A  Q  A  the contributions of people at the feasts.  In the  feast book excerpt during Mr. Sterritt's evidence,  those would be the contributions of money that people  paid in at the feast.  These are very substantial amounts.  I think that what you have is a --  MR. GOLDIE:  It's a cumulative, it's a running account on the  right-hand side.  Thank you, Mr. Goldie.  I was just going to explain  that.  All right.  Thank you.  I would like to jump over for a moment now, we were  talking about Mr. Sterritt's material, to tab 32, and  it's in the index of your document book, it's in the  index as material from the Wii'mogulsxw genealogy  file.  And can you just look at tab 32?  Yes.  And what does that document reflect, where did you get  that information?  I take it it is your handwriting?  Yes, it is.  This is information that was gathered by  Neil Sterritt from attending feasts.  This recorded  names that belong to the house of Kliiyem lax haa or  related houses.  Did you get that from interviewing Mr. Sterritt or  from notes that you had?  From his notes.  And in what era, that is, in what time period of your  research were you doing this kind of work from his  notes?  Very early on.  Now, this document that we are looking at here, as you  have described, came out of the Wii'mogulsxw file, the  top of it says Kliiyem lax haa, Lax Gibuu, Kispiox.  What is your opinion -- what was your opinion at that  time of Wii'mogulsxw, that is, the relationship  between Wii'mogulsxw and Kliiyem lax haa and what is  your opinion of that today?  When I first saw Neil's notes, I had -- I wasn't clear  on whether Kliiyem lax haa and Wii'mogulsxw were one  house, or if they were more than one house.  It became  clear, as my research progressed, that they were  separate but closely-related houses.  These lists of  Neil's record people who sit at the same table in a  feast hall and, as I have mentioned before, sometimes  a table at the feast hall has several houses sitting  at it.  Can you go to the next tab, and I want you to continue  A  Q  A  Q  A 10791  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 your description, but referring to tab 33, again from  2 are the Wii'mogulsxw file, and what that document came  3 from and if that -- how that relates to what you have  4 just described?  5 A   This also is a list made by Neil representing people  6 who sit at the same table in the feast hall at which  7 Kliiyem lax haa sits at the head of the table.  So  8 these are people in related houses but they are from a  9 couple of different houses.  10 Q   Now, okay -- let's just take an example of Kliiyem lax  11 haa, Wii'mogulsxw, and Guulaxhan, G-U-U-L-A-X-H-A-N on  12 this list.  Now, those are listed as one, two, three  13 on this list, what does that symbolize or signify?  14 A   These three people are members of different but  15 closely-related houses.  Wii'mogulsxw is the head  16 chief of the house of Wii'mogulsxw and he sits on  17 Martha's left-hand side in the feast hall at the same  18 table and Guulaxhan sits, I believe, on Martha's  19 right-hand side and down about three seats, if I  20 remember correctly, and he is -- his name is from the  21 house of Wii elaast.  22 Q   And that is Norman Wiget?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And who holds are the name Wii elaast today?  25 A   Jim Angus junior.  26 Q   Just on that again, there is the name beside  27 Wii'mogulsxw, Art Wilson?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Who is he?  30 A   He is the holder of the name of Wii'mogulsxw.  31 Q   And under him is these English name, George Wilson,  32 Jonathan Johnson and Robert Wilson, why are they  33 listed there?  34 A   They are previous holders of the name Wii'mogulsxw.  35 Q   And all of these pages in this tab are part of this  36 document that came from Neil's lists?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And these came out of his field books or his journals?  39 A   These were not directly out of his journals, they were  40 separate notes.  41 Q   Loose-leaf notes that he had?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   I would like you to go to, while we are in this  44 sequence, I would like you to go -- I will come back  45 to this last -- I will go to tab 34, we can deal with  4 6 it.  What is tab 34 and where did that come from?  47 A   This was research that was also done before I began my 10792  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 research, and it was done by Violet Smith with Mary  2 Johnson.  And these were lists of names that belonged  3 to houses in Kispiox and the English name of the  4 person who currently held the name as well as the  5 English names of some previous holders of the Gitksan  6 name.  7 Q   Who was Violet Smith -- who is Violet Smith?  8 A  Violet Smith was working as a researcher for the  9 Tribal Council before I worked there and for a short  10 period of time after I worked there.  11 Q   And did you discuss your work with her when you  12 started work?  13 A   Yes, I did.  14 Q   She gave me these notes to help me get straight which  15 houses existed and who were members of which houses,  16 and she discussed with me what she had learned about  17 social structure.  18 Q   Okay.  Referring back to tab number 29, it's a typed-  19 out listing, entitled "Present and past name holders";  20 what does this reflect?  21 A   I kept an accumulating record of current and previous  22 holders of the names that belonged to each house and  23 this is what this represents.  As you can see the  24 first name on the list is Kliiyem lax haa and the  25 current holder of the name at that time was Martha  26 Brown and those other names listed underneath and  27 indented somewhat from Martha's name are the previous  2 8 holders of the name that I knew about.  And the same  29 format is followed with the others and in some cases  30 there is a translation of the name as you see with the  31 second name down, Gitwalxumgibeeyuu, and it says below  32 wolves go to war, that's what that Gitksan name means.  33 Q   And where did you get that information?  34 A   This information for that particular name came from  35 Martha Brown.  36 Q   Wherever you got translations of names, did it always  37 come from an elder or did you get it from other  38 sources or informants?  39 A   Yes, it sometimes came from other sources.  40 Q   Such as?  41 A   I believe that Duff and Barbeau have the meanings of  42 names noted at times.  43 Q   You refer under that to a Nax Nok where they put  44 blankets over the children and there is a description  45 there, where did you get that information?  46 A   I believe that was from Mary Johnson, that  47 description. 10793  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  13  14  15  Q  16  17  18  i  19  20  21  22  A  23  24  ]  25  26  27  28  29  Q  30  31  MR. GOLDIE  32  33  34  MR. GRANT:  35  A  36  MR. GRANT:  37  A  38  39  40  Q  41  42  A  43  Q  44  45  i  46  47  Now, there appears to be one or two yellow stickies  that were on this with handwritten notations, did you  get that information subsequent to preparing this name  list?  Yes, that's why they were added there.  Okay.  Going to the next document, June 23rd, 1987,  this is tab -- it's document 26 out of the file, it's  tab 30.  This is a five page genealogy.  Now, at this stage, can you just explain this in  relationship to all of the previous work that you did?  Yes, this is an accumulation of all the genealogical  information that I had collected during the research  and this version is approaching the currently  completed state of the Kliiyem lax haa genealogy.  You prepared your report of opinions, your first  summary opinion report delivered to the defendants, I  believe it's dated January, 1987, this genealogy is  dated June, 1987.  What was the status of the  genealogies -- I am not talking about just Kliiyem lax  haa but all of the others -- at the time you prepared  your first opinion report?  The majority of the information was there, I would say  they were 85 to 90 percent complete where actual house  members were concerned.  I mean, 85 to 90 percent of  the house members were represented, in some cases it  would be much higher than that and possibly in a few  lower, but I would say the majority were at least that  complete at that time.  Now, I would like you to just go to the next tab, tab  31 --  :  Excuse me, there are two genealogies under tab 30,  which is the one that the witness is referring to or  are they all the same?  Just a moment.  Can I answer that question?  Yes, go ahead?  They are not two, actually, it's just that the first  two pages which are on graph paper have replaced a  previous first page.  So those five pages at tab 31 are one genealogy, one  version where you did amendments?  Yes, they are, even though they look quite different.  Going to tab 32 -- 31 I should say, it has the same  label in the upper left hand corner and the only  difference is the numbering, it's number 27, and the  other one is number 26, can you comment on that form  of genealogy? 10794  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   There was just very minor changes between the previous  2 one and this one.  I can see a child's name that was  3 added on the first page, Paul Shanoss, I believe, yes,  4 I just see a small change.  Just very minor changes  5 between the two of them.  6 Q   Now, I wish to just show you for a moment a genealogy  7 entitled Wilp Kliiyem lax haa, dated January 28, 1988;  8 have you seen that genealogy before?  9 A   Yes, I have.  10 Q   And is this the final product as a result of your  11 research relating to Kliiyem lax haa?  12 THE COURT:  The date again?  13 MR. GRANT:  Dated January 28, 1988, my lord.  14 A   It was the final product at that time.  15 Q   In January of 1988?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And since that time, there has been other changes to  18 the house, is that what you're referring to?  19 A  Very minor changes have been made since then.  20 Q   Okay.  Well, I will ask you about that in a moment.  21 Just, my lord, if you just bear with me for a  22 moment.  What I have done is prepared a binder which  23 includes all of the genealogical charts together.  I  24 just want to check that because apparently, I just  25 wanted to be sure that copy was in there or that -- a  26 copy for the court.  And there is an errata reflecting  27 some errors.  Now, I also want to say, my lord, and I  28 will be asking at the lunch hour to get Exhibit 17,  29 tab 1, which is actually tab 1, it's the Antgulilbix  30 genealogy and I want my friends to know this was only  31 a photocopying problem, not a change in genealogy but  32 apparently one of the pages of Antgulilbix is missing  33 page 3, so I will -- in our exhibits here we don't  34 have that exhibit so I would ask leave to release that  35 exhibit so I can make a copy of that page and have  36 that complete.  But that will -- and what I have done  37 on the index, my lord, is where the document has been  38 tendered as an exhibit already, I have labelled it as  39 the exhibit number.  40 MR. GOLDIE:  Where is that?  41 MR. GRANT:  That's on the index at the very beginning.  And also  42 the date it was tendered and the evidence or the  43 witness who -- under whom it was tendered.  44 Ultimately, I will be asking, of course, to have the  45 balance of them tendered.  And the Kliiyem lax haa  46 genealogy to which I have just indicated to the  47 witness is at tab 43, that is the final version of the 10795  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  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  Kliiyem lax haa genealogy.  Now, before proceeding --  COURT:  It's out of alphabetical order for some reason, is  it?  GRANT:  Well, yes.  If you look at the actual genealogy  itself the writing that this witness has used is  X-H-L, and that's the writing on the genealogy, but to  match it up with how the pleadings reads, that  spelling, I have changed it to K.  That's the only one  out of order like that.  COURT:  All right.  GRANT:  I would ask firstly, my lord, as I have referred to  all of these documents in the black book, subject to  the comments your lordship has made, that documents  from tabs five through to tabs 34 be marked  sequentially as the next exhibits.  Alternatively,  five to 31 could be marked as one exhibit, and 32 to  34 as the second exhibit.  GOLDIE:  My lord, so long as they are described as documents  said to describe the methodology of the witness.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  Yes.  And admissible for that purpose only.  Yes, that's what I am tendering them for.  Is there some reason you are starting -- I see.  Tab 5 because that's where I --  Yes.  All right.  That's where I started with this series of material.  The next exhibit number, Madam Registrar?  REGISTRAR:  Is 8 52, my lord  (EXHIBIT 852: BINDER OF HEATHER HARRIS NOTES RELATING  TO KLIIYEM LAX HAA AND WII'MOGULSXW GENEALOGIES)  GRANT:  Did you wish them separately marked, each tab, my  lord, or as they are proved in the index?  COURT:  I don't think they need to be marked separately, do  they?  They will be Exhibit 852 and they can be  referred to by their tab number if necessary.  GOLDIE:  Then they will -- then there is a common  description that can apply to the whole.  COURT:  It's tabs five to —  GRANT:  34.  COURT:  -- 34, evidence to prove only methodology.  GRANT:  And they should be described as Heather Harris notes  relating to the Kliiyem lax haa and Wii'mogulsxw  genealogy.  All right.  COURT:  GOLDIE:  Well, notes in the file, because there are Neil 10796  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  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  Q  Sterritt notes and --  GRANT:  Yes, notes in the Heather Harris file.  REGISTRAR:  Tab 5 through 34 will be Exhibit 852?  COURT:  Yes, thank you.  GRANT:  And what I propose -- well, I will -- my lord, maybe  what I will do, I have one labelled as the exhibit  copy.  My friend is fixing it because the binding came  apart, but I have this other one that I will tender up  and maybe I can look at it before my friend marks it.  I think there should be no difficulty, it should be  the same unless there was some poor photocopying.  It  was our desk copy, so that we can proceed.  So you are now tendering these 43 genealogies, are  you?  Well, I am going to ask the witness questions about  them before I proceed.  All right.  If you could have those in front of the witness.  These would be Heather Harris documents number two and  there are 45 genealogies, my lord.  Yes.  I am sorry.  Thank you.  Have you reviewed the genealogies in that document  book, Ms. Harris?  A   Yes, I have.  Q   And those -- do those genealogies -- are they the  culmination of your research with respect to the  genealogies of the Gitksan houses which are labelled  in the index to them?  A   Yes, they are.  Q   And in your opinion they, subject to certain  qualifications which I will ask you about, are they --  do they reflect the membership of those houses?  A   Yes, they do.  Q   And what I would like you to do right now is go to tab  43, the one I just showed you earlier, which is  Kliiyem lax haa, now you said there was some minor  changes, can you refer to any changes, for example, on  the first page, since January, 1988, which you refer  to as minor changes?  A   Yes, Horace Tait and Vina Tait should be represented  as their brother Henry Tait is, which the slash across  the symbol for Henry Tait and the word Tenimgyet put  in brackets below Henry Tait, means that he has been  adopted out of Kliiyem lax ha's house and into  Tenimgyet's house and the same indication should be  placed on Horace Tait and Vina Tait. 10797  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   When did that adoption of Horace and Vina Tait take  place?  A   I believe it was before the research was done but I  just wasn't aware of it until after this genealogy was  drawn.  MR. GOLDIE:  Is that on the errata sheet?  MR. GRANT:  I don't believe that's on the errata sheet.  I would  ask that change be made to tab 43.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Does that change to that genealogy affect your  opinions relating to kinship and social structure of  the Gitksan?  A   No, it's not that significant.  Q   Now, I would like to show you -- I'd like to show you  this errata sheet, which refers to a number of the  houses, did you prepare that, after review of them at  that these corrections should have been made?  A   Yes, I did.  MR. GRANT:   I would ask, my lord, that these documents be  marked as the next exhibits and I am in your  lordship's hands basically, because I take the view  that where, for example, it's already been marked as  an exhibit, that that doesn't need to be marked but  the other ones starting with Amagyet should be marked  sequentially as the next exhibits or else they can go  in as one number with those exhibits as copies of  them.  Well, I don't see, subject to what counsel say, any  real reason why they can't be in twice, if it's easier  to have them all in one book and with a common  numbering system.  GOLDIE:  The only concern I have is when I look at the first  one, it appears to incorporate a change made by Mary  Johnson on the stand.  So, therefore, with that  change, it's not the culmination of her research.  I  don't know whether changes made by the witnesses on  the stand have been incorporated into the rest of  those, I just happen to recognize the first one.  I can inform the court that with respect to this,  this copy was taken from my file, that is my copy of  the exhibit, where I have made that notation as she  described that evidence and I see -- I think my friend  is referring to the Stewart Forsythe example.  THE COURT: I think Mr. Goldie's observation is a qualification  which can be applied to these exhibits. If they have  been changed, that doesn't alter the fact that this is  THE COURT  MR.  MR. GRANT 1079?  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 the final production of the witness.  2 MR. GOLDIE:  No, no.  My only concern is that a document which  3 has been identified by a witness, who is a primary  4 witness, if I may put it that way, is, I assume, the  5 document to rely upon.  I don't have any objection  6 about this being marked.  But as long as it's  7 understood that if there is -- if there are changes  8 made by a witness who is a primary source, then that  9 as adopted by the witness, is the document which I  10 assume should be relied upon.  The --  11 THE COURT:  Well, I just think this book of documents should be  12 Exhibit 853, and each of the tabs in it should be the  13 same exhibit number with the tab designation.  So we  14 will now have Exhibit 853-1 to 853-45, and in each  15 case, it's understood that this is the genealogy that  16 has been produced by this witness but may be subject  17 to evidence given by witnesses who have verified  18 changes in it.  And to that extent -- I suppose it  19 might be a matter of argument as to whether the change  20 that has been verified by the witness should be  21 accepted or not.  But this represents the final work  22 product of the witness.  2 3 MR. GRANT  2 4 THE COURT  2 5 MR. GRANT  2 6 THE COURT  Of Ms. Harris?  Yes.  Yes.  The only other evidence that relates to the same  27 subject matter.  28 MR. GRANT:  And of course I would ask that the errata be  29 included.  3 0 THE COURT  31 MR. GRANT  32 THE COURT  33 MR. GRANT  The errata could be Exhibit 854.  I have pre-punched it, it could go right in.  All right.  Call it 853 capital A.  Okay.  34    THE REGISTRAR:  All right.  35  36        (EXHIBIT 854: BOOK OF GENEALOGIES PREPARED BY HEATHER HARRIS)  37  3 8    MR. GRANT:  39 Q   I would like you to turn to tab 1 for a moment, and  40 pull that Antigulilibix genealogy out.  41 A   You took it.  42 MR. GRANT:  I have immediately come across the reason why I had  43 one marked as an exhibit copy, my lord.  There is none  44 in the -- my friend, Mr. Adams', copy of tab 1.  45 Q   Now, you see there reference to Stewart Forsythe?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   And there is a circle and an arrow down and dots over, 10799  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  Q  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  under Mary Johnson's name, do you see that?  Yes.  Were you -- what is -- what is your understanding  today of who adopted Stewart Forsythe into the House  of Antigulilibix?  Mary Johnson did.  When did you determine that?  Right from the first time I heard about him, which  would be when he was first adopted.  I can't remember  the date but that was about four years ago, possibly.  Who did you say she adopted?  Stewart Forsythe.  That's the name on page one where  you have a circle and then an arrow down, my lord.  Mary Johnson is on the --  I found her.  I haven't found --  If you go along the same line as Mary Johnson, a  dotted line and Stewart Forsythe is on the right  there, a circle down and then next to Joanne Creelman  there is a handwritten dashed line.  You see that in the version before there was that  circle and that handwritten drawing that Stewart  Forsythe is indicated as along the same line as  Stanley Wilson and Mary Johnson?  Yes.  Now, do you know why or why did you draft it that way  at that time?  Because Stan or, pardon me, Mary refers to Stewart as  a brother.  He is of a similar age so she refers to  him as a brother and that's why I represented it that  way.  Well which, in your opinion, which would be the  correct way -- where should Stewart Forsythe be on  there in your opinion?  Either one of them would be correct.  Now, I'd like to move from this to your -- and I will  be asking you to refer to that, maybe we can move that  just a bit out of your way and I would like to go back  to tab 2 to your expert report.  Can I put this away?  Yes, Antigulilibix can be put away.  I will be  referring to some of these genealogies when I am  dealing with the opinions and conclusions of the  witness.  GOLDIE:  My lord, before we leave that, could I have my  friend's confirmation, and perhaps he is coming to it,  that the symbol for adoption out is a slash and the  example is Charles Stewart on page one; is that  A  Q  A  MR.  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT 10800  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 correct?  2 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  3 MR. GOLDIE:  Adoption out?  4 MR. GRANT:  Adoption —  5 Q   When a person is born into a house and then adopted  6 out, how do you signify that they are adopted out of  7 the house?  8 A   By the slash through the symbol for that person and it  9 then in brackets underneath it has the name of the  10 house to which that person was adopted.  11 MR. GOLDIE:  And the symbol -- and the signal for adoption in is  12 the dashed line; is that correct?  13 MR. GRANT:  Yes, a dashed line indicates that the person is  14 adopted into a house?  15 A   Yes, that's right.  16 Q   And is there any other use that you make, you  17 described yesterday that you stopped using slash for a  18 deceased person, but is there any other use you make  19 of a slash on a circle or triangle for a genealogy?  2 0 A   No.  21 Q   So wherever that's shown on this exhibit it indicates  22 adoption?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And is that the same with the dashed lines, that you  25 only use it for adoption in?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   I'd like to refer you to tab 2, page 18, and this  28 section of your report, your opinion report, is  29 entitled "Completeness of the Genealogies" and it's  30 under methodology.  You say, I am referring to the  31 first paragraph:  "As mentioned in the introduction,  32 the genealogies can never be absolutely complete.  33 However, the conclusions of this report will not be  34 changed by additional information because the most  35 significant aspects of the genealogies are complete."  36 Now first stop there, when -- was this in the -- this  37 statement in the January, 1987 report as well as the  38 April, 1988 report?  3 9 A   Yes, it was.  4 0 Q   And was it true at that time?  41 A   Yes, it was.  42 Q   Now, then you say: "These aspects include most of the  43 house members and how they are related to each other  44 through their ancestors."  That's one.  Second, "The  45 spouses of house members and the house of each  46 spouse."  And third, "and the recent holders of the  47 most important names." 10801  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  24  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44    I  MR. GRANT  45  Q  46  47  So you appear to refer to three significant aspects  of the genealogies; is that statement correct?  Yes.  And that's your opinion?  Yes.  Now, why is the -- it significant -- what is the  significance of the genealogy showing most of the  house members and how they are related to each other  through their ancestors?  The most significant aspect of that is that it  indicates the type of kinship system in that it's a  matrilineal kinship system.  And then you say another significant aspect -- so you  utilize that for your opinion, that data?  Yes.  Then you say:  "Another significant aspect is the  spouses of house members and the house of each  spouse."  Why is that a significant aspect of the  genealogy for the purposes of your opinions?  That indicates the marriage patterns.  Such as?  That it's common for people to marry into the house of  their father and that people rarely marry into the  same, into their own clan.  And then thirdly, "And the recent holders of the most  important names."  Why is that one of the most  significant aspects of the genealogies?  That demonstrates the patterns of inheritance.  I would like to go now to page 90 of your report.  And  this is a chapter called "The significance of the  genealogies" and the second sentence -- I will start  at the beginning, you state:  "The Gitksan society is  highly integrated.  No aspect of it can be understood  without some understanding of its other aspects.  The  greatest significance of the genealogies is that they  clearly demonstrate Gitksan kinship laws and  preferences which are a fundamental aspect of the  society."  Is that your opinion?  Yes, it is.  Is that opinion correct -- you maintain that opinion  today?  Yes, I do.  : Glad Mr. Goldie is awake.  Now the question is, can you explain, and I will go  into more detail in some aspects of your report, but  the statement "the genealogies clearly demonstrate 10802  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 kinship laws and preferences."  Can you explain what  2 you mean by that by use of example?  Or whatever way  3 is easiest for you.  4 A  Well, I had read some literature pertaining to the  5 Gitksan, and through interviews with elders I was  6 informed of certain laws pertaining to kinship  7 inheritance, marriage and so on, and these laws are  8 demonstrated on the genealogies in that if I read or I  9 am told that there is a -- the Gitksan have a  10 preference for cross-cousin marriage, is what the  11 anthropologists would say, or the elders would say,  12 you're supposed to marry into your father's house, and  13 I look at the genealogies and I see that that  14 preference is demonstrated.  15 Q   And is -- that's a reference to a preference and is  16 that preference a fundamental aspect of the society,  17 in your opinion?  18 MR. GOLDIE:  Well —  19 A   Yes, it is.  2 0    MR. GRANT:  21 Q   And then you say that they clearly demonstrate Gitksan  22 kinship laws, can you give an example of how they show  23 that?  24 A   Yes.  The most essential, one of the most essential  25 laws is the law that you mustn't marry into your own  26 clan and that is demonstrated on the genealogies in  27 that most marriages are between clans, not within  28 clans.  29 Q   Is that what is referred to as a Gaats marriage?  30 A   Yes, marrying within the clan is Gaats.  31 THE COURT:  How do you spell that?  32 MR. GRANT: G-A-A-T-S.  I will be referring back to that.  It's  33 contained within the body of the opinion.  34 Q   Then I would like to refer you to page 91, the first  35 full paragraph there, you state:  "Nearly every aspect  36 of Gitksan society has kinship as a major  37 determinant."  Is that your opinion?  38 A   Yes, it is.  39 Q   And can you explain why you -- why that's your  40 opinion?  41 A   Yes.  As I began to study the genealogy of the Gitksan  42 and to learn what houses people came from, I really  43 became aware of how much kinship affects the daily  44 lives of the Gitksan.  I could see that if I went to a  45 fishing site or I could see in the daily activities of  46 people, that kinship has considerable influence over  47 who they associate with and places that they go.  For 10803  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 example, the fishing site Gwinoop belongs to Hawaaw',  2 and when I was at Gwinoop I could see that the people  3 who were fishing there and preserving their fish there  4 were either members of the House of Hawaaw' or they  5 were the spouses of members of the House of Hawaaw' or  6 children of men of that house.  And with the fairly  7 complete kind of genealogical knowledge I have now, I  8 can see those patterns of people in their activities  9 that I couldn't see without having a fairly complete  10 knowledge.  11 Q   If I ask you about the social aspect of Gitksan  12 society, can you exemplify how kinship is a major  13 determinant in the social aspect of Gitksan society?  14 A   Yes.  The interactions of most members of the society  15 are far more frequent with house members than with  16 non-house members or with members of other houses than  17 their own.  The most -- people will associate on a  18 daily basis more frequently with house members than  19 with others, such as women will ask their sisters or  20 mothers or grandmothers to babysit for them, or if  21 somebody wants to borrow money they would most  22 frequently go to a house member, just a personal loan,  23 I am not talking about a feasting situation, common  24 interactions of that sort, people visit their house  25 member relatives more commonly than members of, say,  26 their father's house, to whom they are equally related  27 biologically, but they still are more likely to  28 interact with house members than even their father's  29 house.  30 Q   What about the political asspect of Gitksan society,  31 does kinship -- is kinship a major determinant in  32 that?  33 A   Yes, it is.  Because the houses which are kinship  34 units are the land and resource --  35 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, I object to this, my lord.  That's a  36 conclusion of law.  37 MR. GRANT:  Well, I think that as part of the Gitksan — I am  38 asking the witness about political aspects of Gitksan  39 society and clearly the question, it goes into the  40 relationships with the resources.  There is argument,  41 of course, to be made about the legal determination of  42 this court, but this witness is talking about the  43 Gitksan social structure which deals with the  44 Gitksan -- the Gitksan social structure and social  45 organization dealing with the Gitksan, which clearly  46 can include the political aspects and the legal  47 aspects of the Gitksan society.  Of course, this 10804  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 witness is not giving the court her opinion as to what  2 the court's ultimate finding will be in terms of the  3 ownership of the territories or things like that, but  4 she is discussing the social organization and to start  5 to shred away from that and say she can say this and  6 say that, and that is exactly what what the judge in  7 Millirrpum, what I quoted earlier this morning,  8 referred to.  That's exactly what you cannot do just  9 because it's an anthropologist as opposed to a  10 chemist, for example.  11 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, we have been told by prior witnesses that as  12 a matter of Gitksan law, certain things follow.  Now  13 if she is repeating what those witnesses told us,  14 that's one thing.  But her conclusion with respect to  15 the house being a resource-owning unit is not an  16 anthropological conclusion at all.  17 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg?  18 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I think I would have to say that within the  19 context of describing her observations of what the  20 political aspect of their culture, as she sees it and  21 she perceives it to be seen by them, if it's in that  22 context, then, in my submission, I think it's probably  23 permissible.  It's an issue of whether -- of what  24 perspective, from what perspective is she making such  25 a statement?  Obviously she can't give the opinion  26 that the house is the land-owning unit.  She can say  27 that it's the perception of the individuals that she  28 has observed that that's the case, that that is, from  29 my understanding of your rulings, which you have ruled  30 she is expert to do.  31 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Well, I have always been suspicious of  32 concepts that say that something can be one thing at  33 one level and something else at another level.  But  34 this may be one of those matters.  I think from an  35 anthropological perspective, it is competent for the  36 witness to refer to, and use as an example, a question  37 of perceived or assumed land holding and resources  38 without trenching upon the ultimate legal question.  39 For that reason, I think in the context in which the  40 witness is now giving evidence, that is, how the  41 importance of kinship is identified to an  42 anthropologist, I think she can say, if such is her  43 evidence, that these kinds of activities are evidence,  44 are anthropological evidence of the importance of  45 kinship.  And I agree with Mr. Goldie that she cannot  46 pronounce, and indeed I don't think she is purporting  47 to pronounce, on legal interests, legal land-owning 10805  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  A  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  interests according to the law of British Columbia.  You may proceed.  I think I better restate the question.  I wonder --  Well, I have it, you asked her what effect does  kinship have or how is it seen in connection with  political activities, and she said houses are kinship  units which are interested in land and resources.  Was there anything else you wished to say in response  to that answer?  You were answering as Mr. Goldie  interrupted.  Is there anything else you wish to say  about the significance of kinship for the political  aspect of Gitksan society?  Yes, the chiefs make decisions about who has access to  the territory that they say is theirs.  And to what  resources people can use on the territories such as  fish or furs or plant life.  Just that last part of it, how is that connected to  the kinship?  The members of the house are the ones who ordinarily  utilize a territory and people related to those  members of the house, such as the spouse or the  children of male members, would also be given  privileged access by the chief to the house territory  and fishing sites.  And is kinship -- you referred also to the utilization  of the fishing sites in the earlier part of your  answer, is that -- so I am just saying that because  you have already given that, I don't want you to  repeat that evidence, but is there anything else you  wish to say about the importance of kinship as a major  determinant with respect to the economic aspect of  Gitksan society?  The members of a house will share resources with each  other, if the chief's nephew kills a moose on their  territory or catches fish at their fishing site, then  those resources will be distributed between house  members.  My lord, it may be an appropriate time for the  break.  Thank you.  2 o'clock please. 10806  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  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  Wilf Roy  Official Reporter 10807  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  (P  2  3  THE COURT  4  MR. GRANT  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  MR. GOLDI  14  MR. GRANT  15  Q  16  A  17  Q  18  19  A  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  40  41  42  A  43  Q  44  45  46  47  A  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO LUNCHEON RECESS)  :  Yes, Mr. Grant.  :  Thank you, my lord.  Now, Ms. Harris, I'm going to be referring now in more  detail to the opinion set out in your reports, and I  just want to be clear as to what you've relied on as  the foundations of these opinions.  I just want to --  in terms of your own knowledge, experience, et cetera.  In summary form you have explained yesterday your  anthropological training from 1975 to 1983 in the  academic courses that you took?  EI:  She didn't take any courses past 1981.  You took courses up to 1981?  Yes.  And you were registered at Carlton and you worked on  your Masters thesis between 1981 and 1983?  Yes.  Do you rely on that anthropological training to form  the opinions that you have come to in your report?  Yes, I do.  Okay.  You've described the literature review that you  did prior to commencing the genealogical work as the  literature review that you did in your course of  academic training.  Do you rely on that literature  review in forming your opinions?  Yes, I did.  You described the reading, I believe, in the range of  400 of the oral histories by Barbeau.  Do you rely on  that in forming your opinions?  Yes, I do.  You describe interviews with, I believe it was, over  100 persons, Gitksan persons, relating to the  genealogies.  Do you rely on that research and those  interviews in forming your opinions?  Yes, I do.  You've described that you've attended approximately 50  feasts, Gitksan feasts I am talking of, and between I  believe 1983 and the present, if I recall correctly.  Do you rely on that in forming your opinions?  Yes, I do.  Those observations -- you described the observations  of activities in the community, and I should ask you  does this -- have you observed conduct of persons at  fishing sites?  Yes, I have. 10808  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Okay.  And you described that this morning, I believe?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Some of the observations you made?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Do you rely on those observations of the conduct of  6 people at a resource site such as a fishing site for  7 your opinions?  8 A   Yes, I do.  9 Q   And you have described how you've been involved in the  10 community, and a member of the community, and you've  11 observed the interactions of people in the community?  12 A   Yes, I have.  13 Q   Do you rely on that observation of the interactions in  14 the community as to form your opinions?  15 A   Yes, I do.  16 Q   And you described this morning the preparation and the  17 research relating to the genealogies and ultimately  18 filing of Exhibit, I believe it's 583, the 45  19 genealogies.  Have you utilized those genealogies --  20 sorry, 854.  Do you rely on those genealogies and  21 subsequent analysis of those genealogies to form your  22 opinions?  When I say "subsequent analysis" I mean  23 your analysis of the genealogies at the time you were  24 writing your initial opinion and then doing the review  25 of your opinion and genealogies up to March of '88?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   Did your work in preparation and research of  28 genealogies and kinship relationships assist you in  29 your analysis as an anthropologist of your  30 observations of community interaction?  31 A   Yes, it did.  32 Q   How?  33 A  With an understanding of the house membership of  34 people that I observed I could better understand why  35 they interacted at times.  36 Q   Can you explain that by example or --  37 A   I already gave the fishing site example.  38 Q   Oh, what you described about the fishing site this  39 morning is an example of it?  40 A   Yes.  Yes.  41 Q   At the time that you commenced your work after your --  42 in 1984 did you have assumptions about Gitksan social  43 structure based on your previous research?  44 A   Yes, I did.  45 Q   Did you change any of those assumptions as a result of  46 your field work and community observations?  47 A   Yes, I did. 10809  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  MR.  GOLDI  4  5  MR.  GRANT  6  7  8  THE  COURT  9  10  MR.  GRANT  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  THE  COURT  18  19  20  21  MR.  GRANT  22  THE  COURT  23  24  25  MR.  GRANT  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  A  36  THE  COURT  37  MR.  GRANT  38  39  THE  COURT  40  MR.  GRANT  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  A  47  Q  Can you give an example of one of the assumptions you  had and your change of that assumption?  EI:  My lord, what relevance has this got?  We're  interested only in her opinion as she holds it now.  :  It goes to -- my lord, my friends argued yesterday  with respect to the witness' -- the weight of the  witness' evidence, and it goes to that.  :  How does prior assumption since discarded go to  weight?  Does it have any probative value at all?  :  Well, it only goes to show the basis she relied on  anthropological research she did before she commenced  her work and the field work subsequently.  My friends  made much of the fact that this is the first field  work, for instance, the witness has done.  I'm asking  where -- how the field work changed her conclusions  from her literary work.  :  I think I'm against you, Mr. Grant.  What her  assumptions are are important.  What other ones she  had or different ones she had seem to me have no  probative value.  :  I won't pursue it.  :  She might have thought the world was flat before she  started looking into it.  That wouldn't really make a  difference if she has changed her mind.  I'll go to page 14 of your report -- top of page 15.  And this is related to the genealogy -- the genealogy.  You can refer to that, Ms. Harris.  You state there in  the first full paragraph, or I'm sorry, the end of the  first full paragraph; "Regardless of the language of  the interview, there are only eight basic English  terms which can be used if the exact relationship is  to be determined."  This is a genealogical  relationship you're discussing?  Yes.  :  I'm sorry.  Where are you reading?  :  Page 15, my lord, half way down.  "Regardless of the  language."  :  Oh, yes.  Thank you.  "This is accepted anthropological theory with respect  to genealogies"; is that correct?  Yes, it is.  Would this apply to the analysis of genealogies of any  group?  Yes, it would.  Okay.  Now, then you go on the top of page 16 to list 10810  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  Q  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  these eight basic terms; "Mother, father, sister,  brother, daughter, son, wife, husband" and state;  "These eight basic terms combined can be used to  describe virtually any possible relationship.  To  obtain a precise genealogy one must break down each  kinship term given by these informants to these eight  alone."  Is that your opinion?  Yes.  Is that accepted anthropological theory as well, that  statement?  Yes, it is .  Then what you did, and I'll refer to footnote number  five on page --  :  I'm sorry.  I'm trying to follow this.  What's wrong  with good old fashioned cousins?  Because the word cousin can mean several things.  Your  mother's father's child, your mother's sister's child,  your father's sister's child, and your father's  brother's child are all cousins to English speakers,  but those are very different things to the Gitksan and  to other members of matrilineal and patrilineal  reckoning cultures.  I think we'll get to that, won't  we?  :  When you say that eight basic terms combined can be  used to describe virtually any possible relationship,  I take it there that you would mean that a father's  brother would be a relationship you would look at?  Yes, stringing them together they could be in very  long strings.  You might say mother's mother's  mother's sister's daughter daughter daughter.  :  You wouldn't exclude cousins, you would just include  them as sons or daughters of parents similes?  Yes, that's right.  :  Yes.  All right.  I'll just read the intervening phraseology on page 15  as part of your opinion.  You state:  "When an English speaking person says 'aunt'  he may mean his mother's sister, father's  sister, mother's brother's wife or father's  brother's wife.  When a Gitksan says  'ts'iits' he may mean his mother's mother,  his mother's mother's sister, his mother's  mother's mother's sister's daughter, his  father's mother, his father's mother's  sister or anyone else female, two 10811  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 generations older than him and related in  2 any way.  The precise relationship can only  3 be traced with eight basic terms."  4  5 That's your opinion?  6 A   Yes, it is.  7 Q   Now, in other words, if you were told by myself in  8 studying my genealogy about my cousin it's correct  9 that you cannot properly diagram that unless -- until  10 you determine which relationship it was using these  11 eight basic terms?  12 A   Yes.  If you told me cousin and I wanted to draw a  13 genealogical diagram of that I would say to you do you  14 mean your mother's sister's child or your father's  15 sister's child, or whatever.  I have to use those  16 eight basic terms to define that precise relationship.  17 Q   And that was similar in your experience, for example,  18 using the word ts'iits.  If a Gitksan used it you had  19 to break it down to those eight basic terms?  20 A   That's right.  21 Q   Now, on page 15 just above there, that paragraph, the  22 last sentence it says -- and you've explained this  23 also applies to the Gitksan kinship terms.  "There may  24 be more of them than there are English kinship terms  25 but they are actually less precise because a Gitksan  26 has more kinds of people he or she would refer to as  27 relatives."  Then you refer to footnote five at page  28 93 which lists some Gitksan kinship terms and what the  29 English equivalents are.  And you've then listed a  30 whole series of terms.  And the right-hand column is  31 Gitksan and the left-hand column is the English  32 equivalent; is that right?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And I see for the example in the first page, for  35 example, nox mother includes natural mother, adopted  36 mother, step-mother, woman who raises you as she were  37 your mother.  And the next page more significantly  38 mother's sister and father's wife, but they all use  39 the same term?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   Now, does that tell you anything other than that the  42 same term is used by the Gitksan for these different  43 relationships --  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   -- As an anthropologist?  46 A   Certainly.  The significant ones are the fact that --  47 that mother and mother's sister have the same kinship 10812  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  11  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  Q  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Q  31  32  A  33  34  THE  COURT  35  36  37  A  38  THE  COURT  39  A  40  THE  COURT  41  42  A  43  44  45  THE  COURT  46  A  47  THE  COURT  terminology.  This is fairly common in matrilineal  societies.  So this would indicate a matrilineal  kinship system.  Can you just take -- just looking down is there  another example that you can give on the right-hand  column that uses the same term for different  relationships which assist you in determining kinship  structure?  Yes.  With some of the Gitksan kinship terms there are  alternative relatives who can be called by that name.  I'm looking for an example.  Goes through to 95.  Yes.  Nibip mother's -- okay.  There is several  examples.  I'm just trying to find the one that's the  simplest to explain.  Brother's father.  I refer to it  in the body of my paper.  Well, take an example even if it's not listed here and  explain it.  Okay.  There is a preference for cross-cousin marriage  among the Gitksan, which means that it is preferred,  although not absolutely required, that a person marry  into their father's house, is the way it's expressed  by the Gitksan, and cross-cousin marriages is what  anthropologists call it.  So it is preferred that a  person marry their mother's brother's child, or their  father's sister's child.  And the kinship terms that  are used for those two relatives is the same.  The  kinship term is also applied to -- I'm sorry.  It's --  I've got it all laid out here.  Looking on page -- you discuss cross-cousin marriage  on page 48 of your report.  Okay.  This is very complicated even for  anthropologists.  Gets very confusing.  It's like --  :  Well, you've got me confused, because if a Gitksan  man married his mother's sister's child he would be  marrying into his own clan?  No.  Mother's brother's child.  :  His mother's brother's child?  Yes, because --  :  He would still be marrying into his own clan,  wouldn't he?  No.  The mother's brother is his own clan, but the  mother's brother had to marry a woman from a different  clan.  :  I see.  You see now?  :  Yes. 10813  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  MR. GRANT  4  Q  5  6  A  7  MR. GRANT  8  9  10  11  12  13  THE COURT  14  MR. GRANT  15  16  Q  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  A  45  46  47  Q  Now, let me find this example that I wrote here so I  don't get confused myself.  Here the kinship terms --  What I'll do is come back to that when I deal with  cross-cousin, if you wish.  Thank you.  I'm getting all confused myself.  :  What I'm doing is go -- I am going to come back to  that, my lord, to clarify cross-cousin marriage, but  maybe what I'd like to start with is going directly to  page 38 of your report.  This is a little out of the  order, my lord, but I think this would clarify the  question that your lordship raised.  :  I'm satisfied now.  :  You are.  I'll come back to it when she is  explaining that in detail.  Going to page 34 of your report.  This is the chapter  entitled "Kinship".  You state; "The function of a  kinship system is to distinguish kin from non-kin."  And that's an accepted anthropological statement?  Yes, it is.  And the principle by which Gitksan distinguish their  kin is matrilineal?  Yes.  And that's your opinion?  Yes, it is.  Then you say; "All those Gitksan who can be deemed  related by matrilineal descent (sometimes including  those between whom the actual relationship is  forgotten but assumed) are also part of what  anthropologists call a corporate descent group, i.e.,  a kinship group which has a name, a territory and is a  legal entity."  And is that your opinion?  Yes, it is.  And then you state; "Among the Gitksan, these  corporate descent groups are called Wilp."  And that  is your opinion?  Yes, it is.  So to translate that, you're saying that Wilp or house  are the groups that have a name, a territory and a  legal entity?  Yes.  Now, what other features are there of corporate  descent groups?  Corporate descent groups have clearly defined  membership, and they usually have -- oh, I said a  territory -- okay.  Now -- okay.  And you said it has a name.  Now, when 10814  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 you say Wilp is a corporate descent group, i.e., has a  2 name, a clearly defined territory and is a legal  3 entity you're talking anthropological terms here?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Can you explain that in relation to your research, why  6 you say that in respect to houses they have those  7 features?  8 A   Yes.  Yes.  The houses are ordinarily called by the  9 name of the chief, which is the highest ranked person  10 in the house.  11 Q   M'hm.  12 A   The houses have territories which they utilize.  13 Q   M'hm.  14 A  And fishing sites.  15 Q   M'hm.  16 A  And they function in relationship to each other --  17 Q   M'hm.  18 A   -- In the feast hall and in various kinds of business  19 that they have between each other.  2 0 Q   M'hm.  21 A  And the membership of houses is known to most people.  22 Q   Now, I'd like you to turn to table two, which is the  23 next page, and explain that to his lordship that --  24 what that symbolizes and --  25 A   Okay.  This -- this indicates the kind of connections  26 that you find in a matrilineal kinship system.  This  27 kind of diagram is commonly found in texts concerned  28 with kinship systems.  And the connections are all  29 through females.  You'll notice the circles being  30 females and the males are dead ends.  And that  31 membership in the group is never acquired through men.  32 Q   What's the arrow way over to the right-hand side?  33 A   Right.  That just means ad infinitum.  So you can keep  34 following female connections for as far as they are  35 known.  36 Q   Okay.  Now, dealing with your opinions relating to the  37 composition of Wilp as a corporate descent group, and  38 you state in your opinion on page 23 -- this is part  39 of the same section, actually, my lord.  That is of  40 evidence, although, it's in a different chapter.  41 You state; "The house is the essential unit in  42 Gitksan society.  It is the land-holding unit and is  43 the focus of an economic and residential group."  44 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, I repeat my objection to the statements of  45 conclusions that are matters of argument.  46 THE COURT:  Yes.  That's a position you have reserved, Mr.  47 Goldie. 10815  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  ]  MR. GRANT  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Q  27  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  45  46  47  That is your opinion or conclusion?  Yes, it is.  And can you explain on the basis of your work and  research why you came to that conclusion?  The -- the literature discusses the houses as being  land-holding and resource-holding units.  And the  chiefs describe the houses as being land-holding  units.  And when I refer to the houses being the focus  of an economic and residential group what I'm  referring to there is that the houses -- the house  members exploit the resources of that group together.  The Gitksan people mainly use the resources of the  house to which they belong.  They have privileged  access to other house resources through their fathers  or spouses, but for the most part people use the  resources of the house to which they belong.  And I'm  speaking in the ethnographic present when I say that  they are focus of a residential group.  I'm referring  to in traditional times when they lived in the cedar  long houses.  The houses don't live together in large  dwellings any more.  They live in nuclear family  units.  I was referring to past times when many of the  house members would live in one of the cedar  dwellings.  Given that statement is all one sentence are you  taking with the ethnographic present, with respect,  when you talk about them as a land-holding unit and  focus of an economic group?  Those apply to the current situation as well.  Now, I'd like to refer you to page 36 of your report  where you talk about -- and this is the fifth line in  the second paragraph, my lord.  "My research has  connected many lineages which seemed unrelated upon  initial investigation, with the result that I find no  reason to assume that houses are not matrilineal  kinship groups.  The only exception would be when a  lineage is descended from a woman who was adopted into  the house."  That is your conclusion?  Yes, it is.  Those two statements of your conclusions?  Yes.  Now, why -- well, let me put it the other way.  Restating the first statement is it your conclusion --  your conclusion is that houses are matrilineal kinship  groups even though you found many, many lineages which  seemed unrelated on initial investigations? 10816  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Q  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  25  26  27  28  Q  29  30  A  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  Q  42  THE COURT  43  44  A  45  MR. GRANT  46  Q  47  Yes.  Now, you refer in your report to the fact that  biological relationships are known amongst some  houses?  Yes.  And not amongst others.  Why do you conclude that  amongst those houses where you have not made the  connections between the biologically related groups  that they are matrilineal kinship groups nevertheless?  Because membership in a house only comes through being  born the child of a female house member or by being  adopted into a house.  Adoptions are not too common.  And it's also inherent in the logic of a lineal  kinship system, a matrilineal in this case, that the  members of the group are all related biologically  through females.  You go on to say; "The only exception would be when a  lineage is descended from a woman who was adopted into  the house."  Can you give an example of such a lineage  you located, or if you did locate such a lineage?  Yes, there are some.  Let's see who would that be.  Refer to Exhibit 854 if you wish.  Just the index would remind me.  If I had the index it  would help.  Thank you.  Okay.  Let's see.  Okay.  In the House of  Baskyelaxha the descendants of Mabel White make up a  lineage that is descended from an adopted person.  Can I -- that's tab 3.  Maybe we could just refer to  that.  Yes, it is.  Will this show on the genealogy itself?  Yes, it does.  Maybe we can look at tab 3 of Exhibit 5, and you could  refer to the page.  Can you show where Mabel -- well,  I see Mabel White is actually on the first page.  Yes.  Is that entire lineage below that on the subsequent  pages descendants' of Mabel White?  Yes. This is a house that's almost entirely made up  of people descended from one person who was adopted.  Okay.  :  Just a minute.  It starts with Mabel White.  Was she  married to Fred White?  Yes.  And then her children on the first page; Emma White,  Katherine and Sarah White, Phyllis White, Wesley 10817  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  A  4  THE  COURT  5  6  MR.  GRANT  7  8  9  10  11  12  THE  COURT  13  MR.  GRANT  14  THE  COURT  15  MR.  GRANT  16  THE  COURT  17  MR.  GRANT  18  19  20  THE  COURT  21  MR.  GRANT  22  THE  COURT  23  MR.  GRANT  24  Q  25  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  A  47  THE  COURT  White, Frieda White, Lily White and Margaret White; is  that right?  Yes, that's correct.  I haven't found all those nice people.  Where are  they?  I'm sorry, my lord.  I went through along the line.  Do you see where Mabel White is?  That's her daughter,  and then if you -- by going along the other pages on  that same line you'll see the next one is on page  three, Katherine White.  Go to page three along that  same line.  Yes.  And then Sarah White.  Yes.  Then going to page four is Phyllis White.  Yes.  On page five is Wesley White, on page six is Frieda  White, on page seven is Lily White, and on page eight  is Margaret White.  And the dotted line means what again?  The dotted line above Mabel?  Yes.  Can you explain on page one and two what that  signifies combining one and two there?  It means that Mabel White was adopted into the house,  the house represented on this genealogy is  Baskyelaxha, by the former Jack Tait.  Which you see  on the second page the dotted line runs from Jack Tait  to Mabel White.  Was Bill Blackwater also adopted into the house by  Jack Tait?  Yes, he was.  And then when one looks at this it appears that all of  the persons below -- on the line below the line of  Mabel White's children, that is below the line of Emma  White, are the children of Mabel White's daughters or  their descendants?  That's right.  So this is an example, as you've described, of a  lineage descended from a woman who was adopted into a  house?  Yes.  So the rest of the lineage comes from the adoption of  Mabel White?  Yes.  Other than Bill Blackwater.  :  And Bill Blackwater and his wife Gloria Harris had 1081?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  4  THE  COURT  5  MR.  GRANT  6  7  THE  COURT  8  MR.  GRANT  9  Q  10  THE  COURT  11  12  13  A  14  THE  COURT  15  16  A  17  18  19  THE  COURT  20  A  21  THE  COURT  22  A  23  MR.  GRANT  24  Q  25  A  26  27  28  Q  29  30  31  32  A  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  A  39  40  Q  41  42  A  43  Q  44  45  A  46  Q  47  no children?  They do, but they're found on Gloria Harris'  genealogy.  :  I see.  Yes.  :  That's that concept of table two, my lord, where  it's a dead end on the male side.  :  Yes.  All right.  Now --  :  I'm not sure what I am to conclude from all this.  All these descendants of Mabel White would still be  members of the House of Baskyelaxha, would they?  Yes, they would.  :  I see, but you say they're not members by reason of  matrilinear kinship?  They are after the adoption of Mabel.  After Mabel is  adopted into the house then her matrilineal  descendants are members of the house.  :  But not those descendants born before her adoption?  That is so.  :  They remain in the house, her original house?  That's right.  What was her original house?  Luus.  As indicated underneath Mabel, Lelt, that's her  chief's name.  And underneath that in brackets Luus,  and that indicates the house she was adopted out of.  And there are children of Mabel White who remained in  the House of Luus?  That's -- I think that's what his  lordship was asking.  That is did she have children at  the time she was adopted?  She did have children at the time she was adopted.  I'm not sure of the precise date.  But her daughter  Emma was already an adult by the time Mabel was  adopted and Emma's older children remained with Luus'  House.  But Emma went into Baskyelaxha's house?  Yes, she did.  But her older children stayed with  Luus .  My colleague raises a question I want to be clear on.  Under Mabel White's name is the name Lelt.  Yes.  And there is a head chief of a house named Lelt as  well.  Yes.  Who was the late Fred Johnson.  You know of him and  his house? 10819  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Is that name Lelt held by Mabel White it's not the  3 same -- it's not out of the same lineage as Lelt?  4 A   No, it's not.  It's unrelated.  5 Q   It is a name in the House of Luus?  6 A   Of Baskyelaxha.  7 Q   Oh, in the House of Baskyelaxha.  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Now, you state at the top of page 37; "It is safe to  10 say that even among those houses..."  -- I'm not going  11 to refer to Baskyelaxha's genealogy again now, my  12 lord.  "Even among those houses with lineages among  13 whom the biological relationship is not known, a  14 biological relationship usually does exist."  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   This is a conclusion you have come to?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   And why is that your opinion?  19 A   Because the elders say that houses are families.  That  20 membership to a house is ordinarily by being born into  21 the house, by being the child of a woman of the house.  22 As I investigated the house memberships I found that  23 in very many cases all members of the house were in  24 fact related.  At first I thought that -- it would  25 seem that there were different branches of the family  26 that weren't related, and the more complete the  27 information became the more often I would find that  28 the members of the house were in fact biologically  29 related.  And, again, it's the logic of a matrilineal  30 system.  31 Q   What do you mean the logic of a matrilinear system?  32 A   In a matrilineal group -- in any lineal group which is  33 either a matrilineal or patrilineal group membership  34 is by descent through the members of one section.  In  35 this case through females.  And with that kind of a  36 system the members of the group, in this case a house,  37 it may be called something else in different  38 societies, are ordinarily all related biologically  39 through their mothers.  40 Q   Now, I'd like to refer you to your statement here on  41 page 37 at the bottom, and the top of page 38.  You  42 state; "Traditionally, anthropologists have divided  43 kin into two main categories: consanguineal kin, who  44 are related by blood and affinal kin who are related  45 by marriage but such classification has little  46 relevance to the Gitksan.  Among the Gitksan it would  47 be more logical to divide kin into House/Clan and 10820  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 non-clan members."  That is your opinion?  2 A   Yes, it is.  3 Q   Why -- why do you state that?  Why do you have that  4 opinion, or come to that conclusion?  5 A   Because the -- a person in Gitksan society is equally  6 related biologically to the members of his mother's  7 house.  His first cousins, for example, on his  8 mother's side, which would be his mother's sister's  9 children, he's equally related to them and to his  10 father's sister's children.  But socially that's a  11 very different kind of relationship.  Or to his  12 father's brother's children.  No, I'm sorry.  Father's  13 sister's children.  I was correct the first time.  Has  14 a very different kind of relationship, because what we  15 are talking about there are his own house and members  16 of his Wilp, and they have very different kinds of  17 social relationships.  They are the two -- the two  18 units whichever a Gitksan person is closest to, but  19 their functions are very different.  The members of --  20 the place it's most graphic is when somebody is  21 buried.  The members of your own house are the people  22 who bury you.  And members of your wilksiwitxw, your  23 father's side, those are the persons who are repaid by  24 your -- this is not the only place it's exemplified.  25 This is the place it's most obvious.  The biological  26 side is equal, but very different things socially.  27 Q   Now, you go on to state at the bottom of that  28 paragraph the -- well, let's go to the next paragraph  29 first, because I'll come back to the cross-cousin  30 marriage concept.  You state; "If we were to conceive  31 of consanguines and affines not in a biological sense  32 but from a Gitksan social perspective we would be  33 considering the Gitksan categories of Wilp and  34 wilksiwitxw.  A person's wilksiwitxw is his father's  35 Wilp."  Now, that's your opinion?  36 A   Yes, it is.  37 Q   Now, you go on to say; "If the preference for  38 cross-cousin marriage is not followed the wilksiwitxw  39 relationship lasts mainly for the life of the children  40 produced by the marriage.  If the preference for  41 cross-cousin marriage is followed the relationship is  42 maintained for another generation."  And then you say;  43 "This is demonstrated by the following diagrams."  44 And I would like you to explain that second -- those  45 other statements of your opinion that I've just stated  46 as well.  47 A   Yes. 10821  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And can you -- can you explain to the court with the  2 aid of those two diagrams what you're referring to  3 there?  And that is the diagram at page 39 and the  4 diagram at page 40.  5 A   Okay.  What you see on the first diagram which is on  6 page 39 is a nuclear family unit.  A is the mother, B  7 is the father and C and D are their children.  So the  8 ones that are blank, A, C and D, they are members of  9 the same house.  The children C and D get their house  10 membership from their mother who's A.  11 Q   M'hm.  12 A   The father B with the stripes drawn on the symbol is  13 of a different house, and that house, B's house, is  14 the wilksiwitxw of his children C and D.  15 Q   Okay.  Go on then with that basic understanding which  16 you explained yesterday.  Go to the next diagram.  17 A   Now, you see that the smaller diagram that we saw on  18 page 39 is incorporated into the diagram on page 40.  19 The one on 40 expands on the first diagram.  So we see  20 the mother and her children and the father of those  21 children, who's from a different house.  Now, we see  22 the father B, and his sister is E, and his sister's  23 son is F.  And B, E and F are all members of the same  24 house.  25 Q   M'hm.  26 A   Now —  27 Q   Are they all members of the wilksiwitxw of C and D?  28 A   Yes, they are.  29 Q   Okay.  Go ahead.  30 A   If the preference -- the marriage preference expressed  31 by the Gitksan for marrying into one's father's house  32 is followed by D then she marries her father's  33 sister's son F.  So she is married into her father's  34 house.  And this is what's called a cross-cousin  35 marriage.  Cross-cousin means the children of two  36 parents of different sections marry.  37 Q   M'hm.  38 A   So this -- if this pattern was followed regularly it  39 would keep extending ad infinitum.  Of course, that  40 doesn't always occur, because it's not a law.  It's  41 just a preference with the Gitksan.  In some other  42 systems it's the law.  There are only two groups and  43 you have to marry back and forth.  With the Gitksan  44 it's only preference.  We sometimes see this and  45 sometimes we don't see it, so.  46 Q   Who is let's say the bottom two triangles, D and F's  47 children -- 10822  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 A   Right.  2 Q   -- Are G and H.  Who are their wilksiwitxw?  3 A   The same as their mother's was.  It's the wilksiwitxw  4 of B, E and F.  It's the house of B, E and F.  5 Q   You've used these two terms; it's not -- you say this  6 is a preference among the Gitksan, and with other  7 terms it's a law.  In anthropological terms what are  8 you talking about there?  What's the distinction  9 you're referring to?  10 A   One is -- one is a marriage prescription in that you  11 are required to marry into that other group.  You have  12 to marry.  There's no alternative but to marry into  13 that other group.  And this would occur in what's  14 called a moiety system.  It's similar to clans except  15 there is only two of them.  So in someplaces if  16 everybody is either a Wolf or a Raven then the Wolves  17 always have to marry the Ravens, and the Ravens always  18 have to marry the Wolves.  But in a system like the  19 Gitksan with four clans this cross-cousin marriage  20 pattern it's not a law.  It's not prescribed, it is a  21 preference.  22 Q   Now, at the top of page 41 this comes back -- maybe  23 this is the reference you were going to refer to.  You  24 say that; "Gitksan kinship terms indicate that  25 cross-cousin marriage is the appropriate marriage."  26 And when I was asking about this footnote five and all  27 those terms you may have been looking for this.  2 8 A   Yes, I was.  29 Q   That is your opinion, that statement?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And can you explain that?  32 A   The example?  33 Q   Well, let's say I'll just read that.  "One example is  34 K'ahlaan which is used to refer to one's father's  35 brother and one's mother's sister's husband.  These  36 two relatives can be different people but if a  37 cross-cousin marriage has occurred one's father's  38 brother is one's mother's sister's husband."  Can  39 you -- can that be shown on that previous diagram what  40 you're talking about there?  41 A   Let's see.  I'll have to -- okay.  Father's brother --  42 no, it can't be shown on this diagram.  No.  43 Q   Okay.  Is that the easiest way of explaining it?  44 A   Diagrams?  45 Q   No.  I mean what you've just described there where you  46 talk about the example.  I don't really want you to go  47 into explaining it further if it's only going to 10823  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  THE COURT  3  A  4  THE COURT  5  A  6  THE COURT  7  MR. GRANT  8  A  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Q  24  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  46  47  Q  confuse the issue.  :  You're assuming here a cross-cousin marriage?  Yes.  :  If there is one then you say this is the result?  That's right.  :  You're not saying what a cross-cousin marriage is?  :  No, not at this point.  No.  I'm saying if the preference for cross-cousin  marriage -- I think I should start out more basically.  If you ask a Gitksan speaker what does K'ahlaan means  they will say it means your father's brother or your  mother's sister's husband, and in some cases those are  two completely different people.  But if a  cross-cousin marriage has occurred they are the same  person.  And there are other examples.  Several of the  kinship terms have the same kind of indication in that  they will describe several kinds of relatives who can  be called by a certain kinship term, but if the  cross-cousin marriage has occurred in fact two of  these kinds of relatives are the same individual.  That's the same with the other examples on that page,  Nibip and Wak.  Okay.  And that's an example of how the kinship terms  assist you in understanding the kinship structure?  Yes.  That is the terminology used in Gitksan?  Yes.  Now, I'd like to -- that completes the Kinship  chapter.  Actually I'd like to go to chapter -- to  return to a couple of points not covered, but I think  it's appropriate to be covered here under Chapter II,  page 20, which is the chapter of your report entitled  "House, Lineage, Related Houses and Clans".  You  explained that the house is matrilineal kinship.  I'm  not going to ask you about that.  On page 20, the  sixth line from the bottom, you say this; "To be  Gitksan one must be a house member.  House membership  and Gitksan citizenship are equivalent."  Is that your  opinion?  Yes.  And conclusion?  Yes, it is.  Why?  I have never heard of anyone being referred to as  Gitksan without being a house member -- without that  person being a house member.  Now, if a person's mother is not Gitksan and their 10824  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 father is Gitksan, and I'm not talking about the  2 mother being adopted here, okay, just those factors,  3 is that person Gitksan?  4 A   No, they are not.  5 Q   Is there any way for that person to become Gitksan?  6 A   Yes, they could be adopted into a Gitksan house.  7 Q   Okay.  If a person's father was Gitksan and his mother  8 or her mother was not Gitksan, under the Gitksan  9 social system does that person have any rights when he  10 has a Gitksan father and non-Gitksan mother and he's  11 not adopted or she is not adopted?  12 A   That person would have privileged access to the  13 resources of his father's house just as he would if he  14 was Gitksan, but --  15 Q   Have you seen examples of that?  16 A   Yes, I've seen the children of Gitksan men using  17 Gitksan territories.  18 Q   Can you give an example of that?  19 A   Freddy Starr's children.  At a later date his wife did  20 become adopted, but she hadn't -- she was from Bella  21 Bella.  She was not always a member.  22 Q   And what house --  23 MR. GOLDIE:  What's the surname, please?  24 MR. GRANT:  Starr.  S-T-A-R-R.  25 Q   What is the house of Freddy Starr?  26 A  Miluulak.  27 Q   And he would be shown on the genealogy of Miluulak?  2 8 A   Yes, he would.  29 Q   Now, there's a statement on the top of page 21.  Again  30 this deals with Gitksan citizenship.  "Ordinarily a  31 person cannot lose Gitksan citizenship.  If a Gitksan  32 moves away for many years he is still considered  33 Gitksan."  Now, stop there.  That is your opinion and  34 conclusion?  35 A   Yes, it is.  36 Q   And why do you -- why do you say that?  37 A   I've seen many incidents of this.  3 8 Q   Give an example, if you can.  39 A   Yes.  One example was I first heard of a young woman,  4 0 I believe her name was Trudy Rowland, and she is found  41 on the Wii hlengwax genealogy.  She contacted me by  42 letter.  She was born in Alaska, her mother was born  43 in Alaska, and her children had been born in Alaska  44 yet she was a member of Wii hlengwax's house.  Her  45 grandmother had been from the Gitksan area.  And these  46 people came to visit the grandmother, and some of the  47 grandchildren and great grandchildren came to visit. 10825  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  A  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  A  18  19  20  21  Q  22  23  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  A  35  36  37  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  MR. GRANT  46  THE REGIS1  47  Did you see -- were you around at that time?  No, I wasn't.  They wrote to me and said they were  coming, but I wasn't there.  Okay.  How long ago did they come to visit?  This was two summers ago, I believe.  Okay.  I'd like you to refer to tab 40 of that -- of  that Exhibit 853.  That is Wii hlengwax's genealogy.  And if you could just indicate who you are referring  to on that genealogy, and where they're shown?  On the fourth page.  Yes.  Trudy Rowland at the very bottom there?  Yes.  And you say she lives in Alaska?  Yes, she does.  And who else out of -- when you go along there who had  gone to Alaska, her mother?  Her mother was born in Alaska.  It was her grandmother  Dorothy Aux Conkle who had left the Gitksan territory  and gone to Alaska many years before, and lived most  of her life in Alaska.  Dorothy Aux, A-U-X, Conkle, C-O-N-K-L-E.  Have you seen other examples of persons being away  from the territory, but it's become apparent to you  that they didn't loose their citizenship?  Yes.  There's a woman named Ruth Edgar who's a member  of the House of Wii'mogulsxw who recently returned to  Kispiox after an absence of 40 years living in the  United States and she now -- it seems as if she has  never left.  She sits in the feast hall with her other  house members, and she lives with another member of  the house and participates in family matters.  Okay.  And do you recall another example of this where  you've seen a person return?  Yes.  Linda Clark was another one.  She was -- she was  separated from her parents when she was a child and  adopted to the United States and she lived there all  of her life and has recently returned.  What house is she from?  She is from Gutginuxw's house.  When you say adopted you mean adopted in the  non-Gitksan sense adopted?  Yes.  And does she participate in the feast?  Yes, she does.  :  It may be an appropriate time to --  PRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess. 10826  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Grant  1 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  2  3 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  4 a true and accurate transcript of the  5 proceedings herein to the best of my  6 skill and ability.  7  9 Peri McHale, Official Reporter  10 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD  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 10827  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  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  COURT:  GRANT:  Q  COURT  GRANT  COURT  MR. GRANT  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  (Proceedings resumed at 3:20 p.m.)  Mr. Grant?  I would like to refer you to document book one, tab 4.  And, really, you don't have to read it, it's just --  all I have put in here is an excerpt --  What happened to my document book?  It wasn't a  small white one.  The small one was my friend's.  I think this looked  smaller yesterday morning, my lord.  Well, there have been so many of them.  I had in  mind there was a smaller one with only four or five  tabs.  Perhaps that was Ms. Albright.  It may have been Miss Albright because I have only  tendered two document books.  I actually put this in  as a courtesy to the court, or an aid to the court,  basically an excerpt from the evidence of Solomon  Marsden.  What are you asking me to look at?  Tab 4.  It's pages 605 and — 6055 and 6056 of the  trial evidence.  Now, you have had an opportunity to read this excerpt  of Mr. Marsden's evidence where he describes Gitksan  persons, he was cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay and  described Gitksan persons who had moved to Kincolith,  and then was asked whether they were Gitksan persons,  remained Gitksan.  And I just refer you to this  statement he makes in answer to page 6056, after  describing that they may have been there for several  generations, line two:  "Q   And those young people if they come back to a  feast at Kitwancool held by a house in  Kitwancool, do they become members of that house  if their mothers and grandmothers were members of  that house?  A   Yes, there is -- they have always been people  talking to these people that have moved away  because they know that they are still members of  that -- of the house and they have always tried  to talk to these people that have moved and ask  them to move back to their village.  Because when  they are talking about the land claims they want  all the Kitwancool people that have lived there  to stand together for the land claims.  And if  they -- we know which houses they belong to and  if they come then they are in that house." 1082?  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    But if they don't come back they are not in that  house?  A    We could not say that they do not belong in this  house.  It is always their house and we are  always expecting them to come back."  Now, you had not read this or discussed this  particular item with Mr. Marsden before giving your  opinions?  A   No, I hadn't.  Q   In fact you just saw that excerpt a few days ago?  A   Yes.  Q   Having read those comments of Mr. Solomon Marsden,  would that change your opinion?  A   No, it wouldn't.  MR. GOLDIE:  Excuse me, I don't believe that's proper.  Mr.  Marsden is listed as one of her informants in her  schedule to her report, I don't think it's appropriate  to select a piece of evidence out of what he gave and  ask her if that changes her opinion.  There is a lot  more evidence that Mr. Marsden gave on the question of  the Nisga'a, inter-married with their own and so on  and so forth, and to select that and ask her if that  changes her evidence, I think it's quite irrelevant.  THE COURT:  It's a rule more often not followed than even  recognized, that used to say you couldn't ask a  witness to comment on the evidence of someone else.  If we kept to that rule we would save a lot of time,  not in this trial, but in many trials.  It really is  quite irrelevant to have this witness comment on the  evidence of somebody else.  I am not asking the witness to comment on the  evidence of the other witness, I was only asking her  to comment on whether that influenced her, if it would  change her opinion.  It's part of the same rule that says "Thou shalt not  terrorize any witness with the evidence of someone  else."  That's why we exclude witnesses.  That's why  you are not supposed to ask one witness about the  evidence of others. It's done all the time.  When it's  objected to, I enforce the rule.  The only -- I would submit, my lord, very briefly,  the only point is that here we are in a bit of a  different situation.  COURT:  No, this is sometimes called oath upping.  GRANT:  No, because this witness -- because in the case of  an anthropologist, if this witness had been told the  exact same thing by Mr. Marsden out of court, as part  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE  MR. 10829  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  THE  COURT:  3  4  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  THE  COURT:  7  MR.  GRANT:  8  9  THE  COURT:  10  MR.  GRANT:  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  25  26  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  A  35  Q  36  A  37  38  Q  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  of her research, would that have changed her opinion?  It would form part of the base of her opinion but I  wouldn't allow her to talk about it anyway.  It's  hearsay then.  Well —  Never mind, Mr. Grant, nothing turns on it.  Anyway, I am finished with the matter completely, my  lord.  Thank you.  You state on page 21 again, this is a continuation,  even if he -- now, I will paraphrase it to make the  sentence makes sense, if a Gitksan has gone for  decades and contributes nothing to Gitksan society,  when he dies his body will be returned home to be  honoured and a funeral feast will be held with all  expenses paid by his house and clan.  And that is your  opinion and conclusion?  Yes, it is.  And what is the basis for that?  I have seen this occur.  Can you give an example?  Yes, in the case of Jeffery Wale recently, he had been  away for many, many years, living in Vancouver, and  when he died his body was returned home and his house  members and his Wilksiwitxw buried him.  What house is he from?  He is from Djogaslee's house.  And then you go on in the next paragraph to state:  "Historically it was possible to lose Gitksan  citizenship by banishment." Is that your opinion?  Yes.  That is your conclusion?  Yes.  What is the basis for that?  It's recorded in the adaawk and the elders have told  me that people were cast out for committing Gaats.  Now, in statement of conclusion, you say historically,  do you know if the loss of Gitksan citizenship by  banishment can still occur today?  I haven't heard of it recently.  You haven't heard of it occurring recently is what you  mean?  Yes, that's what I mean.  That's fine.  In the next paragraph you state:  "If a  Gitksan person of either sex marries a person of a  different nation, he or she does not lose his or her 10830  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 Gitksan citizenship."  2 Is that your conclusion?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   What is the basis for that opinion?  5 A  Many Gitksan are married to Scars, Tsimshian, Cree or  6 other peoples and it does not affect their Gitksan  7 citizenship, they continue to function in the house,  8 using the resources of the house and functioning in  9 the feast hall.  10 Q   Can you give one or two examples of persons like that?  11 A   Let's see -- I am trying to think.  Just trying to  12 think of an example.  Jessie Olson was married to a  13 non-Indian and she continued to function in the feast  14 hall.  They were married for over 50 years, I believe,  15 and she continued to use the fishing site and berry  16 grounds and go to feasts and function as a house  17 member.  18 Q   My friend suggests Helen Joseph, Albert Joseph's wife,  19 she is a Gitksan?  20 A   Yes, she is.  21 Q   Then you state: "If a Gitksan is adopted into the  22 house of a different nation, such as the Nisga'a, he  23 or she still does not lose his original house or  24 membership but maintains a kind of dual citizenship."  25 Is that your opinion or conclusion?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   What is the basis for that conclusion?  28 A   There are some members of the House of Guxsan from  29 Gitsegukla who live on the Nass and when those people  30 come back to the Gitksan territory they function as  31 members of the House of Guxsan when they are here, and  32 they function as Nisga'a when they live in Nisga'a  33 territory.  34 Q   Do you know examples of, for example, Wet'suwet'en  35 persons who have been adopted into Gitksan and still  36 function in both systems?  37 A   Yes, I can think of one from Kispiox is Doreen Angus,  38 she was born Wet'suwet'en but she has been adopted  39 into the house of her husband's father so that she has  40 a position in Kispiox where she lives because of her  41 marriage.  42 Q   And that adoption you mean --  when you say she has a  43 position in Kispiox because of her marriage --  44 A   No, I say she is adopted into the house of her  45 husband's father, so that she has a position in  46 Kispiox, because she lives in Kispiox because she is  47 married there. 10831  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   What house is she adopted into?  2 A   The house of Wii minosik.  3 Q   Now, at footnotes seven and eight which are referred  4 to on page 22, and I should say that's where the  5 footnotes are referred to, they are actually on pages  6 95, I believe, footnote seven states:  "The ten  7 Gitksan houses which are composed of a group of  8 unilineally related kin are:  Dawamuxw, Hanamuxw, Hax  9 Bagwootxw, Tsibasaa, Amagyet, Wii Mugulsxw, Nikateen,  10 Wii Hlengwax, Gwagl'lo and Delgamuukw."  That is your  11 conclusion from your research?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   What is the basis for that conclusion?  And I would  14 like you to also explain what you mean by unilineally  15 related kin?  16 A   Unilineally related kin means that they are related  17 only through the members of one sex, as in a  18 matrilineal system where everyone in the kinship group  19 is related through their mothers.  The other one of  20 course is a patrilineal system.  Sorry, what was the  21 other part of the question?  22 Q   Well, I just want to be clear about this, as I  23 understood your earlier evidence it's your opinion  24 that all houses are matrilineal kin groups, right?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And now you say that these ten Gitksan houses are  27 composed of a group of unilineally related kin; what  28 about the others?  29 A   The precise relationship is known between every member  30 of these houses but in the other houses there are  31 either people who are adopted into the house, and  32 therefore are not biologically related to the other  33 house members or there are cases where I don't know  34 the connections between lineages in the house.  35 Q   Okay.  Now, I refer you to footnote eight, right after  36 that, which states:  "The precise relationship is  37 known between all living members of the following  38 house:  Dawamuxw, Hanamuxw, Hax Bagwootxw Tsibasaa,  39 Amagyet, Wii Mugulsxw, Nikateen, Wii Hlengwax,  40 Gwagl'lo, Delgamuukw, Wiigyet, Baskyelaxha, Gwinin  41 Nitxw, Tenimgyet, Kliiyem lax haa, Gwoimt, Tsabux, Wii  42 Minosik, Haalus, Ma'uus and Djogaslee."  You go on to  43 state:  "I generally refer to biological relationships  44 in this list, however, I have included those houses  45 which also have adoptions.  By definition houses in  46 which there have been adoptions would include  47 relationships which are not biological relationships, 10832  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 but if I deleted all of the houses that included  2 adoptions there would be an artificial reduction of  3 the number of houses in which, generally the precise  4 biological relationships are known."  5 Now, is that your conclusion?  6 A   Yes.  7 MR. GOLDIE:  What is the conclusion again, please?  8 MR. GRANT:  9 Q   Okay.  Now, you state --  10 MR. GOLDIE:  No —  11 MR. GRANT:  Just a second. Let me go back to it, Mr. Goldie. I  12 will get to the point you are raising.  13 Q   You state:  "The precise relationship is known to all  14 living members of these houses."  Just explain what  15 you mean by that?  16 A   In the first list —  17 Q   Footnote seven?  18 A   In footnote seven, which is the first ten names on the  19 list in footnote eight, the precise biological  20 relationship is known between the members of each of  21 those houses.  What I have added on to the list that's  22 in footnote eight is the houses that are composed of a  23 unilineal kin group, a group between whom the precise  24 biological relationships are known, but who have the  25 addition of an adopted person, maybe only one, quite  26 frequently just one, or maybe two individuals, but the  27 entire rest of the family, the precise relationships  28 are known between them, biological relationships.  29 Q   For example, you have Baskyelaxha on that list --  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And you have already described that Baskyelaxha is one  32 where Mabel White and Bill Blackwater were adopted?  33 A   Yes, and the entire house is made up of the biological  34 relatives of Mabel White except for Bill Blackwater.  35 Q   Today?  36 A   Yes.  37 THE COURT:  Do I take it then that adoption is unknown in the  38 ten houses mentioned in footnote seven?  39 A  At the present, yes.  40 THE COURT:  There is no adoption?  41 A   Living members, no.  42 MR. GRANT:  43 Q   No living adopted persons in those ten houses?  44 A   Yes.  I should look at this again to make sure I have  45 got this correct.  Yes, yes, that's correct.  Wait a  46 minute.  What page was that on again?  47 Q   The footnote was referred to on page 22. 10833  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 A  Make sure I have that right.  2 Q   Just start there.  You say there:  "Lineage is  3 inappropriate because not all houses are composed of a  4 group of unilineally related kin among whom the exact  5 relationship is known with no missing connections and  6 no adoptions."  I presume what you mean there is a  7 unilineal --  lineage is a unilineally related kin, is  8 that right?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   There is one line?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And then footnote seven refers to "Ten Gitksan houses  13 composed of a group of unilineally related kin."  So  14 is it right to say, without looking at those ten  15 genealogies, is it right to say that those ten are  16 ones consisting of one lineage?  17 A   Yes, but I see that except for the fact that there  18 is -- there are adoptees in Tsibasaa that have been  19 added on to the -- oh, I see, we are talking about one  20 lineage.  21 Q   I may have confused you by combining these two  22 footnotes, I think the first one you were talking  23 about one lineage or more than one lineage?  24 A   Yes.  But the ten on the list are composed of one  25 lineage.  26 Q   That's footnote seven?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   Then you describe, in page 22: "Theoretically, the  29 relationship between all house members is supposed to  30 be knowable.  The elders say that the house is a  31 family and the family members are related through  32 their mothers."  Then you explain, "This is supported  33 by the logic of the matrilineal system, in which every  34 member of the group is descended from an original  35 ancestor whether she is known or not and some  36 ancestors from whom all living members are descended  37 is known" and then you say:  "The precise relationship  38 is known between all living members of the following  39 houses."  And that's where you list these other  40 groups.  41 A   Yes, and in that case I mean that the majority of the  42 house members are related biologically, so that  43 relationship is known and it is known that there is  44 the addition of a small number of adopted people on  45 some of those genealogies.  So the relationship is not  46 biological to the additional adopted people but the  47 relationship is known in that it is an adopted 10834  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  A  34  THE COURT  35  36  37  A  38  THE COURT  39  MR. GRANT  40  Q  41  42  43  44  45  A  46  47  relationship.  Okay.  Now I would like you to look at the Delgamuukw  genealogy in Exhibit 853.  Tab 5, my lord.  That's  Delgamuukw.  Okay.  Now maybe what I could do is go to  the very last page.  Very last page, and you see there  two names that do not appear to be connected, now  these persons of course are deceased so that you said  all living members the relationship is known, but you  have these two people, Hagee and Noxs Suuks.  Can you  explain why -- and I am only taking this as an  example -- that on some of the genealogies you appear  to have this, where you have persons that are hanging,  if I may say, that are not connected, way back.  Can  you explain why you put those two names on there and  what that signifies?  These are people of whom I had heard from various  sources, either a written record or from informants  but their relationship to other former members of the  house was not known.  Now, in that case which of those two people -- they  appear to be married?  Yes.  Which one of them is the member of this house?  Hagee.  So that's why there is no descendents recorded here?  Possibly there were no descendents but you can tell  the spouse is the member of a different house because  the house name in brackets appears under the symbol  for that woman, Noxs Suuks, Gwiiyeehl in brackets,  which indicates she was from Gwiiyeehl's house.  Do you recall if there were descendents from that  house, Gwiiyeehl?  Not that I know of.  : Then how to you square that with the statement in the  text in footnote seven that Delgamuukw is a house  where everyone is -- has a known relationship?  I was only referring to living members.  :  I see.  Now, in the case where these persons where you put  them on the genealogies and they are not connected,  would you do that in the case where you only learned  of that person through one source, that is one  informant or one piece of written record?  Not ordinarily.  I didn't like to use information that  I had obtained from only one person unless their  information was extremely reliable. 10835  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 Q   I want to refer you to page 25 of your report, and in  2 that page you say, you refer to Sto'owilp, and say  3 that Sto'owilp -- I am referring to the last  4 paragraph, my lord -- "Sto'owilp is two lineages  5 within a house which become fairly separate entities  6 with separate membership, names and land holdings  7 within the house territory."  Is that your conclusion?  8 A   Yes, it is.  9 Q   What is the basis for that conclusion?  10 A   Sto'owilp has been described to me by several chiefs,  11 I believe Moses Morrison was the first one who told me  12 about Sto'owilp, and I remember Stanley Wilson talking  13 about it, as well as -- and Nancy Supernault, and what  14 they said was that quite often the two chiefs who  15 become leaders of two lineages or sides within a  16 house, in the ancient past they may have been brothers  17 or cousins, people who were closely related and as  18 time passes they grow more powerful and when I say  19 they, that could be the holder of a certain chief's  20 name over generations.  So I would be talking about,  21 for example, Haiwas and Miluulak, talking about Haiwas  22 may be growing more powerful within the House of  23 Miluulak and as time passes they have names that are  24 exclusively used by their side of the house.  And  25 groups of this type are ripe for division and may  26 eventually divide and become two separate houses.  27 Q   And you also refer to Xsgogimlaxha and Smogelgem and I  28 believe that's the last tab in the genealogy, in  29 Exhibit 853, tab 45.  If you could just look at that  30 and it may be stapled but if you just look at that and  31 show if that's demonstrated, where that is.  32 A   I will just pull it out.  It's this last one, isn't  33 it?  34 Q   It's the last one.  35 A  When you --  36 Q   Just show where that division, if the division is  37 demonstrated in that genealogy?  38 A   It is clearly demonstrated.  I see that the  39 photocopier has cut off most of the page numbers.  You  40 can see one page is numbered 14, if yours is like  41 mine, and the previous page, which I assume is page  42 13, the number is cut off on mine -- do you have pages  43 13 and 14?  44 Q   Just give the name on it and then that could assist,  45 on the lower left.  46 A   The last person that you see on page 13, Selma Milton,  47 to the right-hand side of the page, and then there are 10836  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 no lines going on towards page 14 --  2 Q   Right?  3 A   So that means that --  4 Q   And the first one on page 14 is Gos and then Lily Hart  5 and David Hart?  6 A   Yes, Yes. Now, there is a separation between those  7 represented on the first 13 pages and on the pages  8 from 14 on.  And these two separate lineages represent  9 the two halves of the Sto'owilp of this house group.  10 Q   Now, in the case -- and I am not going to ask you to  11 pull this out at this moment, but if you look -- well,  12 I will refer you to the index, you don't have to try  13 to find it.  Tab 22 is Haiwas and tab 30 is Miluulak.  14 Now, in other words it appears from Exhibit 853 that  15 you have got two genealogies, one for Haiwas and one  16 for Miluulak.  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Can you explain that to the court, when you refer to  19 Sto'owilp of the same house?  20 A   Yes, the progress towards the eventual division of  21 these houses is quite considerable.  They have  22 separate biological members, they have separate names,  23 they have separate head chiefs, which are Miluulak and  24 Haiwas, and they have territories which they utilize  25 separately.  And it has been expressed to me that they  26 are Sto'owilp, but a house in this situation has very  27 little to do to become a separate house, all that  28 remains would be to put up the feast and they could  29 easily become separate houses.  30 Q   Okay.  Who is Haiwas, who holds that name today?  31 A   James Stevens.  32 Q   And who holds are the name Miluulak?  33 A  Alice Jeffery.  34 Q   Now, just to be clear about terminology, are you  35 familiar with a term called Luu, L-U-U, Sto'o,  36 S-T-O-'-O?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Is that Luu Sto'o different than Sto'owilp?  39 A   Yes, it is.  40 Q   Can you explain what Luu Sto'o is?  41 A   I believe that houses that are Sto'owilp today, if  42 they divided, they would become Luu Sto'o.  Those are  43 houses that are separate but closely related and the  44 elders describe it as sitting side by side in the  45 feast hall.  46 Q   Can you give an example of that?  47 A   Yes.  I believe Geel and Gitluudahl. 10837  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.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  A  COURT  A  GRANT  Q  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  Q  The first one?  Geel.  G-E-E-L.  And Gitluudahl?  Yes, I believe they are Luu Sto'o.  Okay.  Referring to page 26 of your report, you talk  about --  I am sorry, how do you spell Luu Sto'o?  L-U-U, S-T-O-'-O.  Okay.  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  You say "In most cases", at the top, "houses are  clearly distinct units with no misunderstanding about  memberships."  And on page 96 your footnote nine you  state:  "The houses with most knowledgeable Gitksan  would consider to be clearly distinct units are:"  Then you list several houses, and -- 33 houses.  Is  that your opinion with respect to those houses?  GOLDIE:  Well, it's not stated as her opinion, my lord.  It's simply stated to be the opinion of most  knowledgeable Gitksan.  She is not putting it forward  as her opinion.  GRANT:  Q   Well, is it your opinion that those houses are clearly  distinct units that you listed?  A   Yes.  GOLDIE:  Well —  COURT:  The objection was well taken, the question was  leading and I think the problem is terminological or  semantical, perhaps.  I am not sure.  GRANT:  I hope it's not terminal, my lord.  GOLDIE:  I take it that all Mrs. Harris is doing here is  transmitting some information that she heard.  COURT:  That's what this states.  GOLDIE:  Yes.  COURT:  But she has now said in response to a leading  question that she believes it to be correct.  GOLDIE:  I take it she says that because she believes to be  correct what she is told.  COURT:  Or she has been told that and she has no reason  which would lead her to disbelieve it.  GOLDIE:  There can be only one source of information, she  has identified it, and obviously if she says that's  her opinion, it's because she takes what she hears as  being the fact.  GRANT:  Q   Well, these houses listed on footnote nine are houses 1083?  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  1 that you have done the genealogies for?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And as his lordship quite rightly said, I did lead the  4 question.  5 MR. GOLDIE:  Lead another one.  6 MR. GRANT:  Sure.  No, I am not going to, Mr. Goldie, unless  7 you're inviting it.  8 Q   What's the basis of your opinion that those houses are  9 clearly distinct unites that you listed?  10 A   In doing the genealogical research for the houses that  11 were listed there it was not difficult to find out who  12 were the members of those houses.  At times, it is  13 rather difficult to find right off and it takes  14 considerable investigation to be very clear about who  15 the house members are because of what we discussed  16 before about houses that have divided and then  17 possibly re-amalgamated because of population decline.  18 So you get one person representing a group of houses,  19 such as the Eagle Houses, from one person's  20 perspective it may be that the Eagle Houses are one  21 house now that they have all amalgamated and they are  22 now one house, and another person may say, well, they  23 are four houses, and they are both correct in that  24 there were certainly four clearly distinct Eagle  25 Houses in the not too distant past but they suffer  26 greatly from population decline and they are forced to  27 amalgamate and act as one unit, they are separate  28 territories, separate names, they have leading chiefs  29 but because of their current small population the are  30 forced to amalgamate and act as one.  31 Q   Now, you do state or in completion of the footnote, on  32 page 97, it is stated:  "Those houses shose  33 memberships are fairly often misunderstood are:  34 Wiigyet - Waiget - Wii Seeks; Luus - Wii Elaast; Wii  35 Gaak - Guuhadak; Wii Mugulsxw - Xsaxgyoo - Hawaaw';  36 Gyetm Galdoo - Skiik'm Lax Ha - Wii Goob'l; Haak  37 Asxw - Mool'xan - Duubisxw - Gaxsbgabaxs; Lelt -  38 Luulak - Haaxw; Sakxum Higookx - Sima Diiks -  39 T'ewelasxw - Giila'wa."  Is that your opinion?  40 A   Yes, it is.  41 Q   And what is the basis for that opinion?  And I am  42 not asking you to repeat anything you have said just  43 now but if you can expand on it?  44 A   In that when I was doing the investigation of these  45 houses, all of these groups would sometimes be  46 expressed as one house and sometimes be expressed as  47 being separate houses. 10839  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  o'clock meeting that I  convenient time we will  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR. GRANT  MR. GRANT:  My lord, I am moving -- I am not certain if you wish  to sit a few minutes longer or not because I am moving  into another area..  THE COURT:  No, unfortunately I have a 4  have to attend so if this is a  adjourn now.  If it's of any assistance to counsel, I should tell  you I am free next week but I am not free the  following week.  Which week are you going to the  Supreme Court of Canada?  GOLDIE:  It would be next week but the case has been  cancelled because there are not enough judges.  COURT:  They have that problem too.  GOLDIE:  Yes, it sounded rather familiar.  COURT:  And ominous.  Well, I don't want to push counsel  into a discussion about where we go until we get  there.  But counsel can have that information.  My lord, maybe I should just say now, given that  what my friend has said and what I have read about the  need for time, and the need for the adjournment and  what Ms. Koenigsberg said to me, I -- I am not certain  whether, depending on how long my friends intend to  take, whether there will be any advantage -- I  anticipate being finished by noon tomorrow, whether  there would be any advantage to commencing the  cross-examination, if my friend cannot go very far  with it.  That's all I am saying.  And I would also  ask my friends to consider, although it's certainly  not a higher court matter, but if there is any  preference of time would I ask for next week, if it  can be the middle of the week, which actually my  friends may be seeking in any event, but if they ask  if they would like to start on the Wednesday rather  than Monday of next week, if that is their thinking,  on cross-examination.  COURT:  I won't ask Mr. Goldie to commit himself now.  GRANT:  No, I just want to set out -- I am not going to  oppose that.  THE COURT:  And we also have the problem of finishing Miss  Albright so I will leave that to counsel.  GRANT:  I understand that was scheduled for Thursday morning  COURT:  Very tentatively.  GRANT:  Subject to what happens here.  COURT:  All right.  We will adjourn until 10 o'clock  tomorrow morning.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE 10840  H. Harris (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Grant  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  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  Wilf Roy  Official Reporter


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