Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-04-21] British Columbia. Supreme Court Apr 21, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019639.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019639-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019639-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019639-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019639-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019639-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019639-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 15909  Proceedings  1 VANCOUVER, B.C.  2 April 21, 1989  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, Vancouver, this Friday, April 21, 1989.  6 Calling the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty  7 the Queen.  I caution the witness, you're still under  8 oath.  9 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant.  10 MR. GRANT:  Yes, my lord, before proceeding — Mr. Willms  11 proceeds, I have one matter relating to scheduling  12 that I wish to raise with your lordship.  As you may  13 recall, last week I had proposed a change from a  14 reversal of order from Mr. Galois and Miss Marsden so  15 that Miss Marsden would commence on the 15th, Mr.  16 Galois would commence on the 8th of May and Miss  17 Marsden on the 15th of May.  18 THE COURT:  Just a moment, please, I have to find the right  19 piece of paper.  Yes, thank you.  20 MR. GRANT:  Based on that schedule change, and I will advise  21 your lordship that this -- at this time, as you know,  22 because of our clients are seeking our assistance with  23 respect to this issue of funding that has been raised,  24 and the reason for that alteration was in an effort to  25 minimize the impact of the loss of counsel time on the  26 funding as opposed to witness preparation on the trial  27 time.  The involvement in the funding, of course,  28 requires a time obligation in regards to submissions  29 and also explanations for the circumstances of this  30 case from counsel's point of view, and our clients  31 have required our assistance in that regard.  Now,  32 what happened subsequent to that, and I shall say  33 firstly, my lord, that this is a matter of logistics  34 that counsel, all counsel have agreed on my proposal.  35 I raised it with them yesterday and they did not  36 express -- they said they had no objection to it, with  37 one exception, which -- with one concern that I will  38 answer, is that the problem with the proposal, as  39 became apparent this week, that Mr. Galois is a  40 historian, and there's a tremendous volume of  41 documents which will have to be made ready for his  42 evidence.  Notwithstanding serious efforts to arrange  43 for that to be advanced one week, it has become -- it  44 became apparent by yesterday that it was not going to  45 be feasible to have the documents, which are in a  46 number of other locations, they're not -- it's not a  47 question of photocopying, it's a question of 15910  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  collection of a number of other documents.  It's not  feasible to have those ready and Mr. Galois ready to  go on May 8th.  However, counsel made the arrangements  with Miss Marsden based on that change.  At this stage  Mr. Galois will be able to proceed on May 15th -- May  15th as originally scheduled, and Barbara Lane will  proceed on May 22nd.  Miss Marsden would be able to  proceed and can proceed on May 29th, but that is of  course that, as you recall Mr. Goldie -- is when your  lordship is not available.  The alternative we find  ourselves in is to have Miss Marsden proceed on the  5th of June.  Now, Miss Koenigsberg raised the  question and the only question raised when I raised  this with -- Mr. Willms indicated he had no difficulty  with that.  Miss Koenigsberg raised the question of  what that does in terms of the court's scheduling.  I  want to emphasize, your lordship, that this change,  this proposed change of scheduling in no way suggests  that there's a change in the circumstances of funding  as of now.  But what it means is rather than have this  one witness proceed on May 8th, we would have her  proceed in the week of June 5th and complete --  THE COURT:  Well, are you suggesting that we take the evidence  of Dr. Galois on May 8th or May 15th?  MR. GRANT:  May 15th.  THE COURT:  And we wouldn't sit the week of May 8th?  MR. GRANT:  We would not sit on the week of May 8th, subject to  if there was a resolution of the financial issue  raised by Mr. Rush, and subject to that aside, if we  can put it aside, notwithstanding this change, the  commitment of the plaintiffs, that we would be able to  complete the plaintiff's case by the end of June would  be maintained.  In other words, it would not affect a  delay in that time line.  THE COURT:  Um-hum.  MR. GRANT:  And we find ourselves in this situation because of  what I appreciated was the ability of making the  change from Mr. Galois and counsel rearranging all  other circumstances.  Now, that change cannot take  place, we are simply in this motion that we are -- we  really have no alternative at this point, and I wanted  to bring it to your lordship's attention as quickly as  possible.  THE COURT:  Did you say that counsel agreed to this?  MR. GRANT:  Well, in my brief discussion with counsel yesterday  they indicated they had no objection to it.  MR. WILLMS:  No objection, my lord.  whenever the witnesses come 15911  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MS.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  we'll be ready.  COURT:  Yes.  KOENIGSBERG:  My only, it wasn't really an objection, it was  a concern that this kind of change, that is  essentially that we would not be sitting for two weeks  that we had scheduled, that we would be sitting for  one week, would not result in lengthening the  plaintiff's case or in affecting the end in sight,  that is the end of June.  My friend is assuring us  that that's not the case.  The one thing that isn't  clear to me is that if Miss Marsden is now scheduled,  if this is acceptable, if Miss Marsden will be heard  the 5th of June period, not conditional.  Yes.  Yes.  Is that your suggestion?  Well, just to answer that question, as Mr. Rush has  said, our financial circumstances has not changed, we  have no funding to go beyond the end of May.  However,  with this -- but we had built into that the  anticipation of Miss Marsden going on the 8th of May,  and that would proceed in any event.  All right.  We would alter our situation so that would proceed,  and we would complete until the end of that week.  She's scheduled for one week.  Yes.  So the outcome would be, my lord, just to summarize,  would be that, as you know, Mr. --  Before you summarize let me raise another --  Yes.  -- possibility that you might consider.  The week of  May 22nd is a four-day week for Dr. Barbara Lane.  Is  it possible to take advantage of any of that down time  to ensure that her evidence, if it's at risk, could be  completed within that time frame, even by starting the  previous Thursday or Friday or something like that?  WILLMS:  My lord, the problem with Dr. Lane is that Mr.  Goldie will be doing Dr. Lane, and he will be in  Ottawa in the Supreme Court of Canada the preceding  week.  COURT:  The week of the 15th?  WILLMS:  Yes, yes.  The week prior to the week that Dr. Lane  is presently scheduled for.  GRANT:  What I understand from your proposal or your  suggestion, my lord, because Mr. Goldie was concerned  about the four-day week for Dr. Lane, was that the  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT 15912  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  possibility of her direct evidence commencing, for  example, on the Thursday or Friday of the week of May  8th --  THE COURT:  Yep.  MR. GRANT:  -- and then being adjourned over to complete her  direct evidence, if necessary, on the week of May  22nd.  I understand of course this would have to be  raised with Dr. Lane, but that it probably would be,  given my experience with Dr. Lane's schedule, as well  as Mr. Rush's, it would probably be very difficult,  and I think we might end up in some predicament, as I  find myself now, of endeavouring to make an adjustment  to a witness and finding there would be inadequate  prep time.  THE COURT:  All right.  I will leave that thought with you, and  if anything can be done to juggle matters so as to  ensure as best we can that Dr. Lane can be  accommodated, then within the time that's available I  would hope counsel would do that.  Other than that, I  see no reason or no alternative but to accept the  proposal that can be made, which is, as I understand,  we will be sitting next week with Mr. Morrison, with  the off week of May 1st, we'll be off on the week of  May the 8th.  MR. GRANT:  And the week of May 2nd, which is already scheduled  off.  Is that May 2nd or May 1st week?  Sorry.  We'll be off May 8th and we'll sit with Dr. Galois  on May 15th, and Dr. Barbara Lane on May 22nd or 23rd,  and we're off May 29th, is it?  Yes.  Yes.  And we're on again with Susan Marsden on the  5th of June.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  And I -- yes.  I understand from just a brief  discussion with Mr. Willms is that regarding your  concern is that of course we would endeavour to avoid  this with Dr. Lane, but that Miss Marsden from just --  I haven't spoken with Miss Koenigsberg, but we feel  comfortable that even if you had to use one of those  days of June 5th to complete Barbara Lane, that we  still would complete Miss Marsden within that week,  Mr. Willms and I at least.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, there's always Saturday, isn't  there.  MR. GRANT:  There's always Saturday.  All I can say at the end  is if my friend has any hope of completing today it  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT 15913  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 would be more than appreciated.  2 THE COURT:  It would indeed.  3 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my lord.  4 THE COURT:  All right, thank you.  Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   My lord.  Mr. George, at the close of yesterday you  7 were, with a black marker, starting to transfer the  8 line that you drew on Exhibit 101 onto this copy of  9 Exhibit 646, and it appears that you stopped doing  10 that as -- have you run into a difficulty?  11 A  When I was transferring this line from this particular  12 map to this overlay, your honour, I realized that  13 the -- when I had transferred this particular boundary  14 to this map I had the use of the Kail Autofocus  15 projector, which is an optical instrument which would  16 enlarge or reduce an image at a scale from 1 to 5, and  17 it's that image -- that instrument that I used to  18 transfer this boundary.  Yesterday I indicated that  19 the boundary would follow the height of land, and when  20 I came to this particular point on this map, this  21 boundary doesn't -- it does not follow the height of  22 land.  So when transferring that down I would get the  23 Kail Autofocus projector, that's where the boundary  24 extended to, and it was not up to me to try to guess  25 where that particular boundary would go.  So with that  26 instrument I transferred that boundary to be where it  27 is on this map.  And also looking at this map to this  28 map, there are quite a few changes in the actual  29 drainages, and I remember a call from Lou Skoda where  30 he contacted me in the office in Hazelton and  31 indicated that he could not get the exact basis that I  32 used and that the drainage patterns that appear on  33 this map are different from the drainage patterns that  34 appear on the map that I forwarded to him, and that  35 would result in a few changes in the boundaries.  So I  36 indicated to him that the height of land would be the  37 boundary, and if you had a more up-to-date map which  38 would indicate a more accurate height of land, then  39 you should go with the map that you got.  So this area  40 that I've highlighted here in red is nowhere near the  41 drainage pattern that I have on this particular map,  42 that's why I stopped at this particular point, to show  43 you the problem that I have.  44 THE COURT:  I see, all right.  45 MR. WILLMS:  46 Q   And just to clear it up, you sent the map to Lou  47 Skoda, which was a topographic map which Mr. Skoda 15914  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 told you had some of the drainage patterns wrong; is  2 that right?  3 A   No.  I sent a map to Lou Skoda, 1 to 250,000 series, a  4 print that I use, a miler print, and on that  5 particular map, I don't know what series or whether  6 that particular map was produced, but the map that Lou  7 Skoda used is a newer version, a more up-to-date  8 version of that particular map sheet, and that would  9 result in the changes of the drainage patterns; not  10 that the drainage patterns on my map are wrong, the  11 drainage patterns that appear on my map are right for  12 that particular map and for that particular time  13 period.  14 Q   But you told Lou Skoda that instead of mapping where  15 the lines that you had sent to him that where there  16 was -- appear up-to-date drainage pattern showing a  17 different height of land, that he should shift the  18 line to show that height of land under his up-to-date  19 map?  20 A   On his up-to-date version where the title of land may  21 have changed to -- from one particular series to  22 another particular series based on more reliable  23 information that they may have had with which would  24 indicate that the drainage pattern did in fact go in  25 that particular direction.  I indicated to him that  26 the height of land was considered to be the boundary,  27 because that's where they say they do not go over, and  28 that's where the boundary would be and to go with his  29 particular map.  30 Q   So the map that you got back from Lou Skoda was  31 different than the map that you sent to him?  In other  32 words, the overlays that he sent you back contained  33 the information that you had sent along with Mr.  34 Skoda's changes to follow the up-to-date heights of  35 land; is that what you're saying?  36 A   That's what I'm saying.  There may be instances on map  37 9A and map 9B where the drainage patterns would be  38 similar, but a map sheet that he may have used which  39 would be different from the map sheet that I used, and  40 if the drainage patterns did appear to be different on  41 his map, I indicated to him that he should go with his  42 map because his map would be more up to date than the  43 map I had, and in those areas the drainage patterns or  44 boundaries may have changed to reflect those changes  45 in the drainage patterns, yes.  46 Q   So now one thing about this map 101, it has Gitksan  47 and Wet'suwet'en names for features on it, doesn't it? 15915  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes, it does.  2 Q   And one of the things that you were familiar with in  3 preparing the maps is where a Gitksan name related to  4 an English name on a topographic map and where a  5 Wet'suwet'en name related to an English name on the  6 topographic map --  7 A   The Wet'suwet'en and the Gitksan names that appear on  8 this map, your honour, is based on information that  9 was based on the original coded map and would be  10 information that I had at the time that I started  11 working with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council,  12 and you will note from all the evidence as you've  13 heard already that there were changes in the locations  14 of some of these names, so those names that appear on  15 this map may be right in some instances, and some  16 instances those maps would still -- those names would  17 still be on the map but in different locations.  18 MR. WILLMS:  But what I'm suggesting to you, Mr. George, is that  19 on Exhibit 101, where there is a Gitksan name of a  20 creek, you know from all of your work in map  21 preparation --  22 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Mr. Plant, I've received a message I'm  23 afraid I have to attend to.  Thank you.  24 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  25  26 (RECESS TAKEN AT 10:21)  2 7 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 10:40)  28  29 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  30 THE COURT:  My apologies.  I regret also to say that one phone  31 call always leads to another, and I'm still going to  32 have to take the morning adjournment at the regular  33 time.  Mr. Willms.  34 MR. WILLMS:  35 Q   My lord.  Mr. George, just to clear this up,  36 notwithstanding that there are creeks and other  37 features laid out on Exhibit 101 in the Gitksan and  38 Wet'suwet'en language, and notwithstanding your  39 knowledge of the Gitksan place names and English names  4 0 and Wet'suwet'en names and English names, you don't  41 think that you're capable of transferring the overlap  42 line from Exhibit 101 onto the base map 646; is that  43 fair?  44 A   No.  It's not fair at all.  I can put that line on  45 that map -- the problem is what you want me to put on.  46 I can put that line on that map the best way I can the  47 way it appears on this map, or I can put that line on 15916  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 that map where the drainage pattern would be.  That's  2 where the problem is.  I don't understand what you  3 want me to do.  4 Q   But you can put -- your evidence is that you can put  5 that line roughly, forgetting about drainage patterns?  6 A  As it appears on this plan.  7 Q   As it appears on Exhibit 101, you could put that  8 roughly onto the copy of 646?  9 A   That's what I was asking you yesterday.  10 MR. WILLMS:  All right, you could.  Maybe we'll leave that for  11 the break then, my lord, and I'll move onto the  12 next --  13 THE COURT:  That's 101, isn't it?  14 MR. WILLMS:  101, my lord, is the map with the overlap on it,  15 and the blank map that Mr. George has already put some  16 lines on is a copy of 646.  17 THE COURT:  Yes.  18 MR. WILLMS:  Now, the next document, or part of a document, that  19 I'm showing you, Mr. George, this is a copy of -- and  20 it's from the Attorney General of Canada files, 5439,  21 and it's the first pages of a Review of the Kaska Dena  22 Land Claim Submission, research report done June 17th,  23 1982 by Sylvia L. Albright.  Have you --  24 MR. RUSH:  Excuse me.  Just before you ask your question, can  25 you just confirm for me, please, I have not seen the  26 document, if in fact the pages run from the cover page  27 on to the next and we're looking at sequential pages,  28 because I note they're not numbered.  29 MR. WILLMS:  Yeah.  The pages, my lord, are sequential from the  30 beginning of the document.  It's identified as  31 Attorney General document 5439, Attorney General of  32 Canada, sequential to the last page that is in there.  33 Now, there's more pages to the comments, but they  34 follow —  35 THE COURT:  You mean this isn't a complete document?  36 MR. WILLMS:  It's not complete, there's more of the document  37 that follows the last page that is there, and of  38 course if my friend wants the balance of it, that's  39 agreeable to me, as with any other document, but --  40 THE COURT:  Well, these pages, some of them are numbered.  41 MR. RUSH:  I think the whole thing should be filed, whatever it  42 is.  43 THE COURT:  Well, we have been following the practise that  44 counsel are not putting in total documents, but the  45 other side can ask for the rest if they wish.  46 MR. WILLMS:  And I'm agreeable to that, my lord.  47 THE COURT:  Yes, all right. 15917  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   Now, Mr. George, have you -- do you recall seeing this  3 document or a portion of this document at all during  4 your period of research?  5 A   No.  I have never seen this before, no.  6 Q   Could you turn to -- and perhaps the easiest way to  7 get to it is the second to last page of the document,  8 and it has -- it's entitled in the upper left-hand  9 corner "Claim Boundaries", and then there are --  10 there's a description of a rough metes and bounds sort  11 of starting in the second paragraph.  Have you ever  12 seen a metes and bounds description of the Kaska Dena  13 land claim in any of your work with the Tribal  14 Council?  15 A   No, I've never.  16 Q   All right.  Can you look to the bottom of the second  17 to last page, and you will see at the bottom of the  18 page, the middle paragraph -- sorry, the middle part  19 of the paragraph, the words "From Dewar Peak"?  2 0 A   Yeah.  I've got that.  21 Q   Now, you know Dewar Peak, correct?  22 A   I'm not familiar with it, but if I see it on a map  23 I'm --  24 Q   You know that Dewar Peak is in the land claim area?  25 A   If you can point out to me Dewar Peak I can tell you  26 whether it's in the claim area or not.  27 Q   All right.  And you've located Dewar Peak on the copy  28 of 646, all right.  And it's in the territory of Nii  2 9 Kyap as shown on --  30 A   Yes, it is.  31 Q   — 9A?  32 A   Yes.  It's in the territory of Nii Kyap.  The  33 boundaries were drawn from the affidavit of Nii Kyap,  34 which describe that territory as being Nii Kyap and  35 signed and sworn.  36 Q   Now, the description in the metes and bounds here from  37 where it says "From Dewar Peak":  38  39 "The boundary follows the height of land which  40 forms the watershed between the tributary waters  41 of the Findlay River and those of the Skeena  42 River to the west."  43  44 Now, that is a boundary, a metes and bounds boundary,  45 that with your skill and knowledge you could map on a  46 topographic map; is that correct?  In other words, you  47 could locate -- if you started at Dewar Peak, you 1591?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 could locate the height of land between the Findlay  2 and the Skeena watershed?  3 A   I would have to have a map which showed me the Findlay  4 and Skeena watershed, and if I had that particular map  5 I could possibly draw that particular boundary, yes.  6 Q   All right.  You know that Thutadi Lake is in the  7 Findlay watershed?  8 A  And I also know that Thutadi Lake is defined in the  9 affidavit of being within the boundaries of Nii Kyap.  10 Q   My question is you know that Thutadi Lake is in the  11 Findlay watershed?  12 A   The maps that I used when doing the boundaries within  13 the claim area are those particular bases, and if I  14 was to look at that map sheet on which Thutadi Lake  15 appears and look and see what way -- direction the  16 water flows, and if it flows into the Findlay River,  17 yes, I would have to say it's in that watershed, but I  18 would have to look at a map and look at the direction  19 the water was flowing in that particular area.  20 Q   And perhaps you could come and look at the overlay,  21 9A.  Would you agree with me that the boundary between  22 Nii Kyap and Miluulak appears to follow roughly the  23 boundary between the watershed of waters flowing into  24 the Skeena River and waters flowing into the Findlay  25 River?  26 A   Yes.  From looking at it, it would appear from looking  27 at it on this map that -- like I just to have to look  28 at the entire sheet to accurately determine that.  29 THE COURT:  What is the destiny of the Findlay, it runs where?  30 MR. WILLMS:  Findlay runs -- it runs into Williston Lake, comes  31 to Peace.  32 THE COURT:  Comes to Peace, all right.  33 A   Getting back to your question, no, I haven't seen  34 this, and the boundaries as described in that  35 particular map is from the affidavit, which describes  36 that area as being Nii Kyap.  37 MR. WILLMS:  38 Q   You will recall that on the draft map that you have  39 called map 1 of 2, and it's been marked as an exhibit,  4 0 you had a handwritten note in the column saying the  41 external boundary will now exclude Nii Kyap, or  42 something like that.  Do you remember that note?  43 A   Yes.  I recall that note, yes.  44 Q   All right.  Do you know whether or not perhaps that  45 was because it was to follow the boundary line of the  46 watershed between the Skeena and the Findlay Rivers,  47 or do you know? 15919  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   No.  That particular area, from my understanding, was  2 and always is Nii Kyap's.  There was an incident that  3 occurred in which that particular territory was -- a  4 person was given the use of that particular territory  5 for an incident that happened, but it was always Nii  6 Kyap's, and the death of that particular person it  7 came back to Nii Kyap and it still is Nii Kyap's, as  8 identified in the affidavits.  It had nothing to do  9 with this particular document.  10 Q   Did you make any attempt before you drew any of your  11 external boundary maps of the Gitksan territories to  12 determine whether or not there was a Kaska Dena claim  13 that overlapped the Gitksan claim?  14 A  My job was to plot the external-internal boundaries of  15 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en based on information that  16 was provided to me, my job was not to plot the  17 boundaries of the Kaska Dena, and based on information  18 I got based on the affidavits, that area is described  19 as Nii Kyap's, as identified on that particular map as  20 being Nii Kyap's.  21 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, could that be 1018-6.  22 THE COURT:  Yes.  23  24 (EXHIBIT 1018-6 - Review of the Kaska Dena Land  25 Claim Submission)  26  27 MR. WILLMS:  28 Q   I'm showing you, Mr. George, an Attorney General of  29 Canada document 5427, which starts with a letter dated  30 August 24th, 1983 from -- and you will see on the  31 second page -- the Tsimshian Nation, signed by Mr.  32 Hill and Mr. Bolton, to the Office of Native Claims,  33 suite 902.  Do you know Mr. Hill or Mr. Bolton, or  34 know of them?  35 A   I know of Mr. Bolton.  I don't know him.  36 THE COURT:  What does C.T.N, mean?  37 MR. WILLMS:  I think it means Council of Tsimshian Nation, my  38 lord, C.T.N.  39 THE COURT:  Oh, yes, all right, thank you.  40 MR. WILLMS:  41 Q   Now, if you turn to page -- the fifth page in, there's  42 a longer page, I think it's the fifth page in, with a  43 metes and bounds description entitled "In The Matter  44 Of The Territory Of The Kitselas Band Or Tribe Of  45 Indians".  Do you have that?  46 A  Which page?  47 Q   The fifth page in.  Yes? 15920  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Now, have you ever seen that metes and bounds  3 description before?  4 A   No, I haven't.  5 Q   If you look at the point where it says:  6  7 "Commencing at the head waters of and taking in the  8 water sheds of Lome Creek, then crossing the  9 Skeena River at a creek second above Oliver Creek  10 on the northwest side of the Skeena River, taking  11 in the water sheds, head waters of Oliver Creek,  12 thence to the head waters and the water sheds  13 of Red Canyon Creek, thence to the head waters and  14 including the water sheds of Coal Creek, thence to  15 the head waters and water sheds of the Zymoetz  16 River, thence to the west side and not including  17 McDonel Lake, thence to the head waters of Serb  18 Creek its water sheds to the west side of and  19 including the north Bulkley Ranges and following  20 southerly to the Lamonite Lake its water sheds  21 thence southeasterly to the second part of the  22 Bulkley ranges."  23  24 Now, just pausing there, is that a metes and bounds  25 description that you could plot on a topographic map  26 if the creeks and the mountains were identified on  27 that map?  28 A   I believe I could put a line to a map based on this.  29 Q   And you recognize from that metes and bounds  30 description that it describes land included within the  31 external boundaries of 9A and 9B?  32 A   That's correct, yes.  33 Q   All right.  In particular, there are -- you have  34 included in 9A and 9B parts of the watershed of Lome  35 Creek, Oliver Creek, Red Canyon, McDonel Lake; is that  36 correct?  37 A   Um-hum.  38 Q   Yes.  And what attempt did you make before you drew 9A  39 or 9B to determine whether or not there was an  40 overlapping claim of the Kitselas band to any part of  41 9A and 9B?  42 A  Again, your honour, based on information I received  43 which identifies certain areas as belonging to certain  44 chiefs in which they identify their boundaries and  45 geographical features and the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  46 names, it proves to me that they own these features  47 and that plus they can identify them, they gave me the 15921  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 boundaries.  That's the boundaries that go onto map 9A  2 and map 9B which make up the external and internal  3 boundaries of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  This is a  4 claim, but it does not give any proof as to why  5 they're claiming this particular area.  It is a claim  6 I believe which is put in to start a negotiating  7 process with the government, but there is no research  8 to back up that information, and there is research to  9 back up that information which is on that map, which  10 indicates that these areas belong to the Gitksan and  11 Wet'suwet'en based on information that's provided me,  12 and also based on the affidavits which describe those  13 areas, describes those boundaries, and identifies  14 which chiefs that are in that area.  15 Q   Could you turn to the second to last page.  On that  16 page there is -- and that page is entitled  17 "Kitsumkalum Aboriginal Claim", and there is a very  18 rough metes and bounds description there based on  19 watersheds.  You will see in the first paragraph:  20  21 "Being the watershed of the Kitsumkalum River,  22 Zimagotitze River --"  23  24 A   Can I have a marker so I can highlight the stuff so I  25 don't lose you all the time.  Thanks.  26 Q   All right, it's in the middle of that paragraph, and  27 I'm starting with "Being the watershed", and just  28 carrying on:  29  30 "Feak Creek, Port Essington, as well as, certain  31 lands and waters used in-common on the Skeena  32 River, Ecstall River, Telegraph Passage, Grenville  33 Channel, Edye Passage, Chatham Sound and Work  34 Channel."  35  36 Just pausing there, and excluding "the lands and  37 waters used in-common", with a topographic map could  38 you plot the watersheds of those rivers named on there  39 as long as the rivers were named on the topographic  4 0 map?  41 A   If I had a map of that particular area and looking at  42 this watershed of the Kitsumkalum River and those  43 other rivers and creeks, Port Essington doesn't tell  44 me if it's a creek, a river, or lake or city.  So you  45 may have problems in that particular area, as well as  46 "certain lands and waters used in-common on the Skeena  47 River", I would have to know which those certain 15922  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 waters are.  I don't know that, this doesn't tell me.  2 Ecstall River, Telegraph Passage, Grenville  3 Channel --  4 Q   I said excluding those, forget --  5 A  Well, you asked me if I can draw that from this.  I  6 said I don't know what these common things are.  It  7 says in here, I just identified Port Essington, it  8 doesn't tell me if Port Essington is a channel, it  9 doesn't tell me if it's a city, it doesn't tell me if  10 it's a creek, it didn't tell me if it's a river, it  11 doesn't tell me nothing.  It just identifies Port  12 Essington.  I would have to know what that particular  13 thing meant, and I'm telling you from this  14 description, no, I can't put a boundary to it, I would  15 need more information.  16 Q   One thing that you do know is that on maps 9A and 9B  17 within the external boundaries you have included part  18 of the watershed of the Kitsumkalum River?  19 A   Part of the watershed of the Kitsumkalum River is  20 included in the overlay map 9A based on the affidavit  21 of Art Matthews Jr., which describes that area as  22 being Tenimgyet.  They describe the external  23 boundaries and they describe the geographical  24 features, they identify in their affidavit who that  25 information came from.  26 THE COURT:  Mr. George, you're going way too fast.  27 A  They identify in the affidavits who they got this  28 information from, they identified -- they put it in  29 Gitksan feasts, they identify in the affidavits have  30 been there since time immemorial, everything is in the  31 affidavit that tells me that particular area belongs  32 to Tenimgyet.  33 MR. WILLMS:  Could this be Exhibit 1018-7, my lord.  34  35 (EXHIBIT 1018-7 - Document Re Council of the  36 Tsimshian Nation Land Council)  37  38 MR. RUSH:  My lord, just in respect of this witness and the one  39 previous, although I take no objection to the  40 admissibility of the document, of course I don't  41 concede that the document speaks for its content in  42 any particular way.  4 3    THE COURT:  Yes.  44 A  And I don't say I can draw a boundary based on this  45 description  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Mr. George, I'm showing you a map that is entitled in 15923  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 typing at the very top of it "Kitsumkalum Tribal  2 Territory, Figure 1".  And then if you look up in the  3 upper right-hand corner you will see "Received 8  4 August 1986 from Alex Bolton", and then "NJS".  You  5 recognize that as Neil Sterritt?  6 A   Yes, I do.  7 MR. WILLMS:  All right.  Did you, during the course of your  8 work --  9 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, where, 8th August?  10 MR. WILLMS:  "8 August 1986".  11 THE COURT:  Thank you.  12 MR. WILLMS:  13 Q   And that -- did you see this map at all during your  14 work for the Tribal Council?  15 A   Yes, yes.  I have seen it.  16 Q   And you will agree with me that the map of the tribal  17 territory here includes some of the territory that you  18 have mapped within the external boundaries of Exhibits  19 9A and 9B?  20 A   Yes.  I could agree with that, and you can also agree  21 with me that that particular territory is described in  22 the affidavit, which describes that particular area as  23 being the territory of Tenimgyet, and you will agree  24 with me in that particular affidavit he says how long  25 that particular territory has been owned by Tenimgyet,  26 and they described the boundaries and the geographical  27 features within that territory, and there's nothing  28 here that backs up this information.  29 MR. WILLMS:  1018-8, my lord.  30  31 (EXHIBIT 1018-8 - Map entitled Kitsumkalum Tribal  32 Territory)  33  34 THE COURT:  Have I been under a misapprehension all these years  35 that Port Essington is on the coast?  36 MR. WILLMS:  Port Essington is on the coast.  37 THE COURT:  Is that what was mentioned in this description a  38 moment ago for the --  39 MR. WILLMS:  On the territories in common, I think, my lord.  40 THE COURT:  It doesn't seem to fit here, does it?  41 MR. RUSH:  It doesn't seem to fit with this in the description.  42 THE COURT:  No.  All right, thank you.  43 MR. WILLMS:  Mr. George, I'm showing you an extract from 1956  44 field notes on the Tahltan and Kaska Indians taken  45 from a publication called Anthropologica, and my lord,  46 you may want to make a note that this is a reference  47 in the — in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 858, Tahltan 15924  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Ethnoarchaeology.  2 THE COURT:  That's Miss Albright's?  3 MR. WILLMS:  Miss Albright's.  And if you look to reference page  4 113, that's where you find this extract noted, and it  5 was just an extract, I don't have all the notes in.  6 THE COURT:  And the extract is from what page?  7 MR. WILLMS:  The extract is from — is page 39, 40, and 50 to  8 52, and from the Teit reference, and I think I may be  9 confusing -- I think I confused myself there, my lord.  10 The reference page in Albright's book is page 113.  11 THE COURT:  Thank you.  12 MR. WILLMS:  And that's where you will find the reference to the  13 field notes.  14 MR. RUSH:  Just so that this can be cleared up, this wasn't  15 exhibited, either by the plaintiffs or any of the  16 defendants, in the course of Miss -- Dr. Albright's  17 examination.  18 MR. WILLMS:  These notes were not exhibited, but Tahltan  19 Ethnoarchaeology was.  2 0 THE COURT:  Yes.  21 MR. WILLMS:  22 Q   In total by the plaintiff.  Have you -- I note that  23 you -- you did review some of Barbeau's notes in  24 preparation for your mapping?  25 A   There was certain passages which were photocopied that  26 I had access to, yes, but I didn't take all of his  27 works and go through it and read the entire book, no,  2 8 I didn't.  29 Q   Okay.  Did you review any of Teit's notes?  3 0 A   No, I didn't.  31 MR. WILLMS:  Well, on pages starting on pages 50 through 52, 53,  32 of these notes, there's a description of tribal  33 boundaries, and the Tahltan boundary is described, and  34 the portion that I want to ask you about is on page  35 52.  And if you look on page 52 of these notes you  36 will see in the approximate -- it's just above about  37 five lines above the three-hole punch on the left-hand  38 side, the words:  39  40 "From here their line followed the centre  41 of the Cassiar Mountains south" --  42  43 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, I haven't found that.  Which of the three  44 holes?  45 MR. WILLMS:  The middle three holes, my lord.  It's up about six  46 lines, and it starts --  47 THE COURT:  Yes.  I have it, thank you. 15925  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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.  WILLMS:  Q   It starts on the right-hand side:  "From here their line followed the center of the  Cassiar Mountains south and south westernly  between the sources of the Stikine and Finlay to  the head waters of the Skeena, which they seem to  have crossed somewhere to the east of Ground Hog  Mountain."  Just pausing there, you know that you have included  Ground Hog Mountain in 646-9A, the external boundary?  All right, you've just pointed it out.  And it's in  the territory that you've labelled Geel, G-E-E-L?  Yes.  Now, the description then carries on:  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  "Their boundary followed the watershed between the  Skeena and Nass Rivers to about latitude 56."  And you will agree with me that on your base map  latitude 56 is shown on the right-hand side of the  base map, and it's the break between the green and the  white?  Um-hum, latitude east-west.  And so if you carried over with that line, coming down  between the watersheds of the Skeena and the Nass, the  territories that you're looking at are Gyolugyet, Wii  Gyet, in that area, is that fair, following the --  Following latitude 56, yes.  That's where latitude 56  appears on that map.  :  Can I see where 56 is?  It's right there.  :  What, it's a abutted line with what, Bear Lake?  Bear Lake is right in there.  :  Just south of Bear Lake.  Thank you.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   Now, the description carries on after  southern point" running west:  'Its mo s t  "Crossing the upper Nass somewhere near the mouth  of Cottonwood Creek, reaching the Cascades again  somewhere near the heads of Bear and Salmon  Rivers."  Just pausing there, you're familiar with the Cascade  Mountains and Bear River, Mr. George? 15926  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes, I am.  I'm familiar with the Bear River and the  2 Salmon River with my work with the Ministry of Forests  3 in Prince George, there -- Salmon River appears in  4 some of those.  I believe the Findlay PSY(?) or one of  5 those PSY's, but it's in Prince George Forests Region.  6 Q   And my lord, I have got the stick over here.  Mr.  7 George, maybe if you can come and look at this copy of  8 the 646 base map.  You will see that just where you go  9 into the key to coding, the last bit of Meziadin Lake  10 on the left-hand side?  11 A   I made a mistake a little while ago about the Bear and  12 Salmon Rivers being in the Prince George Forest  13 Region, and looking at this again and where it goes  14 upper Nass, that -- the upper Nass, if the Bear and  15 the Salmon River appear in that location, that  16 particular area is in the -- in the Prince George  17 forest region.  18 THE COURT:  All right.  19 MR. WILLMS:  20 Q   It's a different Bear River and --  21 A  And a different Salmon River also.  22 Q   And you'll -- on the base map -- on the copy of the  23 base map you will see by the key to the coding  24 Meziadin Lake -- part of Meziadin Lake?  25 A   Yes.  I see Meziadin Lake.  26 Q   And you'll note that the end of the lake or the  27 southern end of the lake appears to be at  28 approximately 56 degrees latitude?  29 A   Yes, it does.  30 Q   Now, I've got an overlay with the 56 degree carried  31 on, and I'm just asking you on this overlay that I'm  32 holding on it, I'll tape it on later, you can also see  33 Meziadin Lake and Bear River Pass?  34 A   Yes.  I see that.  35 Q   So that if the description in Teit's notes is  36 accurate, that the most southernly point at about 56  37 degrees and then westerly to Bear River would angle  38 over towards the outlet of Meziadin Lake?  39 A   This description, your honour, is pretty crude.  The  40 boundary followed the watershed between the Skeena and  41 Nass Rivers to about latitude 56, and it identified  42 that as latitude 56 as being its most southern point.  43 Now, on the ground -- if they're trying to follow this  44 boundary on the ground, latitude 56 is not identified  45 on the ground, it's a pretty crude boundary.  And  46 based on my information with the hereditary chiefs, a  47 lot of them don't know how to read maps. 15927  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  Well, I think we all understand that, Mr. George.  2 A   Yes.  So I say it's pretty crude.  3 MR. WILLMS:  4 Q   But crude as it is, it appears from Teit's  5 description, if you look at your 646-9A and over  6 towards Meziadin Lake on the left-hand side, that that  7 southern Tahltan claim area would come across the  8 territories of Wii Gyet, Gyolugyet, Antgulilbix and  9 Delgamuukw.  Based on that description --  10 A   Based on this description, it would appear that it  11 would cut the entire north half of the Gitksan claim  12 off, and those boundaries have been clearly defined in  13 the affidavits as being the territories of those  14 chiefs as identified on those maps in which they  15 describe their external boundaries, in which they  16 describe geographical features, and also in which they  17 describe who the information came from and how those  18 territories had been owned by those hereditary chiefs,  19 and this information doesn't --  20 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps we could mark it.  21 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  22 MR. RUSH:  I object, my lord.  23 THE COURT:  Oh, you object to this?  24 MR. RUSH:  There's no basis for marking this document.  25 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps for identification then, my lord.  2 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  27 MR. RUSH:  There's a slim basis for marking it for  28 identification.  29 THE COURT:  Yes.  1018-9 for identification.  30  31 (EXHIBIT 1018-9 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Teit on  32 Tahltan and Kaska Indians)  33  34 THE COURT:  All right.  We'll take the adjournment now, please.  35 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned for a  36 short recess.  37  38 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15)  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 1592?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  2 a true and accurate transcript of the  3 proceedings herein transcribed to the  4 best of my skill and ability  5  6  7  9 Graham D. Parker  10 Official Reporter  11 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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 15929  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 11:00 A.M.)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Yes, Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Mr. George, I've put up on the cork board Exhibit 875,  7 which is a map that was marked during the examination  8 of Dr. Kari.  And Dr. Kari said that that map is  9 supposed to represent the distribution of languages at  10 the time of contact with the Europeans.  Did you see a  11 map like that or similar to that in any of your map  12 preparations?  13 A   I believe I have seen this map, but it would have been  14 fairly recently.  It wouldn't have been a map that I  15 used in the preparation of those maps, it was -- I  16 guess if I had seen it, it was fairly recently.  17 Q   Were you aware of the existence of people called the  18 Tsetsaut?  Are you aware of that or have you heard of  19 the Tsetsaut?  20 A   Tsetsaut, no.  That term is not familiar to me.  21 Q   No.  If you look at Exhibit 875, what is shown on  22 Exhibit 875 in orange is Nass-Gitksan and the Skeena  23 River is shown and the Nass River is shown, and you'll  24 see Kisgegas and Kuldoe are also depicted on that map.  25 What territories are Kisgegas and Kuldoe in on your  2 6 map 9A?  27 A   Kuldoe is a reserve that is on the Skeena River and  28 is -- from this map it appears it would be the  29 territory of Wiigyet, W-I-I-G-Y-E-T, and the east half  30 of this reserve would be in a territory of Luus,  31 L-U-U-S.  And Kisgegas is at about three or four miles  32 east on the confluence of the Skeena River and the  33 Babine River, and the boundary of the reserve runs on  34 the north and the south side of the Babine River.  35 THE COURT:  In whose territory, or did you say??  36 THE WITNESS:  I haven't said yet, your honour.  I'm just getting  37 to that.  38 THE COURT:  Okay.  39 THE WITNESS:  And the Kisgegas Reserve would fall into the  40 territory of Miluulak, M-I-L-U-U-L-A-K, and the  41 territory of Tsabux, T-S-A-B-U-X, and in the territory  42 of Nii Kyap, N-I-I-K-Y-A-P.  43 MR. WILLMS:  44 Q   Now, looking at Exhibit 875 and having reference to  45 the markings of the Skeena River, the Nass River and  46 Kuldoe and Kisgegas, even though 875 is a rough map,  47 you can see that there is an overlap of what's called 15930  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Tsetsaut, T-S-E-T-S-A-U-L-T, on Exhibit 875, that that  2 overlaps a fair portion of the territories shown as  3 Gitksan on your 646-9A?  4 A  What you identified Tsetsaut spelt T-S-E-T-S-A-U-L-T,  5 it is T-S-A-U-T.  6 Q   But you will agree that having reference to Kisgegas,  7 Kuldoe, the Skeena River and the Nass River which are  8 shown on Exhibit 875, you can tell that there is a  9 significant portion of the southern part of the  10 territory that you've marked on map 9A which appears  11 to be overlapped by Tsetsaut as shown as exhibit -- on  12 Exhibit 875?  13 A   This to me, your honour, is a map of languages.  14 THE COURT:  Yes, that's what it purports to be.  15 A   Um-hmm.  And this is a map of the external and  16 internal boundaries of the Gitksan and the  17 Wet'suwet'en which is mapped from affidavits which  18 describe those territories in great detail and the  19 boundaries and internal features, and identify them by  20 name and also identify -- like I said many times and  21 I'll say it again   who they heard that information  22 from and how long this territory has been in that --  23 belonged to that particular chief and since time  24 immemorial.  And I've also indicated that this map,  25 I've seen it, but just fairly recently.  And the  26 language grouping that Kari is using here, does appear  27 to overlap onto the area that's identified on map 9A.  28 MR. WILLMS:  2 9 Q   All right.  Thank you.  30 A   But map 9A was done from affidavits which described  31 the external boundaries and internal boundaries and  32 geographical features identified on them in the  33 Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en names.  34 Q   I am showing you a document that was marked Exhibit 22  35 in the examination for discovery of Mr. Sterritt, and  36 you'll see at the bottom that you can see the Nishga  37 Tribal Council name at the bottom, and then it appears  38 to be the top half of the words "Boundary of Land  39 Claims".  Have you seen this map or a copy of this map  40 before?  41 A   Yes, I may have seen this particular map, yes.  42 Q   All right.  And you know that in reviewing this map,  43 it generally runs along the -- for the most part, the  44 drainage of the Nass River, it crosses some rivers but  45 generally what it does is it takes in most of the  46 drainage of the Nass?  47 A   I can't find the Nass on there but it would appear 15931  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 that it would take in most of the Nass River.  The  2 Nass River is not --  3 Q   And you know -- you can see up in the upper right-hand  4 corner of -- the line -- the line goes through  5 Groundhog Mountain?  6 A   Yes.  Yes, I see Groundhog Mountain.  7 Q   Okay.  We've identified -- or you identified Groundhog  8 Mountain as being in the territory of Geel, G-E-E-L?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   All right.  So that the territory depicted on this  11 exhibit represents an overlap of the territories that  12 you have marked on Exhibit 646-9A?  13 A   The territory as depicted on this particular map would  14 be their understanding of where their boundaries might  15 be.  The territories that is depicted on overlay map  16 9B clearly identifies who those bound -- who those  17 territories belong to.  And basically, based on the  18 information I had, based on the research that was  19 done, based on the geographical features identified  20 and described, based on the boundaries that were given  21 to me, and based on the affidavits which were sworn  22 and were cross-examined on in court, and based on all  23 that information, that -- well, the map speaks for  24 itself.  25 THE COURT:  Does this map show the Nass River?  26 MR. WILLMS:  My lord —  27 THE WITNESS:  It's —  28 MR. WILLMS:  The Nass River is that — the line that — you'll  29 see the Bell-Irving coming from the top, down past --  30 and you'll see Meziadin Lake.  31 THE COURT:  Maybe Mr. George will show us.  32 THE WITNESS:  This?  33 THE COURT:  No.  I mean on this map, can you show us?  34 THE WITNESS:  Okay.  35 THE COURT:  Is that the Nass there?  36 THE WITNESS:  That would appear to be the Nass.  37 THE COURT:  The line that's running diagonally down the page  38 through that hatched area at the top left is what?  39 THE WITNESS:  It would appear to be the Bell-Irving River.  40 THE COURT:  Bell-Irving River?  41 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  42 THE COURT:  All right.  And you've — yes.  Does that say  43 Bell-Irving?  44 THE WITNESS:  Bell-Irving.  45 THE COURT:  I guess it does.  Yes, all right.  46 THE WITNESS:  And the Bell-Irving River does flow into the Nass  47 and I would take it that this would be the Nass and 15932  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the Nass does flow --  2 THE COURT:  Well, the Nass doesn't rise — does the Nass rise in  3 the Coastal Mountains?  4 THE WITNESS:  The Nass flows to the coast.  5 THE COURT:  I'm sorry?  6 THE WITNESS:  It's hard to identify.  7 THE COURT:  Well, these are islands, are they not?  8 THE WITNESS:  I believe those would be snow-capped peaks.  9 THE COURT:  Oh, those are snow-capped peaks.  These too?  10 THE WITNESS:  It's hard to identify on this particular map, your  11 honour, as to what --  12 MR. WILLMS:  You'll see —  13 THE WITNESS:  This would indicate to me that that would be —  14 THE COURT:  A mountain?  15 THE WITNESS:  -- an elevation about sea level, so I don't think  16 that could be snow-capped peaks.  17 THE COURT:  Well, you say -- where do you say the Bell-Irving  18 runs into the --  19 THE WITNESS:  Bell-Irving runs —  20 THE COURT:  — into the Nass on this map?  21 THE WITNESS:  Right there.  22 THE COURT:  So you think that's the Nass below that confluence?  23 THE WITNESS:  Um-hmm, yeah.  Based on information as on this  24 map, the Bell-Irving River joins the Nass right here.  25 THE COURT:  All right.  26 THE WITNESS:  The Nass does run down into the ocean.  27 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I'm confused then, Mr. George, because I  28 marked Nass here which would suggest that that's  29 wrong.  You think the Nass is over here?  30 THE WITNESS:  Well, the Nass does flow past the junction of the  31 Bell-Irving River and does flow towards the coast.  32 It's hard to identify on this map.  This could be a  33 road or it could be --  34 THE COURT:  Surely the Nishga aren't claiming just one side of  35 the river?  Isn't this the Nass running down here?  36 Here is the Cranberry?  37 THE WITNESS:  Yes, this would be the Nass.  38 THE COURT:  So this is the Nass.  You don't know what that is  39 over there?  Or is that the headwaters of the Nass?  40 THE WITNESS:  Let's quit guessing and look at the map then.  41 THE COURT:  By all means.  42 THE WITNESS:  That's where the Bell-Irving River joins the Nass,  43 right here.  And looking on this map, the Bell-Irving  44 River does run down here.  45 THE COURT:  That's the Nass, is it?  46 THE WITNESS:  So the way it's depicted on here — but this —  47 this is the confluence of the Bell-Irving River and 15933  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the Nass as it would appear on this map.  2 THE COURT:  Yes.  Because you -- this map, which is 9A, has the  3 Nass running down the centre of the Kitwancool  4 territory.  That's not right, is it?  5 THE WITNESS:  What's confusing about this particular map is this  6 line there may represent a road and not represent the  7 river at all.  8 THE COURT:  I suppose that's a very good possibility.  9 THE WITNESS:  You identified the Nass River in this particular  10 area but I still say that this particular line is a  11 road coming off the river.  12 THE COURT:  But doesn't the road parallel the river?  13 THE WITNESS:  The road would parallel the river, yes.  14 THE COURT:  Well, with the greatest respect, I think I had it  15 right the first time.  But I'm not confident.  All  16 right.  Thank you.  17 MR. WILLMS:  18 Q   I can't remember if I asked this question or not, but  19 I'll ask it again.  You can see, especially with the  20 notations of Groundhog Mountain and some of the other  21 topographic features that are described in this  22 exhibit, that there is an overlap between the external  23 boundaries as set out on the Nishga boundary of land  24 claimed and the external boundary that you've depicted  25 in 646-9A, correct?  26 A   Based on information that I got which clearly defines  27 those areas being Gitksan, I would say there is no  28 overlap based on the information that I got.  29 Q   No.  I'm just saying based -- comparing this map to  30 your map, there is an overlap?  31 A   From this map to my map, yes, it would appear that  32 there is an overlap.  33 Q   Yes.  34 THE COURT:  Perhaps you can just put me slightly at ease.  Is --  35 are the headwaters of the Nass in the Coastal  36 Mountains?  Does it first flow east and then make --  37 turn to the south and then back out to the west, or  38 does it rise more in the interior?  39 THE WITNESS:  The headwaters of the Nass are west of the  40 headwaters of the Skeena River and they do flow both  41 south and then it does flow west and then back south  42 again, back towards the --  43 THE COURT:  But are you -- are the headwaters of the Nass in the  44 Coastal Mountains and then does it then flow in a  45 great circle east and then south and then back to the  46 west, or does the Nass rise in the interior parallel  47 to the Skeena but east of what is shown on this map? 15934  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE WITNESS:  I've never really had the opportunity to study the  2 Nass and how it flows in relation to other  3 geographical features, your honour.  4 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  Thank you.  5 THE WITNESS:  Only a small portion of the Nass River appears in  6 the claim area, and that's the portion that I'm  7 familiar with.  8 THE COURT:  Yes.  9 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I think if you look at the base maps, the  10 small series and the larger series, it shows the Nass  11 rising -- moving to the east and then to the north and  12 then to the east and then to the north again.  Roughly  13 paralleling the way the Skeena goes up.  14 THE COURT:  Yes, that's what I thought.  All right.  Thank you.  15 MR. WILLMS:  Next exhibit, my lord?  16 THE REGISTRAR:  Be 1018-10.  17 MR. RUSH:  My lord, I hope you'll accept my objections as  18 running through seriatim that these documents don't  19 speak for the truth of the content.  20 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  1018-10.  Thank you.  21  22 (EXHIBIT 1018-10 - Map from Nishga Tribal Council  23 "Boundary of Land Claims")  24  25 MR. WILLMS:  26 Q   Mr. George, I'm showing you document 5435 of the  27 Attorney General for Canada, and is a portion of a  28 submission regarding the Kitwancool territory.  And  29 have you seen all or part of this submission before?  30 A   No, I haven't.  31 Q   You know that originally the Kitwancool territory was  32 included in the claim that was made to Mr. -- to the  33 Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Hugh  34 Faulkner?  35 A   Yes, I'm aware of that, yes.  36 Q   If you turn to paragraph ten, the boundary line is  37 described in that paragraph as:  38  39 "...commencing at...Kitwanga to the outlet of the  40 Bowser Lake up north; the Kitwancool boundary line  41 out across the Kitwanga road north of Kitwanga at  42 7 miles as aforesaid, thence west crossing the  43 Kiteen tributaries, then the boundary line follow  44 the downward course of the said Kiteen River on  45 its west side..."  46  47 And I'll skip the next portion because it's describing 15935  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the western boundary.  But then:  2  3 "...(it) continues to about ten miles west of  4 Bowser Lake, then turns north east and the  5 boundary line cut across the Bowser Lake outlet  6 and then the boundary follow the downward course  7 of the Gis-am-melded --"  8  9 G-I-S, A-M, melded River.  Just pausing there.  Do you  10 recognize that name, Gis-am-melded River?  11 A   No, I don't.  12 Q   All right.  13  14 "-- then it cut across the Nass River and  15 continues for about forty miles, then it turns  16 about east for about 70 miles and then the  17 boundary line following the ridge of the mountain  18 called leap  —"  19  20 L-E-A-P, ha, H-A, haedquid, H-A-E-D-Q-U-I-D.  Now,  21 just pausing there.  Do you know a mountain by that  22 name?  23 A   I am not familiar with the mountain by that name, your  24 honour, leap-ha-haedquid.  2 5 Q   Now:  26  27 "-- crossing the Kispiox River at a place called  28 Ksa-wedin."  29  30 K-S-A, W-E-D-I-N.  How about that?  Are you familiar  31 with that?  32 A  May I just look at the map for a minute for one  33 particular area?  My lord, it may be a feature in the  34 Kitwancool claim area but --  35 Q   You are not familiar with that name?  36 A   No.  37 Q   All right.  Then carries on:  38  39 "-- turning southeast including the mountains and  40 the Moon Creek."  41  42 Just pausing there.  The -- the names that I've read  43 to you along the boundary from Bowser Lake, you don't  44 have a familiarity with the features that are named in  45 the -- the non-English features that are named so that  46 you could map that; is that fair?  47 A   That would be fair, yes. 15936  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Now, they do say at the very end of paragraph ten:  2  3 "The Kitwancool territory is 130 miles long more  4 or less and it is about 60 miles wide, more or  5 less as shown on the map on the inside cover of  6 the Histories, Territories and Laws; of the  7 Kitwancool."  8  9 And I would ask if Exhibit 383 —  10 A  When he first starts reading the description it's  11 "commencing seven miles north of Kitwanga to the  12 outlet of Bowser Lake up north."  "Up north" doesn't  13 tell me if the boundary is running up north or -- it's  14 pretty vague.  I wouldn't be able to do a description  15 from this.  16 Q   All right.  I'll just ask Madam Registrar to place  17 before you Exhibit 383.  18 THE REGISTRAR:  Tab 20 of the book of James Morrison.  19 THE COURT:  All right.  Yes, all right.  20 MR. WILLMS:  21 Q   And this is the document that is entitled -- this is  22 the map of Kitwancool territories from "Histories,  23 Territories and Laws of the Kitwancool".  Have you  24 seen this map before?  25 A   I may have, your honour.  I can't say for certain if  26 I've seen it or not.  27 Q   When you look at the non-English names on the features  28 in that area, and you'll see at the very top it is  29 that "Gis-sa-am-maldid", and down near the middle on  30 the right, "Ks-we-den".  But do you recognize any of  31 those other names?  32 A   Gis-sa-am-maldid.  I believe Surveyors Creek may be  33 identified by a name that is similar to that, but I  34 would have to check it again, see the affidavit to  35 know for sure.  36 Q   I'm just wondering whether or not you can identify any  37 of the names that are within the territorial  38 boundaries here so that you could say whether or not  39 any of these named physical features are within maps  40 9A or 9B?  41 A   I don't speak the Gitksan language, your honour, and I  42 know for a fact that one little word spelled different  43 gives a total different meaning to a particular phrase  44 or something.  So I can't say what -- the fact of  45 those are the same features or not.  46 Q   Okay.  But if you look at this, you can certainly --  47 because of where Kispiox and Kisgegas and Kuldoe are 15937  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 set out -- you see where the Skeena River is and the  2 Babine River?  3 A   I -- there is a feature on the map which is not  4 identified as Babine River.  5 Q   But that's generally where it would be?  6 A   Generally where it would be, yes.  7 Q   And Kuldoe is on the Skeena?  8 A   Kuldoe is on the Skeena, yes.  9 Q   So if you work back down to Kispiox, I suggest that  10 it's a fair guess that that's the Kispiox River coming  11 in from the left?  12 A   That would be the Kispiox River, yes, in that  13 location.  14 Q   And if you come around to the left-hand side, the  15 river that starts in the lower left and then works its  16 way up past a point that's called Wens-ga-goal,  17 W-E-N-S dash G-A dash G-O-A-L, up past the outlet for  18 Meziadin Lake, that that's the Nass River?  19 A  Where was that feature that you --  20 Q   There is a circle?  21 A   Oh, black dot?  22 Q   A black dot?  23 A   Yeah.  24 Q   All right.  And if you follow that line up, especially  25 since you noticed that there is a river coming out --  26 you know there is a river coming out of Meziadin Lake?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   Flows into the Nass?  29 A   Yes, I'm aware of that.  30 Q   And then if you look up to Bowser Lake -- you know  31 Bowser Lake has water that flows into the Bell-Irving  32 River?  33 A   Yes.  I'm aware of that, yes.  34 Q   So that with the main rivers there, you can see that  35 this depicts -- which anyway, appears to depict the  36 Nass, the Skeena, the Kispiox River?  37 A  Appears to, yes.  38 Q   But you don't have enough information because you  39 don't speak Gitksan and because you haven't run across  40 these —  41 A   I haven't made --  42 Q   -- these names?  43 A   I haven't made a comparison between these features as  44 identified on here and against any features that I  45 might have at my -- in an affidavit or --  46 Q   Okay.  47 A   Like I said, one word spelled different in a phrase 1593?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 gives a total different meaning, from my experience of  2 the languages.  3 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I would like to mark the document 5435 as  4 the next exhibit.  5 MR. RUSH:  Only for identification I think, my lord.  6 THE COURT:  All right.  That's number ten?  7 THE REGISTRAR:  1018-11, my lord.  8 THE COURT:  All right.  For identification.  9  10 (EXHIBIT 1018-11 FOR ID - Negotiations Regarding  11 Kitwancool Territory, AG for Canada Document 5435)  12  13 MR. WILLMS:  14 Q   Mr. George, did you do or have you seen any interviews  15 with Tahltan people in the same detail of the  16 interviews that were done with the Gitksan hereditary  17 chiefs?  18 A   No, I haven't done any interviews with the Tahltan.  I  19 haven't seen any interviews with the Tahltans, in the  20 extent that it was done with the Gitksan hereditary  21 chiefs.  22 Q   Did you do or have you seen any interviews with  23 Carrier-Sekani people, other than those that are  24 exhibited in 998, that are in the same detail as the  25 interviews that you did or that you saw with Gitksan  26 and Wet'suwet'en people?  27 A  At the meeting in Moricetown where this particular map  28 was displayed and at the time the Carrier-Sekani came  29 down, I believe they were asked a question or they had  30 volunteered some information as to how they had  31 gathered that information.  I believe that information  32 was gathered by people who were on a work programme  33 with no knowledge of mapping at all.  And what they  34 had done is they gathered information where people  35 hunted and stuff like that, and that was the basis of  36 that particular boundary.  And no, I have not done any  37 interviews with the Carrier-Sekani to the extent that  38 we have done with the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, in  39 which those boundaries are clearly described and  40 identified.  41 Q   Did you do or have you seen any interviews with  42 Tsimshian people, and by that I mean either Kitselas  43 or Kitsumkalum, in the same detail as were done with  44 Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en?  45 A   No, I haven't.  46 Q   Did you do or have you seen any interviews with Nishga  47 people along the same lines as the interviews that 15939  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 were done with the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en  2 hereditary chiefs?  3 A   No, I haven't.  4 Q   Did you do or have you seen any interviews with any  5 Kaska-Dena people, done along the same lines as the  6 interviews that were done with the Gitksan or  7 Wet'suwet'en chiefs?  8 A   No, I haven't.  9 Q   Now, the only overlap that you've mapped, I think your  10 evidence was, was the Carrier-Sekani overlap in  11 Exhibit 101.  That'a the only one where you put your  12 pen to paper to mark overlap; is that correct?  13 A   Yes.  We had been given a map by the Carrier-Sekani  14 and there was that meeting coming up in Moricetown  15 where this was going to be discussed, and they had  16 asked me to produce a map for that purpose.  And that  17 boundary was transferred to my map with the use of the  18 Kailautofocus projector, K-A-I-L-A-U-T-O-F-O-C-U-S  19 projector.  And I already explained to you that at  20 that meeting, they told us how they had arrived at  21 that boundary.  People were on a work programme with  22 no knowledge of mapping or anything.  Summer  23 employment.  And they went out and asked people,  24 "Where did you hunt and where did you pick berries?"  25 And they didn't identify -- it didn't say that they  26 had owned those territories, or those berry patches  27 were in their territories.  28 Q   When you prepared 646-9A and 646-9B, you knew or you  29 understood that there were overlapping claims from the  30 people on the adjoining boundary areas, didn't you?  31 A  When I prepared overlap map 9A and 9B, I knew there  32 was information gathered on the Gitksan and  33 Wet'suwet'en territories, and I knew that there were  34 affidavits signed which described boundaries of the  35 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, where they identify their  36 external boundaries and identify internal features,  37 and they give a name to it.  I also knew all that and  38 it was the basis on that information that overlay map  39 9A and map 9B was prepared.  40 Q   You also knew that in respect of the peoples on the  41 adjoining portions of the external boundary all the  42 way around the claim area, that there were overlapping  43 claims all the way around.  You knew that or  44 understood that, didn't you, when you prepared 9A and  45 9B?  46 A   I know there are claims in just about the entire  47 Province of B.C. which haven't been dealt with, yes. 15940  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 And I also know that there are only about three  2 treaties in the Province of B.C., which would give  3 rise to many claims all over B.C.  And I know, based  4 on information that I have, that the external  5 boundaries and the internal boundaries as described by  6 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en in their affidavits,  7 gives me to believe that that is the boundaries of the  8 Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en, based on that  9 information.  It was sworn and -- which is in court  10 and which they have been cross-examined on.  11 Q   Did you know or did you understand when you mapped 9A  12 and 9B that going around the external boundaries, that  13 there were overlapping claims from peoples living in  14 adjoining territories?  Did you know that or did you  15 understand that when you made 9A and 9B?  16 A   I knew there were claims all around us, and I also  17 know, like I said, based on information that is in the  18 affidavits which is -- clearly describes the external  19 boundaries of the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en, and  20 clearly describes the internal boundaries, clearly  21 describes the geographical features as being on the  22 boundaries or within their territories, and their  23 affidavits that you have and are sworn affidavits and  24 clearly describe what's in there.  25 Q   When you were mapping the internal boundaries, you  26 would frequently talk to chiefs in adjoining  27 territories to determine where the boundary line ran,  2 8 wouldn't you?  29 A   On Wet'suwet'en part, yes.  30 Q   Yeah.  So that if there was anything that came up that  31 was perhaps confusing, or where it looked like there  32 may be an overlap between house territories, you tried  33 to clear that up by either you interviewing the  34 hereditary chief or someone interviewing the  35 hereditary chief, correct?  36 A   If I had a concern about a particular boundary, I  37 would bring that information to both chiefs, which  38 that boundary was continuous, and based on information  39 that they told me, that's where those boundaries were  40 drawn.  Not on my understanding, it's where they tell  41 me the boundaries are.  42 Q   But what you did not do is, for example, when you were  43 drawing the boundary of Hagwilnegh -- the lower  44 portion of Exhibit 9B -- you did not go and interview  45 any Carrier and Sekani people living around that, to  46 determine whether or not they said that was the  47 Hagwilnegh boundary, did you? 15941  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Our job was to describe the external and internal  2 boundaries of the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en.  And  3 based on that information, Hagwilnegh is Wet'suwet'en,  4 all those people within those territories are Gitksan  5 and Wet'suwet'en, and those boundaries are clearly  6 defined in the affidavits which tells me where those  7 boundaries are.  And that was my job, the Gitksan and  8 Wet'suwet'en.  It wasn't my job to go interview all of  9 the Carrier-Sekani to see where their boundary was.  10 It wasn't my job to go interview the Kaska-Dena to see  11 where their boundaries were and see what geographical  12 features they knew.  It wasn't my job to go and  13 interview the Kitwancool people to see where their  14 boundaries are.  It wasn't my job to do any of that.  15 Q   I would like to turn back now to your book, 998.  And  16 if you could turn to tab 34, please, Mr. George.  17 Now, at this tab, you are describing a meeting,  18 October 6th, with Florence Hall -- I take it Richard  19 is Richard Overstall; is that right?  20 A   Yes, yes.  21 MR. RUSH:  That's October 6th, 1986, for the record.  22 THE WITNESS:  Time, 10:15 a.m.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   Thank you.  Alfred is Alfred Joseph?  25 A   That's correct.  26 Q   Now, on the second page you've made a note at the top,  27 "Paddy Isaac claims" -- is this Day Lake?  Is that  2 8 what you mean there?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   "-- but it belongs to Kweese".  Now, first of all, did  31 you put Day Lake in the Kweese territory?  32 A   Information comes to me which describes a certain  33 feature within a certain territory, that's the  34 information that I put.  It's not for me to make  35 judgment calls as to where boundaries go and which  36 feature belongs to which chief.  That information  37 would come to me, and based on information that come  38 to me which described geographical features within  39 certain areas.  And in the affidavit of Kweese, it  40 describes Day Lake as being in the territory of  41 Kweese.  42 Q   Okay.  Who is Paddy Isaac, what house?  43 A   Paddy Isaac, I believe, would be Gitdumden, the wolf  44 clan.  But what house?  45 Q   You don't know the house?  46 A   I don't know the house.  47 Q   Do you know whether or not Paddy Isaac has a chiefly 15942  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 name?  2 A   No, I don't.  3 Q   Now, if you can turn to the next tab, it's tab 35?  4 A   Your honour, on this particular tab, there is also --  5 in my notes it also identifies that Harry Isaac is  6 another caretaker.  He was just on there on the  7 privilege.  8 Q   Okay.  9 THE COURT:  Thank you.  10 MR. WILLMS:  11 Q   The next tab -- now these I think you identified  12 earlier as notes taken by Alfred Joseph?  13 A   This is in the handwriting of Neil Sterritt.  14 Q   Oh, sorry.  Neil Sterritt, all right.  You -- if you  15 turn to page 11 -- sorry, it's not numbered.  There is  16 a page with a number 31.  You'll see that the  17 numbering starts on the second page, one, all the way  18 down, and if you turn to the page with 31 on it with a  19 circle around it?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And in the right-hand column it describes something  22 called "Caas aan", C-A-A-S, A-A-N, "lots grizzly  23 dens."  And then underneath that:  24  25 "This is a historic site.  Alfred heard grizzly's  26 there in 1952, was with late George Mitchell."  27  2 8 Now, did that mean to you when you got it that the  29 name of this place -- this place was named in this  30 century, that's when it got its name?  31 A   That name refers to an incident with Old Man Lame  32 Michell, I believe.  33 Q   Yes.  And it's the incident in 1904 in the left-hand  34 column; is that correct?  35 A   There is a 1904 there in the column.  Probably was in  36 1904 that they were at this particular feature within  37 the territory of Namox, and they may have been  38 attacked by a grizzly in that particular area and they  39 put a name to it.  40 Q   Was it common, at least from your review of the  41 interview notes of yourself and Mr. Sterritt, for a --  42 the name of a location to be from an event within the  43 memory of the person being interviewed?  In other  44 words, that -- the event was then the name of the  45 location?  Is that common?  46 A   That could be true, yes.  They would give a name to a  47 geographical feature which would remind them of a 15943  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 certain incident or --  2 Q   All right.  Now, if you carry on, there is -- to the  3 second to the last page in this tab.  At the top it  4 says "Alfred had" -- looks like "14 dozen traps on  5 their territory"?  6 A   Looks like 14 but I can't say for sure it was 14 or  7 not.  8 Q   Okay.  And -- but the Alfred, you know that that  9 Alfred is Alfred Joseph; is that right?  10 A   No, no.  11 Q   Oh, you don't?  12 A   No, I don't.  13 Q   Oh.  Alfred Mitchell?  14 A  Maybe Alfred Mitchell.  Maybe another Alfred.  15 Q   All right.  Then just carrying on, "History of  16 territory - They said the" -- can you read that, what  17 family that is?  "The same family lived"?  18 A  Appears to be "The same family," yes.  19 Q   "-- on their territory from generation to generation."  20 And then, "Sarah Tait said the Nuuts'enii had a war  21 with the Wet'suwet'en here."  22 A   That's what it says, yes.  23 Q   Are you familiar where that war took place on the map?  24 A   No, I am not, no.  25 Q   Were you -- did you ask or do you know anybody that  26 asked Sarah Tait about that war and what it was about?  27 A   No, I can't say for certain if -- like I said, my job  28 was to plot geographical features, identify boundaries  29 based on the information that was given to me.  30 Q   Now —  31 A  And based on the affidavits, all those boundaries were  32 placed on the maps.  33 Q   There is a map at the last page.  And do you -- is  34 this -- did you take any part in preparing anything on  35 this map, those --  36 A   No.  37 Q   -- circles and numbers on it?  That's somebody else's  3 8 map?  39 A   That's someone else's map, yes.  40 Q   Now, if you can just carry on over to tab 38.  Is  41 your -- these are your notes of a November 5th, 1987  42 meeting?  43 A   Yes, it is.  44 Q   And the territories involved you describe as Wah Tah  45 K'eght and Khanoots.  That's W-A-H, T-A-H, K-E-G-H-T,  46 and K-H-A-N-O-O-T-S.  47 A   Yes. 15944  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And then at the very bottom there is a note, "Samooh",  2 S-A-M-O-O-H, "territory to change to Khay Lah, "  3 K-H-A-Y, Lah, L-A-H.  And then a note, "J. David,  4 Mable Critch, Madeline Alfred, all agree."  Now, can  5 you point out on Exhibit 9B where that territory is?  6 A   That would be this territory right here, identified as  7 Hagwilnegh.  It's in relationship to -- it would be  8 south of Knockholt, K-N-0-C-K-H-O-L-T, on the Bulkley  9 River, your honour.  There is a territory identified  10 as Smogelgem to the north of it.  11 MR. RUSH:  Does your lordship have that?  12 THE COURT:  Yes, thank you.  You are talking about Hagwilnegh's  13 territory?  14 THE WITNESS:  Yes, your honour.  15 THE COURT:  With Namox on the east?  16 THE WITNESS:  Namox on south.  17 THE COURT:  South.  Oh yes.  All right.  18 MR. WILLMS:  19 Q   Now who -- at this time do you know who the -- who was  20 -- was anyone else involved in this discussion?  21 Was -- what's the -- do you know the English name for  22 Goohlaht at this time?  23 A   Goohlaht would be Lucy Namox.  24 Q   Lucy Namox.  Do you know -- and the house territory of  25 Samooh, that's a sub-house of Goohlaht; is that  26 correct?  27 A   There are three houses in the Gilseyhu clan.  I  28 believe Samooh may be a house in the Gilseyhu, yes.  29 Q   And was there someone at this time who held the title  30 of Samooh?  31 A   I don't believe there was, no.  32 Q   And do you recall whether or not Lucy Namox was asked  33 about this change?  34 A   I believe she may have been aware of it, yes.  I  35 believe the area on the original coded map was  36 identified as being Samooh, and based on the  37 information that came to me, that area was later  38 identified as being from the House of Hagwilnegh and  39 belonging to Khay Lah, and there is an affidavit which  40 swears to that.  41 Q   Over to the next tab, tab 39, it's a note of December  42 9th, 1987, where -- Richard, again, is Richard  43 Overstall?  44 A   That's correct.  45 Q   And Mable Forsythe.  And down in the middle by the  46 three-hole punch in the middle of the page you have  47 got a note: 15945  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "Mary Joseph would know this area, she was married  2 to dad's first wife's son.  She is in the hospital  3 now.  After dad passed away, the area went back to  4 Louie Tommy".  5  6 Now, is there -- do you know the name of whose dad  7 that was?  8 A   I believe that would be Mary Joseph's father.  9 Q   Mary Joseph's father.  Do you know his name?  10 A   No.  11 Q   No.  So that took -- this reads that after Mary  12 Joseph's father passed away, the area went back to  13 Louie Tommy?  14 A   It would indicate to me that Mary Joseph's father was  15 in there under some privilege or in a caretaking  16 capacity.  17 Q   And what area do you -- is described by "area"?  The  18 area around Coffin Lake?  19 A   No, I can't say it's that area around Coffin Lake from  20 this, no.  21 Q   Well, do you have any recollection of what area you  22 were talking about when you made the note?  23 A   This is:  24  25 "Before our time my father lived around Round  26 Lake.  The house was knocked down in that -- "  27  28 And identifies where this person lives -- lived.  She  29 lived around this area, and it could be referred to  30 Round Lake.  31 Q   Now go to the next tab, tab 40.  Another meeting and  32 Mr. Overstall and other people are there and you've  33 got a note:  34  35 "Who would know Maxan Lake area?"  36  37 And then:  38  39 "Henry Isaac, he's the caretaker there, he may  40 know the area.  I have only been there once, along  41 the lake shore."  42  43 Now, is that -- that's Bazil Mitchell telling you  44 that?  Is that the speaker?  45 A   I believe it is, yes.  46 Q   Now, the territory for Maxan Lake is in the affidavit  47 of Roy Morris.  There is no affidavit of Henry Isaac? 15946  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   It's identified in here, your honour, that Henry Isaac  2 is a caretaker, which would indicate that he doesn't  3 own it.  4 Q   Yes.  And I think I asked this already, but you didn't  5 take any part in determining who was the most  6 knowledgeable to swear an affidavit.  Somebody else  7 did that?  8 A   The chiefs would give me that information, yes.  9 Q   All right.  If you can turn to the next tab.  Madeek's  10 territory, 87/12/16, Mr. Overstall is there again, and  11 you are interviewing Rita George?  12 A   Yes, that's correct.  13 Q   And on the second page you've got a description part  14 way down of a boundary Gitney, G-I-T-N-E-Y, Nde,  15 N-D-E, and then W-E-N-I-I-L with a slash E-N.  And  16 then the note, "May be the boundary between Kweese,"  17 K-W-E-E-S-E, "Satsan," S-A-T-S-A-N, "and Khay,"  18 K-H-A-Y, "Lah," L-A-H.  Did that turn out to be the  19 boundary between those three?  20 A   I would have to check that to know for sure.  21 Q   All right.  Could you —  22 A  Against the -- can I get the affidavits of those two  23 areas?  24 Q   My lord, it's 12:30, and if it wouldn't be too much  25 trouble for Mr. George to look at that?  26 THE COURT:  All right, yes.  27 MR. WILLMS:  And we can deal with that at two.  2 8    THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  29    THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until 2:00.  30  31 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M.)  32  33  34 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  35 a true and accurate transcript of the  36 proceedings herein transcribed to the  37 best of my skill and ability.  38  39  40  41  42 Toni Kerekes,  43 O.R., R.P.R.  44 United Reporting Service Ltd.  45  46  47 15947  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 2:00)  Order in court.  Willms.  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE REGISTRAR:  THE COURT:  Mr.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   Mr. George, we were at 998-41, which was an interview  with Rita George, and I had asked whether or not  Gitney, G-I-T-N-E-Y, Ned wenii, N-E-D-W-E-N-I-I, L  slash E-N was the boundary between Kweese, Satsan and  Khay Lah, and is that --  No.  It never did become the boundary.  It did not become the boundary?  No.  The information about where that boundary might be,  that note is from Rita George. Is she the one that  suggested that?  We were doing some work in that particular area and  Rita said that that hill might be called the hill that  we were talking about, and that was the name she gave,  but no, it was never identified by the people that  signed the affidavits in that particular area as being  on the boundary or being a little within their  territory.  If you turn to tab 44, 998-44, which is a note, I  can't see whether that's '88 or '87 in the upper  left-hand corner.  It's described as '88.  And this  was a meeting that you had with Richard Overstall,  Frank Jimmy and Christine Jimmy?  Yes.  And Alfred Joseph.  And Alfred Joseph?  Um-hum.  At the bottom of that page you've got a note:  "Johnny David and Mabel Sam Critch state that all  of Wedzen Ben."  W-E-D-Z-E-N, Ben.  Now, what's Wedzen Ben; is there an  English name for that?  A  Morris Lake.  Q   Morris lake?  "Half of Tenelghet."  A   That's a slash to L, Teneghet.  THE COURT:  That's what?  A   That's slashed to L.  MR. WILLMS:  A  Q  A  Q 1594?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And what's that?  Is that a name of a feature that has  2 an English name?  3 A   No.  That's an unnamed feature on the government issue  4 maps.  5 Q  6 "Is Gitdumden.  Frank says that Gilserhyu owned  7 that lake."  8  9 And that's a lake near Morris Lake?  10 A   Yes, it is.  11 Q   Yes.  12  13 "Will be talking to Johnny David to try to settle  14 this problem."  15  16 Now, is that an example of where in your interviews a  17 problem arose as to who owned what and you making a  18 note to yourself about how to solve that problem?  19 A   Yes, it would be, because on the original draft maps  20 you see that I -- at the information I had included  21 most of Morris Lake and territory of Goohlaht.  22 Q   So now -- so when you interviewed people and you came  23 across a problem, say two people saying that the same  24 feature was in two different territories, you did the  25 best that you could to try to figure out which  26 territory it was really in?  27 A   I would take that particular information, and based on  28 information that the hereditary chiefs would give me  29 and based on the information in the affidavit, that is  30 territory that had been described in the territory of  31 Gyolugyet.  32 Q   But these notes were taken before the affidavits were  33 sworn, right?  This is part of the process of getting  34 the information that ultimately went into the  35 affidavits?  36 A   It would be part of the process, yes.  37 Q   Yes.  So that all that I'm suggesting is that when you  38 noticed that there was a problem, like an overlap or  39 something like that, you did the best you could to try  40 to solve that and find out?  41 A   I would notice that one particular person might make  42 reference to a feature and describe it in a certain  43 way and another person might make reference to that  44 same feature and describe it different, and I would  45 try to get the correct description for that area for  46 which territory it was in.  47 Q   Right.  And you did that because you knew that the 15949  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 territories shouldn't overlap, two house territories  2 shouldn't overlap?  3 A   Territories don't overlap, no.  4 Q   They shouldn't, should they?  5 A   They don't.  6 Q   And you did that because you knew that there shouldn't  7 be gaps between territories?  In other words, there  8 shouldn't be any unowned land within the external  9 boundaries?  10 A   There isn't any unowned land.  The only problem was  11 from the original coded map to the information that we  12 got at the end, the information that I had that went  13 to the boundaries on the original coded map, and in  14 the course of gathering this information, the process  15 of the information coming to me it is described as  16 being in the territory of Gyolugyet and Wos, described  17 in the affidavit and sworn to.  18 Q   Can you turn to tab 46.  It's an interview with Selina  19 John, husband Peter John, and in particular to the --  20 it's a page at the top, 4 -- it says 4 of 6.  And  21 all -- see the third paragraph down, there's a note:  22  23 "Tintagel is the boundary line, this side  24 Wet'suwet'en, the other side is Noots'enii."  25  26 That was something that Selina John told you?  27 A   That's correct, your honour.  And on Friday, April  28 8th, 1988 Selina John again:  29  30 "Tintagel is not the station, but an area, the  31 hunting territory."  32  33 Q   Let's just go to 646-9B, Tintagel is on Francois Lake,  34 or Burns Lake?  35 A   Burns Lake.  36 Q   All right.  So it's in the territory that's marked  37 Hagwilnegh?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And it's about in the middle.  It looks like it's  40 about roughly in the middle of that territory that  41 you've noted as Hagwilnegh?  42 A   That's correct.  43 Q   Is that correct?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   So that if that note is right, anything to the east of  46 Tintagel, if the note is right shouldn't be in  47 Hagwilnegh, it should be Carrier-Sekani, if the note's 15950  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 right?  2 A  When she was referring to Tintagel here she was  3 referring to the territory, which I got on the next --  4 next page, Friday, April 8th, 1988.  That's Selina  5 John again:  6  7 "Tintagel is not the station, but an area, the  8 hunting territory."  9  10 She's saying to me that no, not at Tintagel.  Tintagel  11 is the area, the hunting territory.  12 Q   Well, I'll get to that note in a minute.  But just  13 carrying on with this note, at the bottom you've got a  14 note Tsee, T-s-e-e.  Is that -- that's an L with a  15 line through it?  16 A   Tsee Kez Kwe.  17 Q   K-E-Z, K-W-E "Was the external boundary back in 1911".  18 Do you know where that feature is?  Is there an  19 English name for that feature that you're familiar  20 with?  21 A   That particular feature would be in the territory as  22 described as being Hagwilnegh also.  23 Q   Yes.  And you know that that feature is described in  24 the affidavit of William Simms, which has been marked  25 Exhibit 674.  If you turn to the last page of Mr.  26 Simms' affidavit, it's referred to there by the  27 English name of Soles Creek?  28 A   That's correct, yes.  2 9 Q   All right.  And you've run the boundary according to  30 the affidavit to Shovel Creek?  31 A   That's correct.  32 Q   So that if the note from Selina John is correct, the  33 boundary's in the wrong place, if Selina John is  34 right?  35 A   If she's right.  36 Q   Yeah?  37 A  And if the note from here is wrong and the information  38 in the affidavit has been sworn to, it's right then,  39 the information that I have in my map overlay map 9A  40 which describes that area, Hagwilnegh, based on this  41 affidavit and sworn.  42 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps we can just mark the affidavit, my lord, at  43 1018-12.  4 4    THE COURT:  Yes.  45  46 (EXHIBIT 1018-12 - Affidavit of William Simms  47 dated June 23, 1988) 15951  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   Just carrying on with this extract on -- at tab 46,  3 Mr. George, it says Selina John is telling you:  4  5 "A lot of Nuuts'enii women married Wet'suwet'en men  6 and trapped all around there, in the olden days  7 women used to love to trap and hunt, as a result  8 of this the chiefs in that area, Wet'suwet'en  9 and Nuuts'enii got together and agreed to move the  10 external boundary out."  11  12 Now, did you understand which boundary Selina John was  13 talking about that was being moved out in 1911?  14 A   I believe she was talking about the boundaries around  15 Burns Lake there.  16 Q   Yes?  17 A   But you go back to the affidavit again, it clearly  18 describes the area as being Hagwilnegh on the Gidum  19 Skanist.  20 Q   Now, on the last page after this note on page 6 of 6  21 at tab 46, you say at the very bottom:  22  23 "There is still some question regarding the eastern  24 boundary".  25  2 6 "Bndy":  27  28 "Selina says that Shovel Creek is Nuuts'enii but at  29 the overlap feast in Burns Lake they had agreed on  30 the boundary, and this evidence has already been  31 presented in court."  32  33 So is that what tipped you to Shovel Creek being in  34 Hagwilnegh rather than being in Nuuts'enii territory?  35 A   No.  I'll explain what happened here, your honour.  36 Selina John was born Gilseyhu and was born  37 Wet'suwet'en.  She moved to Stoney Creek and was a  38 member of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council there.  39 And the area at the -- in Ndetezdlee,  40 N-D-E-T-E-Z-D-L-E-E, is an area on the — I believe  41 the east side of Burns Lake, around the mill site that  42 is in that area.  She was later adopted by Gidum  43 Skanist, and because she's adopted by Gidum Skanist  44 she says the territory is hers, and she feels that she  45 can -- because she moved to Stoney Creek she feels  46 that she can take the territory with her, but that's  47 not the case, you don't do that.  And that's what 15952  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 she's talking about here.  2 Q   Can you turn to tab 48.  It's the one you referred to  3 a minute ago.  It's another note -- in -- no, it's 48  4 that I want:  5  6 "Return trip to do more work witn Selina, along  7 with me was Alfred Joseph and George Holland."  8  9 These are your notes, tab 48?  10 A   That's correct.  11 Q   And so and here you were just describing a minute ago  12 that Tintagel is not just the station on the tracks,  13 but an area, the hunting territory?  14 A   Um-hum.  15 Q   Correct?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And then:  18  19 "The rest area is in Tintagel, the one with the  2 0 monument."  21  22 You're aware of a rest area on the side of the road  23 near Tintagel?  24 A   Yes.  I'm aware of that.  25 Q   All right.  And you will see:  26  27 "East of the rest stop, there is a little house, a  28 hump is there, that is the boundary."  29  30 That's within a couple of miles of Tintagel, isn't it?  31 A   Yes, it is.  32 Q   Yes.  So what Selina John told you in the follow up  33 interview was only marginally different about the  34 boundary than earlier.  She just explained a little  35 more what she meant by Tintagel.  She said it was the  36 rest area that she was talking about, which is close  37 to Tintagel?  38 A   That's what she says here, yes.  39 Q   Yes.  Now, at tab 49 there's another reference to  40 Selina John, but before I ask you to turn to the  41 reference at tab 49, can you explain where you got  42 this printout?  I mean who did -- this looks like a  43 computer printout?  44 A   This was information that was forwarded to me, and I  45 don't know where it was generated from, your honour.  46 This may have been done before I got there.  47 Q   You'll see that the way this is set up, it apparently 15953  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 contains quotes from tapes of interviews?  2 A   That's correct.  3 Q   Is that what you understood that it was?  4 A   No.  I don't -- I don't know if it is under quotes  5 from interviews.  It's definitely -- it's information  6 that was gathered by different people before I got  7 there.  8 Q   The only reason -- why I ask whether or not it's  9 quotes is because it -- for example, if you turn to  10 the second page, there are -- there's an indentation,  11 there are quote marks, and then in parentheses at the  12 bottom:  13  14 "William Simms, Alfred Joseph:  Interview,  15 September 4, 1981."  16  17 And I —  18 A   It could be an interview that was conducted on that  19 day, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be  20 a tape.  21 Q   Or a quote from it; you didn't understand that?  22 A   No.  23 Q   All right.  Well, if you turn to the last page of  24 this, you will see:  25  26 "I have reviewed the tape of the interview between  27 Smogelgem and Selina John.  Selina is very  28 knowledgeable of the Wet'suwet'en boundary  29 east of Burns Lake.  Burns Lake David, (a former  30 Gidum Skanist), David Tibbetts was her  31 step-father.  She now lives in Stoney Creek near  32 Vanderhoof."  33  34 When you read this note, who did you understand "I"  35 was at the top that reviewed the tape of the interview  36 and determined that Selina is very knowledgeable about  37 that boundary.  Was it Leonard George or --  38 A   Based on the information here, I would say that it  39 would be Leonard George, yes.  40 Q   But the boundary affidavit for that Hagwilnegh  41 territory was not Selina John's affidavit, was it?  42 A   No, it isn't.  43 Q   Next, tab 50 of 998.  This is a meeting with Florence  44 Hall, Kweese?  45 A   That's correct.  46 Q   Yes.  And you will see in the -- beside the first dash  47 respecting Houston, a description of a boundary along 15954  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the timber line.  Is that where you eventually drew  2 the boundary, along the timber line?  3 A   No.  The boundary there would be along the high land.  4 Q   But this is Florence Hall, this is Kweese describing  5 where boundaries run, isn't it?  6 A   Yes, it is.  7 Q   Yeah.  Now, the language later on in the note, you  8 refer to other boundaries, and who owns -- but it's:  9  10 "Florence agrees with the boundary being" --  11  12 And underneath that again, down another four lines:  13  14 "Florence agrees."  15  16 Did somebody tell Florence Hall where the boundary was  17 and then she agreed with what she was told; is that  18 what that means?  19 A   No.  The boundary may have been explained to Florence  20 Hall that "Florence, this is where we have the  21 boundary, do you agree with the boundary being there".  22 Q   Right, okay.  Now, just if you can turn back to  23 998-36, please, which is an interview of June 1st,  24 1987.  Do you -- whose notes are these?  Do you  25 recognize whose notes these are?  26 A   These would be -- it appears to be the writing of Neil  27 Sterritt.  28 Q   All right.  The -- at the fourth page in, under item  29 22, there is a note about Boulder Creek under item 22,  30 and then underneath that it's talking about Basil --  31 Basil's line.  Do you know who that is, Basil who?  32 A   Probably would refer to Basil Mitchell.  33 Q   All right.  And it talks about Seaton at Boulder Creek  34 being the boundary line?  35 A   That's correct, yes.  36 Q   And Basil Mitchell is Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en?  37 A   Basil Mitchell is Wet'suwet'en in the House of Wah Tah  38 Keg'ht.  39 Q   And on the next page you've got a note on Porphyry --  40 I think that's Porphyry Creek under 25, and a note  41 underneath "This is Gitksan", or it's not your note,  42 but do you see the note there?  43 A   Yes.  I see it.  44 Q   Are you aware that there are some Wet'suwet'en that  45 say that the boundary between Gitksan territory and  46 Wet'suwet'en territory is at Porphyry Creek?  47 A   I have affidavits that tell me where different 15955  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  Q  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  16  17  Q  18  19  A  20  21  22  MR.  WILLMS  23  24  25  26  THE  COURT:  27  THE  REGIST  28  THE  COURT:  29  30  31  32  33  MR.  WILLMS  34  Q  35  36  37  38  A  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  A  boundaries are that would identify where the  boundaries would separate the Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en, yes.  And you're also aware that there are Gitksan who say  that the boundary between the territory is at Boulder  Creek?  There are Gitksan that say that?  Well, are you aware that there are or not?  You show me something that said that.  I'm just asking if you know or not?  No.  I'm not aware of that.  You put the boundary at Porphyry Creek, that's where  the boundary is on your map?  I didn't put the boundary there, no.  The  Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en affidavits put the boundaries  there.  But that's where the boundary is according to your map  9A and 9B?  The affidavit maps 9A and 9B are based on the  affidavits of the Gitksan and the affidavits of the  Wet'suwet'en.  I didn't put any boundary anywhere.  :  My lord, I'm going turn to some interrogatory maps  now.  My lord, I wonder if this document -- this book  couldn't have the next exhibit number, and as I go  through it we can mark the various tabs as dash.  All right, 1019.  RAR:  No, I'm sorry, my lord, it will be 1020.  Oh, yes.  (EXHIBIT 1020 - Attorney General of British  Columbia Maps)  If you could please turn to tab 1, Mr. George, and if  you can pull out the map that's at tab 1.  And just  look at that map and confirm in the lower right-hand  corner of the map that C is an "MFG".  That's you?  Um-hum, that's me.  And the slash is Neil Sterritt?  That's correct.  And this a copy of a map that you prepared about  the -- concerning the territory of Antgulilbix, May  13th, 1987?  That's correct.  And the information that you plotted on this map came  from hereditary chiefs?  The information came from -- came to me from notes 15956  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  Q  4  A  5  MR.  WILLMS  6  THE  COURT:  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  MR.  WILLMS  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  A  25  26  Q  27  28  A  29  THE  COURT:  30  A  31  32  33  THE  COURT:  34  A  35  THE  COURT:  36  MR.  WILLMS  37  Q  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  A  45  THE  COURT:  46  A  47  that Neil had taken based on his understanding of the  information that he got.  From the hereditary chiefs?  From the hereditary chiefs, yes.  :  All right.  My lord, can that be 1020-1.  Yes.  And this map was never reviewed with the hereditary  chiefs and never adopted as being a final map.  (EXHIBIT 1020-1 - Map of Antgulilbix)  And could you turn to tab 2, please.  And at tab 2  there is the affidavit of Larry Wright, along with the  answer to interrogatory question 59(c), and you will  also see a map, and I wonder if you could pull the map  out.  And the map is described in the lower right-hand  corner as Schedule C to the Interrogatories Response  of Haak Asxw,a.k.a. Larry Wright dated 02/19/87.  This  was a map that you prepared?  Yes.  It is based on information provided to me, yes.  Can you -- are these your notes, the handwritten notes  at the bottom; 86,12,01?  Yes.  That would be based on information that I would  have been given, yes.  And can you read what you've -- the note at the  bottom?  Can you just read it out?  Date 86, 12 —  Sorry?  86, 12, 01, and it says "Amendments".  There is a  feature here which is covered by the Y, and I can't  make out what it was.  "Informants"?  No, no, it's not "Informants".  Okay.  It says -- it's beside the number 1, and then there's  a name there, and it says:  "Changed location from an area to an ancient  village."  Is that right?  It would be Ansagawts, A-N-S-A-G-A-W-T-S.  A-N-S-A?  A-N-S-A-G-A-W-T-S.  It appears as a blackened teepee  on the north side of the river. 15957  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, can I have that spelling again.  2 A   A-N-S-A-G-A-W-T-S.  3 THE COURT:  G-A-W-T-S.  4 A   Yes, that's correct.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   And that dash -- and just so to finish that, you  7 finished that with:  8  9 "Changed location from an area to an ancient  10 village."  11  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   All right.  Now, the next one down under -- beside 2?  14 A   It's Gwinaxmatx, G-W-I-N-A-X-M-A-T-X.  15 THE COURT:  I'm sorry?  16 A   G-W-I-N-A-X.  17 THE COURT:  Just a minute, I'm sorry.  It's very difficult for  18 me.  19 A   G-W-I-N-A-X-M-A-T-X, with a line under the X.  20 THE COURT:  Now, is that G-W-I-N-X or A-X?  21 A  A-X.  And it says:  22  23 "Area changed to a location on the river."  24  25 MR. WILLMS:  2 6 Q   And item 3?  27 A   Is A-N-G-W-A-T-I-X, was also an area that was changed  28 to a location on the river.  29 Q   Item 4?  30 A   It's identified on my map as  31 G-W-I-N-A-X-T-S-A-A-T-I-X, and again area changed to a  32 location on the river.  33 Q   Then the final note beside 5?  34 A   Staxhayt, S-T-A-X-H-A-Y-T:  35  36 "Amended to show as a ridge, not as a peak."  37  38 Q   Or is that "range"?  39 A   Oh, sorry, "a range", yes.  40 Q   "Not as a peak"?  41 A   "Not as a peak."  42 Q   These were notes you made based on information that  43 was provided to you?  44 A   Information that was provided to me, yes.  45 Q   By who?  46 A   The information that came to me by Neil Sterritt based  47 on information that he had got, and it was stamped 1595?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 draft map.  2 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I would like to mark the affidavit and the  3 interrogatory and the map as dash 2.  4 THE COURT:  Yes.  5  6 (EXHIBIT 1020-2 - Affidavit of Larry Wright with  7 Interrogatory and map)  8  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   And if you can turn to tab 3, Mr. George, the  11 affidavit of Sarah Layton and the interrogatory  12 response to question 59(c) along with a map, and if  13 you take the map out, can you identify this as a map  14 prepared by you showing the territory of Knedebeas,  15 K-N-E-D-E-B-E-A-S?  16 A   Yes, it is, your honour, also stamped draft copy.  17 THE COURT:  Um-hum.  18 A  And under section C it says the approximate  19 boundaries.  20 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, 1020-3 for the affidavit and the map.  21 THE COURT:  Yes.  22  23 (EXHIBIT 1020-3 - Affidavit, interrogatory and map  24 of Sarah Layton)  25  26 MR. WILLMS:  27 Q   If you turn to tab 4, another affidavit of Sarah  28 Layton.  And if you could take the map out again and  29 you can confirm this is another map that you prepared  30 of the territory of Knedebeas?  31 A   Yes, it would be, your honour.  32 Q   All right, my lord.  33 A   It would be the same map, I think just the spellings  34 have been changed, that's all.  35 MR. WILLMS:  1020-4, my lord.  3 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  37 A   It's also stamped draft copy.  38  39 (EXHIBIT 1020-4 - Map of Knedebeas)  40  41 MR. WILLMS:  42 Q   Can you please turn to tab 5.  And you will see in the  43 lower right-hand corner at tab 5, again a little C  44 with a circle around it, "MFG" is you, NJS is Neil  45 Sterritt?  46 A   That's correct, your honour.  47 Q   And this is a map dated May 12th, 1987 prepared by you 15959  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 of the territory of L-U-U-T-K-U-D-Z-I-I-W-U-S?  2 A   That's correct.  3 Q   This is based on information provided to you from Neil  4 Sterritt?  5 A   It would be, yes, based on interviews, yes.  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Can you spell it again, please.  7 MR. WILLMS:  It's L-U-U-T-K-U-D-Z-I-I-W-U-S.  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   You understood the basis for the information Mr.  11 Sterritt was giving to you was from the hereditary  12 chiefs?  13 A   That's correct.  And this would be before the  14 affidavit process when the territories were  15 identified.  16 MR. WILLMS:  1020-5, my lord.  17  18 (EXHIBIT 1020-5 - Map of Lutkudziiwus)  19  20 MR. WILLMS:  21 Q   Could you turn to tab 6, which contains the affidavit  22 of Leonard George and the answer to interrogatory  23 question 59(c).  And you take the map out, this is a  24 map that you prepared, Mr. George, of the territory of  25 Smolgelgem, S-M-O-G-E-L-G-E-M, that's correct?  26 A   That's correct.  27 THE COURT:  Are you related to Leonard George?  28 A   He would be a cousin of mine, yeah.  His father and my  29 father are brothers.  30 THE COURT:  Yes.  Is he related to the Thomas George that we've  31 heard about?  32 A   Thomas George would be his father.  33 THE COURT:  His father?  34 A   Yes.  And the map is stamped draft copy.  35 MR. WILLMS:  The affidavit and the map, 1020-6, my lord.  3 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  37  38 (EXHIBIT 1020-6 - Map, Leonard George)  39  40 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the affidavit at tab 7 also relates to the  41 map at tab 6, and I would ask that the affidavit which  42 contains the interrogatory response, 59(c) again be  43 marked as 1020-7.  44 THE COURT:  Yes.  And at that refers to 1020-6, does it?  45 MR. WILLMS:  It refers to the map at 1020-6.  4 6 THE COURT:  Thank you.  47 15960  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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  (EXHIBIT 1020-7 - Affidavit of Leonard George)  MR. WILLMS:  Now, Madam Registrar, could you put Exhibit 648 for  identification, it's a map, one of the interrogatory  maps .  THE COURT:  Exhibit 64 8?  THE REGISTRAR:  648 is an exhibit.  MR. WILLMS:  Proper?  THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  Well, that's -- perhaps we can still put it in  front of Mr. George and --  THE REGISTRAR:  It was done the 23rd of June, '88.  MR. WILLMS:  Oh, 684, excuse me.  There's no sense in marking  anything twice.  THE COURT:  Not after the first time, anyways.  THE REGISTRAR:  684.  MR. WILLMS:  Yes, thank you.  THE COURT:  This is for identification, is it?  MR. WILLMS:  Q   Yes, it is, my lord, and it's identified as Schedule B  to the interrogatories response of Ma'uus, M-A  apostrophe U-U-S, also known as Jeffrey Harris Jr.,  dated September 23rd, 1986.  And Mr. George, can you  confirm that you prepared this map?  A   That's correct.  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I would ask that it now be an exhibit  proper and that the affidavit be marked 1020-8 with  the note that 1020-8 -- that the map described in  1020-8 is Exhibit 684.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  A   The map is also stamped draft copy.  THE COURT:  So 684 will no longer be an exhibit for  identification.  (EXHIBIT 684 - Map, formerly Exhibit 684 for  Identification)  (EXHIBIT 1020-  684)  Affidavit of Ma'uus re Exhibit  MR. WILLMS:  And, my lord, with respect to the next tab, 9,  which I would ask be marked as 1020-9, that affidavit  also relates to Exhibit 684.  The map described in the  interrogatory to the affidavit is the same map, 684.  THE COURT:  Okay.  (EXHIBIT 1020-9 - Affidavit re Exhibit 684) 15961  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  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  MR. WILLMS:  Q   Now, Mr. George, if you could turn to tab 10, which is  the affidavit of William Blackwater, and Madam  Registrar, if you could put Exhibit 686 for  identification before the witness.  Mr. George, can  you confirm that this map setting out the territory of  B-A-S-K-Y-E-L-A-X-H-A, Baskyelaxha, also known as  William Blackwater, was prepared by you?  A   Yes, it was .  Q   My lord, might that —  A  Also stamped draft copy.  MR. WILLMS:  Might that be an exhibit proper.  THE COURT:  MR. WILLMS:  THE COURT:  MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  Exhibit —  And the affidavit 1020-10.  Yes.  Noting that the map described is 686.  (EXHIBIT 686 - Map, formerly Exhibit 686 for  identification)  (EXHIBIT 1020-10  Exhibit 686)  William Blackwater affidavit re  MR. WILLMS:  If you can turn to tab 11, Mr. George, which is the  affidavit of Martha Brown, Xhliimlaxha,  X-H-L-I-I-M-L-A-X-H-A, and Madam Registrar, if you  could put Exhibit 687 for identification in front of  the witness.  Mr. George, you can confirm that this  map, which is schedule C to the interrogatories  response of Xhliimlaxh, also known as Martha Brown,  was a map of the Xhliimlaxh territory prepared by you?  A   Yes.  Stamped draft copy also.  MR. WILLMS:  Okay, 687 proper, my lord.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  Please.  And 1020-11 for the affidavit.  THE COURT:  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 687 - Map, formerly Exhibit 687 for  identification)  (EXHIBIT 1020-11 - Martha Brown affidavit re  Exhibit 687)  MR. WILLMS: Could you turn to tab 12, which is the affidavit of  Arthur Ridsdale, R-i-d-s-d-a-1-e, and Madam Registrar,  could you put Exhibit 688 and 689 for identification 15962  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  MR.  WILLMS  3  THE  COURT:  4  MR.  WILLMS  5  Q  6  7  8  9  A  10  THE  COURT:  11  A  12  THE  COURT:  13  MR.  WILLMS  14  Q  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  MR.  WILLMS  27  THE  COURT:  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  MR.  WILLMS  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  A  before the witness?  :  Oh, just 689.  For identification?  Yes.  It's 689 for identification.  And can you  confirm, Mr. George, that this is a map of the  territories of Luusgaux, L-U-U-S-G-A-U-X, also known  as Arthur Ridsdale, prepared by you?  We've already seen this map, it's --  That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.  I mean it's already down here.  Where did it go?  Well, I've been told it's different, my lord, and I  would like to mark it if Mr. George made it.  You made  this map?  I made this map, yes.  All right.  And so if it can be Exhibit 689 proper, my  lord.  But I can't say it was for this particular affidavit,  no.  Well —  And also it's a draft copy.  Let's just confirm that you made the map?  I made the map, yes, that draft map.  :  689, and the affidavit, my lord, will be 1020-12.  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 689 - Map formerly 689 for  identification)  (EXHIBIT 1020-12 - Arthur Ridsdale affidavit re  Exhibit 689)  If you would turn to tab 13, and if Exhibit 690 for  identification could be put to the witness.  And tab  13 is the affidavit of Wiiminosik,  W-I-I-M-I-N-O-S-I-K, also known as Robert Stevens, and  Exhibit 690 for identification was described as  Schedule B for the interrogatories response for  Wiiminosik, also known as Robert Stevens.  You  prepared this map, Mr. George?  Yes.  I prepared this map.  And you prepared it to set out the boundaries of  Wiiminosik?  It was set out as the boundaries of Wiiminosik and 15963  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  it's identified as a draft map also.  MR. WILLMS:  690 proper, my lord, and 1020-13.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  For the affidavit.  (EXHIBIT 690 - Map, formerly 690 for  identification)  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  (EXHIBIT 1020-13 - Robert Stevens affidavit re  Exhibit 690)  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the next tab, which is another affidavit  of Wiiminosik, Robert Stevens, at tab 14, also refers  to the map Exhibit 690.  And perhaps the next  affidavit could be 1020-14.  (EXHIBIT 1020-14 - Robert Stevens affidavit re  Exhibit 690)  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   And if you could turn to tab 15, Mr. George, it's the  affidavit of Haakxw, H-A-A-K-X-W, also known as  Charlie Olson, and Madam Registrar, could you please  put Exhibit --  A   Tab 15?  Q   Tab 15.  A   I have Wiiminosik again.  THE COURT:  No.  There's two Wiiminosiks.  Have you got three?  MR. WILLMS:  Q   No.  There's a —  A   I have on tab 15 Wiiminosik -- oh, there's nothing in  between 14, and tab 15 is Wiiminosik.  THE COURT:  Never heard it said before that somebody had nothing  between his tabs.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   All right.  We'll try that again.  You now have that  affidavit at tab 15?  A   Yes, I do.  MR. WILLMS:  And Exhibit 691 for identification.  Now, my lord,  the -- Mr. George, do you recognize this as a map that  you prepared of the territory of Haakxw, H-A-A-X-W?  THE COURT:  K-X-W.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   K-X-W.  It's spelled just X-W on the map.  But you  prepared this map?  A   This would appear to be a print of another base, your 15964  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 honour, and it's identified as draft, and those  2 boundaries are put onto the print and it was not my  3 writing there.  4 Q   That writing isn't yours?  5 A   No, it isn't.  6 THE COURT:  How about the initials at the bottom, does it show  7 you to be the maker of the map?  8 A   There's no initials on the bottom, but I would have  9 made the base on which this was put on, but --  10 THE COURT:  Yes, okay.  11 MR. WILLMS:  12 Q   How about drawing that line around the name; did you  13 draw that line?  14 A   I don't recall drawing that line, no.  15 Q   All right.  I just asked, my lord, because in Mr.  16 Sterritt's evidence, during the course of that Mr.  17 Sterritt couldn't identify the writing or the outline,  18 and he -- and it was suggested it might be Mr. George.  19 Have you seen this map before in its form -- in the  20 form it's in, that is with the writing on it?  21 A   Not this format.  This appears to be ripped off from  22 something else, and the boundary of Haakxw was  23 identified by -- was put on by a pen.  I may have done  24 it or I may not have, I don't remember.  25 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the difficulty that I have here is that I  26 understand that we have all the interrogatory maps, we  27 don't have a map for Charlie Olson with the type  28 script at the bottom of it, which appears to be  29 missing from this.  We just assumed that this must be  30 it.  But perhaps I'll leave it at that and take it up  31 with my friends and try to find out where it is.  32 THE COURT:  Yes.  33 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps we could mark -- leave the map as an  34 exhibit for identification.  35 THE COURT:  Yes.  36 MR. WILLMS:  But mark the affidavit as 1020-15.  37 THE COURT:  Yes.  Perhaps if there isn't any real doubt about it  38 your friend can save us a lot of trouble by admitting  39 that it's the map that accompanied the  40 interrogatories.  41 MR. RUSH:  I think I can confirm that, my lord, but I certainly  42 don't think it needs to be marked for identification.  43 The witness has said that the underlying base was --  44 THE COURT:  All right.  It will be 691 then.  45 MR. WILLMS:  Thank you, my lord.  46 MR. RUSH:  And in terms of the — I'll just confirm that point.  47 THE COURT:  All right. 15965  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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. RUSH:  It is marked Schedule C at the back, isn't it, Madam  Registrar?  THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  On the back.  MR. RUSH:  May I just see that.  (EXHIBIT 691 - Map, formerly Exhibit 691 for  identification)  MR. WILLMS:  Q   Tab 16, Mr. George, there's something there, I hope?  A   Yes, there is.  Q   And the affidavit of Gwagl'lo, G-W-A-G-L apostrophe  L-O, is that a tab?  A   That's a tab.  Q   Can Exhibit 692 for identification be put to the  witness, please.  And Exhibit 692 for identification  is identified as Schedule C to the interrogatories  response of Gwagl'lo, also known as Ernest Hyzims,  H-Y-Z-I-M-S, and Mr. George, you recognize this as a  map that you drew of the territory of Gwagl'lo?  A   Based on information that I had at the time, yes.  Q   Yes?  A   It's also stamped draft copy, your honour.  MR. WILLMS:  Exhibit 692 proper, my lord, and 2020-16 for the  affidavit.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  1020.  I'm trying to get into the two thousands.  THE COURT:  Yep.  (EXHIBIT 692 - Map, formerly Exhibit 692 for  identification)  (EXHIBIT 1020-16 - Ernest Hyzims affidavit re  Exhibit 692)  MR. WILLMS:  Q   And I wonder if -- my lord, the only reason why the  proceedings at trial are at tab 17 is to identify the  next document.  Could Exhibit 645 be put to the  witness, please.  And this has been earlier  identified, you will see in the transcript of Mr.  Sterritt, he understands that this is your tracing of  Chris Harris' map.  Can you just confirm that that's  your tracing?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   Of Chris Harris' map? 15966  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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   Yes, it is.  MR. WILLMS:  All right.  Can that be an exhibit proper, my lord.  I don't think that the tab needs to be marked.  THE COURT:  All right.  645 for identification becomes 645.  (EXHIBIT 645 - Map, formerly Exhibit 645 for  identification)  MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  And this would be a convenient time to take  the adjournment.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right, thank you.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  (AFTERNOON RECESS TAKEN AT 3:00)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcipt of the  proceedings herein transcribed to the  best of my skill and ability  Graham D. Parker  Official Reporter  United Reporting Service 15967  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 3:15 P.M.)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Mr. George, just showing you Exhibit 24-A entitled  7 "Registered Traplines".  Did you -- have you reviewed  8 that map and the information that is transferred onto  9 that map prior to today?  It's Exhibit 24-A?  10 A   This isn't my map.  11 THE COURT:  Is this 24-A for Identification?  12 MR. WILLMS:  No.  This one is 24-A for, I think, a limited  13 purpose.  It's entered, but I believe --  14 MR. RUSH:  Very limited.  15 MR. WILLMS:  16 Q   -- but I believe that at the time it was entered for a  17 limited purpose.  Mary Johnson identified her trapline  18 on it.  19 Have you reviewed that exhibit, subsequent to it  20 being marked?  21 A   No.  22 Q   Or a copy of it?  23 A   No.  24 Q   All right.  My lord, earlier in this trial when the  25 provincial -- if I can call them -- alienation maps  26 were marked, many of them for identification, my  27 friend made comments -- that is my friend Mr. Rush  2 8              made comments that he wanted to have these maps  29 reviewed by his -- I think it was a cartographer he  30 used at times and advisor at times to determine  31 whether or not the base maps, for example, were  32 accurate, and whether or not the cartographic transfer  33 of the underlying information onto the base map was  34 accurate.  We had always assumed, since we didn't know  35 of any other cartographer, that it was Mr. George.  So  36 I'm -- and I had intended on putting all of the other  37 alienation maps to Mr. George, to determine whether or  38 not there were any problems with the base map, or any  39 problems that he could see in the cartographic  40 transfer of underlying information onto those maps,  41 assuming that it was Mr. George that Mr. Rush was  42 referring to.  And so --  43 THE COURT:  These maps have been in the possession of the court,  44 have they not, since they were tendered?  45 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, but there are copies.  Everybody has  46 got copies of these.  47 THE COURT:  All right. 1596?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   And everybody has got copies of all the exhibits.  3 And when I say the exhibit, Mr. George, you  4 realize I am including copies of that, right?  Have  5 you seen -- if you haven't seen the exhibit, have you  6 seen copies of the "Registered Trapline" map?  7 A   Your honour, I haven't seen this exhibit or copies of  8 this exhibit.  This exhibit is not a base that I  9 prepared or map or a copy of a map that I would have  10 prepared.  11 THE COURT:  Have you worked with that base?  12 THE WITNESS:  No.  This is the first time I've seen this  13 particular base, your honour.  14 MR. WILLMS:  Well, it would be helpful to me, my lord — and I  15 realize maybe this is a matter of privilege.  We had  16 assumed that the cartographer was Mr. George, and that  17 we could get through any of the cartographic  18 difficulties in taking a description and putting it on  19 the map ahead of time, so that all we needed to do  20 when we got to our case was show where the  21 documents -- prove the documents.  Now I would like to  22 know who this cartographer is and whether Mr. Rush  23 really is still concerned about these base maps and  24 whether he is still concerned about the mechanical  25 transfer of the underlying bases onto these maps.  26 THE COURT:  Well, at the moment, I'm not sure it matters who Mr.  27 Rush had in mind about -- or where he would seek his  2 8 advice.  He may change his mind several times.  I  29 can't do anything more than allow you to -- such  30 access to the witness as is proper, and that is to  31 cross-examine on the document if he hasn't seen it  32 before.  There is no reason why, as an expert, he  33 can't be cross-examined on a map.  And -- but I don't  34 know what else you are suggesting that I should do.  35 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, I frankly -- the second part of it,  36 which was the part that we thought was taking place,  37 it would be impossible to do -- it would be possible  38 to do that in court but it would take forever -- and  39 that is, going from the actual underlying documents  40 onto the map, to see whether or not there were  41 cartographic errors made in transferring metes and  42 bounds descriptions in some cases, onto each  43 individual map.  And frankly, I -- we can't do that.  4 4 THE COURT:  No.  45 MR. WILLMS:  46 Q   Well perhaps I'll just -- Mr. George, have you -- that  47 was the traplines map.  There is a map, Exhibit 15969  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 36-A --  2 A   This is the first time I've seen this one too, your  3 lordship,  4 Q   Which is map 36-A, "Use and Recreation and Enjoyment  5 of the Public".  That's the first time you've seen  6 that map?  7 A   Yes, that's correct.  8 Q   All right.  Exhibit 38-A, which is described as the  9 "Distribution of Water Licences Index to Water Licence  10 Map."  First time you've seen that?  11 A   First time I've seen that map also.  12 Q   And you haven't seen any binders of maps underlying  13 the water licences?  14 A   No, no.  15 Q   And next is Exhibit 39-A, which is described as the  16 map 12 depicting "Surveyed District Lots".  Now, have  17 you seen a map depicting surveyed district lots?  18 A   No, I haven't.  There is an incomplete boundary in a  19 couple of the areas.  That is not a map that I would  20 have produced, no.  21 Q   How about one that you would have reviewed?  22 A   No, not one that I would have reviewed.  23 Q   Exhibit 40-A "Improvement Districts and Fire  24 Protection Districts"?  2 5 THE COURT:  4 3-A?  26 MR. WILLMS:  40-A, my lord.  27 THE COURT:  Forty.  Thank you.  28 A   First time I've seen that one too.  29 MR. WILLMS:  30 Q   Exhibit 41-A?  31 A   First time I've seen that one too.  32 Q   The map depicting "Incorporated Municipalities".  33 First time?  34 A   Um-hmm.  35 Q   Yes?  3 6 A   Um-hmm.  37 Q   You have to say yes or no for the record.  38 A   Yes.  39 THE COURT:  What was that number?  40 MR. WILLMS:  41 Q   41-A, my lord.  42 43-A, map 6 depicting "Provincial Highways"?  43 A   First time I've seen this one too.  44 Q   44-A, "Forest Recreation Sites"?  45 A   First time I've seen that one also.  46 Q   45-A, map depicting "Provincial Parks"?  47 A   First time I've seen this one also. 15970  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   46-A, map depicting "Provincial Electoral Districts"?  2 A   First time I've seen this one also.  3 Q   55-A, "Ecological Reserves".  Have you seen that one?  4 A   No.  5 Q   There is a series of maps and overlays entitled the  6 "Quadrant Series".  Have you seen -- and I'm showing  7 you 49, which is quadrant two?  8 A   No, I have —  9 Q   The first overlay?  10 A   I have never seen these before, your honour.  11 Q   All right.  My lord, maybe I can just -- rather than  12 take each one, I'll just identify --  13 THE COURT:  Well have the witness go over them and just look at  14 them.  15 THE WITNESS:  Sure, all right.  16 THE COURT:  Just look them over and see what the result is.  17 MR. WILLMS:  See if he's seen any of those before.  18 THE COURT:  Yes.  19 THE WITNESS:  I've never seen one of those before.  20 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, those are 48-A, 49, 50-A, 51-A, 52-A,  21 53-A, and 54-A.  22 THE REGISTRAR:  49-A and B, I believe.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   Do you recall reviewing any map depicting provincial  25 school districts?  2 6          A   No.  27 Q   47-A2, my lord, and 47-A1.  And do you recall  28 reviewing any maps depicting mineral, coal and placer  29 tenures?  30 A   Can I see?  31 Q   All right.  32 A   Judging by the book, I don't think I've seen it.  No,  33 I've never seen this.  34 Q   That's 37-A, my lord.  35 Now, my lord, I am advised that Exhibit 56 is a  36 list of the number in order of maps and supporting  37 documents filed on behalf of the defendant, Her  38 Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British  39 Columbia, and that in some instances there have been  40 some changes there, and I have a letter dated July  41 20th, 1987, with a further list, and I would ask that  42 it be marked 56-A.  43 THE COURT:  Have you seen this, Mr. Rush?  44 MR. RUSH:  I can't say that I recall seeing it but it says it's  45 copied to me, and in most cases I would've received  46 them.  47 THE COURT:  All right.  56-A. 15971  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (EXHIBIT 56-A - Supplement List of Supporting  2 Documents to Exhibit 56)  3  4 MR. WILLMS:  5 Q   Mr. George, I'm showing you a copy of the text portion  6 of cartographic evidence on Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  7 house territories prepared by you, and this is the  8 copy that was prepared by you, March 1987?  9 A   Yes, it is.  10 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, might that be — going back to 1018-13?  11 THE REGISTRAR:  No.  It would be dash 17.  We have up to 16.  12 MR. WILLMS:  1018.  That was 1020.  I want it back in the grey  13 one.  14 THE COURT:  Oh, the grey one.  15 MR. WILLMS:  I'm going to put it in the grey book, my lord.  16 THE COURT:  Oh, the other one was grey too, was it?  17 MR. WILLMS:  No.  The other one was white.  I hope it was white.  18 THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, that's right.  1018-13.  19 THE COURT:  Thirteen, thank you.  20  21 (EXHIBIT 1018-13 - Draft Copy of M. George Opinion)  22  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   If you turn to the third page which is page number one  25 at the bottom, Mr. George, you will see in the upper  26 left-hand corner the notation "Draft 4".  This -- does  27 that accord with your recollection that this is the  28 fourth draft of your opinion?  29 A   Yes.  Could be, yes.  If it says "Draft 4" then that's  30 what it is, yes.  31 Q   Did you retain in your possession, drafts 1 through 3?  32 A   No.  They may have just been some typos or something  33 like that.  There would have been no need to keep  34 them.  35 Q   All right.  So you no longer have drafts 1 through 3  36 in your possession?  37 A   No, I don't.  38 Q   And in between this draft, which has been marked  39 1018-13, and your opinion which has been marked 998-1,  40 were there any further drafts between those two  41 documents, of your report?  42 A   Between this and that report?  43 Q   Perhaps 998 could be -- the big book could be put to  44 the witness.  45 Tab 1 of 998 is what I was referring to, and my  46 question was, were there any revisions to your report  47 printed out between 1018-13, which is your 1987 draft, 15972  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 and 998-1, which is your opinion report here?  2 A  Any revisions between this and this one?  3 Q   Were there -- were copies made of the revision of  4 revised drafts?  5 THE COURT:  Well, can you tell us, Mr. Willms, are — are 998-1  6 and 1018-13 the same?  7 MR. WILLMS:  In part.  8 THE COURT:  They are not entirely, completely the same?  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   No, no.  There are changes, Mr. George?  11 A   Yes, yes.  12 Q   What I'm asking for is, are there any documents where  13 revisions were done falling between 1018-13?  In other  14 words, is there a draft 5 and a draft 6 and a draft 7  15 carrying on from draft 4?  16 A   No, no.  17 Q   So that you didn't have any, if I can call it, hard  18 copy, that is typewritten copy drafts between 1987,  19 when you prepared 1018-13?  20 A   If I would have drafts 5, 6, 7?  No.  21 Q   No.  Any changes --  22 A   No.  23 Q   -- on paper?  24 A   No.  25 Q   All right, thank you.  26 Now, if you could just turn in both the draft and  27 in the final to the very -- the page numbered one at  28 the bottom.  And you'll see that in your draft, you  29 are asked "to provide the following maps and  30 opinions," and you've listed three, and in the final  31 you've been asked to provide two opinions, and the  32 opinions are slightly different in each one.  When was  33 it that you were asked to change the opinions that you  34 were going to provide, from the opinions that you were  35 asked to provide and set out in the draft, and the  36 opinions in the final?  37 A  When this original -- when this original opinion was  38 done, it was my understanding that I would be  39 providing most of the map work that would be required  40 for this particular court action, but then that whole  41 thing changed.  Lou Skoda was then hired on to do a  42 lot of the drafting, and my -- my responsibility then  43 fell on the external and the internal boundaries of  44 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en as based on map 9A and  45 map 9B.  That's when those changed.  46 Q   You see, for example, you were asked -- or you said  47 you were asked to do a map of each individual house 15973  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 territory, this is in three -- item three on page 1 of  2 the draft:  3  4 "...showing the boundaries the Gitksan or  5 Wet'suwet'en names of creeks, mountains, rivers  6 and other topographic and cultural features."  7  8 And you did do maps for the interrogatories, didn't  9 you?  10 A   Yes, I did.  11 Q   And it is your opinion today that the interrogatory  12 maps that you drew accurately reflected the house  13 territories, based on the information that you had at  14 the time?  15 A   No.  It was common knowledge that those were draft  16 maps and they only become final when the chiefs --  17 when the chiefs reviewed those external boundaries and  18 identified those boundaries as being their boundaries,  19 and identified the geographical features as identified  20 within those boundaries as being in the correct  21 locations, and properly identifying the features that  22 they knew.  23 Q   But was it your original intention, and your original  24 understanding, that you were going to provide maps of  25 the individual house territories as part of your  26 opinion?  27 A   Yes.  That was my original understanding, yes, that's  28 correct.  29 Q   And you had done some of them by March 1987?  30 A   Yes.  And a lot of those were identified as being  31 drafts.  32 Q   All right.  If you turn to page 2 of your draft  33 report.  The first paragraph you say:  34  35 "It is my opinion that the exterior boundaries on  36 the maps accurately reflect the information which  37 has been provided to me either by the informants  38 directly or indirectly through researchers."  39  40 And the maps that you are referring to there are the  41 maps of the territory referred to in paragraph one on  42 the previous page, right?  It's the -- it's the maps  43 of the big territory?  44 A   The maps of the big territory?  Which maps of the big  45 territory?  46 Q   Well, that's what I'm trying to get at.  You say on  47 page 2: 15974  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "It is my opinion that the exterior boundaries on  2 the maps --"  3  4 And what I'm suggesting to you what you mean by "the  5 maps" there, if you go back one page, as described in  6 paragraph one, the territory claimed by the hereditary  7 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en chiefs, those are the maps  8 that you were giving your opinion on in this report,  9 isn't it?  10 A  As information comes to me and as I am -- with my  11 map -- those maps then become the most up-to-date  12 information that I have.  And if there are changes  13 made -- most of those maps were identified as being  14 draft because they were never finalized by the chiefs.  15 And if they were then finalized as being the accurate  16 boundary, then they would have become the most  17 accurate boundary, yes.  But they were never  18 identified as being the accurate boundaries.  19 Q   Well, you carry on at the top of page 2 to say this:  20  21 "It is also my opinion that the boundaries of each  22 House territory within the territory claimed by  23 the hereditary Chiefs in this action are  24 accurately set out."  25  26 Now just stopping there.  The boundaries that you are  27 talking about there are the boundaries on the  28 interrogatory maps, aren't they?  29 A   Those boundaries on the interrogatory maps are clearly  30 stamped "Draft".  They were never finalized.  They  31 were never intended to be final maps until the end of  32 the day when the -- each map was reviewed and  33 identified as being the accurate boundary and  34 containing all the information.  And with the  35 affidavit process -- that whole process has gone  36 through -- and in the affidavit process they identify  37 their external and internal boundaries; they identify  38 the features that are on their boundaries; they  39 identify geographical features within their territory  40 and they signed it, swore affidavits in court.  That  41 process was gone through and that's what's reflected  42 on map 9A and map 9B.  And map 9A and map 9B does  43 accurately reflect the internal and external  44 boundaries of the hereditary chiefs of the Gitksan,  45 Wet'suwet'en.  46 Q   Well, this is before the affidavits, Mr. George, and  47 I -- I thought that these were the interrogatory maps 15975  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 and boundaries you were talking about.  But can you  2 tell the court what boundaries you are referring to in  3 1987 when you say:  4  5 "It is also my opinion that the boundaries of each  6 House territory within the territory claimed by  7 the hereditary Chiefs in this action are  8 accurately set out. "  9  10 Which boundaries are you referring to there, in 1987?  11 A   I really can't say if they were intended to be the  12 draft maps as set out in the interrogatories.  13 Q   Well, can you think of any maps other than the draft  14 maps that they might be, that you are referring to  15 there?  16 A   There was maps that I was doing, and as each map was  17 updated they became the most up-to-date information  18 that I had, but there was new information coming in  19 all the time.  And it was also my understanding that  20 at the end of the day when the review process was done  21 with the hereditary chiefs on their boundaries, and  22 only at that time did they become final maps.  And I  23 would have probably assumed that that process would  24 have been done, and that when that process was done,  25 those maps would have become the final internal and  26 external boundaries, and that was later done in the  27 affidavit process.  2 8 Q   You will agree with me that by the time you gave this  29 opinion in 1987, it does not refer to the boundaries  30 as set out in the territorial affidavits, because  31 number one, the affidavits hadn't been sworn, but as  32 you've already said in your evidence, there were a lot  33 of changes?  34 A   Yeah.  A whole different process started and then the  35 review process started off for each individual  36 territory.  That's why this opinion became redundant.  37 Q   Now, could you turn to page 5 of your draft.  In  38 the -- the paragraph beside the three-hole punch in  39 the middle of the page, you say:  40  41 "With respect to the topographic place names in  42 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en languages, Neil  43 Sterritt, Glen Williams, Alex Morgan, Alfred  44 Joseph, Leonard George and myself have worked with  45 various hereditary Chiefs to gather data on the  46 territory."  47 15976  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 And was it that group effort that resulted in the  2 naming of the topographic features in the territories,  3 and the -- if I can put it this way, the equating  4 topographic features with English names?  5 A   Referring to which map?  6 Q   9A and 9B and the underlying maps.  In other words,  7 what you did was --  8 A   No.  This -- this information here is based on  9 information prior to map 9A and map 9B.  10 Q   This was the process for gathering the information to  11 determine the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en names of either  12 unnamed features on government maps, or named features  13 on government maps?  14 A  At this time?  15 Q   At that time?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Correct.  And you know from reviewing the affidavits  18 that you've mapped, that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  19 names are essential to most of the metes and bounds  20 descriptions?  21 A   Yes, they are.  The boundaries that are described in  22 the affidavits are the boundaries as they were  23 described to me by the hereditary chiefs in  24 Wet'suwet'en.  They identified those particular  25 features.  It says unnamed on those -- in the  26 affidavits, but they are named, those features have  27 names.  Those features have Wet'suwet'en names.  28 Q   So that if information gathered by, say, Neil  29 Sterritt, for example, as to the name in Gitksan of a  30 mountain was incorrect, if he got the wrong mountain,  31 then the boundary would be in the wrong place, because  32 you just took the name that he got for you and you  33 plotted it?  34 A   You are assuming that that name was on the boundary?  35 Q   Well, let's assume that it is.  There are many Gitksan  36 and Wet'suwet'en names on the boundaries which do not  37 have names on government maps, correct?  38 A   The information that would have come to me from Neil  39 Sterritt would have been based on information that he  40 would have got.  And what process his mind frame was  41 in, I don't know.  The information that comes to me is  42 information that would go on the map.  43 Q   All right.  And similarly, if information gathered by  44 Leonard George as to the Wet'suwet'en name for an  45 unnamed government creek was wrong, if he got the  46 wrong creek, and if that creek was essential to one of  47 the boundaries, then the boundary would be in the 15977  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 wrong place?  2 A  At that time, yes, it would have been in the wrong  3 place.  A good example would have been the  4 Antgulilbix, the Date Creek, the misunderstanding of  5 where that particular feature was.  6 Q   Further down on the page, you say that you gathered  7 some data directly and then you say in the second  8 line:  9  10 "I also have relied extensively on the data  11 gathered by Neil Sterritt between 1975 and the  12 present time."  13  14 And that continues right into your present mapping,  15 doesn't it?  I mean you relied extensively on the  16 information gathered by Neil Sterritt, as it  17 eventually found its way into the affidavits?  18 A   The affidavit process would have been the process by  19 which he would have gone around the external  20 boundaries of those features of that particular  21 boundary, and those geographical features would have  22 been identified.  He would have done extensive work  23 within each one of those territories and identified  24 all of the geographical features, and the chief put  25 his name to that, and that becomes the final boundary.  26 Q   All right.  Now, on page 6 of your draft, you have got  27 a reference to "Oral Histories".  Did you rely on oral  28 histories on the Barbeau-Beynon field notes and  29 information on territories and owners as you've set  30 out in that paragraph, when you prepared 646-9A or  31 646-9B?  32 A   No.  Map 9A, map 9B reflects the information as  33 obtained from the hereditary chiefs.  They were --  34 they are -- where they describe their boundaries,  35 geographical features on the boundaries, geographical  36 features within the territory.  Map 9A and map 9B is a  37 reflection of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en affidavits, and  38 the boundaries on map 9A and map 9B is as per the  39 boundaries as defined in the affidavits.  40 Q   Mr. George, I'm showing you Exhibit 1011.  And can you  41 just explain again how 1011 was prepared?  This is  42 something that was prepared for you; is that correct?  43 A   This was prepared for me?  44 Q   Was that correct?  45 A   No, it's not correct.  4 6 Q   You made this document?  47 A   This is a dylar.  It is a material from which another 1597?  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 map can be reproduced on.  It becomes a duplicate  2 original.  3 Q   But where did you get this duplicate original  4 produced?  5 A   I made it.  6 Q   You made this?  7 A   I made this.  8 Q   From machines that you had?  9 A   In my drafting office.  10 Q   In your drafting office.  And it -- is this -- is this  11 part -- is the top part cut off?  The only reason why  12 I ask is there is handwriting that carries up to the  13 top and then part of it appears to be cut off.  Is  14 this part of a larger document?  15 A   No, this is the document.  I have a role of this, your  16 honour, and it comes in a big role.  And I only -- the  17 only portion that was required for Lou Skoda to  18 complete map 9B was the Wet'suwet'en portion.  So I  19 take a piece of dylar, cut it off, make a duplicate  20 original, and that's what this is.  21 Q   Okay.  But what is it then that you are making a  22 duplicate original of when you made this?  What was  23 underlying it?  24 A  Another mylar base.  25 Q   Another mylar base?  2 6 A   Right.  27 Q   And where is that other mylar base?  28 A   I believe we have already talked about that.  That is  29 at my drafting office at home.  30 Q   All right.  So the big one that has both Gitksan and  31 Wet'suwet'en territory on it is in Hazelton?  32 A   Yes, it is.  33 Q   And from that -- and it's -- is it a regular paper map  34 that you made this from, or it's a mylar base like  35 this?  36 A   It would be a mylar base.  37 Q   And it's a mylar base that shows the whole north to  38 south Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en territory?  39 A   Yes, it would.  40 Q   And in addition to that, do you have a shorter  41 document which just shows the Gitksan territory, that  42 is -- is this dylar?  43 A  A dylar, yes.  This is dylar.  44 Q   Yes.  Do you have a dylar for the Gitksan territory?  45 A   Just shows the Gitksan?  46 Q   Yes?  47 A   No.  I had one base on which I was transferring the 15979  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 information from the affidavits and the maps and from  2 the oral testimony.  And that particular base was --  3 print of that was sent to Lou Skoda, and I believe Lou  4 Skoda signed the original.  And it was on that base  5 that the other information was plotted onto, and a  6 print of that was sent to Lou Skoda on a dylar.  He  7 couldn't work from a paper print so a dylar was  8 forwarded.  9 Q   Just so we understand this document that is going to  10 be coming down, it's going to be a mylar --  11 A  A mylar.  12 Q   -- of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en territories?  13 A   Yes, that's correct, yes.  14 Q   All right.  Now, just carrying on with your draft,  15 could you go to page 11.  And on page 11 you talk  16 about -- at the start -- at the top:  17  18 "...a composite planimetric map on a mylar base.  19 This map was made large enough to show the entire  20 claim area as well as the smaller area outside to  21 the north, south, east and west to help  22 orientation."  23  24 Just pausing there.  Is this the mylar map that you  25 just described that you made that dylar from, or is it  26 a different one?  27 THE COURT:  Well, that's not planimetric, is it?  28 THE WITNESS:  No, it's not.  It's a topographic.  29 THE COURT:  This isn't planimetric.  30 MR. WILLMS:  31 Q   So you have got another large planimetric mylar  32 somewhere?  33 A   Yeah, I would.  Yeah, I would have.  34 Q   And is that in Hazelton, too?  35 A   That would be in Hazelton, yeah.  The plan I'm not --  36 I would have to find out which particular document I  37 was referring to here.  38 Q   And there won't be any difficulty in you finding that  39 out, I suppose?  40 A   Probably not.  41 Q   All right.  42 MR. RUSH:  Well, is a request being made for --  43 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, there is a request being made.  44 MR. RUSH:  Well, why is that?  This document was released in  45 March of 1987, and if this had been an issue, why  46 wasn't it requested then?  47 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, I've seen copies of correspondence 15980  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 from Canada to my friend requesting this document, and  2 my friend graciously offering that we could all go up  3 to Hazelton to look at it.  And in my submission, in  4 light of the evidence that this witness has given  5 about where these maps came from, the obligation is on  6 my friend to bring the document down, not for us all  7 to jump on a jet and go up there.  8 MR. RUSH:  Well, with the greatest respect, I told my learned  9 friends when this -- when the request for the under-  10 lying documents was made, that there were mylar bases  11 and that they should tell me if they wanted to see  12 them.  My learned friend made no request for those  13 mylar bases.  Eight days later, my learned friends  14 from the --  15 THE COURT:  Eight days later or ago?  16 MR. RUSH:  Eight days later from that letter, my learned friends  17 from the Federal defendant made the request for the  18 mylar base.  At that time, I had indicated in my  19 letter that Mr. George was then down in Vancouver  20 preparing to give evidence, and that if they had  21 wanted to see them, they could go up to Hazelton and  22 review them up there.  This is the first request I've  23 heard from my learned friend, Mr. Willms, that he was  24 ever interested in these mylar bases.  25 Now, in my submission, my lord, this is simply a  26 needless paperchase for no reason at all.  And  27 frankly, I think that at the end of many of these  28 chases it leads nowhere for my learned friends.  And  29 it is a very onerous task for us to be first offering,  30 their not taking up the offer, and then when we get  31 down to Vancouver, to be told that, "Ah yes, well, we  32 are asked to go up to Hazelton via jet to review them  33 up there."  And I say, with the greatest respect, that  34 it's a little too late for this request to be coming  35 when it was really within their ambit to have made  36 this request and for us to fulfil it at that time.  37 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Willms, how do you propose mechanically or  38 logistically to deal with this matter when we are  39 expecting to finish with this witness tomorrow?  40 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I propose to deal with it the same way  41 with the document that my friend identified in his  42 evidence in chief as being the basis for 9A.  That was  43 going to come down here, and if anything turned on it,  44 then we would deal with that problem then.  My friend  45 has already dealt with one mylar in his evidence in  46 chief.  This is another mylar.  This is a mylar that  47 is a little bit different than the mylar that is 15981  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 described by Mr. Rush in his letter of April the 3rd,  2 which is described as a topographical mylar base, and  3 this is the one the witness just described as a  4 planimetric mylar base, which is not set out in Mr.  5 Rush's April 3rd letter.  There may be nothing, my  6 lord, that turns on it, but we don't know that until  7 we see the document.  And we always assume that we've  8 got them all unless we find out otherwise.  And my  9 suggestion is, my lord, just as with the other  10 document that Mr. Rush is proposing to bring down,  11 that the planimetric mylar can come down too.  We can  12 all look at it and maybe nothing will turn on it.  But  13 I don't think that it's right for my friend to say  14 that we should have asked for this a long time ago  15 when it's not on his list.  16 MR. RUSH:  Well, my lord, yes.  I can ask Mr. George to go up to  17 Hazelton and to get the planimetric base.  I can do  18 that.  19 THE COURT:  Well, he will be going there anyway.  20 MR. RUSH:  He is going there anyway.  21 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  22 MR. RUSH:  And my friend says, "Well, it's not on the list."  23 But, you know, two years of notice is perhaps a little  24 shy of what it should have been.  Maybe it should have  25 been three.  But the point of my submission here, my  26 lord, is that we've been running after a lot of paper  27 and a lot of documents and if -- I'm sure that if my  28 friends had, in a timely way, requested this, it would  29 have been easy for my -- for Mr. George to have  30 brought these documents down too.  And I think that  31 it's --  32 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Rush, is it a serious problem in view of  33 the fact that Mr. Willms isn't suggesting that the  34 witness be stood down on this ground or anything of  35 that kind, merely that the document be made available  36 for inspection, and if anything happens then we can  37 have an argument, or perhaps -- we don't have to have  38 an argument now.  Can the document not, in reasonable  39 dispatch, conveniently be sent down and inspected?  It  40 isn't that we are sending Mr. George on a separate  41 voyage to go get it and bring it back.  42 MR. RUSH:  No, no.  Mr. George is not being asked what Mr.  43 Morrison was being asked to do.  You are quite right,  44 my lord, and to that extent I quite agree Mr. George  45 can do that.  4 6 THE COURT:  All right.  Shall we adjourn until tomorrow?  47 MR. WILLMS:  Yeah.  My lord, I do want to say before, there are 15982  M. George (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 other maps, of course, the interrogatory maps, the  2 draft maps that Mr. George -- I mean it's not as if  3 these are the only two maps that he has described  4 which haven't been listed.  5 THE COURT:  I'm sure when he gets back to Hazelton he will have  6 lots of time to look for everything.  Perhaps a list  7 should be made up.  I haven't kept a list.  Somebody  8 must have.  And I would think that those matters could  9 be resolved in that way.  If not, I'll be glad to hear  10 from you further in due course.  11 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until 9:30  12 tomorrow.  13  14 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.M.)  15  16 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  17 a true and accurate transcript of the  18 proceedings herein transcribed to the  19 best of my skil and ability.  20  21  22  23  24 Toni Kerekes,  25 O.R., R.P.R.  26 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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