Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-05-19] British Columbia. Supreme Court May 19, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019636.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019636-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019636-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019636-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019636-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019636-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019636-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 16553  Ruling by the Court  1 Vancouver, B.C.  2 May 19, 198 9  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 10:00 a.m.)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  7 Columbia, Vancouver, this Friday, May 19, 1989.  8 Calling Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen at  9 bar.  10 I caution the witness, you are still under oath.  11 THE COURT:  Before you continue, Mr. Adams, I think I should  12 deal with this question of these reports.  13 I have done the best I can with the matter in the  14 time that is available to me, and I have dictated some  15 reasons for judgment which will be delivered today.  16 But I can tell counsel that I have concluded that the  17 claim for privilege cannot be sustained.  In my view,  18 there is a sufficient identity of subject matter  19 between the trial report and the two reports that I  20 had been given and for which privilege is claimed to  21 raise the legal question of whether the earlier  22 writings of a witness can be the subject of a claim  23 for privilege.  I think that they could be if there  24 wasn't the identity of subject matter that I had  25 mentioned.  But when I look at these reports, it seems  26 to me that while it cannot be said that these two  27 reports are earlier drafts of the trial report, partly  28 because they are of much greater length, the subject  29 matter is substantially overlap, and I have concluded  30 that when a consultant-expert witness enters the box  31 to give expert or opinion evidence, he can be  32 challenged on his previous writings on the same  33 subject matter.  And for that reason, as the brief  34 reasons for judgment will, I hope, more accurately  35 describe, I think these two reports which I return now  36 to Miss Mandell must be disclosed to the defendants  37 along with the others which Miss Mandell conceded  38 yesterday would be the tail that had to go with the  39 hide I have just described.  Thank you.  4 0 Mr. Adams.  41 MR. ADAMS:  My lord, just before I begin, I have some  42 documentary housekeeping to do.  First of all, it's  43 come to my attention that page 85 is missing from the  44 opinion report as distributed, and I'm supplying a  45 photocopy of the missing page.  4 6    THE COURT:  Yes, thank you.  47    MR. ADAMS:  The sources that go with the footnotes on that page 16554  Proceedings  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  COURT  ADAMS  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  THE  MR.  COURT  ADAMS  are in the source list that is delivered.  Secondly, I have three documents, one of which  belongs at tab 355 in volume 6, and it's what  appeared -- there was an extract, and it's come to my  attention that the extract is incomplete for --  :  Sorry, what tab number?  :  355.  And the reference in the source list is to the  Special Joint Commission, and what's reproduced is  among others things at the tab is pages eight and on.  And in reviewing the document, it appears that what --  page 8 couldn't make sense unless you know what  happened on page 3, and so I'm supplying pages 3  through 7, and they can just be fit into the tab at  the appropriate place.  :  Well, my pages seem to jump from small Roman six  to -- no, wait a minute, I've got Roman seven.  Oh.  :  This will follow the Roman numbers, my lord.  Immediately precede the page 8.  :  Yes.  Thank you.  :  And then in the same volume at tabs three -- sorry,  in volume --  THE COURT  Adams,  I've got an unruly binder  wasn't it?  ADAMS  COURT  ADAMS  COURT:  Just a moment, Mr.  here.  That was 55,  Yes, my lord, 355.  All right.  Thank you.  And then next in the same volume at tabs 347 and  348.  What presently appears at 347 is first a white  lettered copy of the document that belongs there, and  then at 348 is a clearer copy of the same document  that ought also to be in tab 347.  And then what I'm  handing up is what really belongs in 348 and is  described in the source list.  All right.  REGISTRAR:  So 348 goes into 347 and —  ADAMS:  And the pages I've handed up are a replacement in  348.  REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  ADAMS:  And then finally, my lord, tab 450 which is in  volume 7.  COURT:  That would be tab 44?  I'm sorry.  ADAMS:  No, 450.  REGISTRAR:  Tab 50.  COURT:  50.  ADAMS:  Tab 50, right about the middle of the book.  And the  source list refers to the document that is presently  there and it also refers to an enclosure, and what I  have is the pages that go after the enclosure. 16555  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 THE COURT:  They precede the document or follow?  2 MR. ADAMS:  They will follow the document  3 My lord, in the interval before Dr. Galois comes  4 for cross-examination in June, I'll be endeavouring to  5 further perfect these binders by supplying clear  6 letter copies when they come to me, on supplying some  7 of the missing documents.  8  9    EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. ADAMS (cont'd):  10 Q   Dr. Galois, I wonder if you can turn to page 58 of  11 your opinion report?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And that's where you start a section that covers the  14 years 1908 through 1915, and in the final paragraph on  15 page 58 you say:  16  17 "The boom years, which the construction of  18 the GTPR —"  19  20 And I take it that's the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q  23 "-- spanned, were very important ones for  24 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  Unresolved  25 problems were exacerbated by the new  2 6 developments in the white economy."  27  28 I just want to ask you what unresolved problems you  29 are referring to?  30 A   I was referring to the problems concerning access to  31 land and resources and the competition between the  32 growing numbers of white settlers in the region and  33 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en peoples.  34 Q   And over on page 59, my lord, there is just some  35 passages I want to provide specific references for,  36 without going to them.  37 At the bottom of 59, in the second sentence of the  38 final paragraph, it says:  39  40 "A number of Wet'suwet'en were arrested,  41 and fined, for threatening some white  42 settlers near Moricetown:"  43  44 And then there is a list of events:  45  46 "The missionary at Glen Vowell was warned  47 of a potential 'rising' and that he and his 16556  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  family would be safer elsewhere: a Kispiox  Indian was arrested for threatening to  shoot a white man, but escaped from gaol  while awaiting trial."  Just to pause there, the reference for some if not all  of those incidents is at tab 275 in volume 5.  THE COURT:  Thank you.  MR. ADAMS:  Q   And then over the page:  "At Kitwanga, the Indians refused to allow  Loring to subdivide their reserve, pending  the results of the delegation to Ottawa."  From -- and the tab reference for that is 272.  Now, Dr. Galois, in the middle of page 60 of your  opinion report, you say -- you refer to secret  meetings among the Indians and plans to destroy  Hazelton as a matter of rumour.  And then you say:  "The outcome of this activity was a  promise, on the part of the DIA, that an  enquiry would be made, the following year,  into the grievances of the Indians of the  Babine Agency."  And I want to ask you, what, if any, enquiry followed  from that?  A   That is a reference to the visit of Messrs. Stewart  and Vowell to the Upper Skeena region in the year of  1909.  Q   And could you explain briefly where they went and what  they did?  A   They travelled up the Skeena, I think it was -- it was  either in June or July, and conducted a series of  meetings with both Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en groups,  which they heard a series of grievances and claims by  the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en peoples.  Q   All right.  And could you look at tab 296 in volume 5.  That's a newspaper article from the Victoria Times for  the 15th of July, 1909?  A   Yes.  Q   And it's headlined "Northern Indians Tell Of  Grievances", and then, "Commission Has Completed Its  Investigations At Hazelton".  I wonder if you could  just go quickly through that, please? 16557  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 A   Read it?  2 Q   Through the article, yes?  3 A  4 "Northern Indians Tell Of Grievances.  5 Commission Has Completed Its Investigations  6 At Hazelton.  7 (Special to the Times)  8 Dated Hazelton, B.C., July 15 - Indian  9 Commissioner Stewart, of Ottawa, who  10 came here accompanied by Superintendent  11 Vowell, of Victoria, and Chief Constable  12 O'Connell, of the Dominion force, to  13 inquire into the grievances of the local  14 Indians arising out of the settlement by  15 white settlers of crown lands outside of  16 the Indian reserves, which the Indians had  17 been using for themselves for generations,  18 completed the hearing of the trouble last  19 night after a two-days' session.  The  20 proceedings were confined to a hearing of  21 the Indian grievances and their demands  22 for redress.  Each tribe was represented by  23 a spokesman, who presented each tribe's  24 troubles and demands in turn, each  25 spokesman practically repeating what the  26 first one set forth.  27 "Basing their contention on the  28 assumption that all the land belonged to  29 them to be hereditary and that whites had  30 taken it without conquest or remuneration,  31 they practically asked that the whole  32 country be surrendered to them.  33 "This would involve dispensing with  34 the present system of reserves, the  35 establishment of their ancient tribal laws  36 and customs for the government of the  37 territory and the forfeiture of all rights,  38 claims and interests of the whites, etc.,  39 practically the establishing of the  40 conditions existing before the white man  41 came among them.  42 "While the claims were made  43 separately for the surrender of each tribal  44 chief's 'lands of his forefathers,'  45 collectively it would involve the entire  46 country.  47 "In support of their contentions that 1655?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 they have not been justly dealt with in the  2 land questions, they cited promises made to  3 them of large land concessions involving  4 hundreds of thousands of acres lying along  5 the main valley of the Skeena and Bulkley  6 rivers, by former commissioners who had  7 been sent to them in connection with the  8 affairs in early days.  They asked the  9 commissioner for his decision in the  10 matter, and on being assured that nothing  11 could be done till he had submitted his  12 report to the government at Ottawa, they  13 wanted him to issue an order forbiding any  14 further location of land by the whites  15 until such time as their claims were  16 settled.  17 "Some of them, on being told this was  18 beyond the power of the commissioner, grew  19 somewhat hostile and declared that they  20 would have to prevent further locations  21 themselves if the government would not.  22 "This sentiment was disapproved,  23 however, by the cooler heads, and the  24 matter dropped.  25 "A few days will be put in visiting  26 the villages of the tribes along the  27 Skeena, and the party will then return to  28 Victoria and Ottawa and submit their report  2 9 for the government's action."  30  31 Q   Just let me ask you in connection with this article,  32 what do you make of the passage that says:  33  34 "This would involve dispensing with the  35 present system of reserves, the  36 establishment of their ancient tribal laws  37 and customs for the government of the  38 territory and the forfeiture of all rights,  39 claims and interests of the whites, etc..."  40  41 A  Well, I take that to imply that the tribal customs are  42 at least known to the Gitksan at that time.  They  43 couldn't be talking about something that they didn't  44 know about.  45 Q   And let me ask you to turn to tab 298.  It's just a  4 6 few documents down.  47    THE COURT:  Sorry, what number? 16559  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  MR. ADAMS  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  11  12  Q  13  THE COURT  14  MR. ADAMS  15  Q  16  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  2 98, my lord.  And that appears to be a letter from the Acting  Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to  the Honourable F.J. Fulton, Chief Commissioner of  Lands and Works in Victoria.  And I wonder if you  could just look at that and summarize for his lordship  what that letter addresses?  It's a brief summary of the activities of Messrs.  Stewart and Vowell in their trip up the Skeena in the  summer of 19 0 9.  And then at tab 239 which is back in volume 4.  :  Sorry, what tab number?  239, my lord.  And this is a document that you quote at some  length beginning on page 61 of your opinion report.  It's dated July 8 — 15th?  I think it's either the 18th or the 19th.  Of 1909?  Yes.  And headed "British Columbia Babine Agency". And I  wonder if you can just explain what the document is  that you refer to in your report?  This is the minutes of the meeting that Stewart and  Vowell conducted with the Wet'suwet'en peoples at -- I  think it was actually at Hazelton.  It says with the  Hagwilget Indians.  So it's a -- the minutes of that  meeting which is survived in the records of the Babine  Indian Agency.  Okay.  And in pages 61, 62 and following of your  opinion report, you quote from that document.  First  from James Yami, Y-A-M-I, to the effect that:  "The Bulkley River is our river and we get  our living therefrom."  And then on page 62 from Francis Lake John, saying:  "We have the greatest respect for authority  and hope that our words be taken to Ottawa.  We now will speak of our hunting grounds.  The clashes we have with the whites are  many."  And then there is a long list of specific locations.  And I just wanted to ask you whether that document is 16560  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 an example of the materials to support your opinion  2 that there was conflicting resistance involving the  3 Wet'suwet'en in that period?  4 A   Yes.  It's a sort of -- regarded as a sort of summary  5 of the accumulating grievances in the period of the  6 preceding number of years.  One can't say precisely,  7 but there is clearly an accumulation of incidents  8 involving competition for the land and resources  9 within Wet'suwet'en territories.  10 Q   And then on page 64 of your opinion report, in the  11 middle of the page, you say:  12  13 "The Gitksan approach to the commission was  14 rather different."  15  16 Now, you were still referring there to the Stewart-  17 Vowell Commission?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Okay.  And you go on:  20  21 "They presented a claim to aboriginal  22 title, based upon the Royal Proclamation of  23 1763, and pointed to the persistence of  24 Gitksan culture, especially the laws and  25 customs which governed the administration  26 and ownership of territory.  Furthermore,  27 they believed that they had been 'promised  28 land concessions' and expected Stewart and  29 Vowell to conclude a settlement of  30 outstanding issues on the spot.  When  31 informed that this was not possible the  32 Gitksan expressed both anger and  33 hostility."  34  35 Now, does that represent your opinion?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And then on page 65 of your opinion report, at the  38 last two sentences of the first full paragraph, you  39 say:  40  41 "...a letter from the people of Kitwanga  42 and Kitwancool displayed their rejection of  43 the Indian Agent and his role."  44  45 And my lord, I'll supply a number of references for  46 that and then take the witness to a couple of them.  47 In order through the binders, they are tab 275, 285, 16561  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2  3  4  THE  COURT  5  MR.  ADAMS  6  THE  COURT  7  MR.  ADAMS  8  9  THE  COURT  10  MR.  ADAMS  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  THE  COURT  36  THE  WITNE  37  THE  COURT  38  39  MR.  ADAMS  40  41  42  THE  COURT  43  MR.  ADAMS  44  THE  COURT  45  MR.  ADAMS  46  THE  COURT  47  MR.  ADAMS  307, 308 and 323.  And let me ask you, Dr. Galois, to go to tab 275  in volume 5.  I'm sorry, where are you going?  Tab 275 in volume 5, my lord.  Tab 275 in volume 5?  Yes, my lord.  It would be near the front of the  volume.  :  Thank you.  Dr. Galois, this appears to be a letter from Mr.  Valleau, V-A-L-L-E-A-U, to the Attorney General in  Victoria, dated November 4th, 1908.  And I just want  to draw your attention first of all to a passage on  page 2.  The first full paragraph, it says:  "On Friday, the 30th October, Mr. Loring,  Indian Agent, came to my office and asked  to see me privately."  And then what follows is -- appears to be an account  of their conversation. And at the bottom of page 2,  the last line, it says:  "He also told me that even if he could or  wished to apprehend the one who was at the  bottom of the trouble, his Indian Police  would not act for him, that he had lost all  control over the Indians, that instead of  coming to him as they were always in the  habit of doing they now kept everything  secret from him."  And then at the next tab --  :  Sorry, Mr. Adams, I can't find that.  3S:  I can't find that either.  :  Yes, I have it.  I have it, thank you.  Where did  you read to, Mr. Adams?  :  I read a piece of a line to establish people and a  date, my lord, and that was at the beginning of the  first full paragraph on page 2.  Yes, I have that.  And then at the very bottom on the same page.  Oh yes.  The last line:  "He also told me".  Oh yes.  And then over the page. 16562  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  sorry, at tab 285 in the  THE COURT:  Oh yes.  MR. ADAMS:  For five lines.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  MR. ADAMS:  And then at the next  same volume.  THE COURT:  Does this document indicate who Mr. Loring was  talking about as between Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  Doesn't seem to.  It just says it was his district.  Of course his district included all of the present  claim territory, did it not?  THE WITNESS:  At that time and also prior extending down to  Stuart Lake, it was.  The agency was subdivided, 1910,  1911.  THE COURT:  All right.  Are you able -- anything else you know  that would indicate --  THE WITNESS:  From other documents it would suggest that he is  referring to the Gitksan, your honour.  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. ADAMS:  There is a reference, my lord, on page 1 in the  second paragraph.  THE COURT:  Trouble started at Kispiox, I see there.  MR. ADAMS:  Yes.  And a reference to Glen Vowell.  THE COURT:  That's where all the touble starts, isn't it.  THE WITNESS:  He is referring to, I think — I think it was an  Indian by the name of Jimmy Williams who was arrested,  and the Glen Vowell concerned the Salvation Army  missionary there.  THE COURT:  I only mention Kispiox in such pejorative --  MR. ADAMS:  Then, my lord, just after the passage that I  completed reading on page 3, it carries on:  "This summer I was called upon to go to  Morristown to investigate some trouble  between a settler there and the Indians."  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. ADAMS:  Q   It carries on:  "I asked Mr. Loring to go with me which he  did, Mr. Deane also accompanied me on this  trip, threats had been made that if the  settler did not get off his land that the  Indians would shoot him, we held a meeting  with these Indians at their village, and I  found out then that Mr. Loring had  given these people permission to cut any 16563  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  hay they needed on Crown lands outside the  Reserve, and now that White settlers were  coming into the country the Indians saw  that this right was to be taken from them,  they complained bitterly of the treatment  they had received from the Indian  Department, in that they had been promised  for years that their Reserve would be  subdivided up into allotments, and this had  only been partly done."  And it carries on, referring to the same events.  And  then I had referred you, Dr. Galois, to tab 285, and  your source list indicates that that's a letter from  Loring to Vowell dated May 31, 1909, and that much  seems to be readable.  On the second page of that document, just over  half-way down, there is a paragraph that appears to  begin "All the instructions".  Are you able to read  that?  A   I am not able to read it.  Q   Maybe what I can do is read my suggestion of what it  says and ask you if you can confirm that as you  follow:  "All the instructions the Indians have received  are cunningly guarded with the greatest  secrecy."  A   Could you go just a little slower, please.  Q   Sorry.  All right, I'll start again.  "All the instructions the Indians have received  are cunningly guarded with the greatest  secrecy, and in substance are most enigmatical  to the closest scrutiny applied.  To the  whites, the Indians are very sullen of  demeanour, and none of them here attend church  any longer, and other signs of that sort are  coming into evidence."  A   That would appear to be what it says.  I would  hesitate to assure anybody on that point.  THE COURT:  I always believe everything counsel tells me.  I  certainly can't read it.  MR. ADAMS:  My lord, that's a number of documents I'll endeavour  to come by a clearer copy. 16564  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 THE COURT:  Thank you.  2 MR. ADAMS:  3 Q   And with respect to that tab and the previous one, I  4 want to ask you whether those are examples of the  5 material on which you rely to refer to the rejection  6 of Loring?  7 A   Yes.  They are examples of the type of a series of  8 documents which contain similar types of statements.  9 Q   And the second half of page 65 of your opinion report,  10 you refer to some events at Kispiox.  You refer to the  11 construction of a new road through the valley, and you  12 refer to that as a "critical development".  And I  13 wonder if you could explain what the construction  14 involved and why you regarded it as a critical  15 development?  16 A  What that -- why that was an important development was  17 that it -- it would have -- what it involved was  18 improving access to -- primarily to incoming whites to  19 the lands and resources of the Kispiox Valley where  20 there had been for some time a degree of conflict over  21 access to land and resources between white settlers  22 and indigenous peoples.  23 THE COURT:  Are we still talking about 1909?  2 4 MR. ADAMS:  25 Q   In what year are these events occurring?  26 A   The road construction begins on August the 31st, 1909.  27 I believe there had been a petition by the white  28 settlers for the construction of such a road earlier  29 that year.  30 THE COURT:  When you say that the foreman was relieved of his  31 tools and supplies, you mean they were physically  32 taken from him or stolen?  33 THE WITNESS:  Without his consent, I believe.  34 THE COURT:  Without his consent?  35 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  36 THE COURT:  All right.  37 MR. ADAMS:  38 Q   And I wonder if I could take you to tab 331 in volume  39 5.  I'm sorry, it should be 313, my lord, same volume.  40 And after the public archives page there is a page  41 numbered 14 and headed "November 1909".  And your  42 source list cites that as Maitland-Dougall, with two  43 L's, Journal, 1909.  Who was Maitland-Dougall?  44 A   There was a reorganization of the police districts  45 affecting the Upper Skeena during 1909, and James  46 Maitland-Dougall was appointed as Head Constable  47 stationed at Hazelton.  Chief Constable, I believe. 16565  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  Q   And beginning with the entry that appears to be for  the third of November, I wonder if you could read that  and the fourth and fifth?  A  "Got letter from Govt. Agent, written by  Kispiox Indians ordering road party to stop  work.  Saw Mr. Pearce of Kispiox --"  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:  Re?  THE WITNESS:  "-- re same, and made arrangements to go out  next day to look into matter, it being too late  to do anything this day.  Saw Mr. Leslie, Govt. Engineer and got from him  names and mileage of --"  MR. ADAMS:  Q   The contractors?  A   I presume that's "RY" it says, which I presume is a  contraction for "railway".  "-- contractors between Hazelton and Kitsilas."  It's a reference to the construction of the GTPR.  Fourth:  "Started at 7:30 with Constable Graham for  Govt. Road camp above Glenvowel --"  G-L-E-N-V-O-W-E-L, all one word.  "-- found party of 22 men and few -- a few  minutes before my arrival had been driven off  Kispiox across the Kispiox River, ordered the  party into their canoe and took them over  again.  Interviewed the Indians and chief and  warned them against further molestation.  Saw  half Govt, supplies and party off for their new  camp, then returned to Hazelton.  On returned heard that telegraph operator at  1st cabin had been ordered out by Kispiox  Indians by 1st December, this day.  Telegram  arrived from Jas McCulley --"  M, small C, capital C-U-L-L-E-Y. 16566  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 "— Road Foreman, that —"  2  3 THE COURT:  Tools?  4 THE WITNESS:  5  6 "-- tools, grub and bedding of party had been  7 seized by Kispiox Indians and death warrant for  8 him.  9 Started to make arrangements for raid on  10 Kispiox."  11  12 MR. ADAMS:  13 Q   Does that say "wired", the next word?  14 THE COURT:  Yes.  15 A  Wired, yes.  16  17 "-- Supt. Constable F. Gosley arrived from  18 Merchant Steamer Omineca and reported to me."  19  20 Fifth:  21  22 "Busy all day making arrangements, getting  23 specials, arms and ammunition and keeping  24 everything secret.  Sent up canoe with three  25 men to be ready to take party across Skeena at  26 5:00 a.m.  27 Armed all men after dark and sent them out by  28 two's to arrange meeting and starting point at  29 Mr. Charlton's.  30 Swore in about 40 specials.  31 Left Hamilton -- left Hazelton myself at 11:30  32 p.m.  33 Constable Elleby --  34  35 E-L-L-E-B-Y.  36  37 "-- arrived and reported."  38  39 Do you wish me to continue?  Sixth:  40  41 "After giving instructions to all, started at  42 1:00 a.m. with party marching to place where  43 canoe was to be in readiness, arrived at 4:45  44 a.m.  Made connection with canoe and had all  45 party across river at Kispiox at 5:20, without  46 even a dog barking.  47 Waited until 7:00 a.m., then made raid, 16567  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  arresting Chief Philip Williams, Geo  G-E-O.  A  Q  A  "-- Robinson, Billy Williams, Johnny Morrison,  Charles Westley, Richard Morrison and William  Stevens.  Hired another canoe and brought provisions down  to Hazelton -- prisoners down to Hazelton  arriving at 11:30 a.m.  Locked them up in new gaol.  On duty till midnight."  Let me just stop you there, and ask you if out of this  document and the other documents you list as your  sources in this section of the report, you are aware  of what the subsequent events were?  The subsequent?  After the arrests?  There was a trial and I list on page 66 the  consequences of the trial.  One further Indian was  arrested, that was Stephen Morgan, and he was charged,  I believe, with inciting the events at -- or I forget  exactly the precise terminology on that, but I think  it was called inciting.  COURT:  Was he convicted?  WITNESS:  Pardon?  COURT:  Was he convicted?  WITNESS:  Yes, he was, your honour.  He received 90 days for  inciting.  The sentences, my lord, are reproduced on page 66 of  the opinion.  Yes.  But I didn't see Morgan.  The very last name?  He is the last.  Oh yes, yes.  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR. ADAMS  THE COURT:  MR. ADAMS:  THE WITNESS  THE COURT:  MR. ADAMS:  Q   Now, below that quotation on page 66 of the opinion  report, you go on to say that:  "Loring offered his superiors both optimistic  comments on the current mood of the Indians and  dubious explanations for their former  behaviour."  And I want to take you quickly to a series of tabs  beginning at 321, and that appears to be a letter from 1656?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Loring to the Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs,  2 dated June 30th, 1911.  And I just want to draw your  3 attention to the last paragraph on the first page  4 where it says:  5  6 "The district is entirely freed from the  7 perturbation whilom engendered, from without,  8 by some idle and worthless native demagogues.  9 It was ideal for the concoction of visionary  10 stuff that dreams are made of, and must admit  11 that for a time the boom gathered force.  In  12 the minds of these and a few of their  13 disciples, the thought of tilling the soil has  14 no part.  It's fumes of fancy was the lure for  15 easy money, or its equivalent, and, in theory,  16 would surely bring about the Indian's doom with  17 vultures and sharks closely following in his  18 wake."  19  20 And then I want to ask you to go to tab 322 which is  21 the next one.  22 THE COURT:  Who is the author of this?  23 THE WITNESS:  This is Loring, your honour.  It's one of a series  24 of his monthly reports that he sent in --  25 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  26 THE WITNESS:  — to the DIA  27 THE COURT:  All right.  2 8    MR. ADAMS:  29 Q   And if you go to tab 322, there is a document dated  30 March 31st, 1910 and headed "Babine Agency", and the  31 -- it's the first two pages that belong to tab 322.  32 The second page, it says there in the second last  33 paragraph:  34  35 "The general health of the Indians, throughout  36 the district, remains excellent, and their  37 minds have become sated with the exorbitant  38 delusions, which during the long winter-nights  39 held them enthralled; and good healthy work  40 dissipated that which largely was conceived,  41 and kept aglow, during the long intervals of  42 idleness."  43  44 And at 322-A, which is simply the next page within the  45 same tab -- let me ask you first, there is a previous  46 letter, appears to be from Loring.  Is that your  47 understanding? 16569  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  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  A   Yes.  Q   Okay.  And then 322-A  the author of that is?  A   It's Loring again.  Q   All right.  And on the first page,  paragraph, he says:  Again, are you able to say who  in the second last  "The Indians' general health continues to  remain excellent and the feeling of content  obtains among them.  Insofar as can be now  foreseen, all of the false impressions  regarding land matters, still exists in a  measure with the old people.  With them an  obsession is less easily to be dislodged than  with those that can discriminate, and are in  touch with affairs of a practical nature."  And then finally in this series of tabs --  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I wonder if — whether this — the  handwritten note in the margin is part of the document  from the archives or whether that's added?  THE WITNESS:  That was added by myself.  MR. ADAMS:  That's true in a number of cases, my lord, where the  witness was the only convenient source of the document  in time to reproduce them.  And the plaintiffs, of  course, don't rely on his marginal notes.  Yes.  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  Q  A  Q  At tab 323 there is another letter, and I wonder if  you are able to say who the author of that is?  It's Loring again.  Okay.  And it's dated February 28th, 1910.  And on the  first page there in the second paragraph, he says:  "As formally made note of, the majority of the  able bodied Indians are having steady  employment on the Grand Trunk Pacific  right-of-way, and this fact keeps them out of  contact with contaminating influences, and with  opportunities for nonsensical vapourings, that  they should be the masters of the land, which  in their minds does not rest with certain  concessions, but comprises all or none.  It is  quite plain that parties in position to advise  them on the lines that tend to develop  affection, loyalty and truth are sub rosa  fostering the torment and keep it aglow." 16570  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  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  A  Q  THE  MR.  COURT  ADAMS  Q  A  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  And so on.  And I want to ask you whether those  passages are examples of the materials you rely on to  describe Loring as offering his superiors optimistic  comments on the current mood and dubious explanations  for the former behaviour?  Yes.  Now, at page 67 of your opinion report, you refer to  the visit of A.H. Green to Kitwanga in 1910 and to  "passive obstruction", and then you go on to provide  an account of that.  And I simply refer your lordship  to tab 325.  And then at the bottom of page 67 of your opinion  report, you refer to a written address and petition  signed by chiefs from five Gitksan villages forwarded  to Laurier, and then you produce it in large part, at  least, on pages 67 through 69 of the opinion report.  And my lord, the tab reference for that is 331.  :  Thank you.  Dr. Galois, I wonder if you can explain how this  document came to be produced and sent to Laurier?  Laurier in 1910 came out to British Columbia,  including a visit to Prince Rupert which had been  constructed by that time.  And in a sense, it's a  follow-up to the various sort of Indian efforts, not  just the Gitksan or the Indians of the Upper Skeena,  but throughout British Columbia to bring their  grievances before the federal government.  They had  visited Ottawa in 1908 and had had an interview with  Laurier, and petitions had been submitted, and if I  recall correctly, the federal government at this time  was endeavouring to find some way of bringing a test  case before the courts.  So that the visit of Laurier to the Skeena was an  important opportunity.  The Gitksan, for reasons that  I'm not aware, weren't able to meet him, but this  petition is a product of that visit.  Did he actually visit the Skeena area?  He visited Prince Rupert, your honour.  Just Prince Rupert?  Yes.  Yes.  COURT:  WITNESS  COURT:  WITNESS  COURT:  ADAMS:  Q   And on page 68 of your opinion report where you are  reproducing a passage from that petition, in the  fourth paragraph it reads: 16571  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2 "The petition dealt with the question of the  3 land of our fathers, which we feel has been  4 taken away from us by the white-men, and it  5 also requested that hunting rights and fishing  6 rights might be more extensively granted to us.  7 Certain tracts of land which while not being on  8 a 'reserve' have for generations been used by  9 our fathers as hunting grounds, and for getting  10 lumber, have now been taken away from us on the  11 pretence that the tracts were not part of the  12 reserve.  13 "We humbly request that the taking away of  14 such land be stopped, and that the rights so  15 long ago enjoyed by our fathers be granted to  16 us.  17 "We also further humbly petition that the  18 land of our fathers may return to us, and that  19 more rights of liberty and freedom, be conceded  20 to us.  Also, whereas, two of our people were  21 brought before a magistrate at Hazelton for  22 cutting lumber, (not on a reserve), and whereas  23 the decision of the magistrate against our  24 people was agreed to by the Indian Agent, we  25 humbly request that we may have the right to  26 cut lumber for our own use."  27  28 Now, on the previous page in introducing that  29 quotation, in the last sentence before the quote you  30 say:  31  32 "This document is an important statement of the  33 grievances and claims of the Gitksan chiefs."  34  35 And let me ask you first, whether the passage that  36 I've read out includes your understanding of the  37 grievances and claims of the Gitksan chiefs?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And you say it's an important statement.  And why do  40 you regard it as an important statement?  41 A   (A) I think it's a fairly sort of concise summary of  42 the grievances; (B) it's directed to the Prime  43 Minister of Canada, it seems to me to be important.  44 Also, there are a number of names that I recognize as  45 important chiefs by the signatures of them.  46 Q   And those appear on page 69?  47 A   Yes. 16572  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 MR. WILLMS:  I wonder, my lord, if the witness knows who wrote  2 it, whether it was one of the Indians or if he knows  3 who actually wrote the petition?  4 THE WITNESS:  The only copy that I've seen — I think there is a  5 tab to that which includes this -- it was found by  6 myself in the Laurier papers.  7 MR. ADAMS:  8 Q   Are you aware who actually drafted the petition?  9 A   The version -- its -- I couldn't tell you who drafted  10 it, no, or whether what is written -- it's a  11 handwritten copy that is in the Laurier papers.  Who  12 actually did the writing, I am unaware.  13 Q   Now, on page 69 of your opinion report, you refer  14 again to the visit of A.H. Green.  And that, my lord,  15 I've identified as tab 325.  And you go on to say that  16 that:  17  18 "...overlapped with the presence of another DIA  19 representative:  Rev. John McDougall."  20  21 And then you say:  22  23 "McDougall's objective was to collect  24 information on Indian grievances and the  25 general situation."  26  27 And my lord, I just refer you to tab 333 where  28 Reverend McDougall's instructions from McLean are to  2 9 be found.  30 I then ask you, Dr. Galois, to go to tab 334 which  31 is in volume 5.  And I wonder if you could review --  32 well first of all, explain what this document is at  33 tab 334?  34 A   This is the summary report which was prepared by the  35 Reverand John McDougall after his work on the Upper  36 Skeena region in 1910.  It's addressed to Frank  37 Oliver, the Minister of the Interior.  McDougall was a  38 resident of Calgary who had worked a number of years  39 for various different projects, as I understand, for  40 the Department of Indian Affairs.  In 1909 he was  41 hired to enquire into the various grievances of  42 Indians in British Columbia.  That was the area south  43 of Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en territory, and in 1910 he was  44 asked to extend that work into and include Gitksan-  45 Wet'suwet'en territory.  46 Q   And are you able to characterize briefly what ground  47 this report covers? 16573  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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. ADAMS  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  Q  A  As I recall, he sets out what he perceives to be the  Indian perception of their problems, then he has a  section which deals with the settlers' perception of  the situation, in which he contrasts old-timers and  newcomers, their differing perceptions, and then he  provides, as I recall, his own recommendations.  Q   And if you look at page 2, the first full paragraph,  it appears to say:  "I will then in the first place present the  subject from the Indians' viewpoint."  A   Yes.  Q   And then it goes on:  "The Indian people of British Columbia have now  fully awakened to the knowledge that their  vested right to the ownership and long  centuries of occupancy of the greater portion  of the province of British Columbia has never  been dealt with by either the British or  Canadian Governments.  That by British,  Sovereign, Royal, proclamation and by Canadian  government --"  Precedent, isn't it?  Precedent action?  I think so.  Or present action.  Are you able to read, Dr. Galois, the word following  "precedent action"?  "... such ownership and title has been conceded  and respected and many treaties have been made  by these Governments with Indian peoples like  themselves whereby the Indian title for  consideration stipulated was relinquished on  their side and thus righteously acquired on the  part of the Governments."  And then paragraph (b):  "(b)  That any consideration given to the  Indian people of British Columbia by these  governments aforesaid in the way of setting  apart lands and surveying reserves for these  Indian peoples has been made relative as 16574  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 between Federal and Provincial Governments so  2 that the Indian himself either as a tribe or  3 band or individual is left without title to any  4 land whatever, unless that be purchase what  5 purports to be a title from some white man or  6 from the Provincial Government, but which in  7 both cases, the intelligent Indian of today  8 questions as to the validity thereof."  9  10 And he carries on and makes a number of points.  11 And again, my lord, I'll attempt to acquire a clearer  12 copy of this.  But at the fourth page in, beginning:  13  14 "The above is in brief the condition in British  15 Columbia from the Indian viewpoint."  16  17 And he goes on:  18  19 "And now I will shortly give that of the  2 0 white men."  21  22 And he has first:  23  24 "1st. The old timer or early settler:  25 these are the people who have remained in  26 British Columbia and lived beside and among the  27 Indians for thirty to fifty years.  These  28 sympathize with the Indian and for the most  29 part acknowledge his claim and wish for him a  30 just settlement thereof."  31  32 And then 3/5ths of the way down the page is a second,  33 and he has in quotations "The New Comer".  It says:  34  35 "Unless influenced by Christian sentiment  36 says:"  37  38 And are you able to read that phrase?  39 A   Something "the Siwash".  4 0 Q   Is it damm, D-A-M-M?  41 A   Could be.  It's impossible to tell from the copy that  42 I have.  43 Q   Okay.  And then it carries on:  44  45 "Move him out of this country, meaning of  46 course contiguity to town or railroad or  47 advancement in land prices and quick 16575  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  MR.  speculation.  These for the most part have no  sympathy for the Indian nor yet for any man, as  they are seized with the 'get rich quick  spirit' and Indian reserves and Indians and old  settlers are in their way in the speculation  rush to sudden wealth."  And I want to ask you with reference to that, simply  are you able from your population studies to say how  many people at that time would have been in the  category of having remained in British Columbia and  lived beside and among the Indians for 30 to 50 years  under his first category?  In all of British Columbia?  Yes.  I want to get a sense of the relative numbers.  Who would fall into that first category that he sets  up?  I have to do some quick mathematics here.  WILLMS:  My lord, I don't know where my friend is going with  that, but I'm sure from reading this, that there is a  whole third category that appears to be left out, the  non-get-rich-quick newcomers.  So I don't know why my  friend is asking for this evidence.  I don't know  where it takes us.  It doesn't seem relevant.  ADAMS:  Q  A  Q  A  Well, let me ask the question another way and move on.  Were there a lot of people at that time who had been  in British Columbia, white people, for 30 to 50 years?  A  Well, if one goes back just 30 years, the white  population in British Columbia was less than 25,000.  The Indian population of B.C. in 1881 was still the  majority.  The total population of the province was a  little less than 50,000.  Just over 25,000 were Indian  peoples.  Most of the white population was  concentrated in the south coast and southern interior.  THE COURT:  What year do you say that the population was less  than 50,000?  THE WITNESS:  That's the time of the first federal census, your  honour.  THE COURT:  And that was?  THE WITNESS:  1881.  Then I would think in 1911, the population  had increased to something like 300 and -- 378,000 is  the figure that sticks in my mind.  I would need to  check that.  My point is that there was a massive  immigration into British Columbia in the 20 years, and  primarily in the 15 years preceding 1911.  One  dramatic example of that, your honour, which indicates 16576  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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.  ADAMS  Q  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  THE COURT  ADAMS  Q  MR.  A  what happened, is the population of Vancouver in 1901  was about 25,000.  Ten years later it amounted -- it  was over a hundred thousand.  I mean this is the era  of the peopleing, shall we say, by immigrants, largely  of Western Canada as a whole.  At the bottom of page 69 of your opinion report, you  say:  "In the fall of 1910 there were further reports  of Indians obstructing white settlers in the  Kitwanga Valley.  This resulted in the arrest  of three Kitwancool Indians."  And you go on, on page 70:  "Shortly thereafter 'notices' from the chiefs  of Kitwanga and Kitwancool began to appear,  pinned to trees along trails in the Hazelton  district."  And then you go on to quote them.  And I just give  your lordship the tab reference which is 341.  I'm sorry, what number?  It's tab 341, my lord.  Thank you.  And then you refer in the middle paragraph of page 70  of your opinion report to:  "...a meeting in Victoria between Premier  McBride and ninety-six Indian chiefs and  delegates from tribes throughout the province."  And I wonder if you could just describe those events  briefly?  In part, this intersects with the sort of ongoing  dispute and negotiations between the provincial and  federal government, which I think had reached an  impasse about this time.  I think it was the DIA  suggested that the Indian people should approach the  federal -- the provincial government directly.  At any  rate, early in 1911 there was this meeting between a  substantial delegation of Indian peoples and Premier  McBride.  Let me ask you to look at tab 279 in volume 5.  My lord, that's the very large document towards 16577  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 the front.  2 And that's headed P.C. 1081, and I don't want to  3 ask you for an explanation of its legal significance,  4 but I want to ask you what you understand this entire  5 document to be?  The second page appears to be signed  6 by a Cartwright?  7 A   It's a Privy Council document which is dated 1911.  8 Q   Of which country?  9 A   Of Canada.  It's a federal document with a  10 considerable number of appendices.  11 Q   Okay.  And what's the nature of the document and  12 appendices?  13 A   It's concerning the -- oh, the ongoing dispute between  14 the provincial and the federal government about, as I  15 understand it, the attempt to get a case before the  16 courts to get a decision on the question of aboriginal  17 title.  18 Q   If you go to page 46 of that document, my lord, the  19 page numbers are handwritten, and it appears in the  20 lower right-hand corner, it's Appendix L, which is  21 handwritten at the top.  You refer in the middle of  22 page 70 of your opinion report to an Indian memorial  23 of claims, and I want to ask you whether the document  24 in Appendix L is the document you are referring to  25 there?  2 6 A   Yeah.  27 Q   And it's directed to the Honourable Richard McBride,  28 Prime Minister of British Columbia?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And signed by a large number of persons?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   And then could I ask you to go to Appendix N which is  33 at page handwritten 53, and that's dated Friday, March  34 3rd, 1911?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And begins:  "Interview of Indian Chiefs with  37 Executive ".  And says present, the Premier, and then  38 lists others?  39 A   Yes.  4 0 Q   And what do you understand this document to be?  41 A   That it's a meeting between McBride and the  42 representatives of the Indian peoples.  43 Q   And is it the same meeting as the one you are  44 referring to on page 70 of your opinion report?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Now, let me just draw your attention first of all on  47 page 53 to just before the middle of the page.  It 1657?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 says:  2  3 "Chief Kelly then read the formal memorial of  4 the Delegates."  5  6 And let me pause there to ask you who Chief Kelly is?  7 A   That's the Reverend Peter Kelly.  8 Q   And who was he?  9 A   He —  10 THE COURT:  He is described in the previous paragraph.  11 THE WITNESS:  He was a Haida Indian, your honour.  I think he  12 was the first ordained Indian.  13 MR. ADAMS:  14 Q   And after saying he read the formal memorial, it says:  15  16 "In adding a few words to the memorial --"  17  18 And then it appears to be summarizing his words.  And  19 nine lines from the bottom, there is a sentence  20 beginning:  21  22 "They held to the view that possession remained  23 in them of the unsurrendered lands of the  24 Province and were most anxious to have their  25 minds set at rest."  26  27 And having set that scene, let me ask you to go to  28 page 55.  At the bottom of page 54 it refers to the  29 premier replying to the delegates, and then goes over  30 the page.  It says:  31  32 "He explained how the matter had been brought  33 to the attention of the Government a few months  34 previously by some gentlemen of the Province,  35 and how, when it was so brought, it had  36 received the careful attention of himself and  37 his ministers.  The conclusion was reached,  38 however, that the Indians had no title to the  39 unsurrendered lands, and, as a consequence the  40 Government would not take the question to the  41 Courts feeling that there was no proper case  42 for submission."  43  44 And then at the bottom of that page it carries on:  45  4 6 "The Government was of the opinion that the  47 Indians were well satisfied with their position 16579  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 and would not have raised the present agitation  2 but for the pernicious advice of some  3 unscrupulous whites."  4  5 And over the page on 56, eight lines down from the  6 top, he says:  7  8 "The Indians of the Province for the past fifty  9 years, a period longer than the years of  10 many-perhaps most of the present Chiefs-were  11 satisfied with the conditions as they exist,  12 and as far as it-the Provincial Government-was  13 concerned, until certain persons made complaint  14 some months ago the matter was unknown."  15  16 And I just want to ask you about -- with respect to  17 those two passages from the remarks of Premier  18 McBride, whether, to your knowledge, from the sources  19 that you rely on for your opinion report, those are  20 accurate statements of fact?  21 A   Insofar as they refer to the Upper Skeena, it's quite  22 clear that there had been expressions of discontent  23 which well pre-date the previous year or two.  So in  24 that sense, certainly they don't fit in with the facts  25 as I understand them.  26 Q   And at page 71 of your opinion report --  27 THE COURT:  Was there a Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en signatory to the  28 petition?  29 THE WITNESS:  No, there wasn't.  30 THE COURT:  Or memorial?  There isn't?  31 THE WITNESS:  No, there isn't.  32 THE COURT:  Sorry, Mr. Adams.  33 MR. ADAMS:  34 Q   There is some discussion later in the opinion report,  35 my lord, of the degree to which it's possible to tell  36 how far the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en were and were not  37 involved in various Indian organizations.  38 Now, you go on at page 71 to refer to the McBride  39 agreement signed in September 1912, that's in the  40 first full paragraph on 71.  And you say a sentence  41 later:  42  43 "At the insistence of Premier McBride, however,  44 it contained no reference to the question of  45 aboriginal title."  46  47 And I want to ask you to look at tab 355 which is in 16580  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 volume 6.  2 THE COURT:  Maybe before we do that, Mr. Adams, we'll take the  3 morning adjournment.  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court stands adjourned.  5  6 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15 a.m.)  7  8  9 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  10 a true and accurate transcript of the  11 proceedings herein transcribed to the  12 best of my skill and ability.  13  14  15  16    17 Toni Kerekes,  18 O.R., R.P.R.  19 United Reporting Service Ltd.  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 16581  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED PURSUANT TO THE MORNING BREAK)  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  THE COURT:  Mr. Adams.  MR. ADAMS:  My lord, this might be the best time to bite the  bullet and admit that I think I'm going to be into the  afternoon today.  THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  MR. ADAMS:  I'm going as quickly as I reasonably can, but I have  quite a bit of material to cover still.  THE COURT:  Well, we all have to be somewhere this afternoon,  don't we?  MR. ADAMS:  Q   I was in tab 279 in volume 5, and that was PC1081 in  the associated documents.  A   I'm in volume 6.  THE COURT:  27 9?  MR. ADAMS:  Yes, my lord.  THE COURT:  We've looked at this before.  THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, we did.  MR. ADAMS:  Yes, I'm going to refer to one more of the  appendices.  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. ADAMS:  And if you look at the first page of PC1081 at the  bottom of the page, you'll find the statement:  ". . .recently a memorial has been handed in. . ."  THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Mr. Adams, I don't have the page.  MR. ADAMS:  Q   I'm on page 1, my lord.  I don't think the Order in  Council is paginated, but it's the very first page of  the tab, and I'm six lines from the bottom.  "...recently a memorial has been handed in,  signed by the Reverend A. E. O'Meara,"  0-'-M-e-a-r-a, "on behalf of the Conference of  the Friends of the Indians of British  Columbia..."  And I just want to flip you down to page 112, which is  appendix W, and ask you whether that's the memorial  that's referred to on page 1?  A   Yes, I think so.  Q   Okay.  And who were the Friends of the Indians of  British Columbia?  A   They were what one could categorize as a -- almost as 16582  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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. ADAMS:  a sort of support group, your honour, for the Indian  peoples.  They provided a variety of different --  THE COURT:  Whites?  THE WITNESS:  A white group, yes.  Primarily a church group.  There were two different groups.  The Friends, or the  FIBC, I think were primarily an Anglican group.  There  was also a Methodist church group, I think.  I can't  remember the exact name.  It's something like Council  for Moral and Social Reform or something like that,  which interested itself in the Indian problems in  British Columbia during this period.  Now, on page 71 of your opinion report in the first  paragraph six lines from the top you say that:  " impasse had been reached between the  Federal and Provincial governments, with the  latter refusing to agree to the establishment  of any further Indian reserves."  And then you go on:  "This particular impasse was removed by the  McKenna-McBride Agreement signed in September,  1912. . . "  And you say:  "At the insistence of Premier McBride, however,  it contained no reference to the question of  aboriginal title."  And I'd like to take you to tab 355, which is in  volume 6, and this is entitled "Report and Evidence of  Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of  Commons," and if you look at page -- Arabic page 3,  which follows the set of Roman numbered pages -- this  is the portion we inserted this morning, my lord.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  ADAMS  COURT  ADAMS  Q  A  Yes.  It's  I 've  perhaps 15 or  got it.  20 pages in.  And there in the middle of the page in capitals it  says, "REPORT ON THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN  QUESTION," and what I want to establish is simply who  by the time we get to page 8 is speaking and what  they're doing?  This — 16583  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Q   Maybe I can just call your attention towards the top  2 of page 3, it says Dr. Duncan C. Scott, and following  3 there.  4 A   It's Duncan Scott, who is the deputy superintendent  5 general of Indian Affairs at this point in time, and  6 he is appearing before the special joint committee,  7 the hearings into the claims of the allied Indian  8 tribes, and he's reading into the record a report that  9 he had written for that committee.  10 Q   All right.  And is that still him speaking when we get  11 to page 8?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   All right.  And I'd draw your attention to the  14 paragraph beginning three-fifths of the way down, "In  15 1912 the Dominion Government..."  16  17 "In 1912 the Dominion Government decided to  18 approach the government of British Columbia and  19 endeavour to obtain a settlement of the Indian  20 question, and by Order in Council of 24th May,  21 1912, Mr. J.A.J. McKenna was appointed a  22 Commissioner 'to investigate claims put forth  23 by and on behalf of the Indians of British  24 Columbia, as to lands and rights, and all  25 questions at issue between the Dominion and  26 Provincial governments and the Indians in  27 respect thereto, and to represent the  28 government of Canada in negotiating with the  29 government of British Columbia a settlement of  30 such questions.'  31 The claim for aboriginal title came within  32 the scope of his commission, but the Prime  33 Minister of British Columbia refused to discuss  34 the question."  35  36 And then there's a question apparently from one of the  37 members of the commission:  38  39 "Hon. Mr. STEVENS:  The provincial government  40 refused to discuss the aboriginal title?  41 Dr. SCOTT:  Yes.  42 Hon. Mr. STEVENS:  But not the other?  43 Dr. SCOTT:  No, they went on, as I will show.  44 Mr. McKenna made an exhaustive memorandum to  45 Sir Richard on that subject, and endeavoured to  46 get him to consent to that, but he would not."  47 16584  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 And I'd like simply to ask you whether that's an  2 example of the material you rely on to state in your  3 opinion report that it was at the insistence of  4 Premier McBride that the McKenna-McBride agreement  5 contain no reference to the question of aboriginal  6 title?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Now, while we are in that document let me ask you to  9 go back to page 6, and at the top of that page -- and  10 I take it this is still Mr. Scott reading his  11 memorandum?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   All right.  14 A   I believe he's quoting various documents in the  15 process.  16 MR. ADAMS:  All right.  And he says at the top of page 6:  17  18 "The Indian policy of the Colonial Government  19 was again referred to by the Honourable Mr.  20 Trutch, after his appointment as first  21 Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, in a  22 letter addressed to Sir John Macdonald on  23 October 14, 1872, of which this is an extract."  24  25 And then I take it he's quoting from that letter, and  26 Mr. Trutch says:  27  28 "We have in British Columbia a population of  29 Indians numbering from 40,000 to 50,000, by far  30 the larger portion of whom are utter savages  31 living along the coast, frequently committing  32 murder and robbery among themselves, one tribe  33 upon another, and on white people who go  34 amongst them for purposes of trade, and only  35 restrained from more outrageous crime by being  36 always treated with firmness, and by the  37 consistent enforcement of the law amongst them  38 to which end we have often to call in aid the  39 service of Her Majesty's ships on the station.  40 I cannot see how the charge of these Indians  41 can be entrusted to one having no experience  42 among them,"  43  44 and he carries on.  And I simply wanted to draw your  45 lordship's attention to that passage.  46 And then at page 72 of your opinion report --  47 THE COURT:  Page? 16585  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 MR. ADAMS:  72.  2 THE COURT:  Yes.  3 MR. ADAMS:  4 Q   At the middle of the page you speak again about the  5 establishment of the McKenna-McBride Royal Commission  6 and say that it brought forth some prompt and  7 co-ordinated responses from the Indian peoples of  8 British Columbia, that the principal vehicle for such  9 action was the Indian Rights Association, which  10 entered a vigorous objection to the restricted terms  11 of reference of the Royal Commission.  12  13 "Their fears proved well-grounded.  Under Indian  14 questioning the Commissioners stated that they  15 had no authority to deal with the question of  16 Indian title."  17  18 And I'd like to take you to a series of references on  19 that point.  First to tab 376 in volume 6, and that's  20 a document headed "The British Columbia Indian Land  21 Question from a Canadian Point of View," and I wonder  22 if you could first explain what the document is?  23 A   It's a -- it's a pamphlet which was prepared by the  24 Friends of the Indians of B.C. in 1914 dealing with  25 the whole question of Indians in B.C. and with  26 particular reference to the Nishga and the development  27 of the Nishga petition.  28 Q   And let me ask you to go to page 10 of that document.  29 And you'll see there a heading on the left-hand side  30 "Memorial of Nishga Tribe," and is that synonymous  31 with the Nishga petition as you're using the term?  32 A   This is addressed to the Commission of Indian Affairs.  33 The petition was addressed to the Privy Council.  I'm  34 not sure if this is identical with that document.  35 Q   Okay.  The next heading on page 11 is "Answer of (the)  36 Royal Commission," and it says:  37  38 "In answer to that Memorial,"  39  40 and I just pause to ask you do you understand that to  41 refer to the memorial that we've just noted?  42 A   Yes, that would seem to be what that is.  43 Q  44 "In answer to that Memorial the Royal Commission  45 informed the delegates that at Bella Coola and  46 six other Indian centres, visited upon the trip  47 which had just been completed, the assembled 16586  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Indians had raised the matter which forms the  2 subject of the Memorial, and that upon each  3 such occasion the Commission had given the  4 answer shown by the following certified extract  5 thereupon handed out by the Commission."  6  7 And then I take it it's quoting the Royal Commission  8 on Indian Affairs for the Province of British  9 Columbia.  10  11 "Extract from stenographic report of meeting  12 with Indians of the Bella Coola Tribe, held on  13 the Bella Coola Indian Reserve, on the 18th day  14 of August, 1913:  15  16 The Chairman (addressing the Indians):--  17  18 'The Commission has listened attentively to  19 the document which Mr. Gibson has just read.  20 That paper raises the question of what is known  21 as "Indian Title."  It is the first time that  22 it has been definitely raised before us since  23 we started on our work.  I have to tell you  24 that the Commission has not authority as to  25 that.  It is not within their jurisdiction.  26 All we have to do is settle the size of the  27 Reserves, as I have stated before; so it is  28 useless to raise the question of "Indian Title"  29 before us.  We have simply to carry out the  30 agreement between the two Governments.  We are  31 further authorized to make representations with  32 respect to your conditions and your wants, and  33 what may be called the "Future policy of  34 governing you."  That is all.  The very  35 Commission that appoints us assumes that the  36 title to these lands is "In the Crown" and not  37 "In the Indians," and we cannot escape it.'"  38  39 And let me ask you next to go to tab 450, which is  40 in volume 7.  And the document there is dated November  41 21st, 1924, and it refers in a postscript to a copy of  42 a report prepared by O'Meara of the interview with the  43 Premier at Prince Rupert, and then I want to ask you  44 whether the document that follows, which we inserted  45 this morning, is the enclosure to that letter or an  46 extract from it?  47 A   Yes, it is. 16587  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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. ADAMS  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  Q  A  Q  A  Q  :  What are you looking at again, please?  :  Behind the first page of tab 450, my lord, there is  a legal-size, six-page document.  :  Yes.  All right.  :  And the witness has identified that as the enclosure  referred to in the letter.  :  Yes.  And I want to direct your attention, Dr. Galois, to  page 4 first of all, and in the middle of page 4 there  is an underlined Mr. Arthur N. Calder, and it says:  "In addition to the Land Committee there are  present representatives from the Kitshan,"  K-i-t-s-h-a-n, "Tribe.  They approve of the  statement presented to you."  Let me ask you first who Arthur N. Calder is?  He's a Nishga Indian, part of the delegate -- Nishga  delegation which conducted the interview with  Mackenzie King at Prince Rupert on October the 13th,  1924.  Are you able to say who the phrase Kitshan Tribe  refers to?  I take it to be a reference to the Gitksan,  G-i-t-k-s-a-n.  And then on page 5 of the same document, again under  Mr. Calder's name, in the second paragraph it says:  "I would like to refer to a statement made by  the Minister of Interior Mr. Stewart in the  House of Commons on 8th July last, repudiating  the idea that the Government of Canada  prevented the Indians of British Columbia from  taking their case to the Privy Council in  England.  On the 9th day of the following month  the Indian Department published a Memorandum  admitting that the title to the lands of this  Province has not been ceded by the Indian  Tribes.  But yet the Indian Department by the  Memorandum still opposes that our case be  referred to the Privy Council.  In the year  1915 I was a member of the Nishga Delegation  that interviewed Ministers of the Crown in  Ottawa.  On that occasion Dr. Roche,"  R-o-c-h-e, "the then Minister of Interior, gave  positive assurances that our meeting the Royal 165?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Commission on Indian Affairs would not  2 prejudice our case in the Privy Council.  3 Notwithstanding the assurances given by  4 officers of the Crown that the Government is  5 only too willing to make a settlement with the  6 Indians, we cannot overlook the fact that  7 obstacles are strewn in the path of a  8 settlement."  9  10 And he goes on from there.  11 And finally in this connection I would ask you to  12 look at tab 491, still in volume 7.  And that's a  13 letter signed by Collison, C-o-l-l-i-s-o-n, as Indian  14 Agent and dated February 7th, 1922, and attached to it  15 is a document entitled "Report on Kitwancool Trip,  16 December 12, 1921."  And I wonder if you could first  17 explain who Collison is?  18 A   He's the Indian Agent for what was then described as  19 the Nass River Indian Agency, which to the best of my  20 recollection in that point included the Nass and I  21 think the lower Skeena, but I'm not absolutely sure  22 about that.  There were a series of reorganizations of  23 Indian agencies.  24 Q   Okay.  And he's writing to Mr. Ditchburn, the Chief  25 Inspector of Indian Agencies in Victoria?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   And I'd like to direct your attention to page 3 of the  28 attached report, and this is about the middle of the  29 page.  There's a paragraph beginning, "Summing up the  30 whole situation..."  And he says:  31  32 "Summing up the whole situation, I feel the  33 present opposition of the Kitwancool Indians to  34 every inducement to accept reasonable reserves  35 is largely due - if not wholly so - to the  36 mistaken idea that their aboriginal land claim  37 is now under consideration by the Privy Council  38 and that their acceptance of reserves at the  39 present time would have the effect of weakening  40 their case."  41  42 And then a further paragraph down:  43  44 "Indians of other Bands, notably those of the  45 Nass River who are very much alive to the land  46 question, have often informed me that they have  47 no sympathy with the extreme attitude adopted 16589  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 by the Kitwancool Indians in their opposition  2 to accept reserves, realizing that the  3 acceptance of reserves does not in any way  4 affect the larger question which must sooner or  5 later be decided."  6  7 And I ask you if those extracts that we have reviewed  8 are examples of the sources contributing to your  9 conclusion on page 72 as to the statements of the  10 commissioners as to their authority to deal with the  11 question of Indian title?  12 A   Examples, yes.  13 Q   On page 73 of your opinion report you refer to the  14 Indian Rights Association, and I wonder if you could  15 just explain briefly what that was?  16 A   It was what I've described as a pan-regional Indian  17 organization.  By that I mean an organization which  18 encompassed Indians from a number of different  19 regions.  Not the entire province, but a number of  20 different regions within the province.  It was  21 established some point towards the end of 1909 or  22 early 1910 consequent upon the preparation of the  23 Cowichan petition of 1909.  24 MR. ADAMS:  My lord, I'd simply give you the tab reference.  25 There's a document at tab 377 which is the statement  26 of the Indian Rights Association on some of these  27 matters.  2 8    THE COURT:  Okay.  2 9    MR. ADAMS:  30 Q   And further in that connection, at tab 379 there is a  31 newspaper article from the Vancouver Daily World dated  32 December, 1913, to indicate that at least at some  33 times in some fashion that there was Gitksan  34 representation on the Indian rights -- in the Indian  35 Rights Association, and that's something that Dr.  36 Galois discusses a little more in the body of his  37 report.  38 Now, still on page 73 of your opinion report, you  39 refer in the middle of the page to Gitksan actions  40 before the McKenna-McBride commissioners, and you say  41 that those actions conformed with the pattern of their  42 protest activity extending back over the previous  43 seven years.  44  45 "In most cases, the Gitksan spokesperson  46 declined to provide the Commissioners with any  47 detailed information.  A few specific 16590  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  MR. ADAMS  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  Q  complaints were registered and all raised, in  one form or another, the question of Indian  title. "  And I'm going to take you shortly to the extracts from  the transcripts of those hearings.  First of all, my  lord, I have to make a correction in the footnoting  here.  Footnote 84 should not be there, and instead  the entire passage preceding footnote 85 on the next  page will match the text with the sources.  What I've  done is to cross out 84 and just leave 85 where it is.  Now, tab 380, which is in volume 6, I believe.  Yes.  The first page of that tab is headed "Royal  Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of B.C.  Babine Agency Contents Of Evidence."  The first thing  I have to note, my lord, is that the Babine Agency  transcripts at least of the Royal Commission were  produced between April 17th and July 13th, 1915, and  your lordship has sometimes said that we're not  conducting a royal commission, but it appears that the  royal commissions can do it faster.  First of all, Dr. Galois, could I ask you to  explain, if you know, how the McKenna-McBride  Commission conducted its hearings?  Over a period of some two, three years the  commissioners travelled throughout the Province of  British Columbia conducting meetings with individual  Indian bands, as they described them, so I think they  achieved if not 100 per cent coverage at least very  substantial coverage of the Indian population of  British Columbia.  And what was the form of those meetings?  I haven't read all of the hearings, but by and large  there was a number of Indian witnesses, and they  were -- made statements and answered questions from  the commissioners.  That's certainly the pattern of  the Babine Agency hearings.  I have examined the  transcripts of one or two other hearings, and they  don't appear to differ in any significant way from the  pattern of the Babine Agency hearings.  : Now, I'd like to ask you to go to page 25. My lord,  the page numbers are handwritten in the top right-hand  corner.  :  Yes.  But those handwritten page numbers correspond with the  numbers given on the contents of evidence, the first 16591  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 page.  And I wonder if you could explain, Dr. Galois,  2 where and when we are from this document?  3 A   This is April the 20th, 1915, and it's —  4 THE COURT:  Where?  5 THE WITNESS:  It's at Nash Station, your honour, which is the  6 nearest -- I take to be the nearest Grand Trunk  7 Pacific Station to the Village of Andimaul.  8 MR. ADAMS:  9 Q   All right.  And there's reference at the top of the  10 page to the chairman explaining to the assembled  11 Indians the scope and powers of the commission, and  12 then it says:  13  14 "CHIEF MAC," M-a-c, "WEEGET," W-e-e-g-e-t,  15 "ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:  16 I am very glad to see you two Governments here  17 to-day - it is so many years from now that I  18 was feeling sore about the land and I heard  19 what the Chairman told us to-day and I know all  20 about it.  I wish to hear about the petition  21 that was made for the last seven years - I want  22 to get an answer to it from the Government."  23  24 And then down the page you'll see on the left-hand  25 side "THE CHAIRMAN," and it says:  26  27 "We have been over a greater portion of British  28 Columbia and we have heard from the other  29 Indians about this Title to all the lands just  30 as you have mentioned, and we know that the  31 Indians have sent a good many petitions to  32 Ottawa about it.  We have nothing to do about  33 that question of Aboriginal Title and have no  34 power to deal with that matter whatever.  I  35 have already told you what it is we can do.  36 The Dominion Government have taken into  37 consideration the petitions sent in by the  38 Indians, and the governor-GENERAL, whom you  39 know is the King's uncle, has signed an Order-  40 in-Council making a claim that all matters  41 appertaining to the land question shall be  42 submitted to a court of judges in Ottawa, and  43 they have agreed to employ lawyers to look  44 after the interests of the Indians and to  45 present their case before these judges, and the  46 Government will pay these lawyers for this work  47 so that the Indians will not be put to any 16592  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 expense with it whatever.  And if the Indians  2 are not satisfied with the judgment that these  3 judges give, they can appeal to the Privy  4 Council in England - so that this question that  5 you have been talking about will be settled in  6 that way."  7  8 And let me ask you next to look at page 34, and  9 this appears to be at Hagwilget on the 21st of April,  10 1915.  And near the top of page 34 it begins:  11  12 "CHIEF CHARLES ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION AS  13 FOLLOWS,"  14  15 and three lines into that he says:  16  17 "...we have been waiting for quite a long time  18 for the day when you would come up here and  19 talk with us.  It is twelve years from now that  2 0 we heard the Government was going to come up  21 and see us ..."  22  23 And then skipping two lines he continues:  24  25 "About a year ago there was another man who came  26 up here and said he was going to give us four  27 miles square, and we have been waiting, but we  28 never got the four miles square."  29  30 And then half a dozen lines down it says, printed,  31 "Witness," and that's crossed out and it says:  32  33 "Chief (continuing)  If you want to help us  34 there is only three things we want - The first  35 thing just people dead.  It is just the same  36 thing as tying them up and letting them die."  37  38 And then Mr. Commissioner McKenna:  39  40 "You mean that to restrict or confine the  41 Indians to their reserves, you mean that is  42 killing you?  43 A   Yes."  44  45 And he says :  46  47 "...the second thing is about the schools - we 16593  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 want to learn something - that is one thing we  2 want to get from the Government.  From Fraser  3 lake to here and Kitimat and Babine, this used  4 to belong to us people before; now all the  5 white people they all have it covered up.  And  6 all these hunting grounds is just the same as a  7 bank where we have our money and all these  8 little lakes where we used to get our fish, it  9 is just the same as a kitchen box where we put  10 our food.  I want this place to be as big as  11 you can make it so that we can make our  12 living."  13  14 And then on page 39 -- just before I go further,  15 let me ask you, there are a large number of  16 handwritten additions, amendments, changes, and I  17 wonder if you're aware of how those come to be in the  18 document?  19 A   I believe this is a reproduction of my copy.  I think  20 most of the handwritten additions were already on that  21 copy.  I included the page numbers on the top right-  22 hand side.  That is clearly my writing.  23 Q   And where did you obtain your copy?  24 A   I believe I got it from the Tribal Council archives in  25 Hazelton.  26 Q   Okay.  27 A   There -- it's available on microfilm in two different  28 locations.  2 9 Q   And have you examined the microfilm at any time?  30 A   Yes, I have.  31 Q   And are there handwritten changes or directions?  32 A   I really couldn't tell you.  I mean, one would have to  33 check that in detail.  I have no memory for that  34 matter.  35 Q   Okay.  So far as the printed version goes, this  36 appears to put us at Getanmax, Getanmax, on Wednesday,  37 April 21st, 1915.  And it refers to a reserve near Old  38 Hazelton, and then it says:  39  40 "CHIEF EDWARD SPOUK," S-p-o-u-k, "addresses the  41 Commission as follows."  42  43 And three lines into his remarks it says:  44  45 "Seven years ago we sent a petition right down  46 to Ottawa - our petition meant that we were  47 asking from the Government to give us our land 16594  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 back and also all our hunting grounds and all  2 our fishing camps, and we want to hold these  3 for our own use - we want to hold it just the  4 same as a white man holds his land, and we want  5 to hold our land in the same way, and we have  6 been asking the Government to get rid of the  7 'Indian Act' for us - this is what we have been  8 asking the Government for the last seven  9 years."  10  11 And then nine lines further down the witness appears  12 to say:  13  14 "What is the reason you are asking me all these  15 questions - what I want to get is my own land  16 back again."  17  18 And then there's a question:  19  20 "We are asking you these questions in order to  21 help you - In addition, both Dr. McKenna and  22 myself, who represent the Dominion Government,  23 want to find out the condition of your reserve  24 and also what additional land you want."  25  26 And then it says:  27  28 "THE CHIEF:  We want to get our own land back,  29 that is all. "  30  31 And then:  32  33 "MR. COMMISSIONER CARMICHAEL:  There is no use  34 in this Commission, which is a very important  35 Commission and travelling all over British  36 Columbia, wasting its time here if you don't  37 want to talk to us and won't answer the  38 questions that are being put to you.  This  39 Commission has been through hundreds of  40 Reserves in British Columbia, and the only way  41 we have been able to help the Indians in those  42 Reserves is where they have given us the  43 information we want to get and in many cases  44 reserves will be added to.  But it is quite  45 impossible for us, outside the help of the  46 Indian Agent, to get information unless the  47 Indians want to give it to us.  As we have a 16595  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 great deal of British Columbia yet to cover it  2 is your one chance to talk to us.  It is no use  3 for you to say that you want all," underlined,  4 "the land back, because we have nothing to do  5 with that matter at all.  As far as we are  6 concerned, we are here to listen to you and if  7 you don't want to speak to us, well, we have  8 done our duty in coming to see you.  If you  9 have made up your mind that you are not going  10 to answer any of our questions, then we have  11 nothing more to do but say Good Bye and go  12 away, and we won't come back.  This morning we  13 spent with the Indians of Rocher de Boulle,"  14 and I believe it's spelt in the typed version  15 B-u-1-1, "and they gave us information of a  16 very valuable nature which may enable us to  17 help them; but if you have made up your mind  18 not to answer the questions, that is your  19 funeral and not ours."  20  21 And let me ask you to turn over the page, and at  22 the top seven lines down there's a person identified  23 as Holland, and he's recorded as saying:  24  25 "You heard what the Chief said a while ago - We  26 don't want no Reserve at all - we want to get  27 our own land back.  You want to ask us  28 questions which are not in our petition at all.  29 We did not sign our petition for a reserve at  30 all - we signed it for our own land."  31  32 And skipping down eight lines from the bottom:  33  34 "It is the wish here that we get the petition  35 settled.  I guess all you gentlemen  36 misunderstand our petition - you think we sent  37 our petition in for a reserve, but that is not  38 right.  We did not send in our petition for a  39 reserve, larger or smaller.  We did not sign  40 our petition for that at all."  41  42 And then over on page 4, in the middle of the page the  43 heading says:  44  45 "THE CHAIRMAN ADDRESSES THE ASSEMBLED INDIANS AS  46 FOLLOWS:  We quite understand the view that you  47 take - We think, though, that you have made a 16596  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  great mistake, because if we were in a position  to give the Indians here more reserves that  would not hurt them in the claim that the  Indians are making - If we gave them an  additional 1,000 acres for their reserve it  would not hurt them in still holding to the  claim that they have."  And then the next time the name Holland appears at  the bottom of page 4:  "We are not mistaken when we ask for our own.  We are born citizens in this country - we were  born in this place - we were born here and we  own this land and we want to get it back."  And then:  "THE CHAIRMAN:  We are not disputing the fact  that you own this land; only they are two  different matters altogether."  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, it is crossed out, and it says  "discussing."  There's -- it's "discussing" above.  The "disputing" is crossed out there, and it's  "discussing."  Yes, I have no problem with that, my lord.  It's  just that I wasn't able to establish where the changes  came from.  Yes.  And over on to page 5.  MR. ADAMS:  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  "If we were to give you an additional 1,000  acres of land, your right to this question is  still open and you could still go ahead and  make your claim without fear of hindrance."  And then finally out of these transcripts I'd like  to refer you to page 52.  THE COURT:  52?  MR. ADAMS:  Yes, my lord.  And that is not readable as such.  It  may involve counting to it.  It's in Moricetown.  Actually, it's at 51 where the extract referring to  Moricetown begins.  Dr. Galois, on page 51, putting the commission at  Moricetown on April 26, 1915, a few lines from the top  it says: 16597  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2  3  4  5  6  THE  COURT:  7  MR.  ADAMS:  8  THE  WITNES  9  MR.  ADAMS:  10  11  THE  COURT:  12  MR.  ADAMS:  13  THE  COURT:  14  THE  WITNES  15  THE  COURT:  16  MR.  ADAMS:  17  THE  WITNES  18  MR.  ADAMS:  19  THE  COURT:  20  MR.  ADAMS:  21  22  THE  COURT:  23  24  MR.  ADAMS:  25  THE  COURT:  26  MR.  ADAMS:  27  Q  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  "THE REVEREND FATHER GODFREY addresses the  Commission on behalf of the Chief and Indians,  as follows."  What are you looking at, 351?  I hope I am, my lord.  S:  Page 51.  It's got the heading "Royal Commission," etcetera,  and then Moricetown.  No.  We're looking at volume 6?  Yes.  I'm just carrying on in the same tab.  351 is a one-page document.  S:  It's page 51 in tab 80.  Page 51 in tab 80.  Tab 380.  S:  380.  But it's 80 within that volume, yes.  Page 51.  All right.  I've just moved nine pages further through the  transcript, my lord.  All right.  Thank you.  Moricetown, yes.  That page  isn't numbered.  That is page what, 51?  51, my lord.  All right.  Thank you.  Dr. Galois, I had referred you to the line towards the  top of the page:  "THE REVEREND FATHER GODFREY addresses the  Commission on behalf of the Chief and Indians,  as follows."  Are you able to say under what circumstances Father  Godfrey was speaking to the commission in that  capacity?  He was a Catholic missionary to the Wet'suwet'en.  And I wonder if you could either from recollection or  by reviewing the portion of the transcript that deals  with Moricetown characterize the nature of the  submissions made to the commission at Moricetown in  comparison with the ones that we've just been through?  I see quite a distinct difference between both the  tenor and the content of the Moricetown hearings and  most, if not all, of the Gitksan hearings.  There are  two points, I guess.  First of all, there is a good  deal of detailed information about specific grievances 1659?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 which is given.  There is no reference to the overall  2 issue of title.  And a third point is that part of the  3 information is provided not by an Indian but by a  4 white missionary.  5 MR. ADAMS:  All right.  And on page 52, the next one over, it  6 has a printed "2" at the top, and this appears to be  7 part of Father Godfrey's statement.  And, my lord, I'm  8 ten lines from the bottom.  And he's speaking about  9 cattle and agricultural implements, and then at that  10 point he says:  11  12 "On the other side some of the Indians have gone  13 into raising pigs and chickens and I daresay  14 most of the Indians here will, in a short time,  15 be doing the same, providing they get the  16 necessary land so as to enable them to raise  17 the feed necessary for that kind of stock.  May  18 I draw the attention of this Commission to the  19 fact that the general situation of the Indians  20 is continually changing.  Formerly, all these  21 men made their living by hunting, going out in  22 the winter time, about September till about  23 Christmas and from the middle of January to the  24 end of June or the middle of July.  Those  25 Indians were engaged in hunting all the various  26 fur-bearing animals, and then, after that,  27 selling their," and the printed version says  28 "crop" and the written version appears to say,  29 "pack to the local stores; but, now, owing to  30 the influx of the whites into this part of the  31 country, a great many of their hunting grounds  32 are occupied by homesteads or have been  33 purchased by them," and in brackets  34 handwritten, "(The Whites) from the Government  35 so that you can easily understand, gentlemen,  36 that there may be a natural race feeling  37 between the whites and the Indian population,  38 though, I daresay, this feeling is not acute in  39 any way.  I have had very few examples of any  40 disputes which could not have been smoothed  41 over by mutual consent; in fact, I, myself, as  42 Missionary, with the Indians of this part of  43 the country for a great many years, never had  44 to deal with any questions of that kind, but I  45 daresay there may be a danger in the future if  46 the Indians are still prevented from getting  47 their living in the way they formerly did.  An 16599  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Indian looks upon his hunting ground as his own  2 farm.  Many times they tell me I have so many  3 beaver on my hunting grounds, and I know as a  4 matter of fact that no Indian ever trespasses,"  5 and then "over" in the printed version, "on" in  6 the written version, "the grounds of his  7 neighbor.  And as long as that system was in  8 vogue and as long as the Indians are in a  9 position to use these hunting grounds, I don't  10 think there will be any trouble.  With one  11 accord they said to me 'When the Commissioners  12 come here you speak to them and tell them that  13 we want to follow the white man's ways of  14 living.'"  15  16 And, Dr. Galois, I want to ask you --  17 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps just so that we know what ways of living is  18 meant here, my friend could carry on.  19 THE COURT:  Well, I've read it.  20 MR. ADAMS:  I mean, if I can summarize instead of carrying on  21 reading, it appears to refer to an agricultural way of  22 life.  23 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  24 MR. ADAMS:  And what I wanted to ask you, Dr. Galois, is to  25 comment, if you can, on the two side-by-side  26 characterizations of the way of life of the Moricetown  27 Indians contained in that passage, that is, the  28 expressed aspiration for an agricultural way of life  2 9 and the comments about hunting grounds and so on.  30 MR. WILLMS:  I object because I don't understand what the  31 question is.  32 THE COURT:  Well, I do, but I know the answer too.  I've read  33 them both or I've had them read to me, and it's  34 obvious there's two different positions being put  35 forward, and you've got to weigh that against the fact  36 that the Wet'suwet'en position or the position put  37 forward in Moricetown was stated by a white  38 missionary, and, therefore, it is subject to some  39 discounting, I should think.  I'm sure that's what the  40 argument would be.  But surely the witness is in no  41 better a position from what we've read to answer the  42 question than I am, is he, Mr. Adams?  43 MR. ADAMS:  I'll just go on, my lord.  44 THE COURT:  Okay.  45 MR. ADAMS:  My lord, there are other passages in these  46 transcripts at other places, and I won't read them,  47 but I'll give you the references.  At pages 13 to 14 16600  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 the commission is at Kitwanga.  And these are not  2 necessarily the places where that place first occurs,  3 but where the passages that I want to refer you to.  4 At pages 31 to 32 at Old Kitsegukla, at pages 44 to 47  5 at Kispiox, and at pages 48 to 50 at Glen Vowell.  6 And, Dr. Galois, at the bottom of page 73 of your  7 opinion report and going over on to 74, the very last  8 line of 73 you say:  9  10 "The Wet'suwet'en response, however, was  11 conditioned by the short notice, only two days,  12 they received of the presence of the  13 Commissioners."  14  15 And I want to ask you to refer to tab 240, which is in  16 tab -- or in volume 4.  17 THE COURT:  What tab number, please?  18 MR. ADAMS:  19 Q   240, my lord.  It's almost at the back of the book.  20 And, Dr. Galois, that appears to be a letter from  21 W.A. Godfrey, Catholic Priest, New Hazelton and  22 Bulkley Valley District?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   To the Inspector of Indian Agencies in Victoria?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And is dated January 19, 1921?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And I wonder if I could refer you to page 3 of that  29 document and the final paragraph where he says:  30  31 "Now at the time when the so-called R. Indian  32 Commission sat here everything was so staged  33 that the Indians were taken by surprise  34 altogether.  I still remember that the Indians  35 at Moricetown were notified only two days  36 previous and then only part of them, those that  37 were living in the Village.  Most of the others  38 were never notified except perhaps in the last  39 hours by some of their friends.  This was an  40 easy way of ignoring the various grievances and  41 there were many of them.  I know this as I was  42 there myself and the Indians asked me to speak  43 for them which I did.  After the general  44 demands had been worded and the general  45 grievances exposed the individual cases were to  46 be gone into.  A few cases were heard but they  47 took time .. and evidently the commissioners 16601  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 got tired and announced to the tribe that they  2 were going to be back again and then they would  3 hear the other grievances.  4 Personally they asked me to make a report  5 of some of the most urgent cases and to forward  6 it to them to Victoria.  Of course this was  7 rather a matter of courtesy as nothing was to  8 be done anyway."  9  10 And then he goes on to talk about a specific case of  11 John Baptiste, which you also discuss in your report.  12 I want to ask you with reference to that passage  13 whether you rely on that for your observation about  14 the short notice that was received of the McKenna-  15 McBride hearings at Moricetown?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   On page 75 of your opinion report -- and I should say,  18 my lord, the club symbol that appears at the end of  19 the second line should be footnote 88, and the one  20 that appeared on the previous page, on 74, should be  21 87.  In the first full paragraph on page 75 you say  22 this:  23  24 "Three issues, although partly subsumed under  25 the catalogue of protests on the land question,  26 require separate treatment:  each contributed  27 to the atmosphere of discontent on the upper  28 Skeena; each generated its particular set of  29 grievances.  Two of the issues were familiar -  30 the prohibition of the feast and the hunting  31 and trapping regulations - the third was new -  32 the construction of GTPR."  33  34 And I want to just ask you to explain briefly how and  35 where and when that construction occurred?  36 A   Construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific commenced in  37 1908 from Prince Rupert, and it continued until the  38 last spike was driven, if I remember correctly,  39 somewhere around Fraser Lake in 1914.  It was -- I'm  40 not quite sure of the exact dates when construction  41 was within the tribal territories, but I wouldn't  42 think that construction entered about Kitselas  43 certainly before 1909, although there was survey work  44 prior to that, of course.  45 MR. ADAMS:  On page 77 of your opinion report -- back on 76 you  46 refer to the influx of whites, and you say:  47 16602  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  "Protests on this issue were incorporated, in  part under the rubric of the land question.  Thus the various 'commissioners' and white  officials visiting the region received  complaints about hunting and trapping.  The  case of Wet'suwet'en protests to Stewart and  Vowell has been cited above,"  and the tab reference there, my lord, is tab 239,  "the issue was also raised before McDougall  (1910),"  and the tab reference is tab 334,  "Green (1911),"  and the tab reference is 347 at page 4 and pages 8  through 10,  "and the McKenna-McBride Commissioners (1915),"  and that's tab 380, where we have just been.  THE COURT:  Is it convenient to adjourn for lunch, Mr. Adams?  MR. ADAMS:  I might be able to knock off two more quick  references, my lord, and then it would be a good  point.  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. ADAMS:  Still on page 77, Dr. Galois, you refer in the  middle of the page to -- in the middle paragraph:  "On at least one occasion a group of Gitksan  took direct action to protect their hunting  rights.  In 1914 Cornelius Von E. Mitchell, an  American big-game hunter, was denied access to  hunting grounds to the north of Kisgegas."  And that's to be found at tab 414.  And finally, on pages 77 and 78 you make  reference -- you say at the bottom of 77:  "There was a surge in the overt practice of the  feast towards the end of this period."  And then you quote from a missionary source reflecting  on the situation in 1920.  That reference is tab 416,  and then there are further references in the same vein 16603  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 at tabs 417, 418, and 419.  2 THE COURT:  All right.  Two o'clock, please.  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until 2:00.  4  5 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  6  7  8 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  9 a true and accurate transcript of the  10 proceedings herein to the best of my  11 skill and ability.  12  13  14 Leanna Smith  15 Official Reporter  16 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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 16604  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 2:00 P.M.)  2 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  3 THE COURT:  Mr. Adams.  4 MR. ADAMS:  5 Q   My lord, I am at page 79 of the opinion report.  6 Dr. Galois, on page 79 in the first full  7 paragraph, you say:  8  9 "The Wet'suwet'en, whose territory attracted  10 most settlement, brought their grievances to  11 the Indian Agent, their missionary and visiting  12 officials.  According to their testimony before  13 Stewart and Vowell, they sought to avoid  14 confrontations with white settlers, preferring  15 to persist, with necessary adjustments, in  16 their traditional activities.  The Gitksan, on  17 the other hand, moved well beyond the standard  18 channels of the DIA: even 'extraordinary'  19 channels proved inadequate.  Force and the  20 threat of force were used on many occasions:  21 the confrontations at Kispiox in 1909 were the  22 most dramatic example.  The feast system,  23 despite missionary opposition and legal  24 prohibition, gained new momentum."  25  26 Does that represent your opinion?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And in the following paragraph you say:  29  30 "Many different issues provoked discontent  31 among the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, but access  32 to land and resources remained a unifying  33 theme; it represented a line of continuity with  34 protests from earlier periods.  This  35 fundamental concern received expression in a  36 number of petitions, statements and notices,  37 but nowhere more forcibly than at the hearings  38 of the McKenna-McBride Royal Commission."  39  40 Does that represent your opinion?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Okay.  On page 80 you begin a new section covering the  43 years 1916 to 1927, and you've, I think, already  44 referred to that as the period between McKenna-McBride  45 and the Special Joint Commission.  And at the bottom  46 of page 80 you refer to the increase in the white  47 population in the decades after 1921.  And then you 16605  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 say:  2  3 "Settlement was encouraged by the Land  4 Settlement Board, with the Bulkley valley as a  5 featured area."  6  7 I want to ask you to explain what the Land Settlement  8 Board was?  9 A   It was an attempt to provide land for returning  10 veterans after the First World War.  The provincial  11 government, I believe, established the Board to  12 purchase land and facilitate access to returning  13 veterans.  The Bulkley Valley was one area where a  14 number of reserves, I think, under the Land Settlement  15 Board were established in part because areas of land  16 had been -- that had been alienated had fallen vacant,  17 shall we say.  I'm not quite sure.  That's not quite  18 the right term, but it reverted -- the pre-emptions,  19 et cetera, had been carried through to completion, I  20 guess is the best way to describe that.  21 Q   Okay.  The bottom of page 81, you say:  22  23 "Against this background of consolidating white  24 settlement, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  25 continued their protests on two fronts.  On the  26 home front, specific local issues, such as land  27 and hunting disputes, generated specific  28 responses.  On a provincial scale attention was  29 directed towards seeking a just resolution for  30 Indian claims.  The latter involved rejection  31 of the findings, even in revised form, of the  32 McKenna-McBride Royal Commission and opposition  33 to their implementation.  A second approach,  34 with ultimately the same objective, was to seek  35 a judicial ruling on the question of aboriginal  36 title.  The principal organizational vehicles  37 in these endeavours were the Allied Tribes and  38 the Nishga Petition: at different times, the  39 Gitksan provided support for both approaches."  40  41 Does that represent your opinion?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   My lord, there are tab references from the bottom of  44 page 81 where there is a reference to the rejection of  45 the findings of the McKenna-McBride Royal Commission,  46 and I won't take you to it, but it's at tab 355, page  47 67, and that's in the Special Joint Commission 16606  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 materials.  2 And then at the top of page 82, with reference to  3 seeking a judicial ruling on the question of  4 aboriginal title, there is a reference in the same  5 material at tab 355, pages 10 and 11.  6 And Dr. Galois, over on pages 83 and 84, you  7 refer in the middle of the page to a series of  8 meetings held in August 1922, where you say:  9  10 "Gitksan representatives responded by making  11 both specific complaints and large territorial  12 claims."  13  14 What series of meetings does that refer to?  15 A  Well, it's a somewhat complicated process in terms of  16 what happened to the report of the McKenna-McBride  17 Royal Commission, and various stages towards the  18 implementation of that.  I don't want to go through  19 all of those, but I need mention one or two in order  20 to make some sense of the hearings of 1922.  I think  21 it was in 1920 that it was pointed out by T.D.  22 Patullo, P-A-T-U-L-L-O, that the report — the final  23 report contained -- I think he described it as  24 numerous errors.  Anyways, as a result of that and  25 negotiations between the federal and provincial  26 government, a two-man committee was -- is established  27 to revise those findings.  28 By 1922, a sub-committee had been established to  29 obtain additional information from Indian peoples.  30 One part of that sub-committee comprised Ambrose Reid,  31 a Tsimshian, and Peter Kelly, a Haida.  They were  32 representatives of the Allied Tribes, which had been  33 formed in 1916, and part of their mandate included  34 going and conducting meetings with the Gitksan, your  35 honour.  And that is the meetings that I am referring  36 to there on page 83.  37 Q   And in the tab reference for that quotation that goes  38 over to 84, my lord, is 439 at -- beginning on page 4.  39 And then on page 84, you say that:  40  41 "Kelly and Reid disagreed with, and attempted  42 to modify, the Gitksan demands, but without  43 success."  44  45 And you refer to their report to W.E. Ditchburn, and  46 that is what the material at tab 439 is, my lord.  And  47 there is background to that to be found at tab 438, 16607  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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. ADAMS  Q  THE COURT  MR. ADAMS  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  and the quotation that culminates in footnote 107 is  from tab 439 page 5, the end of the Kelly and Reid  report.  :  439 page 5?  Yes.  Now, you make reference -- I have in my notes, a  reference to a Kispiox petition to Mackenzie King in  1924.  I'm just having trouble finding it.  Oh, here  we are.  In the middle of page 85, you say towards the  top of the page, the first full paragraph:  "The most significant regional undertaking in  which the Gitksan participated was the  co-ordinated support for the Nishga petition.  This support had been expressed by the Gitksan  as early as 1913 but it was restated in the  1920's after the establishment of the Allied  Tribes.  The clear resistance occurred in 1924  when Prime Minister Mackenzie King visited  Prince Rupert."  And it refers to him meeting a delegation of Nishga  and Gitksan representatives.  And let me take you to  tab 451 in volume 7.  :  What number, please?  451, my lord.  It's about the middle of volume 7.  And  I just like to ask you, Dr. Galois, first of all, is  this the document that you refer to as the Kispiox  petition to Mackenzie King?  451?  Yes, it is.  I was at 450.  Is that the document you refer to?  Yes, it is .  Okay.  And I wonder if you could just read quickly  through the text of that, please.  Kispiox Indian Village --  Just beginning, "In view of the fact."  "In view of the fact that our forefathers were  the occupants and possessors of the land of  this country in the days before the coming of  the White people, and in view of the fact that  for that reason we are now the proper  inheritors of this land; and furthermore in  view of the fact that in 1908 the Indian people 1660?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 petioned the Dominion Government for a  2 settlement of our Land Question, We the chiefs  3 of the Kispiox Band of Indians now resident on  4 the Kispiox and Glenvowell Reserves, comprising  5 in all a population of four hundred people,  6 being dissatisfied with the present arrangement  7 of the Indian Land Question as it concerns our  8 people, respectfully ask,  9  10 "First:  That the present Indian Reserve System  11 be abolished.  12  13 "Secondly:  That in place of the present  14 reserve system the peoples of the Kispiox Band  15 now living in Kispiox and Glenvowell villages  16 be granted A Clear Title to a strip of land  17 watered by the Kispiox and Skeena Rivers; said  18 strip of land to extend from the Kispiox  19 Sawmill, midway between Hazelton and Kispiox  20 village, to the Brown Bear Lake approximately  21 eighty miles North; said lake bordering on the  22 headwaters of the Kispiox River and draining  23 into the Nass River.  And, furthermore, a  24 desire that this strip of land shall embrace  25 the territory fifteen miles to the East and  26 fifteen miles to the West of the Kispiox River,  27 thus including the mountain ranges on both  28 sides of the Kispiox Valley.  29  30 "In short it is desired that a strip of  31 land eighty miles long and thirty miles wide as  32 defined above be granted with full title to the  33 same to the Kispiox peoples of the Kispiox and  34 Glenvowell villages in place of the present  35 Reserve System.  36  37 "We remain respectfully,  38 "Your humble and obedient servants  39 and chiefs."  40  41 Q   And I don't want to ask you to read through that list  42 of names, except the fourth name down, I wonder if you  43 can confirm that that says Chief William Ay last, A-Y,  44 new word, L-A-S-T?  45 A   I can't confirm that from my copy.  46 Q   Okay.  And then at the bottom underneath the set of  47 Kispiox signatures, it says "Chief of Kitwanga, Henry 16609  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Weilitsgu -- it's hard to tell.  2 THE COURT:  Williams, isn't it?  3 THE WITNESS:  No, I think it's something — I think it's  4 W-E-I-L-I-T-S-G-U or X-Q-U.  5 MR. ADAMS:  6 Q   And then Chief of Kitsegukla, S. Morgan?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Okay.  And do you understand that to be Stephen Morgan  9 who you already referred to today in your evidence?  10 A   I would presume it to be the same, yes.  11 Q   And the Chief of Hazelton, Tom Campbell.  And then on  12 the right it says opposite those signatures:  13  14 "Representing other bands of Skeena River  15 Indians endorsing the request of the Kispiox  16 Band as —"  17  18 Are you able to read that?  "As" or "was stated"?  19 A   I think it's "as".  20 Q   Oh, "as stated in foregoing petition".  21 And on page 86 of your opinion report, you say in  22 the final paragraph:  23  24 "The position of the Wet'suwet'en with  25 respect to the current of organized Indian  26 protests between 1916 and 1927 is uncertain.  27 On the basis of the documents examined they  28 appear to have had little or no formal  29 involvement.  One report, dating from the  30 summer of 1925, suggests that they were not  31 entirely innocent."  32  33 And I would like to ask you to refer to tab 457 in  34 volume 7?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And I wonder if you could explain what that document  37 is?  38 A   It's a letter from E.G. Newnham who was the Dominion  39 Constable to Collison, the Indian Agent concerning  4 0 some events on --  41 Q   Are we looking at the same document?  42 A   456?  43 Q   457?  44 A   Oh, I keep doing that.  Oh, here we are.  Sorry, it's  45 a letter from Corporal Hall of the R.C.M.P. to the  46 Officer Commanding, the R.C.M.P. in Prince Rupert.  47 Q   And it's headed "Re:  Allied Indian Tribes of British 16610  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Columbia".  And I wonder if you could just read  2 through the text, please?  3 A  4  5 "I have the honour to report the following  6 activity amongst the Indians on the Hagwilget  7 Reserve in the Babine Indian Agency in  8 connection with the above subject has been  9 brought to my attention:  10 "Morice Quaw - Indian from No. 2 Indian  11 Reserve, Shelley, B.C. in the Stuart Lake  12 Indian Agency, recently completed a sentence of  13 imprisonment at Oakalla Prison Farm for an  14 infraction of the Indian Act.  From New  15 Westminster he arrived at Hagwilget where a  16 celebration of Indians was in progress and had  17 with him a 'Circular Letter to the Tribes' and  18 a 'Supplementary Memorandum' re: 'Nature and  19 Extent of Rights Claimed', copies of which are  20 attached hereto.  Quaw passed these documents  21 around to the different Indian Chiefs but  22 claims he did not collect any money.  This  23 Indian was a little disinclined to converse  24 with me on this subject.  25 "Adam Antoine - a young Fort St. James  26 Indian in the Stuart Lake Agency was also at  27 Hagwilget and very much interested in the  2 8 within mentioned documents.  29 "I have supplied Mr. E. Hyde, Indian Agent  30 for the Babine Agency, with a copy of the above  31 mentioned letter and memo, and he has knowledge  32 of the activity as outlined in this report.  I  33 have not forwarded this information to Mr. R.H.  34 Moore of the Stuart Lake Agency.  35 "I have the honour to be, sir, your  36 obedient servant."  37  38 Q   And is that the document you refer to at the bottom of  39 page 86?  40 A   Yes, it is.  41 Q   Okay.  And what do you mean there by the suggestion  42 that with reference to the Wet'suwet'en they were not  43 entirely innocent.  Innocent of what?  44 A   Perhaps it's not the most felicitous phrase.  But I  45 was just -- from that document it's clear there was  46 some degree of awareness, anyway, amongst the  47 Wet'suwet'en at Hagwilget of some of the actions of 16611  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 the Allied Tribes.  There are one or two other  2 indications in the documents which could be  3 interpreted to suggest some Wet'suwet'en involvement.  4 The name Carrier is used in terms of groups supporting  5 the Allied Tribes at different times, but at this  6 time, that -- the usage of Carrier is so loose that  7 one could not confidently ascribe that to be referring  8 to the Wet'suwet'en.  9 Q   Okay.  And in the middle of the page on 87 of your  10 opinion report, you speak about the beaver prohibition  11 and the Inspector of Indian Agencies in B.C. is  12 characterizing it as "one of the 'main causes of  13 discontent among most bands'."  Let me ask you first  14 what the beaver prohibition refers to?  15 A   That refers to a prohibition on hunting beaver for --  16 it was first introduced in 1905 and was reintroduced  17 again a number of different times.  I can't remember  18 all of the details on the dates and the extent of  19 that, but it was essentially a prohibition on hunting  20 beaver.  21 Q   And did you say on page 87:  22  23 "...the 'northern Indians', including the  24 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, hired a lawyer to  25 approach the government on the issue.  His  26 submission included reference to a clear link  27 between beaver conservation and the Indian  28 system of owning hunting territories."  29  30 And I'll just give you the reference, my lord, it's at  31 tab 458.  32 And then you go on:  33  34 "Two Kitwanga chiefs followed up this  35 initiative with a letter to the Superintendent  36 General of Indian Affairs protesting the game  37 laws of British Columbia."  38  39 And I wondered if you could go to tab 460 in volume 7,  40 and there is a handwritten copy of the handwritten  41 document signed first of all, "The Chiefs of  42 Kitwanga", and "Hereby signed, Chief Simdeeks."  And  43 it says in the first paragraph on page 1:  44  45 "We heard that the Indian Agent put up  46 notices in Hazelton.  That the Government has  47 made a hard game law to the Indians on all fur 16612  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 animals, and all the works of Indians."  2  3 And then the final paragraph says:  4  5 "Therefore, we ask you earnestly to let us hunt  6 freely on our hunting ground as our forefathers  7 did from the beginning.  And we ask you to help  8 us, not to allow any White Person to come near  9 our hunting ground and where we catch fish.  10 Wishing that God will help our humble request  11 to you."  12  13 And is that the document referred to just after  14 footnote 114 in the middle of page 87 of your opinion  15 report?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Now at bottom of page 87 you refer to a particular  18 case of a prosecution for hunting and trapping  19 offences, and that's the case of William Green, and  20 you provide a description on 87 and going over onto  21 88.  And you refer to "a defence based on 'old Indian  22 customs'", and I would like first of all to take you  23 to tab 466 in volume 7, and that's a newspaper article  24 dated April 1st, 1925 from the Interior News?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And there is an account there, I take it, of the  27 events that you are referring to?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Okay.  And if you go down to the second paragraph  30 towards the bottom of the article, it says:  31  32 "Indian customs are brought into the  33 defence of Green and probably brought about his  34 dismissal on the preliminary hearing."  35  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And then again at tab 468, there -- just two over,  38 there is what's headed the "Canadian National  39 Telegram."  And I wonder if you can just read through  40 the text of that, please.  41 A  42  43 "Secretary.  44 Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa Ont.,  45 Hazelton Band appeared 25th instant before  46 local magistrate on charge under 386 Criminal  47 Code, theft of three mink skins from white 16613  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  A  trapper -- from white who trapped same from the  Indian's trapping ground situated off reserve  taking into consideration old Indian customs  case dismissed Indian employed counsel at own  expense the provincial police today laid charge  for same --"  I can't read the next word.  "-- before another magistrate at my request  hearing adjourned --"  And then it appears to continue on the next page on  the second line?  "-- and will take place at Smithers accused has  no funds to engage lawyer --"  I can't read the next word.  "-- trial would recommend Department employ  counsel to defend the case H.H. Robinson of  Smithers -- "  I'm not sure about the "H.H.  "-- Robinson of Smithers, B.C., acted for  accused first instance therefore familiar with  all details E. Hyde."  Q   And my lord, there is a further newspaper account of  those events at tab 467, which I won't go to.  Now, I understand out of a review of those  documents, there is a correction to be made on the  second line of page 88 of your opinion report where  you say he was acquitted?  A   Yes.  That should be revised to read "Discharged for  lack of evidence."  THE COURT:  Where is that?  MR. ADAMS:  Q   It's in the second line on page 88, my lord.  It  appears that the first proceeding was a preliminary  hearing rather than a trial.  And then still on page 88 of your opinion report,  you say: 16614  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 "At this point the Allied Tribes took up the  2 case with a formal appeal to the Deputy  3 Superintendent General of Indian Affairs."  4  5 And that tab reference there, my lord, is 441.  6 At the bottom of the first full paragraph on page  7 88, you -- well, let me start in the beginning of the  8 paragraph.  You say:  9  10 "In the decade following the completion of the  11 McKenna-McBride Report the Gitksan participated  12 in a variety of protests.  Their willingness to  13 become involved in regional and even pan-  14 regional organizations offered them  15 considerable flexibility of response.  There  16 remained, though, a unifying thread running  17 through all such undertakings: the quest for a  18 just settlement to their claims.  Participation  19 in these broader organizations, moreover, was  20 grounded in the specific circumstances of the  21 upper Skeena region: local circumstances  22 continued to generate issues requiring local  23 protest actions.  There were two principal  24 centres of protest actively during these years:  25 the Kitwanga valley and the Bulkley valley."  26  27 Does that represent your opinion?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And why do you describe those two valleys as the two  30 principal centres of protest activity?  31 A   The Kitwanga Valley, there was -- that's the Kitwanga,  32 Kitwancool Valley, it's identified differently in  33 different places.  But I'm referring to the valley  34 that -- the river that flows into the Skeena near  35 Kitwanga.  Although parts of that have been alienated,  36 as far as I'm able to determine, there has been no  37 settlement in that period -- in that area before the  38 First World War.  In the period after the Second World  39 War there were a number of attempts by settlers,  40 surveyors and even timber crews to go in and either  41 assess or make use of the resources of that area.  42 So in a sense, it's a relatively new development.  43 In the Bulkley Valley there were a whole series of  44 cases or instances which were pointed out during the  45 McKenna-McBride hearings, whose origins pre-dated  46 that, which had never really been dealt with, and  47 there was some protest around and activity around 16615  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 those specific cases in this period.  2 Q   All right.  On page 90, the first full paragraph, you  3 refer to Collison and Clark and going to Kitwancool in  4 May 1920.  And you've explained who Collison was.  I  5 wonder if you can explain who Clark was?  6 A   I'm not sure in detail.  But it was a Major Clark who  7 was some form of representative for the Provincial  8 Government.  In this case, he accompanied Collison to  9 enquire into the situation at Kitwancool.  It was the  10 same Major Clark who was with W.E. Ditchburn who is  11 the Chief Inspector of Indian Agencies for B.C., who  12 was involved in the revision of the McKenna-McBride  13 report following the suggestion that I mentioned  14 earlier by T.D. Patullo, the Minister of Lands.  15 Q   And I wonder if you can go to tab 488 in volume 7, and  16 there is a document headed "Joint Report on the  17 Kitwancool Indian Situation".  And on page 5 it  18 appears to be signed by Collison and Clark.  Is that  19 their report?  20 A   Yes, it is.  21 Q   Okay.  And on the first page, in the fourth paragraph,  22 the text reads:  23  24 "The object of our visit was fully  25 explained together with a brief resume of the  26 Kitwancool land troubles up to the present  27 time:  It was explained to them that it was  28 desired to secure to them reasonable reserves  29 which would safeguard their important holdings  30 in the Kitwancool valley.  31 "Their present attitude regarding reserves  32 was not only likely to lead them into serious  33 trouble; but also made the larger question of  34 Aboriginal Title more difficult, if not  35 impossible of solution.  Both Governments were  36 most anxious to help them by showing them the  37 best way out of their troubles, but they must  38 not take the law into their own hands by  39 interferring with the settlement of the  40 valley."  41  42 And then on the final page, the concluding  43 paragraph reads:  44  45 "Notwithstanding any action which may be  46 taken in consequence of the above report we are  47 convinced that the question of Aboriginal Title 16616  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 of the Kitwancool Band must be given a  2 conclusive decision before satisfactory  3 settlement can be effected, and we therefore  4 urge that action be taken by the Dominion  5 Government to secure the ruling of this issue  6 and so put an end to the pernicious influence  7 of interested agitators and clear the way for a  8 true settlement of Indian Affairs here which is  9 so much to be desired for the principal parties  10 concerned."  11  12 And that's the passage that you quote in part on  13 page 90 of your opinion report.  14 Now, after some further discussion about  15 Kitwancool on page 92 of your opinion report, in the  16 first full paragraph you say:  17  18 "In Wet'suwet'en territory many of the  19 grievances concerning the loss of specific  20 parcels of land, used for hunting and fishing  21 camps, remained outstanding.  A number of these  22 cases were the foci of attention in the decade  23 following World War I.  Matthew Sam, August  24 Pete, Johnny David, Belnay --"  25  2 6 B-E-L-N-A-Y.  27  28 "-- Arthur Charlie, Round Lake Tommy and Jack  29 Joseph were all given executive permission to  30 pre-empt alternative plots of land: in the case  31 of Jean Baptiste the DIA purchased the land on  32 which he was 'squatting'.  The Wet'suwet'en had  33 pursued these grievances in a number of ways  34 since the McKenna-McBride hearings: they had  35 complained to the Indian Agent, usually orally  36 but at least once by letter; they had  37 complained to their missionary; on occasion  38 they had issued threats to white officials and  39 refused to be evicted.  Mostly, however, they  40 had persisted in hunting and fishing;  41 'squatting', if necessary, on alternative camp  42 sites."  43  44 And I want to ask you if that represents your opinion?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And there is a reference to tab 549 and that would be  4 7 in volume 8. 16617  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  THE  COURT  2  MR.  ADAMS  3  THE  COURT  4  MR.  ADAMS  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Q  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  THE  COURT  40  MR.  ADAMS  41  THE  COURT  42  MR.  ADAMS  43  Q  44  45  46  47  What number again, please?  54 9, my lord.  Thank you.  And actually, beginning at 548, there is a series of  three tabs that all deal in some fashion with Jean  Baptiste.  And I wonder, Dr. Galois, if you could  just, if necessary, review those three documents and  explain what the circumstances were?  These are three documents from a substantial file  dealing with various land issues that arose in the  Bulkley Valley.  It just reviews in detail the case of  Jean Baptiste with a particular reference -- it's a  sort of history of what had happened to him in terms  of the lands that he had lived on and that had been  alienated, culminating, if I recall correctly, in the  purchase of land by the Department of Indian Affairs.  I believe on tab 550, it states that:  "...Lot 882 purchased by the Department of  Indian Affairs for Indian purposes and now  occupied by J. Baptiste-Indian."  And that's in the fourth and fifth lines, my lord, of  tab 550.  Continuing on page 93 of your opinion report, you  refer again to the prohibition of the feast, and you  say that it continued to arouse opposition among the  Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en during this period.  And you  say:  "Indeed, by 1920 the disregard for the  prohibition had become so open that reports of  feasts, with amounts expended, appeared in the  local newspaper."  And I wonder if you can refer briefly to tabs 551 and  552 in volume 8.  What tab number, please?  551, my lord.  Thank you.  And 552 is the next one.  And the first one is an extract apparently from  the Interior News for January 10th, 1919, headed --  headlines "Relative's Potlatch", and it refers to --  says : 1661?  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2 "The wife of Luke Fowler, a well known and  3 popular Hazelton Indian, died a few days ago,  4 and in order to commemorate her passing in a  5 suitable manner, the bereaved husband, with  6 some of his near relatives, gave a potlatch, at  7 which more than two thousand dollars in money  8 and various other gifts were distributed."  9  10 And then on -- at tab 452 there is another account of  11 a number of such events under the headline: "Hazelton  12 Indians Much Entertained".  And this is from the  13 Interior News for February 15, 1919, that's cut off at  14 the top.  And it refers to Bear Lake Tom ten lines  15 down:  16  17 "...dispensed lavish hospitality for two days,  18 during which time he distributed gifts to the  19 value of more than two thousand dollars, many  20 of which were in cash.  21 "Frank Wilson was the next to offer  22 entertainment to his friends, who benefitted to  23 the extent of more than twelve hundred dollars  24 worth of gifts, while Big Louis was host at  25 another feast at an outlay of over fifteen  2 6 hundred.  27 "These affairs, together with others of  28 less importance, indicate that in the aggregate  29 five or six thousand dollars changed hands  30 among the Indians during these festivities."  31  32 And I simply wanted to ask you, are those examples of  33 local newspaper accounts that you refer to on page 93  34 of your opinion report?  35 A   Examples, yes.  36 Q   And then further down page 93 you set out a quotation  37 from Barbeau with respect to:  38  39 "[Many] Carrier Indians of various villages  40 were seen congregating at Moricetown for their  41 yearly summer potlatch of more than a week; the  42 same people were closely observed from July 15  43 to 24, when they were giving four other  44 potlatches at Hagwilget."  45  46 And the reference there, my lord, is tab 555 at page  47 37. 16619  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 And at the bottom of page 93, you continue with:  2  3 "The next year, however, with a new Indian  4 Agent at Hazelton, the prohibition was enforced  5 more rigorously.  In the following years one  6 Wet'suwet'en and five Gitksan were arrested for  7 infringements."  8  9 And the tab references there, my lord, are 557 through  10 559.  11 And finally in this connection at the bottom of  12 93 and going over to 94, you say:  13  14 "In April 1931 the local newspaper in New  15 Hazelton carried the headline, 'Potlatches Must  16 Stop Says the Indian Agent'."  17  18 And the reference there, my lord, is tab 565.  19 And then on page 95 of your opinion report, you  20 again refer to Gitksan involvement in a series of  21 regional and pan-regional organizations; opposition to  22 the recommendations of McKenna-McBride; the Nishga  23 petition, in the seeking of a judicial decision on the  24 question of aboriginal title.  And you observe:  25  26 "On the basis of the documents available, the  27 Gitksan involvement in these organizations was  28 intermittent.  Nonetheless it did provide  29 occasions for two important statements of  30 Gitksan claims and objectives: to Kelly and  31 Reid in 1922; and to Prime Minister Mackenzie  32 King in 1924. "  33  34 And my lord, both of those have already been referred  35 to.  The tab reference for Kelly is 439 and for  36 Mackenzie King is tab 451.  37 Now Dr. Galois, in the remaining pages of your  38 report, you set out under the heading of "Conclusion",  39 a number of questions and answers.  And beginning with  40 number one on page 95, you ask:  41  42 "1.  What forms of protest action, if any, did  43 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en employ?"  44  4 5 And you say:  46  47 "The Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en participated 16620  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  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  in an impressive array of protest actions in  the --"  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, surely it's not — I mean it's all right  here in black and white.  They are all there, they are  called conclusions.  I don't know if my friend needs  to read them.  Not for me he doesn't.  MR. ADAMS:  Well, my lord, I wasn't reading them for my friend,  but I was proceeding in the same way I have with his  conclusion section, and I'm simply having him adopt  them as read.  THE COURT:  Well, I would have expected him to have agreed with  them when he wrote them.  You do it any way you want.  I assume these are his opinions and conclusions and he  agrees with them, but you do it any way you want.  MR. ADAMS  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  Perhaps this will expedite things slightly, my lord.  Dr. Galois, you set out the question under number  one as to the forms of protest action employed by the  Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  Do the paragraphs following  that represent your opinion today in answer to that  question?  Yes.  And on page 96, question two, in the middle of the  page, you ask:  "2.  How did the forms of protest change over  time?"  And do the succeeding paragraphs on page 96 and 97  represent your opinions today with respect to that  question?  Yes.  And at the top of page 98, number three, you ask:  "3.  What issues generated Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en protest actions?"  And do the paragraphs following on that page and page  99 represent your opinions today in answer to that  question?  Yes.  And number four on page 99, you ask:  "4.  When and where did these issues arise?"  And do the paragraphs following on pages 99 and 100 16621  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 represent your opinions today in answer to that  2 question?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   On page 100, number five, you ask:  5  6 "5.  Against whom were the Gitksan and  7 Wet'suwet'en protest actions directed?"  8  9 Do the paragraphs following on page 100 and 101  10 represent your opinion today with respect to that  11 question?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And on page 101, number six, you ask:  14  15 "6.  What were the objectives of these protest  16 actions?"  17  18 And do the materials following on page 101 and 102  19 represent your opinion with respect to that question?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And finally on these questions on page 102, number  22 seven:  23  24 "7.  What were the results of these actions?"  25  26 Do the -- does the text following on page 102 and 103  27 represent your opinion today on that question?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Now finally, appended to your opinion report are a  30 pair of maps, and we looked at one yesterday, and I  31 want to ask you to look today at map two.  And it's my  32 understanding, my lord, that this map was put to  33 Marvin George in the course of his examination in  34 chief, and that it was Exhibit 1016.  I am not  35 entirely sure of its status, whether it was marked  36 then for identification or as an exhibit proper.  If  37 it was not marked as an exhibit proper, I am going to  38 ask this witness some questions about it.  39 THE COURT:  Can you tell us whether — what is the status of  40 Exhibit 1016?  41 THE REGISTRAR:  I don't have it marked, my lord.  42 MR. ADAMS:  My friend is suggesting that it was marked for I.D.,  43 and it's out of an abundance of caution that I'm  44 seeking to ask this witness about it and have it  45 marked proper.  4 6    THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  4 7    MR. ADAMS: 16622  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 Q   Dr. Galois, this is a map headed "Map 2, Copy of  2 Wet'suwet'en Map of Claims, Handed to Reverand J.  3 McDougall, 1910".  And lists the source as RG10 volume  4 4052 file 371968?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   Could you explain, please, whether, and if so, how you  7 prepared this map?  8 A   There is in that document file which I examined on  9 microfilm, there is a very indistinct and rather much  10 obscured map which I take to have been handed to  11 Reverend McDougall in 1910 and is referred to, if I  12 remember correctly, in the minutes of the Hagwilget  13 meeting, indicating Wet'suwet'en claims, areas of  14 hunting grounds, et cetera.  What I did is --  15 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, excuse me.  I don't see any difference  16 between these two maps.  17    MR. ADAMS  18 THE COURT  19 MR. ADAMS  Is it possible we have given you two copies of one  9  I ask because both of mine are marked map number 1.  My lord, I'll hand up the one I've got and then you  2 0 will have a copy.  21 THE COURT:  I'll give you back the copy of number one.  Oh yes,  22 we have had this one before.  23 THE REGISTRAR:  It's marked for ID.  24 THE COURT:  1016 for identification?  25 THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  2 6 MR. ADAMS:  27 Q   Perhaps I could just ask you to start that explanation  28 again, now that his lordship has the map in front of  2 9              him?  30 A   In terms of the sources or the process of actually  31 producing the map?  32 Q   Both.  33 A   On microfilm, in the file indicated at the top there,  34 RG10 vol. 4052 file 371968, following a — the minutes  35 of a meeting between Reverend J. McDougall and a  36 number of Wet'suwet'en Indians, I believe at Hagwilget  37 in 1910, there followed this map which on the  38 microfilm was almost illegible when I first examined  39 it.  Since I first examined it, fortunately the  40 technology for printing from microfilm has made  41 considerable progress.  So what I was able to do,  42 using a zoom lens, was to blow up that original map  43 and then retrace it out, and you have a copy of that  44 retracing.  45 What I've done there is to have it facing  46 north-south with north at the top, so -- which is a  47 change from the original, which had the south at the 16623  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1 top.  And I've tried to indicate on the map that I re-  2 drew what I have added to the original, so that you  3 should be able to separate out what is on the original  4 map and what is my additions.  I tried to keep those  5 to a minimum.  Mostly they are concerned with  6 identifying specific physical features.  7 And as you will also notice, there are some dotted  8 lines because the map is broken and incomplete.  Where  9 it seems fairly obvious that the line -- the alignment  10 of a river continues, I've put in my -- put any  11 additions like that with dotted lines.  Part of the  12 Bulkley River, for example, just south of Moricetown  13 is not marked on the surviving map.  If you look there  14 you'll see that I've indicated that course with a  15 dotted line.  16 So I've tried, in other words, to keep my  17 interpretation to a minimum and to enable somebody  18 else looking at this map, to identify what has been  19 added.  So my objective, really, is to make the  20 original map legible.  21 MR. ADAMS:  My lord, I would ask that that be marked as an  22 exhibit proper.  2 3 THE COURT:  1016 then.  24 THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  25 (EXHIBIT 1016 - Wet'suwet'en Map of Claims marked  26 previously for ID)  27 MR. ADAMS:  My lord, I have completed my questions of Dr.  28 Galois.  I would ask, however, to hold his direct  29 examination open for the intervening month simply so  30 that he can carry on in his duo role as advisor, and  31 that I am able to communicate with him in that  32 interval.  33 THE COURT:  Yes.  Well, that would be possible.  The  34 cross-examination hasn't started anyway, and you may  35 think of something that you want to supplement.  36 Counsel always seem to be able to do that.  37 And so the witness will be stood down then to be  38 resumed when we -- on the 19th of June I think is the  39 plan, isn't it?  40 MR. ADAMS:  Thank you, my lord.  41 THE COURT:  All right.  Then we are finished for the day, are  42 we, and the week?  All right.  I'll wish you all a  43 very pleasant weekend then.  Thank you.  44 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court stands adjourned  45 until 10:00 a.m., May 23.  46  47 16624  R. Galois (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Adams  1  2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 3:00 P.M.)  3  4  5 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  6 a true and accurate transcript of the  7 proceedings herein transcribed to the  8 best of my skill and ability.  9  10  11  12    13 Toni Kerekes,  14 O.R., R.P.R.  15 United Reporting Service Ltd.  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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


Related Items