Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-10-26] British Columbia. Supreme Court Oct 26, 1989

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0019908.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019908.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019908-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019908-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019908-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019908-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019908-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019908-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0019908-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0019908.ris

Full Text

 21641  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 Vancouver, B.C.  2 October 26, 1989  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 10:00 A.M.)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  7 Columbia, this 26th day of October, 1989.  The matter  8 of Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen at bar, my  9 lord.  May I remind you, you are still under oath.  10 And would you state your name for the record, please?  11 THE WITNESS:  Sheila Patricia Robinson.  12 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  13 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  14 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, yesterday the witness referred to the  15 extract at 1188 at tab 7 from McClellan, "My Old  16 People Say", and I neglected to mark it, and I would  17 like to mark it as Exhibit 1188-7.  18 THE REGISTRAR:  1188-7.  19 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  20 (EXHIBIT 1188-7 - "My Old People Say.  An Ethnographic  21 Survey of Southern Yukon Territory.  Part 2" by  22 Catharine McClellan.  pp. 481-489)  23  24 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WILLMS (cont'd):  25 Q   And Dr. Robinson, could you turn in Part I of your  26 report to page 21, paragraph 35.  27 In paragraph 35 you describe three types of  28 individuals in the villages: slaves, commoners and  29 high-ranking people.  And can you describe what the  30 relevance of that is to considerations in your report,  31 and briefly describe each of the ranks, that is, the  32 slaves, commoners and the high-ranking people?  33 A   Yes.  In the northwest coast area and in the adjacent  34 areas that -- in the interior that were influenced by  35 the northwest coast, there was a stratified kind of  36 society -- or there were stratified kinds of societies  37 where there were different classes of people.  Indeed,  38 some scholars have considered these cast societies  39 with reference to the slaves who were people who had  40 no property, no rights, and were essentially  41 properties of other individuals.  Not all three  42 categories of people were necessarily represented in  43 all villages at all times, but there is no question  44 that the three types of people weren't present in all  45 of the northwest coast and adjacent societies.  4 6 And with the commoners, these were people who were  47 probably proportionately the largest number of people, 21642  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 who had some property rights in the sense that they  2 had access to resource-producing areas, specific  3 resources, and so on, but were generally -- their  4 economic activities were organized by their household  5 leaders or the chiefs who were usually of the noble  6 class.  And nobles were generally those people who had  7 superior access to crests, titles, privileges such as  8 better seating at feasts and so on.  9 Q   All right.  Now, you mentioned cast and you mentioned  10 class.  Can you explain the difference between a cast  11 society and a class society?  12 A   I guess the simplest way in anthropological terms is  13 to say that in cast societies, opportunities for  14 mobility, upward mobility are very rare or nonexistent  15 so that a slave -- once a slave had very little  16 likelihood of ever being anything but a slave, as  17 would his or her descendants.  Whereas in a class  18 society, there seems to have always been opportunity  19 for mobility.  And this is how anthropologists  20 distinguish between the two.  21 Q   Now, in respect of the northwest coast, including as  22 you've described in the protohistoric and the historic  23 era, the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en, would you  24 describe them as class or cast societies?  25 A  A bit of both, actually, because the presence of  26 slaves has always been problematic.  Otherwise, the  27 northwest coast societies are generally considered as  28 class societies and the slaves are being considered as  29 property -- definitely are a cast-aside, so it's  30 definitely a combination.  31 I might add one thing, and that is within the  32 class structure, ranking is flexible for individuals,  33 and this is where the notion that competition for  34 ranking position or competition for social position  35 was always present, is because positions were not  36 fixed and there were opportunities within a class, for  37 instance, within a class of nobles, for people to  38 compete for a position.  39 Q   Now, you -- at page 22 of Part I of your report, you  40 start "Section V.  Gitksan Territorial Ownership:  41 Protohistoric/Early Historic."  And you discuss in  42 paragraphs 37 through 39 a shift, which I believe is  43 summarized somewhat in paragraph 40 on page 23.  And I  44 would ask if you could turn to that.  You say at  45 paragraph 40:  46  47 The protohistoric and early historic shift 21643  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 in economic emphasis towards the production of  2 furs for exchange probably also resulted in  3 some resource-producing areas being abandoned.  4 In other words, new gaps emerged in the village  5 'patchworks'.  These new gaps were probably  6 closer to villages than the prime peripheral  7 hunting territories.  Although several of the  8 examples cited consider European diseases a  9 major factor contributing to the abandonment of  10 certain territories, it can also be suggested  11 that some territories were simply abandoned if  12 they had few fine fur-bearers to begin with, or  13 as their fur stocks were depleted.  I envision  14 what can be described as a centrifugal shift in  15 territorial holdings throughout the  16 protohistoric and historic periods, with mid-  17 range territories being increasingly abandoned  18                     in favour of outlying ones.  19  20 Now, in terms of mid-range and outlying  21 territories, is there a distance that you can  22 attribute to that from your investigations?  23 A   No, I can't fix a precise distance on that.  24 Q   All right.  Why would the movement be from the  25 intermediate territories to the more outlying  26 territories?  27 A  Well in sensible terms, there was more likelihood of  28 fur-bearers being present in areas that hadn't been  29 trapped or hunted extensively, and there are also  30 comments I've run across in this literature and also  31 some general ecological theory that suggests that if  32 you keep moving through areas that you gain more  33 retreat.  So basically, people were moving out to  34 outlying territories to go after the fine fur-bearer  35 species  36 Q   Can you turn, Dr. Robinson, to page 24 of your report.  37 And from page 24 to 29, you express your support for  38 the analysis done by Dr. Kobrinsky in his 1977 article  39 entitled "The Tsimshianization of the Carrier  40 Indians".  And you may want to note, my lord, that  41 that article is found at Exhibit 881-12.  42 Can you explain generally -- you detailed it in  43 your report -- generally why you accepted Dr.  44 Kobrinsky's thesis?  45 A   Dr. Kobrinsky's thesis is consistent with reports by  46 many anthropologists that have been written since the  47 40's that describe the transformation of social 21644  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 organization amongst some Carrier groups and other  2 groups that are nearby to the coastal populations.  3 Kobrinsky's article is particularly valuable because  4 he links these changes in social organization firmly  5 to the protohistoric period, firmly to the European  6 derived fur trade, and also, firmly to the use of  7 resources, particularly the fur-bearers.  8 Q   Now, in paragraph 42 on page 24, you say this:  9  10 Kobrinsky's viewpoint is important for two  11 reasons.  First, his assertion that significant  12 socioeconomic changes occurred during the  13 protohistoric period supports claims that  14 European influence was a major factor in  15 disrupting 'traditional' native lifestyles  16 before direct contact between Indians and  17 Europeans occurred.  Second, much of the  18 ethnographic evidence he assembles related to  19 changes in styles of resource control.  20 Specifically, Kobrinsky asserts that precise  21 delineation of territorial boundaries relating  22 to the allocation of rights to fine-fur species  23 was a by-product of the fur trade.  24  25 Now, can you describe whether and to what extent  26 it is your opinion that that is applicable in this  27 case to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en for the period  28 that you studied?  29 A   Yes, I think it's directly applicable.  I think the  30 reasons that Kobrinsky gives for this transformation  31 are sound and based on the best information he can  32 assemble.  It's also largely supported by the work of  33 Bishop.  34 THE COURT:  Sorry, from Bishop?  35 A   Bishop.  Charles Bishop's article.  And -- but from my  36 own reading and cultural ecology, I would say that a  37 general rule of thumb that many anthropologists or  38 cultural geographers go by is that people seldom  39 assert exclusive or limiting control over any kind of  40 specific or general resource unless there is a need to  41 do so.  And what both Kobrinsky and Bishop have done  42 is identified that need in terms of the fine  43 fur-bearing species and suggested that both a desire  44 to produce more furs and perhaps an awareness of the  45 depletion of the fur resources were instrumental in  46 creating the boundaries around territories in these  47 areas. 21645  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   Could you turn to page 27, paragraph 46.  And you have  3 in the previous paragraph discussed the social  4 transformation of the Carrier and Kobrinsky's  5 description of that.  And then in paragraph 46 you  6 say:  7  8 Kobrinsky's view is that this  9 transformation is linked to the European-  10 oriented fur trade.  11  12 And then quoting from Dr. Kobrinsky:  13  14 "The division of the coast complex of  15 territorial crest divisions was probably  16 triggered by the proprietary claims of  17 important hunters over specific beaver lodges  18 within their customary hunting areas."  19  20 Now, you've mentioned in your evidence yesterday,  21 Brown's observation of beaver-trapping territories  22 which would be in about 18 -- in the 1820's.  And  23 taking Brown's observation into the context of what  24 Dr. Kobrinsky is discussing for prehistoric,  25 protohistoric and historic, how can you fit Brown's  26 observation into that context?  27 MR. GRANT:  And just a second, my lord.  I would like my friend  28 to clarify that.  There is much material from Brown,  29 and which Brown material this witness referred to --  30 or he is referring to, Mr. Willms.  31 MR. WILLMS:  I don't have it at hand, but Dr. Ray gave quite a  32 bit of evidence on this, my lord.  It's quoted in Dr.  33 Ray's report, if that's of any help to my friend.  34 MR. GRANT:  It's not — it's that — I know it's quoted in Dr.  35 Ray's report.  There are more than one report of  36 Doctor -- of William Brown.  And my friend has now  37 summarized or is asking the witness how Brown fits  38 into this.  Well, Brown made many observations.  And  39 in which of the reports, what is he referring to?  40 That's what I would like -- what is he referring the  41 witness to?  42 MR. WILLMS:  Well, I'm sorry.  I can find the extract, but it  43 would take some time.  44 THE COURT:  Let me ask the witness.  Have you read -- did you  45 hear or have you read the evidence of Doctor -- what  46 was his name, is that Ray?  47 MR. WILLMS:  Dr. Ray. 21646  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  Dr. Ray?  2 THE WITNESS:  Yes, I have.  3 THE COURT:  Both or which?  Did you hear his evidence or did you  4 read it?  5 THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't hear his evidence, but I was reading  6 his reports.  7 THE COURT:  Yes.  Have you read his evidence?  8 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  9 THE COURT:  Well, I am not sure that it's necessary for Mr.  10 Willms to shut us down and go and look for the  11 reference.  It's in the -- it's in the evidence or it  12 isn't and argument will disclose that.  I think that  13 it is not necessary when a witness gives evidence of  14 the magnitude of Dr. Ray's -- and indeed such as has  15 been the rule rather than the exception in all of  16 these cases that the evidence of the witnesses have  17 been very, very widespread -- that I think it is  18 competent for counsel to put a proposition arising out  19 of the evidence of the witness and ask the witness to  20 agree or disagree or to comment on that.  I think you  21 may proceed with that.  You will have to put the  22 question again.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   All right.  25 Dr. Robinson, I read the first part of paragraph  26 46 and I referred to your evidence yesterday about  27 Brown's observations that there were beaver-hunting or  28 beaver-trapping territories, and I asked how that  29 observation fits in with Dr. Kobrinsky's discussion,  30 and in particular, fits in the time frame of  31 prehistoric, protohistoric and historic?  32 A  Well, from two district reports which I believe were  33 written by Brown, the 1822 and the 1826 district  34 reports, and I believe there are also some references  35 in the Fort Kilmaurs journals from the 1822 to 25  36 period, there are some specific references to hunting  37 territories associated with beaver.  They also seem to  38 be associated with particular individuals.  And I also  39 found it interesting that there seemed to be some  40 individuals who were denied access or who had to get  41 permission somehow to use those resources.  And it  42 seemed that one older chief in particular was getting  43 his furs not by hunting for them alone, but by  44 having -- either winning them at games or having  45 tribute rendered to him.  These are some hints or  46 clues we have about territories or hunting territories  47 or beaver-hunting territories that come out of the 21647  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 Brown journals from the 1820's period.  And also,  2 Bishop makes reference to -- I think it's the Fort St.  3 James or from Stuart Lake, I think it's the Connelly  4 report from 1822-23, where he is also observing that  5 there are some discreet hunting territories associated  6 with beaver from the early 1820's from the Stuart Lake  7 area.  And my impression of those -- and looking at  8 how it ties in with what Kobrinsky has written here is  9 to suggest that these are -- these observations are  10 made at a time when the Europeans are already  11 asserting some influence over the claims area, and are  12 creating a market situation whereby the furs are being  13 taken out for the European market from this area.  So  14 I would say that the hunting territories appear to be  15 something that's connected directly with the European  16 fur trade.  17 One comment I would like to make in addition  18 about this, is that nowhere does the information  19 suggests that there were specific hunting territories  20 relating to any specific resource earlier than this.  21 Q   Now, if you could turn next to page 28 of part one of  22 your report, and paragraph 48.  And in paragraph 48  23 you say this:  24  25 Analyses of protohistoric developments  26 similar to those presented in points 42-49 and  27 pertaining to other Carrier populations have  28 been presented...  29  30 And I believe there is a "by" missing there.  31  32 ...several writers, notably Julian H. Steward  33 for the Stuart Lake and Babine Lake Carrier,  34 and Irving Goldman for the Alkatcho Carrier.  35 Somewhat further afield, but still pertinent to  36 any study of trade-related Northwest Coast  37 Indians' influence on Athabascan populations,  38 are works by Catharine McClellan about the  39 Tagish, Tutchone and Inland Tlingit of  40 southwestern Yukon Territory.  41  42 Now, the reference to Catharine McClellan in that  43 paragraph is a reference to -- could you turn in the  44 white volume to Exhibit 1188-7.  Is that correct?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And I would -- this is a page that I asked you to turn  47 to yesterday, but a different portion.  If you could 2164E  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  1 turn to page 483.  And at the -- in the left-hand  2 column on page 483, Dr. McClellan -- and this refers  3 to the three groups that you mentioned in your report:  4  5 In the past all three groups seem to have  6 recognized that some parts of the territory  7 which they exploited were "owned," while other  8 parts of it were "free."  The concept of  9 "ownership" was most developed among the  10 southernmost of the Tutchone and among the  11 Tagish and the Inland Tlingit.  In these groups  12 the localized sib segments provided a social  13 reality with respect to territorial claims, but  14 there was never, so far as I can tell, any  15 individual or "family" ownership of land in  16 aboriginal times except in the sense that a  17 local lineage might constitute a "family."  18 Unfortunately, the recent introduction of  19 individually claimed traplines has caused  20 considerable social confusion today and has  21 also made it difficult to gain a clear idea of  22 aboriginal practices relating either to land  23 holding or management."  24  25 Now, can you comment -- you referred to that at  26 page 28 of your report.  Can you comment on the  27 application of that proposition to the Gitksan and the  2 8 Wet'suwet'en for the time frame covered by your  29 report?  30 A   Yes.  What I am describing for the protohistoric  31 period is a situation in which corporate territories  32 emerged, were extended or firmed up, and these were  33 territories which were used by groups of people.  What  34 McClellan is describing here is the social breakdown  35 of the rules of resource use, so that individuals or  36 families have access to, or rights of use for those --  37 for similar kinds of territories.  But possibly, the  38 configuration stays the same so that if you looked at  39 a map, you would see groups or areas laid out that  40 had, during the protohistoric period, been used by  41 groups of people.  And what he is describing is a  42 situation where the patchwork is the same but now it's  43 individual or family use that she is describing for  44 the late historic period.  This is not a period I  45 addressed in my report, but I imagine that the same  46 situation would apply to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  47 Q   Now Dr. Robinson, I have put up on the easel Exhibits 21649  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  In chief by Mr. Willms  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 646-9A and 646-9B, that is the top copy in these  2 proceedings.  And these depict the territories that  3 the plaintiffs in this case assert ownership and  4 jurisdiction over.  They assert that they have  5 exercised ownership and jurisdiction over these  6 territories since time immemorial.  And I would like  7 you to refer to the period covered by your report, and  8 ask you to comment on the opinions -- on the  9 relationship between the opinions in your report and  10 the assertion by the plaintiffs that that is what  11 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en territoriality looked like in  12 the period covered by your report?  13 A  Well, I think it's unlikely that that map represents  14 traditional or late prehistoric use or occupancy of  15 the area.  As I stated earlier, I see more a  16 situation -- or I imagine a situation where specific  17 resources or patches of resources were used regularly  18 and some kind of claim was made to those.  And that as  19 village sites were occupied and inhabited, these were  20 linked up by a system of trails and roads.  But I  21 don't really have any understanding from any of the  22 reading I've done that there would be contiguous areas  23 such as are laid out on this map.  24 And in addition to that, I also suggest that there  25 is fairly good evidence that territorial holdings were  26 extended in both the northern and southerly direction  27 during the protohistoric period.  28 MR. WILLMS:  That concludes the examination in chief, my lord.  2 9 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Macaulay?  30 MR. MACAULAY:  No cross-examination.  31 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant?  32 MR. GRANT:  Sorry, my lord.  Mr. Willms had suggested he would  33 take until the break but I am ready to go.  34 THE COURT:  All right.  Do you want a minute?  35 MR. GRANT:  No.  I can — just a few moments.  36  37 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT:  38 Q   Dr. Robinson, you have been qualified to give evidence  39 as a cultural geographer?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   Now, can you just explain for me once again what is  42 cultural geography?  43 A   Cultural geography is a branch of geography.  Most  44 practitioners of cultural geography are interested in  45 pre-industrial and pre-literate societies.  They are  46 particularly interested in the relationship between  47 people and their environments.  Environments are 21650  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 usually conceived of in the broadest sense to include  2 both the natural resources or natural environment and  3 also the social environment, or the milieu of the --  4 the context of neighbours, neighbouring groups, and so  5 on.  Cultural geographers are usually interested in  6 change through time, change in social organization,  7 change in economic relations, changes in other kinds  8 of cultural behaviour, and their geographic focus  9 links that firmly to -- always to the relationship  10 with the environment.  11 Q   I take it that what you say, that a geographic focus  12 is an important component of cultural geography?  13 A   Yes.  Considered in its broadest sense.  14 Q   Yes.  Do you -- who would you describe, aside from  15 yourself, as a cultural geographer?  16 A   People I know now or an academic tradition?  Or I'm  17 sorry, I can think of --  18 Q   A cultural geographer.  I want to know who they are?  19 A  Well, there is someone at U.B.C. called Alf Siemens.  20 Q   Sorry?  21 A   Cultural geographer, Alf Siemens.  22 Q   Alf Siemens?  Yes.  23 A  Who is a cultural geographer.  The supervisor of my  24 dissertation in London, Professor David Harris.  25 Q   Was -- that's the same as Cole Harris, is it?  26 A   No.  David Harris.  27 Q   Professor David Harris, sorry.  28 A   Cultural geography --  2 9 Q   And he is in London?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Yes.  32 A   The tradition of cultural geography is largely derived  33 from the works of a man called Carl Sauer who taught  34 at Berkley.  35 Q   Carl?  36 A   Sauer, S-A-U-E-R.  37 Q   Yes.  And when did Carl Sauer develop cultural  38 geography?  39 A   I think a lot of his writings started in the '50's,  40 went through the '60's, and there was a fairly strong  41 tradition developing through the '60's with an  42 ecological -- cultural ecological and cultural  43 evolutionary focus on the works of people like  44 Marshall Sahlins who is an anthropologist.  45 Q   He wrote "Tribal Societies", didn't he?  46 A   "Tribesmen"  47 Q   "Tribesmen", I'm sorry.  Yes. 21651  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Now, how does a -- how does a cultural geographer  2 do their research?  What do you -- what do cultural  3 geographers do?  4 A   I don't know if I understand the question.  I can  5 answer it with relation to what people do in other  6 fields or describe the kind of work that I do.  7 Q   Well, you have described cultural geography as a -- if  8 I may say, a subset of geography.  9 A   Yes.  10 MR. WILLMS:  I object to that.  She didn't.  11 MR. GRANT:  12 Q   Well, she has agreed with that.  That's fair, eh?  13 A  Well, it's a branch of geography.  14 Q   A branch of geography, yes.  15 MR. GRANT:  If you don't understand my questions, be sure to  16 tell me, Doctor, or if I misstate something that is my  17 understanding.  18 MR. WILLMS:  I can help you on that.  19 MR. GRANT:  20 Q   I don't need your help, Mr. Willms.  21 What do cultural geographers do?  What methods do  22 they engage in in their research, that's my question  23 to you?  24 A  Well, the best answer I can give is with reference to  25 the work that I do, and the work that people I've  26 worked with have done,  27 Q   Who have you worked with in cultural geography?  28 A   Professor David Harris.  29 Q   On your thesis?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   That's the work you have done with him?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   All right.  He is the only one?  34 A   I've engaged in field work with -- under the  35 supervision of Dr. Alfred Siemens at U.B.C, but I  36 wouldn't presume to say I worked with him in those  37 days other than as a technical assistant.  38 Q   What do you mean "field work"?  What did you do?  39 A  Well in that case, a group of us were assisting Dr.  40 Siemens and Dr. Puleston from Wisconsin in  41 investigating relevant agricultural systems in Belize.  42 Q   Oh.  That was your Belize work that you referred to in  4 3 your CV?  44 A   Yes.  That's cultural geography as well.  45 Q   Oh, that was not archaeology?  46 A   It was both.  Some archaeologists and some cultural  47 geographers and some cultural anthropologists share a 21652  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 common theoretical interest in cultural ecology which  2 is the study of people and the relationships with  3 their environments and cultural evolution, which is  4 the study of changes in those relationships through  5 time.  And so often geographers, archaeologists and  6 some cultural anthropologists will be working together  7 on similar or related problems.  8 Q   Okay.  I understand there is a cross-over of inter-  9 disciplinary approach to this, what you are explaining  10 here, right?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   I understand that.  But what I would like you to tell  13 me, and if you have to do it with reference to your  14 own work as a cultural geographer, what I need to  15 understand from you, Doctor, is what does a cultural  16 geographer do?  Now let me give you a parallel.  I  17 understand what an archaeologist does if they are  18 doing research for a specific site, for example.  They  19 engage in excavations or they may engage in the  20 analysis of what somebody else has excavated.  I  21 understand that's -- that would be part of what -- an  22 archaeologist's methods.  Do you understand that?  2 3 A   Um-hmm.  24 Q   There has been evidence in this case of what  25 historians do.  There has been evidence in this case  26 of what anthropologists do in terms of their research  27 methods.  But I would like you to tell me what does a  28 cultural geographer do?  What do you do when you are  29 saying -- when you are retained by the defendants, who  30 are saying, "We would like you to research the change  31 in the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en."  How do you -- what  32 methods do you use, if that's the easiest way of  33 approaching it?  34 A   Sure.  I think many of the methods that I employ are  35 common to a lot of other disciplines where one starts  36 with identifying a problem or a research problem.  37 Q   Um-hmm?  38 A   Then what I do is I generally try to break that  39 problem down to -- say there are different facets of  40 it, there are different kinds of variables or factors  41 that probably would contribute to an explanation or an  42 analysis of that problem.  4 3 Q   Um-hmm?  44 A  And marking down the research problem.  Then the next  45 step is often for me to see what other scholars have  46 had to write about those problems.  47 Q   In what fields?  What fields do cultural geographers 21653  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 look at?  2 A  Well, cultural geographers range tremendously.  A lot  3 of them do -- and the fields that are selected depend  4 a lot on the nature of the research problem.  Just to  5 give you an example now -- here I'll be jumping to  6 another area where my own supervisor was working on a  7 problem of how did certain cultural traits get  8 transferred from Cape York, Australia, across the  9 Sunda Strait into New Guinea.  10 Q   Which Cape?  11 A   Cape York on the northeastern corner.  12 Q   I understand.  13 A   One of the things that he was interested in doing was  14 getting into the regional biology, getting some sense  15 of the biological parameters for the area, getting a  16 sense of early historic records for an area, getting a  17 sense of anthropological observations for the area.  18 And I would say -- we leap back to the research  19 problem that I was investigating here -- I would be  20 doing something very similar; getting some sense of  21 the biology of the area, getting some sense of the  22 anthropology that had been written about the area,  23 getting some sense of what had already been produced  24 for the area.  25 Q   When you say the "anthropological records", are you  26 referring to the ethnographic records?  Would you use  27 those terms interchangeably?  28 A   No.  Anthropological records take different forms.  29 Some of it's descriptive material in pretty raw form,  30 field notes, interviews and so on, that are often left  31 unpublished.  These are manuscript primary sources in  32 anthropology.  We also have published primary sources  33 in anthropology that are still called ethnography, and  34 examples of those are the "Tsimshian Mythologies" by  35 Boas or some of the other collections of text by  36 people like Swanton, John Swanton, for the plaintiff  37 area.  We also have analytical anthropology or  38 ethnology which, depending on the point of view or the  39 academic context of the writer of that ethnology, will  40 reflect different theoretical traditions or  41 theoretical research interests.  And I think I've  42 given several examples of that earlier.  43 Q   Yeah, okay.  44 A  With John Adams, for instance, being curious about  45 aspects of the Gitksan potlatch for particular  46 reasons.  47 Q   Okay, we'll come back to that.  But a cultural 21654  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 geographer, as I understand from your example, looks  2 at regional biology.  I understand this isn't  3 compulsory, but this is -- this is part of the  4 methodology.  Looks at the early historical records  5 and would look at -- I think you said early  6 anthropological records of the area under study.  7 That's a legitimate methodology for cultural  8 geography?  9 A   Yes.  And I would make that thicker, perhaps, by  10 saying that any geographer -- any cultural geographer  11 I know goes in and reads everything they can find that  12 possibly relates to the indigenous people that they  13 are interested in investigating and gets a broad sense  14 of what's been produced in the area and then looks at  15 adjacent areas.  Because I think it's very important  16 that context is established and that we don't regard  17 any one population in isolation.  And I --  18 Q   Context?  19 A   Context.  20 Q   Yes?  21 A   That's a pretty basic geographic theme.  And I think  22 it's also common to most -- most other disciplines  23 that people establish not just a baseline with a  24 specific research problem or focus, but get a sense  25 from surrounding areas to put that in perspective.  26 Q   In -- and get a sense of surrounding areas in the  27 context of the particular geography with which they  28 are dealing?  29 A   Or the particular research problem which might have  30 more of a sense of time depth than spatial -- or it  31 has both, it has both a time depth and a spatial  32 component.  33 Q   Okay.  Do cultural geographers look at archaeological  34 records?  And I'm saying this in the general term.  I  35 know you've got archaeological experience but I'm  36 saying do those -- I -- maybe I'm making an assumption  37 that may be wrong.  I assume that you do not have to  38 be an archaeologist to be a cultural geographer; is  39 that correct?  Or are all cultural geographers --  40 A   No, no.  Not all cultural geographers are  41 archaeologists.  The shared theoretical traditions and  42 the shared interest in research materials make it  43 difficult for me, personally, to distinguish strongly  44 between the two fields.  But there are some cultural  45 geographers who are not archaeologists.  46 Q   Okay.  Do cultural geographers who don't have an  47 archaeological background, do they go as well to 21655  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  Is that part of their  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  archaeological records?  methodology?  A   Yes.  Or my experience with them is yes.  Q   Do they -- you've described the different  anthropological records.  Do cultural geo  at the ethnographies of an area?  Is that  their methodology?  A   The cultural geographers I know do, yes.  Q   And here I am assuming you are talking ab  example, Siemens, Harris?  A   Yes, that is correct.  Q   Okay.  MR. GRANT:  I am tendering a binder that I will fil  Maybe you could give me the next exhibit  the tabs will be marked subsequently.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  And just for ease of convenience, becau  reference to the numbers, I handwrote the  that that numbered copy of the CV that I  yesterday could go in tab 1.  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  MR. GRANT:  I am not certain what the next number is.  THE REGISTRAR:  1189.  THE COURT:  Yes.  118 9.  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, that's the number of the report.  THE COURT:  Yes.  It will be 1190 then.  MR. WILLMS:  No.  1190 is the "Skeena River Prehistory'  THE REGISTRAR:  1191.  MR. WILLMS:  Yes, it will be 1191.  THE COURT:  1191.  (EXHIBIT 1191  of Dr. Robinson)  THE COURT:  And the CV will be 1191-1  MR. GRANT:  Yes, thank you.  (EXHIBIT 1191-1  MR.  types of  graphers look  part of  out, for  e, my lord,  number and  se I've made  numbers, is  tendered  Plaintiffs' Document Book  Cross-exam  Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Robinson)  GRANT:  Q  Well, I'm referring you to what you said yesterday  when you were asked by Mr. Willms the following at  page 21563, line 46:  Q  Can you explain the difference between  an historical geographer and a cultural  geographer?  The next page:  A   I think the best way to describe a 21656  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 distinction is to say the cultural  2 geographers are more often interested in  3 pre-industrial and usually pre-literate  4 societies, and historical geographers are  5 interested in European or  6 European-derived societies.  7  8 Do you recall giving that answer?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   Now, in fact, are historical geographers not also  11 interested in non-European societies?  I'm not saying  12 that all are but -- I'm suggesting your distinction is  13 wrong.  And what I -- but I -- I may have  14 misunderstood you.  Are you saying that historic -- is  15 what you meant to say is that historic geographers  16 focus more on the historic record than cultural  17 geographers?  And the historic record, by that I mean  18 the written record which we generally consider as  19 derivatives of European cultures as opposed to non-  20 written record, that's the term I'm using.  Is that  21 what the distinction is?  22 A   It's very difficult to generalize, and I'm trying to  23 think of examples from the people I know and my  24 familiarity with the works they do.  25 Q   In which field?  26 A  My experience with geographers generally, both at  27 U.B.C. and the University of London in England, was  28 that the research problems largely dictated the kinds  29 of materials people would use, their broad familiarity  30 with certain issues, and to a large extent, the kinds  31 of connections they would form with scholars in other  32 fields.  And just to give you an example -- if this  33 isn't too much of a digression -- at the University of  34 London, one of the most notable physical geographers  35 is a well-respected -- also well respected as a  36 geologist and geomorphologist in his study of plate  37 tectonics in the Mediterranean, and that's a person  38 called Dr. Claudio Vita-Finzi, V-I-T-A hyphen  39 F-I-N-Z-I.  40 I can think of a notable social geographer whose  41 connections with the fields of sociology, psychology  42 and so on make him a respected peer in those  43 communities, those academic communities.  44 I think that undergraduates are encouraged to  45 think that there are firmer distinctions between some  46 of these fields than actually do exist.  And the  47 practitioners, for instance, of historical geography 21657  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 or cultural geography or cultural anthropology or  2 economic anthropology or any of those fields, tend to  3 associate with people with common research interests  4 who have perhaps slightly different perspectives,  5 might have teaching postings in different  6 universities, but they themselves don't hold these  7 distinctions with as much rigour as you are  8 suggesting, I think.  9 Q   Well, let me say this:  They don't hold the  10 distinctions with as much rigour as you suggested  11 here, where you said that historical geographers are  12 interested in European or European-derived societies?  13 A  Well that's —  14 Q   That is a rigorous distinction?  15 A  Well, as to make a distinction.  That's something that  16 I would suggest to an undergraduate course or class if  17 people wanted to make a distinction between the two  18 different kinds of geographers.  And what I suggested  19 was that cultural geographers usually are interested  20 in pre-literate people.  Often, they are -- they -- in  21 order to become familiar with the information that  22 they are using to investigate particular research  23 problems, have to become specialists in foreign  24 languages, have to become specialists in historical  25 traditions, histories of church activity, all sorts of  26 different things, in order to get them into the area  27 that they are investigating.  28 Q   So they would deal with historical records as well?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   To explain that?  31 A  And sometimes historical geographers deal with  32 cultural material.  33 Q   Historical geographers deal with anthropological  34 material, archaeological material, ethnohistorical  35 material?  36 A   Oh, I think some would, yes.  37 Q   So this distinction that you've suggested is not hard  38 and fast, I take it?  39 A   No.  And I think of it as two spheres overlapping,  40 because many historical geographers investigate such  41 problems as the evolution of gardens in country  42 landscapes and might have nothing to do with an  43 anthropological record in their academic careers.  44 Q   Okay.  Now, to move closer to you -- yourself, I would  45 like to refer you -- this would go in at tab 2 -- to a  46 document dated March 18th, 1986, which is partially  47 blacked out.  And at page 5, that's your signature; is 2165?  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  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  Q  that right?  Are the pages numbered?  No, they are not.  It's the end of the letter but  before another document.  It's the fifth page in?  Yes, it is.  And right following that is a document that was  attached to it and this was a document that you sent  and that you prepared as well; is that right?  Yes.  Okay.  That could be marked as Exhibit 1191 is it?  Yes.  Or 1190?  No, 91.  REGISTRAR:  Tab 2.  GRANT:  1191 tab 2.  (EXHIBIT 1191-2 - Letter dd.  Robinson Proposal to Russell  Now, if you go to the page  A  Q  A  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  MR. GRANT  March 18, 1986 re:  & DuMoulin)  -- first page immediately  A  A  following your signature, you state, and I quote:  My task is to develop theories showing that  significant changes occurred in Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en socioeconomies during the late  prehistoric and early historic eras, and that  these were the result of both indirect and  direct European influence.  It is convenient to  think of these cultural changes in three  phases, although it is doubtful if a precise  chronology can be established.  The phases  reflect differences in types of European  influence and in types of evidence or inference  which are used to develop aspects of the  theories.  Now, that first sentence is your understanding of  the task you were assigned to by the provincial  defendant; is that right?  I think it's more a self-imposed phrase, the opening  of my task.  Well, let's look at the first page of the letter  before you say that.  I don't want to be unfair to  you, and I'll let you finish.  No, that's -- it's just that stylistically it doesn't  surprise me, because when I plunge into outlines it's  not uncommon for me to use phrases like this.  Okay.  Well, the first task of the letter addressed to 21659  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Mr. Goldie is, "The purpose of this memorandum is to  2 outline research tasks I can undertake."  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   Now, that's -- this appended -- appendix to the -- to  5 your letter is where you outline your research tasks,  6 right?  7 A   Um-hmm.  8 Q   And this task is what you understood you were being  9 asked to do by the provincial defendant?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And you wrote to them to confirm what you understood  12 they wanted you to do, and then you set out an outline  13 as to how you thought you could do the task?  14 A  Well, the assignation of task was something that I --  15 and I would like to make this very clear.  I was  16 identifying research problems or areas that I thought  17 would be of some interest to my clients, but I don't  18 have a recollection of a specific task being assigned  19 to me that wasn't developed out of a discussion with  20 me and was largely my own idea of what could or should  21 be written about in the area.  I did have at that  22 point a broad familiarity with the research materials.  23 Q   Well, let's go back a minute.  Whose idea was it that  24 what was relevant for you to do was to develop  25 theories showing that significant changes occurred in  26 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en socioeconomies during the  27 late prehistoric and early historic eras?  Whose idea  28 was that?  Was that something that you just decided  29 would be an interesting thing to do?  30 A   Largely, yes.  I -- it's -- the work that I was doing  31 in this area was -- and I think the best way to  32 describe this is that when you write a Ph.D.  33 dissertation there are a lot of things that occur to  34 you that are very interesting topics with further  35 investigation, and it occurred to me that this was the  36 kind of research problem that I could bring my  37 previous experience to bear on so that I could produce  38 a product that was a worthwhile report.  And it was a  39 topic that I thought required some further  40 investigation because I was already familiar with some  41 suggestion that there was a considerable amount of  42 coast-interior contact that was largely influenced by  43 the European stimulus.  44 So it's hard for me to recollect, quite honestly,  45 going back five years, to say whose idea was this.  46 But it was largely my suggestion that this could be  47 done and it was certainly something coming out of 21660  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 previous research -- not just research I had done but  2 something that I was very keenly interested in doing.  3 Q   Well, this was a letter of March '86, three and a half  4 years ago?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   You engaged --  7 A   Sorry, I was just adding.  8 Q   Just?  9 A  Adding.  10 Q   I thought there was something earlier that --  11 A   No, no.  12 Q   -- you were thinking of?  13 A   No.  14 Q   Well, was it agreed that this was the task that you  15 would undertake?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And you at that time, when you did this memorandum,  18 understood there was further work to be done in this  19 field, further research?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And you understood that it was something that merited  22 further investigation?  23 A   Oh yes.  24 Q   Can you turn to page 4 -- the fourth page in from the  25 front of your letter.  Do you have that?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   "Vernon Kobrinsky's Ph.D. dissertation."  Do you have  28 that point?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   This is what you state:  31  32 Vernon Kobrinsky's Ph.D. dissertation,  33 "Ethnohistory and Ceremonial Representation of  34 Carrier Social Structure", is an excellent  35 point of departure for investigating  36 post-contact developments.  In this, he  37 theorizes that the phratry organization which  38 allowed certain Carrier groups (including the  39 Wet'suwet'en) to organize territorial control  40 and resource ownership in the manner described  41 by ethnographers such as A.G. Morice and D.  42 Jenness was adoped...  43  44 A-D-O-P-E-D.  I think that should be adopted?  4 5 A  Adopted.  46 Q  47 ...because of the stimulus provided by the 21661  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 European fur trade.  2  3 Is it not correct that the entire last section of  4 your report to which my friend referred you, starting  5 on page 24 and going through to page 29, is your  6 reiteration of Kobrinsky's viewpoint?  I should say  7 24.  I think you have another heading in here.  Yes,  8 24 to 29?  9 A   I think points 41 —  10 Q   Before you explain I would like you just to answer my  11 question.  If I'm wrong, then you can explain or  12 whatever.  But just answer my question first.  I'll  13 give you a chance to explain it.  14 A   Oh.  15 Q   Is that not right?  Section VI is your reiteration of  16 Kobrinsky's proposition?  17 A   No.  Points 42 to 47 are.  18 Q   Good.  Okay.  19 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I should point out as well that it's a  20 different Kobrinsky reference in the report to the  21 Kobrinsky reference that my friend just suggested to  22 the witness.  I hope he knows that.  2 3    MR. GRANT:  24 Q   Thank you, Mr. Willms, I appreciate your help  25 everytime I get it.  I do know that.  I'll come back  26 to it.  27 Can you look at page 91 of your report, Part II?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Your reference to Kobrinsky is solely to his ten page  30 article, the "Tsimshianization of the Carrier  31 Indians", isn't it?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   That's your only citation in the record?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   And that, of course, is what you are referring to in  36 those paragraphs that we just talked about in the  37 report?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Yes.  You don't -- you did not cite his dissertation  40 in your report?  41 A   No.  I would have enjoyed the opportunity to expand  42 the report to add additional references, to perhaps do  43 a broader survey of related areas, and didn't have the  44 opportunity to do that.  I -- it was simply a matter  45 of time and space.  I think that Vernon Kobrinsky's  46 arguments are quite neatly summarized in his ten page  47 article. 21662  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Yes?  2 A  And what I did in points 42 and 47 -- or 42 to 47 was  3 summarized those as they relate to the other arguments  4 I was developing in my opinion report.  This is more a  5 matter of time considerations than any deliberate  6 neglect, I think, on my part.  7 Q   From March of 1986 when you set out your task, how  8 much time were you given to complete your report?  9 A   It's very hard for me to say offhand.  I know that  10 there was a period of time before the report was  11 submitted that I worked on it most intensively.  I  12 think I was intermittently gathering references while  13 I was doing other tasks, and I honestly don't remember  14 exactly when I settled in to write the report.  15 Q   Let me --  16 A   I don't recall how long it took in days.  17 Q   Let me help you from the information your counsel has  18 provided.  The first draft of your report that I have  19 seen, first draft of your complete report, was in  20 February of 1987?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And does that assist you in recalling how much time  23 you put into your research for your report?  24 A   Not really.  Because I wasn't working on that solely.  25 Q   No, I understand that.  26 A  And so I am sorry, I didn't keep a detailed, you know,  27 day-sheet or time-sheet.  28 Q   You don't know how many days you put into this report?  2 9 A   No.  30 Q   You decided -- or you recommended in March of 1986  31 that Kobrinsky's theories should be "an excellent  32 point of departure for investigating post-contact  33 developments," and I'm using your words?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   Between that initial setting out of your task and  36 March of 1987, you did not change your view that  37 Kobrinsky was, as you say, "an excellent point of  38 departure for investigating post-contact  39 developments"?  40 A   No, I did not.  41 Q   And with respect to his analysis of the Wet'suwet'en  42 between 1986, March of '86, the document, your task,  43 and your -- and your final report in May of 1987, you  44 did not rely -- or you did not decide that there was  45 other writers that would be -- that you should focus  46 on with respect to his aspect of the theory of the  47 Wet'suwet'en -- or the Carrier?  What I'm saying is 21663  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 that paragraphs 42 to 47 of your report is really an  2 amplification or a reiteration of what you suggest in  3 March of 1986.  Would you not agree with that?  As you  4 say, you referred to his article rather than his  5 thesis because it was a concise approach?  6 A   Excuse me for one second.  Yes, I would agree that my  7 views didn't change.  Some of the content may have  8 changed but my views didn't change since the time that  9 I wrote the first memos and letters outlining the kind  10 of research problem I wanted to investigate, or  11 thought should be investigated.  I would like, though,  12 to point out that the notes associated with the last  13 paragraph in my report, paragraph 49.  14 Q   Yes?  15 A  Are an amplification of similar points of view to  16 those expressed by Kobrinsky, which for the sake of  17 brevity and clarity were put in the footnotes rather  18 than in the text.  That's a stylistic decision rather  19 than any exaggerated focus on Kobrinsky, because I  20 think it's quite clear from the notes in the  21 references I make that people like Bishop, Steward and  22 Morice and Jenness are also contributing to my  23 understanding of the post-contact changes in this  24 area.  25 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Possibly we can break at this moment, my  26 lord?  2 7    THE COURT:  Yes.  28 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned for a  29 brief recess.  30  31 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15 A.M.)  32  33 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  34 a true and accurate transcript of the  35 proceedings herein transcribed to the  36 best of my skill and ability.  37  38  39  4 0    41 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  42 United Reporting Service Ltd.  43  44  45  46  47 21664  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT)  2 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT, Continued:  4 Q   Now, I am going to show you a letter, a letter dated  5 February 19, 1986 from Mr. Plant to yourself, and you  6 recall receiving a copy of this or receiving this  7 letter, the letter of which this is a copy?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And this letter sets out, and I quote, that:  10  11 "Russell and DuMoulin wishes to retain you as a  12 consultant to assist us in the conduct of  13 litigation relating to certain Indian land  14 claims.  We wish to retain your services for  15 four months.  We may extend this agreement from  16 time to time thereafter.  Your fee would be  17 $250 per day including typing and secretarial  18 requirements, but excluding travel, photocopy  19 and other reasonable disbursements.  We would  20 be prepared to pay on a monthly basis against  21 the billing for services to be rendered each  22 month."  23  24 Now -- and then at the end it asks if this meets with  25 your approval, to sign the enclosed copy of the letter  26 at the place indicated and return the copy to us.  So  27 there was another letter which you signed and  28 returned, is that right?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And so this was your contract -- this was around the  31 date of your contract of employment with the  32 Provincial defendants' counsel?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   Prior to February 19, 1986 did you have any  35 discussions with the defendant or defendants' counsel  36 relating to your work prior to the date of this letter  37 when you received this?  38 A   I don't know if there was a way of determining what  39 day.  I believe that I had some discussions on the  40 Friday, sort of in - the -- I spoke first with Jeff in  41 the beginning of a week and had a discussion I think  42 at the end of the week and I don't know in the  43 sequence that that letter came.  44 Q   Well, this was the first correspondence --  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   -- in writing you received?  47 A   Yes. 21665  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And did you have discussions before you received the  2 first correspondence with them, that's all?  I mean  3 this didn't come to you out of the blue, I presume?  4 A   No.  I had lunch with Mr. Plant one day.  5 Q   Okay.  And it indicates here that your original  6 retainer was for four months?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   I take it from your evidence that that was extended?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And in fact has been extended right up until now?  11 A   Yes.  I have done some other work intermittently  12 between, but have continued to do -- be retained as a  13 consultant.  14 Q   But when you say other work, you mean work for other  15 persons?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Yes.  Was it your understanding or your suggestion  18 that your -- was it your understanding in this  19 February/March '86 period that it would take you about  20 four months to do your report?  Is that why that  21 figure was there?  22 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I object unless my friend wants to read  23 the balance of the letter that he didn't read.  It  24 doesn't say report.  The balance of the letter that he  25 didn't read to the witness says:  26  27 "While we have not yet determined the precise  28 nature of the assignments you will carry out,  29 we confirm that your assistance will be in  30 areas related to your professional and academic  31 experience.  We anticipate this will include,  32 for example, research and evaluation of the  33 anthropological aspects of Indian land claims."  34  35 Now, there is nothing in there about writing a report  36 and my friend shouldn't suggest that.  37 MR. GRANT:  I am not sure why -- I was not trying to mislead the  38 witness at all, my lord.  39 Q   You see that what now Mr. Willms has kindly read out?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And I may have anticipated something that I shouldn't  42 have.  In February of 1986, this is a month before the  43 letter at tab 2, when you had this initial discussion  44 and contract, did you understand at that time that you  45 were going -- that one of the things you were being  46 asked to do was to prepare a report or is that wrong,  47 was that initiated later? 21666  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  A  THE COURT  A  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  I'm not really clear on the specifics of those early  assignments to a point where I can answer your  question adequately, I think.  We discussed some  things that I could work on.  Some of the work I did  in the first period included getting references and  checking out sources and doing some reading generally.  The idea, I think, is stated clearly in that last  paragraph that I simply would be assisting with my  expertise.  I don't remember exactly if a report was  specified then.  Well, my difficulty is, if you go to tab 2 -- I'm  sorry, Exhibit 1090 — 1191 tab 2, the letter of March  18, '86.  Madam Registrar has it.  It's at tab 2 of  the plaintiffs' document book, and the appendix to  your letter, if I may call it that.  Am I correct in  assuming that at least as of March 18, '86 you  understood that you were going to prepare a report  along the lines of your appendix to your letter?  I'm not sure if at that time we had discussed the  format that my research into various areas would take.  And if I recall correctly, this letter and the  attached memo are outlined with more or less syntheses  of ideas I had and the form that they might take or  how I might develop them or whether various points  would be enhanced or abandoned had not really been  discussed at that point in any detail.  And I don't  believe there was any specific mention at that time of  a report, but I find it difficult to recall.  :  Where it talks about concise and well documented  overviews?  Yeah.  Well, sorry, but I didn't know whether that was  going to take the form of several memos, for instance,  to be used in house or whether there was to be one  report prepared or several reports prepared or a  preliminary version and then an expanded version.  These things hadn't been discussed.  Okay.  Can you go to the appendix in that -- you know  what I am referring to there.  The first page it  starts "my task."  First of all, would it be correct  for me to state -- to assume that cultural geography  is a branch of social science?  Yes and no.  For those people who quibble about  distinctions between science and humanities I think  there are some geographers who would take exception to  the word science and would see it as suggesting a more  precise, quantitative or statistical kind of 21667  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 orientation than is often found.  2 Q   Would you consider yourself a social scientist?  3 A   In the context that I am involved with the  4 quantitative analysis of some archeological data, yes.  5 Most other times, no.  6 Q   In the context of the research that you did, do you  7 consider yourself a social scientist, on this case I  8 am talking about?  9 A   That's a phrase I have -- I have some reservations  10 about, because of the connotations of science.  There  11 was a period of time academically when there was what  12 they call a quantitative revolution and there was a  13 tremendous interest in statistics and statistical  14 techniques used in analysing social behaviour.  The  15 reaction of that quantification of those disciplines  16 has left me with some sense of unease about using the  17 term science.  18 Q   You don't use the term statistical analysis, do you,  19 in this report?  20 A   Not in this report.  21 Q   No.  22 A   So in this sense I would say it's not science.  23 Q   Well, but would you not agree that in your field what  24 is part of the methodology of cultural geographers  25 would be to, and I think your terminology this morning  26 with me was to identify the research problem and then  27 break the problem down.  Do you recall saying that?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   That when you say to identify the research problem you  30 would formulate the problem in either as a hypothesis  31 or as a theory which you would then establish, prove  32 or disprove through the research you do.  Would that  33 be a fair way of setting out what a cultural  34 geographer would do?  And I am not here referring to  35 you that you would refer to it statistically, of  36 course.  37 A   I'd say it's more accurate to say that there is a  38 combination of deductive and inductive reasoning that  39 goes on so that you do to some extent formulate  40 problems or research designs and have the sense of  41 areas of issues to be investigated, then in  42 investigating those issues you will often find that in  43 the information you find, the descriptive information  44 encourages you to reformulate the hypotheses, if you  45 will use that term.  4 6 Q   Right.  47 A  And it's a back and forth between the descriptive 2166?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 material and the analytical material and so on.  2 Q   So in other words you may in the course of your  3 research reformulate your hypothesis, but you start  4 out with the hypothesis?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   Right.  And your hypothesis is set out in -- or as you  7 describe it, your theory is set out in that first  8 sentence:  9  10 "Theories showing that significant changes  11 occurred in Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  12 socioeconomies during the late prehistoric and  13 early historic eras and that these were the  14 result of both indirect and direct European  15 influence."  16  17 That was your theory, was it not?  18 A   In the narrowest sense.  I think that a careful  19 reading would show that the first five pages are  20 really a more detailed explication of that approach.  21 Q   I understand that.  I am not suggesting that that's  22 all you -- I understand that you went on to explicate  23 it.  I just want to try to crystalize the theory to  24 start with, okay?  What do you mean by theory there,  25 or theories?  What do you mean when you use the term  26 theories as a social -- as a cultural geographer?  27 A   Theories are explanations or attempts at explanation  28 that try to account for or resolve into a logical  29 framework facts relating to a central issue or  30 problem.  31 Q   I would be correct to say that theories are not facts,  32 you would agree with that?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And what you do when you have a theory is you test it?  35 A   Sometimes.  36 Q   You don't always test the theories?  Of course I am  37 not talking about general theories.  I am talking  38 about the theories that you are -- the theories that  39 you are developing.  Your task is to develop theories,  40 that's what you say here, and in developing theories  41 you test theories?  42 A   Sometimes.  43 Q   Did you test the theories here for this work?  44 A   Yes.  In the sense that several different authors,  45 anthropologists writing since the '40s and their work,  46 of course, isn't based only on anthropological  47 analysis, but is also based on descriptive factual 21669  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 accounts from earlier periods.  But I would say  2 anthropologists writing from the '40s onward --  3 Q   Onward until?  4 A   Until the present have developed ideas concerning the  5 relationship between the coastal and interior  6 population, have developed ideas concerning the  7 stimulus that may have been provided by the European  8 fur trade, have developed ideas about wealth exchange,  9 the potlatch complex and so on to do with not just the  10 Northwest Coast Indians, but the people living  11 adjacent to them.  And in developing the theories and  12 testing them, one of the things I did was to bring  13 those different lines of information together and see  14 how they lined up side by side.  For instance,  15 McClellan's treatment of the Tagish, Inland Tlingit  16 and Tutchone makes a lot more sense when you think of  17 it in light of what Morice, Jenness, Goldman, Tobey,  18 MacLachlan and the others have said about similar  19 research problems.  2 0 Q   It makes more --  21 A   So that's testing.  That's the kind of corroboration  22 and in that sense yes, I was testing the theories.  23 Q   It makes more sense when you line it up with those  24 other authors that agree with the general principles?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Doesn't it -- it doesn't make sense when you line it  27 up with those other scholars who do not agree with the  28 general principles, does it?  That's part of your  29 testing; you have to look at those who disagree as  30 well as those who agree?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Now, —  33 A   Could I say one thing here.  I cannot think of many  34 scholars working in northwestern North America who  35 disagree with the general kinds of propositions laid  36 out by those writers to whom I have been referring.  37 It's fairly common knowledge in anthropology, and  38 the -- we are gaining collectively a more  39 sophisticated knowledge through the combined work of  40 several modern scholars about the nature of the  41 protohistoric period and early post contact  42 developments and so on.  But there is certainly  43 consistency in this -- in this opinion.  44 Q   I will give you a chance to deal with that.  I take it  45 the post 1940 people that you're talking about are  46 those that you have referred to in your report?  47 A   Yes. 21670  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Julian Steward, as I recall?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   You have already referred to McClellan, Kobrinsky, is  4 that right?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   MacDonald?  7 A   Jenness.  8 Q   Sorry.  MacDonald?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   I am talking George MacDonald?  11 A   George MacDonald.  12 Q   James MacDonald?  13 A   I would have to review that article.  I don't have an  14 easy recall of it.  15 Q   Jenness?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Goldman?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   You agree that the article written by Kobrinsky which  20 you quote, he concedes that it is speculative?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Now, if I could go back -- go to your letter again  23 which you probably have in front of you.  I just want  24 to go to that same page I think you are on.  The  25 second paragraph you talk about:  26  27 "For Phase I it will be shown how indirect and  28 remote European influences coming from several  29 directions acted as catalysts to stimulate  30 internal socioeconomic developments before  31 British sovereignty was asserted over the  32 region."  33  34 Now, was this something that -- was this -- as with  35 that first paragraph, your formulation of what you saw  36 in Phase I or was it a formulation presented to you as  37 part of your task by your client?  38 A   To the best of my recollection this is -- this is my  39 own idea, my own opinion.  And I'd like to add that  40 several years that I was involved in doing research  41 for my dissertation gave me a broad familiarity with a  42 lot of the reference materials.  43 Q   Yes.  44 A   From this and adjacent areas.  And so this was  45 something that was certainly not concocted in the  46 sense that it was a research problem I felt was very  47 interesting and something that I had a good sense 21671  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  A  8  Q  9  A  10  11  12  13  Q  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  22  A  23  MR. WILLM  24  25  26  27  28  MR. GRANT  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  34  35  Q  36  A  37  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  44  A  45  46  47  about before.  I am not trying to suggest that at all.  No.  I am just trying to get the source of this --  Yes.  -- idea?  Yes.  Because you are in  I am saying the source of the idea probably came out  sometime around late 1970s, early '80s, and I was  impatient to finish my dissertation so I could get on  with some other kinds of research related problems.  And you proposed this idea, this was part of your  proposal to the defendants?  Yes.  Now -- but -- and one of the reasons why you and the  defendants connected was because of your dissertation?  Yes, I think so.  I mean this is an example of what you said yesterday  where you probably got some work because of your  dissertation the fact that you had a Ph.D.?  Well, I think —  3:  My lord, that's not what the witness said.  She  said she didn't know whether the Ph.D. helped her get  contracts.  She assumed it might have.  But there was  nothing about a dissertation.  My friend shouldn't  misstate the evidence.  If I am, I -- that was my recollection and if I  have -- if I am miscasting what you said or I am wrong  you can tell me.  Well, it was not something that I ever discussed, but  I did -- I did give a copy of my dissertation to Mr.  Plant when I first met him.  Before the February 19 contract?  I believe so.  I don't know if that had some influence  over the decision.  You don't know whether that influenced him or not?  Sure.  Fair enough.  What did you mean about when you were  referring to as, quote, "before British sovereignty  was asserted over the region," what time were you  looking at there?  In the context of this litigation it's something that  I now don't really want to express an opinion about.  What I was probably referring to there was a casual  comment vis-a-vis the Hudson's Bay Company activities 21672  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 on the northern coast and the establishment of Fort  2 Simpson.  3 Q   And what year would that have been?  4 A   '35.  5 Q   1835?  6 A   Uh-huh.  7 Q   Thank you.  So what you were -- no, I am not -- I'm  8 just asking you.  So what you are saying is this is  9 Phase I, "it will be shown how indirect and remote  10 European influences coming from several directions  11 acted as catalysts to stimulate internal socioeconomic  12 developments before," about 1835, that's what you were  13 thinking of at the time?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   Yeah.  Okay.  Then you state:  16  17 "The primary aim of this exercise is to suggest  18 that the notion of aboriginal title, which  19 appears to relate to native societies in their  20 'pristine' state - that is, before any European  21 influence was felt - may not apply to any  22 descriptions we have of the Gitksan and  23 Wet'suwet'en peoples or to territories they are  24 said to have owned 'traditionally'."  25  26 Now, this is your first -- in your first memorandum on  27 this topic to the defendants you use the term of these  28 quote, "pristine" end quote, statements and this is  29 tracked through into your report, isn't it?  30 A   Yes.  And it originally -- it originates in my  31 dissertation.  32 Q   Okay.  Then you state:  33  34 "Developing sound arguments for Phase I will be  35 the most challenging, but this is obviously  36 where the emphasis should be placed."  37  38 You saw your task as developing sound arguments to  39 support your theory, is that correct?  40 A   Yes.  And can I explain what I mean by "this is where  41 the emphasis should be placed"?  I think --  42 Q   Well, I'll come to that.  43 A   Okay.  44 Q   But I want to -- I'll come to that and give you the  45 opportunity, but what I want, I am focusing on the  46 development of sound arguments.  47 A   Yes. 21673  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And that's what you understood your task was to be,  2 was to develop the argument in support of your  3 proposition of your theory?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   And that's what you did?  6 A   Oh, to the extent I was able to.  I didn't know, for  7 instance, when I submitted this report that that might  8 be the end of it or that I might have an opportunity  9 to write a fuller version.  10 Q   When you say this report you are talking --  11 A   The opinion evidence, yes.  12 Q   The opinion report that's been tendered?  13 A   Yes.  So from an academic's point of view I would say  14 that there are thicker expressions of some of the  15 opinions in that report that could have been developed  16 had I had more time for it.  17 Q   Okay.  Well, this is the second time you've referred  18 to time constraint.  What was your time constraint  19 from the time of March of '86?  20 A   Oh, I had other jobs to do.  21 Q   Was it the -- was that four months referred to in  22 February of '86, was that a time constraint as of the  23 time of March '86?  24 A   No.  I am speaking more from an academic's point of  25 view where I think few of us ever feel satisfied that  26 we have covered it all or done it all.  27 Q   Okay.  You view yourself as an academic, don't you?  2 8 A   Sometimes.  2 9 Q   What do you mean?  30 A   Oh, well, with some of the contract work I've had,  31 some of the tasks I have been assigned to it's not  32 particularly academic role.  33 Q   I see.  34 A   For instance, the work I did with Parks Canada last  35 summer out in Pacific Rim Park was as a  36 diver/archeologist assistant and I had no specific  37 academic task assigned with that.  38 Q   But in this task you saw yourself as an academic?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Okay.  We've referred -- you've referred to these  41 writers that you have relied upon, the post 1940s  42 writers, if I may call them that, that we have alluded  4 3 to some of them?  44 A   The anthropologists, yes.  45 Q   The anthropologists?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   In March 1986 when you had done this or this synopsis 21674  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  Q  7  A  8  9  10  11  Q  12  A  13  14  Q  15  16  17  18  THE  COURT  19  MR.  GRANT  20  THE  COURT  21  MR.  GRANT  22  THE  COURT  23  MR.  GRANT  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  28  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  34  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  or proposal, you were -- you were -- had looked at or  were familiar with the existence of all those writers  at that time, weren't you?  I'm not sure.  I would -- I would say I was familiar  with most of them.  Well, okay.  I am referring --  For instance, several of them are listed in my  dissertation references.  Others I would have been  familiar with and not used.  I -- it's hard to  recollect exactly when --  Okay.  -- when you become introduced to a new book or  article.  Let me help you.  I am referring to page 77, Part II  of your report, footnote A, Jane Steward, Robert  Murphy.  I am sorry, do you have that, my lord?  Jane  Steward and Robert Murphy.  No, I am sorry I don't.  Page 72?  77.  77.  Oh, sorry.  Footnote two did you say?  Now, page 77, paragraph 49, footnote A.  Yes, all right.  First paragraph, do you have that?  Yes.  In March of '86 you were already aware of Jane Steward  and Robert Murphy?  Oh, yes.  And Julian Steward's essay that you have referred to  there?  Yes.  Okay.  It appears from my note, I cannot see a  paragraph B or a citation B, page 79, you are aware of  Steward's "Determinism in Primitive Society"?  I am sorry?  Page 79, footnote C.  Yes.  Yes.  You are aware of that in March of '86?  Yes.  And just as a clarification there, I did some  graduate courses in geography at U.B.C. in the late  '70s and one of those courses was with Professor Al  Siemens in cultural ecology or cultural geography and  in the context of that I was doing quite a lot of  review of material such as Steward's, so that's a good  ten years ago.  I am not sure when I first ran into  Steward.  It's all right.  I am just trying to get some time on 21675  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  33  A  34  35  Q  36  37  A  38  Q  39  40  THE COURT  41  MR. GRANT  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  And he says, citing Jenness of 1937, the top  31, you were familiar with Jenness by March of  here.  Page 80, paragraph D, Goldman's article on the  Alkatcho Carrier.  And that's a 1941 article, isn't  it?  Yes.  '41.  Well, Goldman's work is pretty important  for the Bella Coola Carrier Chilcotin collections.  It's quite well-known.  And then Goldman on page 81.  I am asking you, of  course, you were familiar with Goldman prior to --  Oh, yes.  -- '86.  of page  '86?  Yes.  The bottom of that same page, Morice 1893, you were  familiar with Morice --  Yes.  -- in 1986.  Then footnote E on page 82 Catharine  McClellan's analysis that you've referred to, you were  familiar with that?  Yes.  And footnote F, Tobey, 1981, you were familiar with  that?  Yes.  And that's just an overview in this Smithsonian  publication, isn't it?  Yes.  And I think a very good one.  I am sure you do.  And we will come back to that  article specifically.  But what I am saying is it's an  overview of the Carrier?  Yes.  Okay.  And Yerbury 1975, you were familiar with that  in March of '86?  That's footnote G.  I know I have -- I stumbled across Yerbury sometime  that year, but I am not sure exactly when.  Okay.  Oh, yeah, footnote H, Charlie Bishop, 1979,  were you aware of that in 1986 --  Yes.  -- when you did this?  Julian -- just a moment here.  Page 96 of your report.  :  What page?  :  Page 96.  I am just referring to the witness to the  citation in her bibliography.  Actually if you look at  page 95 it's Julian Steward on the page before.  Do  you see that?  And one of your citations is an article  entitled "Carrier Aculturation, the Direct Historical  Approach"?  Yes. 21676  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Now, that's -- you have got a historical approach.  It  2 should be the direct historic approach from my reading  3 of the title?  4 A   Uh-huh.  5 Q   Is that right?  That's an error on there?  6 A   I am sure it is, yes.  7 Q   Okay.  Now, what is the direct historic approach?  8 A  My understanding of the direct historic approach is  9 that it was something developed I believe in the '60s  10 as a definite methodology for using ethnographic  11 materials pertaining to some aspects of human  12 societies, particularly those aspects concerning how  13 people organize their settlements, organize their  14 societies and used resources, and it would take -- or  15 scholars using the direct historic approach would take  16 that information from ethnographic records and apply  17 it to the investigation of changes in the past or in  18 the case of archeologists using the direct historic  19 approach, apply it to understanding archeological  20 materials in excavations.  The direct historic  21 approach is something that many archeologists have  22 employed in investigating sites where there is a  23 fairly close temporal connection with modern  24 populations.  25 Q   Are you sure you are not confusing the direct historic  26 approach with the ethnoarcheological approach?  27 A   I think there are practitioners who would have used  28 the phrase direct historic approach who would now call  29 themselves ethnoarcheologists.  I think the phrases  30 are almost buzz words in the academic communities, but  31 they basically to my understanding describe the same  32 kind of approach.  33 Q   Well, let me ask you this, and you can correct me if I  34 am wrong:  It's my understanding, and I thought I  35 understood, the direct historic approach is where you  36 look at historic records and then you go back from the  37 historic records and that's why it's called the direct  38 historic approach.  You start with those written  39 earliest historic records you can find and then you go  40 back.  Would you disagree with that description of the  41 direct historic approach?  42 A   That's one way of phrasing it, yes.  43 Q   Well, that's a different, quite a different approach  44 than going to ethnographic records, isn't it?  45 A   Oh, no, I don't think so.  46 Q   Well, what do you mean by ethnographic records?  Maybe  47 I am confused. 21677  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  A  4  5  6  Q  7  A  8  Q  9  MR. WILLMS  10  11  12  MR. GRANT:  13  14  15  THE COURT:  16  MR. GRANT:  17  Q  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  A  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Well, mainly ethnographic records are historic.  Is William Brown an ethnographic record in your eyes?  The parts of his record where he describes --  describes aspects of native behaviour, yes, it is an  ethnographic record.  It's also an historic record?  Yes.  What about --  :  My lord, by the way, it's direct historical  approach, not historic.  It's Exhibit 881-18.  Not  historic.  It's historical.  I am sorry, I had my -- my note.  I probably  shortened my note.  I am just going to show you my  copy of Exhibit 1048.  What is 1048?  Which is Raven Clan Outlaws by Marius Barbeau and  these -- I am not, of course, asking you to read all  of these right now, but you are familiar with these  Barbeau oral histories?  Yes.  And these are part of the Barbeau-Beynon collection?  That I was referring to, yes.  Would you agree that this is ethnographic material?  Yes.  And also historic material.  So I can when I talk to you or when you talk to me  about ethnographic or historical, it's used  interchangeably, is that what you're telling me?  I  just want to be clear about my terminology here.  You  have now told me that Brown is historical and  ethnographic and I have shown you the Barbeau field  notes and you say that's ethnographic and it's also  historical.  So we can use those two terms  interchangeably, is that -- is that what you mean?  No.  I think that we are talking about slightly  different things here and I will also attempt to  clarify what I mean.  Some of the records written in  the nineteenth century for various kinds of sources, ]  am using the nineteenth century fairly arbitrarily  here, but some of the records written in the  nineteenth century which can be considered historic  because they are written some time ago are also  ethnographic in those parts or passages where they  describe native populations and it doesn't seem -- I  am not sure if I understand the distinction you are  trying to impress, because I don't see that there is a  problem with that, having both labels attached to the 2167?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 same document.  2 Q   Well, my only problem is that when you talk to me  3 about an historical document, I want to know what you  4 are talking about, and if you talk to me about an  5 ethnographic document, I want to know what you are  6 talking about.  It may -- you may be right.  It may be  7 my problem and not yours.  But I understood there was  8 a distinction between the two.  I know what you are --  9 A   I suppose the way I think of it is that you could say  10 that for the purposes a document is being used by a  11 scholar it would fall into one domain or the other.  12 Q   I see.  13 A   If an anthropologist is referring, for instance, to a  14 Trader Brown's report for 1822 and uses information in  15 that report in an anthropological analysis, then in  16 that context it's ethnography, descriptive  17 ethnography.  18 Q   I see.  Descriptive ethnography, William Brown's  19 report is descriptive ethnography in that report?  20 A   The passages that relate to the anthropological  21 problems that the anthropologist is using.  In other  22 contexts that same document can be considered  23 historic.  24 Q   Okay.  25 A  As a record of the first European activity in the  26 area.  27 Q   Okay.  Now, if I use the term ethnographic parallels  28 do you understand what I mean?  Do you understand that  2 9 term?  30 A   I would be happier with a broader description, but  31 yes.  32 Q   You have heard of that term before in your field?  33 A   Yes.  I have seen it used in more than one context.  34 Q   What do you understand it to mean in your field?  35 A  Well, depending again on the research problem tackled  36 by the scholar who is using the phrase ethnographic  37 parallels, sometimes we are referring to -- or  38 sometimes a person is referring to similar use of  39 similar technological items or sometimes a person is  40 referring to similar kinds of ceremonies.  Sometimes a  41 person is referring to similar levels of cultural  42 integration.  These are quite different kinds of  43 things.  44 Q   Between one society and another?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   You utilize ethnographic parallels in your report,  47 don't you? 21679  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  A  18  19  20  Q  21  A  22  23  THE  COURT  24  A  25  THE  COURT  26  MR.  GRANT  27  Q  28  29  30  31  A  32  Q  33  THE  COURT  34  35  A  36  THE  COURT  37  MR.  GRANT  38  Q  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  A  47  Q  Yes.  For example, Mr. Willms did a very good example this  morning when he put McClellan to you and asked you  what your opinion about McClellan says about the  Tutchone as it applies to the Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en?  Yes.  That would be an ethnographic parallel that you were  drawing?  Yes.  Do you agree that -- maybe you can go to your  reference, your bibliography at page 9 -- this is Part  II, my lord, page 95.  Michael Robinson, for example,  is dealing in his book with coastal groups, not the  Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en Sea Otter Chiefs I am talking  about?  Well, to the extent that he describes the rise in  fortunes of the Legaiks.  He's also dealing with  Gitksan history.  Well, is Legaik Gitksan?  No.  But his activities brought him up the Skeena  River into what Brown referred to as Atnah country.  :  What kind of country?  Atnah, A-t-n-a-h.  :  Oh, yes.  Many of your references, the majority I would -- I  dare say in your bibliography to your report deal with  groups other than the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en, would  that be a fair statement?  Yes.  Now --  :  I am sorry, I didn't -- was there an answer to that  question?  Yes.  :  Yes.  Thank you.  And when you utilize those writers, those ethnog --  let's focus on the ethnographers because there is  other non-ethnographic in your bibliography, but when  we are focusing on the ethnography that deals with  other areas and you analyse and carry over there to  the analysis to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, would it  be fair to say that you were engaging in ethnographic  parallels?  Yes.  And would it also be fair to say that within your 21680  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 field ethnographic parallels are used to fill in gaps  2 where there is no data of the subject society, you go  3 to your ethnographic parallels to fill in those gaps?  4 A   Sometimes.  Sometimes ethnographic information is  5 drawn on from other areas to help fill in gaps.  More  6 often, though, I think the use of ethnographic  7 parallels is gleaned upon to show that similar  8 situations can exist in and under other situations and  9 then in a way that when you use a comparative  10 perspective, which is a very common tool in  11 anthropology and also in geography, it allows you to  12 isolate factors or variables which are either sort of  13 basic to the configuration or configurations you are  14 looking at or exceptions to those rules and allows you  15 to zero in on those factors which are different.  So  16 we use comparisons to clarify descriptions of  17 relationships, discussions of relationships.  18 Q   But if you have data on the subject community that you  19 are studying, or the society and its relation to the  20 environment, you -- within its -- within your  21 profession, you would look at that data first, when I  22 say first not necessarily chronologically, but that  23 data you would certainly look to in developing your  24 theory about that society?  25 A   Not necessarily.  I think that it's very important to  26 gain a broad perspective both in geographic terms and  27 also in terms of understanding, that general themes  28 and theories that are offered in these opinions are  29 consistently expressed.  And I think that with the  30 kind of research I'm interested in, I like to do, the  31 context is very important.  So I would not look at,  32 even if there was all sorts of information available  33 for that area, I'd still want to put in a broader  34 framework, both temporally and spacially.  35 Q   If you -- just a moment.  I just want to put one  36 proposition to you.  Would you agree with this  37 statement with respect to your profession:  What we  38 must identify is a useful analytical approach which  39 does allow the testing of hypotheses with the kinds of  40 information which do exist?  You would agree with  41 that?  42 A   Yes.  Except I wasn't sure if approach is plural or  43 singular.  If you say useful analytical "approaches"  44 would make me happier.  45 Q   Okay.  With that modification you agree with it.  And  46 do you agree that if theoretical emphasis are shifted  47 away from tracing developments in structural processes 21681  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  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  towards understanding the nature of particular  historical developments which can be documented, we  will achieve a clearer understanding of early post  contact adaptation?  WILLMS:  My lord, perhaps that could be put before the  witness.  I mean --  A   I'd like to see that.  WILLMS:  -- I forgot where he started and I have got a lot  of trouble even remembering the first few words and if  he could put copies in front of all of us so we could  follow the proposition it would be most helpful.  MR.  MR.  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  Do you have trouble following me?  I'd like to read it if I might.  It's this highlighted section here in my note.  Mr. Grant, I am sorry to intrude, but I have a  matter that I have to look into this afternoon  early -- during the adjournment, rather.  Would it be  convenient if we adjourn now so the witness might look  at it?  :  Yes.  That's fine.  :  All right.  2 o'clock, please.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED PURSUANT TO LUNCHEON  ADJOURNMENT)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Laara Yardley,  Official Reporter,  United Reporting Service Ltd. 21682  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 2:00 P.M.)  THE REGISTRAR:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  Mr.  Order in court.  Grant.  A  Q  A  Q  A  A  Q  Thank you, my lord.  Now, if you would look at your Part II of your  report, and in the -- your CV you refer to Steward --  I'll show you what I'm referring you to.  Yes.  On  page 96 you refer to "Determinism in Primitive  Society?"  This is in Julian Steward's "Evolution and  Ecology.  Essays on Social Transformation".  You are  familiar with that text or that collection of essays,  aren't you?  Yes.  Okay.  And in fact, the article that you cite is  chapter nine and it's called "Carrier Acculturation:  The Direct Historical Approach."  We referred to that  this morning?  Yes.  Are you familiar with Julian Steward's excerpt, "The  Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology", chapter  ten?  Not recently familiar with, but yes, I think I've read  that one.  Okay.  My lord, I crossed over these.  I'll make  copies of this tomorrow or provide them to my friends.  I've shown it to my friends.  I would just like to  refer you to this essay where he -- the head notes --  or the extract says, "One of Steward's more important  contributions to archaeological theory, 'The Direct  Historical Approach to Archaeology' was published in  American Antiquity," citation given, 1942, "which has  consented to its reprinting in the present volume."  You are familiar with that article?  As you say, not  recently, but you had seen it?  Not recently, but yes, I had seen it.  Would you agree with the second paragraph where  Steward says:  Methodologically, the direct historical  approach involves the elementary logic of  working from the known to the unknown.  First,  sites of the historic period are located.  These are preferably but not necessarily those  of identifiable tribes.  Second, the cultural  complexes of the sites are determined.  Third, 21683  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 sequences are carried backward in time to  2 protohistoric and prehistoric periods and  3 cultures.  This approach has the crucially  4 important advantage of providing a fixed datum  5 point to which sequences may be tied.  6  7 Is that a fair statement of the direct historical  8 approach?  Would you agree with that?  9 A   I would prefer to look at that in the context of the  10 whole article, but I would say that what Steward has  11 done there, in what, the 40's, 1942, was outline a  12 methodology.  I think there was additional work  13 written by other archaeologists using the direct  14 historical approach, who certainly refined that or  15 adapted it to the particular research problems they  16 were investigating.  17 Q   My note was that you had said the direct historical  18 approach was one that was developed in the 1960's.  In  19 fact, the direct historical approach was developed as  20 early as 1915, wasn't it?  21 A  Well, heavens, yes.  I would say that the phrase is  22 probably used.  I think it was an approach that  23 archaeologists were using in the '60's and that's  24 where I am most familiar with the phrase being used.  25 Q   Okay.  26 A   But certainly there were precursors.  In that article  27 is the one you are speaking of?  28 Q   Right.  And on the page 2 -- this article, by the way,  29 for the record, commences on page 201.  And on page  30 202 at the top, it states:  31  32 The direct historical approach to  33 archaeology was first deliberately used in the  34 southwest, about 1915, by Nelson, Kitters  35 [phonetics], Spear and Crober [phonetics], and  36 in New York State by Parker and Herrington  37 about the same time.  38  39 And citations are given.  You would have no reason to  40 disagree with that statement by Steward?  41 A  Well, I don't see why, no.  42 Q   So in fact, this approach to archaeology was initiated  43 around 1915 rather than 1960's, you would agree with  44 that?  45 A   Yes.  And I would imagine that other people who have  46 been interested in the past have in other  47 circumstances used something akin to the direct 21684  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  historical approach and perhaps not always called it  that.  Okay.  Now, at the break I had asked you if you agreed  with the statement and you wanted a chance to review  it and I gave it to you.  You have had a chance to  look at it a couple of times, and I'll just state it  so the question makes sense.  And I'll have it in  front of you as well from my own note.  And the  question is, do you agree with this statement:  If theoretical emphases are shifted away from  tracing developments in structural processes  towards understanding the nature of particular  historical developments which can be  documented, we will achieve a clearer  understanding of early post-contact  adaptations.  Do you agree with that statement?  Yes.  And I would like you to read the rest of the  paragraph into the record.  I am going to deal with the rest of the paragraph.  That statement, as you now recall, that comes from  your own thesis, doesn't it?  Yes.  I would like to put to you as the next tab, an extract  from your dissertation which includes that -- and I  believe that's at page 408 -- and I put in pages 408  to 410 of your dissertation.  And I am referring you  to that middle paragraph on page 408, the first  sentence is, "A more modest approach," and then it --  second sentence is what I quoted to you.  That  proposition that you put there applies equally today  to your field of research, doesn't it?  Yes.  I am sorry, where do I find that sentence?  Page 408.  Yes.  The middle paragraph, my lord.  Yes, right.  What we must identify is a useful analytical  approach which does allow the testing of  hypotheses with kinds of information which do  exist.  And then the sentence I read. 21685  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  THE COURT  2  MR. GRANT  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  45  46  47  A  Yes.  If theoretical emphases are shifted away from  tracing developments in structural processes  towards understanding the nature of particular  historical developments which can be  documented, we will achieve a clearer  understanding of early post-contact  adaptations.  Here -- and then you -- then you go on to say,  and this is what you've asked -- you wanted me to read  it and I was going to go on with it:  This is not to suggest that detailed  reconstruction of certain changes in a few  aspects of particular coastal Indians'  socioeconomies must remain at a pedestrian  level.  But it does suggest that coming to  grips with what is and what is not contained in  the ethnographic and early historic records is  a necessary precondition for further general  theoretical investigations.  You agree with that statement?  Yes.  And here when you are talking about ethnographic  records, you are talking about the kind of records  that the early -- that ethnographers have developed  such as Boas, such as Barbeau, and such as Beynon?  Yes, I think so.  And when you are talking about historic records, you  are talking about the records of those first  Europeans -- or I shouldn't say first because it could  be subsequent.  Those settlers or those people that  came into the country that recorded their  observations, that is as -- such as William Brown,  Daniel Harmon, Peter Ogden, those would be historic  records?  Yes.  But in your research, to prepare your opinion report,  you did not come to grip with the early historic  records, did you, except for those two citations from  the Hudson's Bay Company archives that you've put in  your bibliography?  Well, those were reports that were cited directly in 21686  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 support of particular points in the opinion.  They  2 were not the only historic records that I referred to.  3 And I was drawing, as I've explained before,  4 substantially on work I had done in preparation for my  5 dissertation in which I did cover a lot of primary  6 source historic materials.  7 Q   Did you cover Daniel Harmon in your dissertation?  8 A   I don't know if he was cited in the bibliography, but  9 I have read Harmon and was familiar with Harmon.  10 Q   Did you cover William Brown in your dissertation?  11 A   No, I did not.  12 Q   But for good scholarship, do you know -- do you not  13 agree that whether the ethnographic or early historic  14 record supports your proposition, your theories, or  15 opposes your theories, good scholarship requires that  16 you deal with them and that you explain them if they  17 don't support your proposition, why you don't accept  18 them?  19 A   I think in an ideal world that might happen.  20 Q   You don't cite William Brown in your report though?  21 MR. WILLMS:  The witness was saying something else.  If the  22 witness could finish.  23 A   I felt satisfied that in preparation for this opinion  24 report, I had come to terms with a lot of pertinent  25 materials for the opinion that was presented.  Had I  26 gone back to the report I might have included  27 additional things.  That was the end of it at that  28 point.  I think you can never really have that sense  29 that you've covered all bases unless you spend a very  30 long time in an area.  31 MR. GRANT:  32 Q   Prior to May 1987, when you completed this report, you  33 were familiar with William Brown; is that not correct?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   And it had been referred to you, in fact, hadn't it?  36 A   I don't remember.  I think that it's -- it's come to  37 my attention in several different ways.  38 Q   Okay.  Do you recall receiving a copy of this letter  39 from -- which was directed to Mr. Goldie from Mary  40 Jane Jones in April 1986?  41 A   Not specifically, but I imagine I did.  42 Q   Well, it was produced by your counsel --  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   -- as part of the documents that related to your  45 report, and I understand from that -- my lord, I am  46 not sure if you put them in, but I wondered if --  47 because of my order, if this letter of April 10th, 21687  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  extract of the Robinson  marked as Exhibit 1191  S6 letter be marked as  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  THE COURT  '86, could be at tab 3 and the extract from her report  at tab 4 -- or is that --  I've got them in the other way around at the moment.  Well, I am satisfied to switch things around.  All right.  I can change if you like.  I can do the switch.  So I would ask that the  dissertation, 408 to 410, be  tab 4, and the April 10th,  Exhibit 1191 tab 5.  All right.  Was it 5 or -  I'm sorry.  It will be  I'm sorry,  dissertation extract,  Exhibit 1191 tab 3.  Yes.  And the April 10th,  tab 4.  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-3 - Extract from Dissertation of Dr.  Robinson, pgs. 408-410)  (EXHIBIT 1191-4 - Letter from Ms,  dd. April 10, 1986)  4.  We only have 3.  my lord, yes.  The  pages 408  Sheila Robinson  to 410, would be  36 letter would be Exhibit 1191  Jones to Mr. Goldie  GRANT  Q  Now, you would agree, looking at Exhibit 1191 tab 4,  that prior to the completion of your report in May  1987, you had become aware of William Brown's report  of 1823?  A   Yes.  Q   And you do not cite that as one of your sources in  your report?  A   No.  Q   You do not distinguish it in your report?  A   No.  THE COURT:  Do you know what "distinguish" means in this sense?  We throw that word around with a very special meaning  and I'm not sure we always use it the same way or not.  THE WITNESS:  Oh, no, I don't know.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Okay.  In your report you don't refer to it and say,  "I have -- I've looked at this and I don't accept it,"  or, "It's not -- it doesn't contradict my thesis for  this reason," or -- you don't deal with it in any way  in your report, do you?  A   No, I don't.  Q   But in your thesis -- in your dissertation, I mean -- 216?  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  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  you understand I may use those words interchangeably,  thesis or dissertation?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   You suggest:  ...that coming to grips with what is and what  is not contained in the ethnographic and early  historic records is a necessary precondition  for further general theoretical investigations.  You make that statement there?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   You stand by that statement today?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   And yet when it comes to the Brown record, you did not  deal with it?  WILLMS:  Well, I —  GRANT:  In your opinion report?  WILLMS:  I object to that.  My friend says "Brown record"  and Brown is cited.  The journals are cited in the  report.  Now, if my friend is referring to the Brown  report that is mentioned in this letter, he should say  the "Brown report."  But he shouldn't say the "Brown  records" because we've already heard evidence about  the records kept by Brown and they are cited in the  report.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  GRANT:  Q  MR.  THE  A  GRANT  COURT  MR.  THE  GRANT  COURT  My friend is making a distinction which is valid, I  agree.  What I'm talking about is the Brown report  referred to in the letter to Mr. Goldie of April 10th,  '86.  You understand what I'm referring to; that's the  report?  Yes.  And I wonder if it would be of some value -- I  just wonder if you might indicate what aspects of that  Brown report you feel I should have come to grips  with?  Well —  When you talk about the "Brown report", are you  talking about Brown's letter of March 28th, 1823?  I  don't see anything that's quoted as "report".  I just  received this document for the first time and I only  have the first two paragraphs read.  I don't see any  mention of a report.  There is two mentions of a  letter.  Yes.  Is that what we are talking about? 21689  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  Maybe what I can do is --  Well, there is mention of other letters too.  1 MR. GRANT:  2 THE COURT:  3 MR. GRANT:  4 Q   Um-hmm, um-hmm.  What I'm referring to is the second  5 paragraph that states:  6  7 With respect to territoriality, Brown notes  8 on March 28, 1823:  "The Indians of this place,  9 like the other Carriers of New Caledonia, have  10 certain tracks of country, which they claim an  11 exclusive right to and will not allow any other  12 person to hunt upon them "  13  14 You know where that comes from, that particular  15 material, right?  16 A   Yes, I do.  17 Q   And that is not included in your citations, is it?  18 A   No.  And I might say that one -- one reason why  19 perhaps I didn't value it as much as I could have, is  20 because it was written 30 years after McKenzie had  21 noticed that there were trade goods moving into the  22 interior area, and so I would regard a record like  23 that as historic and reflecting protohistoric land use  24 practices, and perhaps not give it as much weight as I  25 gave to anthropological summaries or analyses of  26 developments in land use.  If it was an exception  27 because I left it out, I regret that, but it's  28 something that doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent  29 with arguments I've made about protohistoric changes.  30 Because I have made mention of the development of  31 hunting territories associated with beaver hunting.  32 Q   You had seen Dr. Ray's report prior to the completion  33 of your report, hadn't you?  34 A   I believe so.  35 Q   And you realized that Dr. Ray referred specifically to  36 this Brown letter?  37 A   Perhaps.  38 Q   I should say Brown report as my friend says, it's a  39 part of a report?  40 A   Perhaps.  41 Q   Sorry, my lord.  This is an index to Exhibit 962.  42 Exhibit 962 is document -- this is the index to  43 documents from Dr. Ray.  44 MR. WILLMS:  Is this the whole thing?  45 MR. GRANT:  There is a third volume that's on the next page, but  46 it refers to Dr. Ray's report, and it's the second  47 page, and it doesn't refer to any of the records. 21690  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  THE  COURT  5  MR.  GRANT  6  7  8  THE  COURT  9  10  MR.  GRANT  11  THE  COURT  12  MR.  GRANT  13  14  MR.  GRANT  15  Q  16  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  42  43  Q  44  A  45  46  47  Q  This is an index in which Dr. Ray's documents that  were referred to in evidence are listed.  Now, I would  just like you to look at that.  Sorry, Mr. Grant, what is this again?  It's an index to Exhibit 962 which is a volume --  volume 1 and 2 of Dr. Ray's documents tendered by the  plaintiffs.  Thank you.  All right.  Do you want to mark it?  1192-5?  1191-5.  I'm sorry, my lord?  1191-5.  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-5 - Index of Exhibit 964, Dr. Ray)  Now, I would like you to look at your second volume of  your report.  You've had a chance to look at this  index, have you?  I have.  I'm just glancing at it now, yes.  Yes.  I'm sorry that it's -- and page 90 of your  report, okay?  Yes.  Now, my reading of your report is that you have put in  the two references, one is at tab 8, Babine Fort post  journals of 1822-23.  And that's the first reference  you have in your citation under the Hudson's Bay  Company?  Yes.  Is that right?  Yes.  Okay.  And the second one is -- is the Fort St. James  district report of 1824-25, and that's item three in  the index of Mr. -- of Dr. Ray; is that right?  Yes.  You've indicated that you have looked at the Brown  material which is not contained in either of these  references.  That's -- when I say the Brown material,  the Brown report that's referred to in the April '86  letter, tab 4 I think -- tab 3, second paragraph of  the letter?  Is there a Hudson's Bay Company reference to that?  I  am -- I am better with the BllE's and so on to know if  I've seen that one or not.  Well —  If he notes on March 28th, 1823, is that not in the --  well, I am not quite sure where that is from.  Is that  in the --  Well, I understand that's from the report not from the 21691  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  11  Q  12  A  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  22  23  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  28  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  33  34  35  MR. GRANT  36  37  THE COURT  38  MR. GRANT  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  A  47  journal.  It's not a post journal.  You didn't inquire  into that, did you, what it was from?  I really don't remember.  Okay.  Fair enough.  But if I advise -- I am  instructed that this -- this report here, the Brown  report in the second full paragraph, March 28, 1823,  is not contained in the Babine Fort post journal or in  the St. James Fort post journal?  That's from the first district report, I think, by  Brown.  Yes?  Yes.  Okay.  So it's not in either of those?  I don't think so.  It's hard to tell from one excerpt.  Okay, we'll come back to that.  Can you look at Exhibit 1191-5.  That's the index.  Right there.  And can you tell me if you know which of  the other items there you did look at, prior to the  completion of your report?  I know that Bishop in some articles refers to excerpts  by Connelly in one of the St. James reports.  I don't  remember which one that is.  I think it's the second  item.  But that would be excerpts?  Yes.  I'm saying, which of these historical records have you  looked at?  Except for -- have you looked at any  others other than tab 3 and tab 8 which you cite?  Yes.  Numbers 8, 9 and 10.  You looked at those?  I am trying to remember from the Hudson's Bay Company  record numbers.  I think that's 11-A1, 11-A2 and  11-A3, yes.  I am not sure but there are -- I think  numbers 12 and 14 I've had a browse of.  :  My lord, I said that was index to Exhibit 962.  It  should be 964, I'm sorry.  :  All right.  Twelve and which one?  Fourteen.  These are all available and accessible by you here,  aren't they?  Here?  In Vancouver.  You can access these without going to  Winnipeg?  Yes.  The Hudson's Bay Company archives has now made  available most of its material on microfilm which is 21692  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 fairly easily got through inter-library loans.  2 Q   Yeah.  Can you go on with your -- I would like to go  3 back to tab 3, the bottom of that page.  After the  4 sentence I quoted, it says:  5  6 There are already too many statements in  7 Northwest Coast cultural historical research to  8 this effect:  9  10 And then you quote from somebody's unpublished M.A. or  11 Ph.D. thesis.  I think it's an M.A. thesis.  But where  12 they say:  13  14 When the documents are silent, I have chosen to  15 rely on inference or speculation to provide an  16 analysis that is systematic rather than  17 piecemeal....(Taking these liberties) is, I  18 believe, scientifically justifiable in that it  19 provides hypotheses that can be tested by  20 future documentary and/or field research.  21  22 And you then go on to say -- this is your own  23 statement:  24  25 It is the layers upon layers of similar  26 attitudes which have led to the current  27 situation: there are many contradictory  28 theories about the nature of traditional  29 Northwest Coast Indian cultural organizations  30 and about the impact of early European contact  31 on these which are still unexplained, let alone  32 resolved.  33  34 And this reflects a comment, I think, that you  35 made this morning that at the time of your doing your  36 dissertation, you did appreciate that there were many  37 aspects of northwest coast Indian cultural  38 organization which are still unexplained, and your  39 interest in pursuing that in some of your work; is  40 that right?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And then you go on to state:  43  44 Piecemeal reconstruction of particular  45 developments is perhaps a tedious route to  46 scholarly enlightenment, but eventually leads  47 to more easily substantiated and probably more 21693  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 appropriate hypotheses.  2 Before I go any further, you agree today with that  3 statement?  4 A   Yes, I do.  5 Q  6 And it is in keeping with the works of scholars  7 who stress that the analysis of cultural  8 processes is not always amenable to rigid  9 theoretical treatment because historical  10 records may [yet] yield unanticipated yet  11 illuminating data.  12  13 And again, you agree with that statement today?  14 A   Yes, I do.  15 Q   And those two statements are applicable to the study  16 of northwest coast Indian cultural organizations?  17 A   Yes, they are.  18 Q   And they are applicable to the study of the  19 protohistoric -- the prehistoric, protohistoric and  20 historic periods?  21 A   Certainly.  22 Q   I showed you this morning one extract of Barbeau and  23 Beynon's oral histories, and for the record, they are  24 Exhibit 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, and 1054.  These are  25 the collections made by Barbeau of Beynon's -- a  26 collection of ethnographies.  You know what I'm  27 referring to, the Gwenhoot of Alaska is one of them?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   G-W-E-N-H-O-O-T.  Raven clan outlaws?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Okay.  You do not cite any of those ethnographies in  32 your report, do you?  33 A   No, not specifically.  34 Q   You do not refer to them in your report?  35 A   Not directly.  36 Q   Well, is there some indirect way you refer to them?  37 A  Well, I would say that many of the analytical --  38 analytical anthropological studies to which I do refer  39 ranging from the -- those by Catharine McClellan,  40 through Frederica De Laguna for the Tlingit area, and  41 then down through -- moving south through Garfield,  42 Adams, Jenness, Steward, Kobrinsky, Hudson and so on,  43 many of these scholars have relied on oral traditions,  44 on linguistic information, and other material I regard  45 as primary source material, even some archaeological  46 data.  And to the extent that they present a clear,  47 straightforward, and what I felt were sound hypotheses 21694  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 and suggestions, I used their materials.  So when I  2 say indirectly, I am not unaware that there is a  3 descriptive material base for a lot of their works.  4 Q   You can't tell me today which of those scholars rely  5 on the Barbeau-Beynon ethnographies that I have just  6 referred you to, can you?  You don't know which of  7 those?  8 A   Garfield does to some extent.  Adams does to some  9 extent.  10 Q   Yes?  11 A  And those are two I'll mention right now.  12 Q   McClellan does not, does she?  13 A   She refers to similar kinds of traditions for the  14 Tlingit.  15 Q   Okay.  That's for the Tlingit.  I'm talking here about  16 the Barbeau-Beynon ethnographies for the Tsimshian,  17 okay.  I just want you to understand what I'm  18 referring to so we don't misunderstand each other.  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   Okay.  Did you review the Barbeau-Beynon ethnographies  21 that I have referred you to in preparation for this  22 report?  23 A   No, I don't believe it was in preparation for the  24 report.  25 Q   Did you review them prior to the completion of your  26 report for any purpose?  27 A   I don't believe so.  Not extensively.  I made some  28 reference to the Barbeau-Beynon materials, and I would  29 like to check my reference list.  30 Q   Oh, in your report?  In your report you are referring  31 to?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   Sure, go ahead.  Yes.  Because I could not locate a  34 reference to these, that's why I'm asking about them.  35 I think at page 84 is your reference to Barbeau?  36 A   Yes.  No, I was referring mainly to the printed works  37 by Barbeau which are largely based on or are certainly  38 connected with the rawer materials in the Barbeau-  39 Beynon field notes and manuscript reports.  So that  40 the three references by Barbeau in my reference list  41 on page 84 are some reference to those primary source  42 materials in published form.  43 Q   But it's -- what you refer to in your report is  44 Barbeau's analysis or his interpretation of the  45 ethnography, don't you?  In a review of your footnotes  46 you do quote Barbeau in your report, right?  47 A   Yes. 21695  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  Q   You quote from these?  But what you quote is Barbeau's  own interpretations, don't you?  I think this is what  you call analytical anthropology rather than  descriptive?  A   Or renderings.  I would want to compare the primary  source manuscript notes with the published versions  before I consent to that.  Q   Well maybe you could just review your footnotes over  the evening and let me know and I'll come back to that  tomorrow.  WILLMS:  My lord, I -- my friend is suggesting that the  witness should read the Barbeau-Beynon -- the five  volumes and compare them with the three references.  I  think that's unduly burdensome.  I thought he said she should look at her footnotes.  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  A  Q  A  Q  A  Yeah.  I said she should look at her footnotes and I  take it that she would be able to determine that, and  from these three sources, if he quoted from -- if  Barbeau quotes from one of the ethnographies, and  you're taking his quote which is directly out of an  ethnography.  You could tell that from these three  sources, can't you, because he would refer to it?  That's not quite what I was intending to say.  What I  was intending to say is that without comparison  between the field note manuscript versions and these  printed versions that I've referred to in my notes, I  would hesitate to say that they are one in the same  thing, or that what I am only offering here are his  analyses of those stories.  You mean Barbeau, when he does these interpretations,  if he quotes something from the ethnography he doesn't  cite that?  Well, you are calling them interpretations.  I am not  quite sure if we are talking about the same thing.  I  am saying that the versions of the oral traditions  that are contained in the corpus that we call the  Barbeau-Beynon papers and the printed renderings that  turned up in books such as "Alaska Beckons" or "The  Totem-Poles of the Gitksan", are things I would want  to compare carefully before I called the printed  renderings interpretations.  Any specific item.  So you don't know?  Not without checking.  You can't recall from the time?  Well, not with several hundred mythologies or legends  or oral traditions as recorded.  I wouldn't want to 21696  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 say that about any one item without checking it.  2 Q   And at the time that you took the quotes from Barbeau,  3 it was not important to you whether he was taking  4 something directly from the original ethnography or  5 interpreting.  That made no difference because you  6 were using these sources and that was sufficient for  7 your purpose?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   I just like to return very briefly to Dr. Kobrinsky.  10 Do you know how long he did field work in the area?  11 A   Not offhand.  12 Q   Do you know where he did his field work?  13 A   Not offhand.  14 Q   Do you know where he presently resides?  15 A   I believe in Calgary.  16 Q   Have you communicated with him about his opinions and  17 his -- either his dissertation or his article?  18 A   No, I have not.  19 Q   You would agree that Dr. Kobrinsky's report is based  20 on Morice in part?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Jenness in part?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Steward in part?  25 A   Yes.  2 6 Q   And Goldman in part?  27 A   Yes.  And also Duff.  28 Q   Yes.  Yesterday, I asked you about peer review.  Do  2 9 you remember that?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And at page 21591 I asked you this question at line  32 seven, my lord:  33  34 Q  Would you agree with me that there is  35 some importance in -- in your field which  36 is -- there is some importance in your  37 field in having peer review of opinions,  38 and I'm not talking here necessarily  39 about legal opinions, but the academic  40 opinions that persons in your field  41 present?  42 A  On -- sometimes.  43 Q  Okay.  When is that not important?  44 A Well, I would say that one -- one thing  45 that characterizes graduate research is  46 an ability to formulate one's opinions  47 and express them -- 21697  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. WILLMS  MR. GRANT:  Q   Thank you  "One's own opinions".  -- one's own opinions and express them in  writing and in other situations as  something that are your own, and constant  reference to a peer group, especially  through that formulating process, might  detract from that ability.  But that's --  And then I ask you:  Q  Are you talking here in graduate work  like, for example, in your thesis?  A  Yes.  Do you recall giving that answer?  A   Yes.  Q   Now -- well, is it the reason that you explained it  that way because the formulating process is a way to  develop new approaches and new ideas and this is  something that's recognized in graduate work?  A   Partly.  Q   Is there anything else that cautions that?  you referring to something other than that?  be sure I understood what you meant.  A   Could you ask that question again, please.  Q   Are you referring here to the significance of  developing new approaches and new hypotheses as an  important aspect of that phase of graduate work when  people do graduate papers?  A   Part of it is developing new material or formulating  new hypotheses.  Part of it is also coming to your own  grips with what other scholars have written in the  field.  Q   In your report -- in your bibliography of your report,  you have cited no -- nothing new -- nothing that did  not -- that changed ideas or advanced new ideas, have  you?  You refer to -- what I'm referring here to, is  you refer to idea -- if I may say, recycled ideas that  have been formulated by others.  You don't refer to  new historical data that has come to light, do you, as  an example?  A   I am not aware of any new historical data that's come  to light in the sense that there has been a brand new  I mean are  I want to 2169?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 discovery of previously unknown materials.  But I am  2 not simply recycling opinions of others, or else I  3 would suggest that there was no value in putting  4 together a report that presented an overview for a  5 region that made sense of what was happening in the  6 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area in the protohistoric  7 times.  8 Q   What's the region you are referring to?  9 A   The broad region.  10 Q   Well, you just said region.  You said a report --  11 A  Well, we discussed that earlier when my opinion  12 evidence was being led, that basically there is --  13 there are developments through the protohistoric  14 period in Northwestern North America, and specifically  15 I was addressing some that were occurring between the  16 coast and the interior.  And the literature review --  17 or the basis of a lot of the materials in the  18 references goes from approximately the northern end of  19 the Alaskan archipelago in Tlingit territory, and I  20 think —  21 Q   It goes into the Yukon?  22 A   It goes into the Yukon.  But there is also the study  23 by Frederica De Laguna at Yakutat Bay where she is  24 referring to, in that report, protohistoric  25 developments up towards the White River in coastal  2 6              Alaska.  27 Q   That's the 1975 report, is it?  28 A   '72.  29 Q   '72, sorry?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Between the time you were retained to prepare this  32 report and the completion of the report in May of  33 1987, did you research for any new archival data, that  34 is, that had not been considered by these other  35 writers?  When I say the "other writers" I am talking  36 about the other writers that you refer to?  37 A   I don't recall that I did.  38 Q   Did you look for any new ethnographic data that was  39 not available to those writers?  40 A   No, I don't think so.  41 Q   Any new archaeological data that was not available to  42 those writers?  43 A   I did look at some of the archaeological data for the  44 area but didn't include it in the report.  But I did  45 review some of the archaeological information for the  46 Skeena River that I hadn't previously been aware of.  47 I am referring specifically to Gary Copeland's thesis. 21699  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  Q  5  A  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  29  A  30  31  32  Q  33  34  A  35  Q  36  THE  COURT  37  MR.  GRANT  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  THE  COURT  41  42  MR.  GRANT  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  GRANT  45  THE  COURT  46  47  THE  WITNE  But because that was based at and around Kitselas and  had a lot of reference to coast connections, it didn't  seem to be terribly pertinent to the area.  It wasn't pertinent to the area but --  It was, but it was in Kitselas Canyon, and it seemed  to be outside the area for the treatment of the  archaeological material, and I didn't think that  Copeland had really added to McDonald's interpretation  of the archaeology with reference to any additional  information I might gather with regards to territories  or landings and resource use.  And certain of Copeland's conclusions are problematic  for your conclusions, aren't they?  I don't see how.  Perhaps you could explain.  I am.  I will come back to that.  Yes.  I'm not sure.  You would have to explain those.  Okay.  I'll come back to that, fair enough.  In your dissertation you refer to Sir George  Simpson and some of his writings, didn't you?  Yes.  You did not refer to Sir George Simpson's writings  relating to the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en -- or you  didn't refer to his writings at all in your report?  I don't think so.  I mean it's not cited and it's not footnoted so I'm  assuming that you didn't.  Sir George Simpson, you are  aware, he travelled into the area immediately to the  east of the Wet'suwet'en, didn't he?  I am not sure how far inland he travelled.  I believe  he was up in the northern coast area.  And I also  didn't use John Work's journals.  Sir George Simpson was the Governor of the Hudson Bay  Company in the 1820's?  Yes.  I am not sure of the exact dates.  Okay.  When was he, Mr. Grant?  Sorry?  The 20's?  The 1825 period, as I recall.  I thought -- well, I'm guessing again.  I thought he  became Governor after taking over the Northwestern.  That would be 1821.  '21 or '31?  '21.  That I do know.  All right.  Then I think you are right on the second  one too.  Thank you.  S:  I am not sure if he was Governor when he made his 21700  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 northern trip, but that's --  2 MR. GRANT:  3 Q Have you reviewed his journals?  4 A Not recently.  5 Q Have you reviewed them?  6 A Some time ago, yes.  7 Q Before your own dissertation?  8 A No.  While I was doing research for the dissertation.  9 Q Well, that's what I meant, before your dissertation?  10 A Yes.  11 Q While you were doing the research for it?  12 A Yes.  13 Q But not -- you didn't review his material for  14 preparation of this report?  15 A Not specifically, no.  16 Q Okay.  Can you turn to page -- I want to take you to  17 your report, page 1, Part I.  And I am referring you  18 to section I, and I am referring you to the start --  19 from the beginning, "This report investigates the  20 argument," right to the end of that at page 5, okay.  21 I'm referring you to the whole section of your  22 introduction?  23 A Yes.  24 Q Who wrote that?  25 A I did.  2 6 Q You did?  27 A Yes.  2 8 Q When?  29 A Before May 12th, 1987.  30 Q Okay.  31 THE COURT:  What was the date?  April 12th did you say?  32 MR. GRANT:  33 Q May 12th, 1987.  34 A May 12th, 1987.  35 Q I'm showing you your report, and I understand this is  36 the first draft of your report dated February 4th,  37 1987; is that correct?  38 A Yes.  39 Q Can you turn to page 1.  The introduction is two  40 paragraphs on page 1 and is quite different from the  41 first five pages of your May 12th, '87 report.  You  42 would agree with that?  It's different wording and  43 it's only two paragraphs?  44 A Oh yes.  45 Q You follow?  I'm sorry, you follow me?  46 A Yes, I think so.  47 Q Okay.  Sometime around February 4th, 1987, you 21701  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  A  Q  COURT  GRANT  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  tendered this draft of your report to the provincial  counsel for the province, Mr. Plant and Mr. Mackenzie,  I think, were working with you, weren't they?  I think so, yes.  Okay.  And you received a response.  My lord, have you  put that in already?  Yes.  Okay.  I think that would be at tab --  REGISTRAR:  Six.  GRANT:  Six.  Is that correct?  COURT:  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-6 - Draft Report of Dr. Robinson)  GRANT:  Q   Do you recognize this letter of April 1st, '87?  This  was sent to you, wasn't it?  A   I'm sorry?  Q   Letter of April 1st, 1987, from Mr. Plant, was sent to  you?  A   Yes.  I'll have to check that.  Excuse me.  Q   Okay, you are organizing documents.  Are you with me?  A   Yes.  Q   Mr. Plant's letter is four pages and then it has  attached to it a draft which he refers to in his  letter of April 1st, '87.  You recall receiving this  letter, don't you?  A   Yes.  GRANT:  Okay.  That would be Exhibit 1191 tab 7.  (EXHIBIT 1191-7 - Letter from Mr. Plant to Dr.  Robinson dd. April 1, 1987)  I think I already asked the report to be tab 6.  Yes.  GRANT  REGISTRAR  GRANT:  Q   Yes  Now -- sorry, my lord, my tabs are a little out  of sync here.  So this would be Exhibit 1191 tab 7,  April 1st, 1987 letter.  Now, if you turn to the second page of his letter,  Mr. Plant states:  "A possible revision to the  Introduction" -- no.  First of all, let's go to the  first page so we'll understand ourselves.  Mr. Plant says in his first sentence:  We have reviewed your report of February 4,  1987 on protohistoric developments in Gitksan-  Wet'suwet'en territories.  And then he goes on to describe his views about it.  So he is talking about what I just gave you, that 21702  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 February 4th, '87 draft, right?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Okay.  Let's go to page 2, paragraph 1:  4  5 A possible revision to the Introduction and the  6 opening paragraphs of section II is attached.  7 We suggest deleting your synopses of sections  8 II to VII as they appear at pages 1-4 and  9 incorporating these comments into the body of  10 the report itself.  11  12 Now, if you then go over four pages, you see a  13 stamp "Draft" and it says "Section I.  Introduction",  14 and it starts:  15  16 This report investigates protohistoric and  17 early historic changes in Gitksan and  18 Wet'suwet'en land use.  19  20 And it — okay?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And then it goes on:  23  24 My argument is that indirect contact with  25 Europeans during the eighteenth and early  26 nineteenth centuries provoked significant  27 changes in patterns of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  28 land use.  29  30 Okay?  Now that's reworded from the first paragraph of  31 your report.  If you put your report -- put your final  32 report in front of you with that?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   Okay?  Then the second paragraph begins:  "By  35 'protohistoric'", okay, and it follows from there.  36 Now, this suggestion of Mr. Plant of defining  37 protohistoric, this is what you incorporated into your  38 second paragraph, isn't it?  And I am not suggesting  39 that he defined the years, the years are left blank,  40 but that's when you put that into your report for the  41 first time, isn't it?  42 A   No.  And I am -- well, I am sorry, I am confused here.  43 I certainly recognize my phrasing in this draft, so I  44 don't recall that it's -- excuse me, I would like to  45 have a look at this.  But I am wondering if there  46 isn't an intermediary between this two-paragraph  47 introduction and this draft that's appended here, 21703  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 because --  2 THE COURT:  Well, I think we will take the afternoon break now  3 anyway, Mr. Grant.  It's that time.  4 MR. GRANT:  Sure.  5 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned for a  6 short recess.  7  8 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 3:00 P.M.)  9  10 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  11 a true and accurate transcript of the  12 proceedings herein transcribed to the  13 best of my skill and ability.  14  15  16  17  18  19 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  20 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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 21704  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT)  2 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  3  4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT, Continued:  5 Q   Yes.  I would like to refer you to the second page of  6 the letter from Mr. Plant at tab 7 in which he states:  7  8 "That part of paragraph 2 which appears on page  9 6 of our revision is new.  It is derived from  10 comments made by another archeologist who has  11 advised us from time to time.  If you were to  12 accept it, it would have to be supported by  13 references in the notes."  14  15 And if you see the top of page six of the addendum,  16 you see the statement is:  17  18 "Villages were located around the fisheries  19 which formed the basis of subsistence of these  20 societies . "  21  22 A   I am sorry, I am still looking for page six.  23 Q   Page six of the draft.  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   Top sentence.  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   Okay.  Now, if you look in your report at page --  28 well, let me ask you this, firstly:  Do you know who  29 the archeologist who is -- to which reference is made?  30 A   No, I don't.  31 Q   Did you utilize that source to your recollection?  32 A  Well, I was just checking to see if I had.  33 Q   Well, I see that -- okay.  On page six of your report  34 there is a reference, at the top of page six of your  35 report, the last sentence of paragraph two?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   It appears that that's the same as the sentence in the  38 bottom of page five.  You did not make reference to  39 that?  40 A   Okay.  The top -- top -- in tab 7, the top two lines  41 on page six of tab 7 doesn't look -- weren't  42 incorporated.  43 Q   Were not incorporated?  44 A   I don't believe so.  45 Q   Okay.  But you don't recall who the other person was?  46 A   No, I don't.  47 Q   I'll come back to that and my friend is -- Mr. Willms 21705  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  THE COURT  8  MR. GRANT  9  Q  10  11  12  13  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  32  Q  33  A  34  35  36  37  38  Q  39  A  40  41  42  43  Q  44  45  46  47  A  has indicated something to me that I want to review  over the evening and we'll come back to that tomorrow  with respect to the area I covered before, earlier  before the break.  Okay.  Can we -- if you can go to  your report, on the top of page three you state:  "My general understanding."  That's --  Yes, I have it.  "My general understanding of the consequences  of European influence is shaped by the research  I carried out for my doctoral dissertation."  And that's an accurate statement, is that right?  Yes.  And nothing you did subsequent to your doctoral  dissertation and until May 1987 changed your opinions  with respect to the topic of this report?  Till May '87?  When you published -- when you finalized this report?  No, I don't think so.  Between May 1987 and today have you come across any  other data that is relevant to your report?  Yes, I have.  And what data is that?  Well, it's been primarily references to articles that  I have spotted here and there and the thought about  taking the time to read them, it's more a matter of  having built up a bit of a stockpile of materials that  I like to look at that I thought might relate to the  area.  Do you recall any of the articles?  There were two or three that I saw that had --  references to articles that had to do with  nineteenth century developments in the Haida and  Tlingit potlatches that I thought might be of some  interest.  Who is the author of those, do you recall?  There is an author Can or Can, C-a-n, for one.  And  just trying to think what the other was.  But I can't  think of anything really specifically that I was drawn  to.  Is there anything that you have reviewed between May  1987 and today that is relevant to the subject matter  of your report other than those two articles that you  had your attention drawn to?  Well, I'm not sure when I read some of the opinion 21706  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  Q  7  8  A  9  Q  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  A  16  17  Q  18  A  19  20  Q  21  22  23  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  A  36  Q  37  38  A  39  Q  40  41  MR. WILLM  42  43  44  45  46  THE COURT  47  MR. GRANT  reports presented by experts for the plaintiffs.  But  the work that I -- any work I did in association with  those was not associated with this opinion report.  So  I really wasn't watching for materials that might be  pertinent.  Well, you attended -- you reviewed the opinion report  of Sylvia Albright?  Yes.  And you attended in the courtroom at counsel table to  assist counsel in the cross-examination of Sylvia  Albright?  Yes, I did.  And you would agree with me that the subject matter of  her report is touched upon in your report?  Yes.  And I think I also indicated earlier why I find  that archeological data has limited value --  Yes, you have said that.  -- for the interpretation of anything to do with  resource use and management.  Yes, you have said that.  What I'm asking you is is if  the subject matter of her report is touched upon or  dealt with in any way in your opinion report; that  would be correct, wouldn't it?  It is?  Broadly speaking, yes.  Okay.  You reviewed the report of Dr. Antonia Mills?  Yes.  You reviewed her evidence?  Yes.  And would you not agree that the subject matter of her  report is dealt with in your report in part?  Oh, I -- yes, in part.  Some of the materials that she  refers to and materials that I had already reviewed in  the opinion report.  And she also --  Such as the Jenness material.  And she also refers to materials that you do not refer  to in your report?  Yes.  But the subject matter of her report is dealt with in  your report.  3:  My lord, unless my friend -- if he means subject  matter in the broadest sense, then I don't object to  the question.  But it's very hard to tell what he  means by subject matter, what the witness means by  subject matter if she says yes or no.  :  I take it to be in the broadest sense. 21707  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Oh, yes.  I am not trying to trick you with one  2 paragraph or anything like that.  I'm talking about  3 the broad sense.  You know, she's --  4 A   In the broad sense, yes.  5 Q   She talks about Wet'suwet'en society and social  6 organization and you deal with that in your report?  7 A   Yes.  I don't deal with issues of reincarnation, for  8 instance.  9 Q   No.  10 A   No.  11 Q   You don't cover everything that she covers?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   But she covers things that you cover.  And --  14 A   Specifically —  15 Q   -- Wet'suwet'en social organization?  16 A   She is dealing more with modern materials than I was,  17 but yes, in the broadest sense, yes, it's another  18 treatment.  19 Q   Did you assist counsel in the preparation of the  20 cross-examination of Dr. Mills?  21 A   Yes, I did.  22 Q   You reviewed Dr. Ray's report and Dr. Ray's evidence?  23 A   Yes, I did.  24 Q   And you reviewed the material of Dr. Ray subsequent to  25 the preparation your report?  I am not talking about  26 his report, I'm talking about the sources.  27 A   I'm not sure if that was -- I'm not sure if it was  28 subsequent to.  2 9 Q   You reviewed them sometime?  30 A   Yes, I did.  31 Q   Okay.  And you have assisted counsel in the  32 preparation of Dr. Ray's cross-examination?  33 A   Yes, I did.  34 Q   And with respect to Dr. Ray's report, your report  35 deals with areas that he covers in his report?  36 A   Somewhat, yes.  37 Q   Dr. Daly's report you reviewed, did you not?  38 A   Yes, I did.  39 Q   You assisted counsel in the preparation of  40 cross-examination of Dr. Daly?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   His report deals in the broad sense with topics,  43 subject matters that you cover in your report?  44 A  Very tenuous connection I think.  But in the broadest  45 sense, yes, it's another report in the anthropological  46 area.  47 Q   Well, he certainly deals in his report with the 2170?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 environment of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en territory  2 and social organization, doesn't he?  3 A   I don't have a very detailed recollection of that  4 particular report.  I think my main contribution there  5 was assisting in getting together references that were  6 listed in his fairly extensive bibliolography.  7 Q   But you did read it or not, you are not sure if you  8 read it?  9 A   I did, but it wasn't as in depth a read as I may have  10 of some of the plaintiffs' reports or experts'  11 reports.  12 Q   Did you read Heather Harris' report?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   Did you -- do you agree that her report touches on  15 issues that your report touches on?  16 A   In the broadest sense, yes.  17 Q   And did you assist counsel to prepare for her  18 cross-examination?  19 A   Yes, I did.  20 Q   Did you read -- did you read Dr. Brody's report?  21 MR. WILLMS:  Mr. Brody.  22 A   Yes, I did.  2 3    MR. GRANT:  24 Q   And did you -- again do you -- did his report --  25 A   Oh —  26 Q   -- touch on --  27 A   -- I read parts of his report.  I did do some  28 background reading in other works that Mr. Brody had  29 written.  30 Q   Did his report touch on issues that you deal with in  31 your report or not?  32 A   In the broadest sense, yes.  33 Q   And I believe I have already asked you about Dr. Ray.  34 Dr. Galois, did you read his report, or does it  35 cover -- well, did you read it, first of all?  36 A   Yes, I did.  37 Q   Does it cover issues that are dealt with in your  38 report or not?  39 A   It's dealing with a later time period, but in the  40 broadest sense, yes.  41 Q   Okay.  And what about Susan Marsden's report, did you  42 read that report?  43 A   Fairly large sections of it, yes.  44 Q   Did you assist in the preparation of her  45 cross-examination?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   And does her report deal with issues that you deal 21709  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 with in your report?  2 A   Yes, to some extent.  3 Q   You are familiar with the "Men of Mediik" and the  4 "Wars of Mediik"?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   In fact, I believe you cite the "Men of Mediik" in  7 your report?  8 A   Yes, I do.  9 Q   And she deals with the "Men of Mediik" and the "Wars  10 of Mediik" extensively in her report?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Have you read the "Men of Mediik" and the "Wars of  13 Mediik"?  14 A   Yes, I have.  15 Q   I think in that case Mediik is M-e-d-i-i-k.  Now, in  16 your report on pages two and three, and we have  17 already covered this, you state that your report is  18 based on the review and interpretation of existing  19 information, largely contained in secondary sources  20 concerning the Gitksan and Carrier as well as other  21 northwest coast and interior native groups.  That's a  22 correct statement?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   I asked you about that yesterday.  Now -- and I think  25 you've conceded that you have done no fieldwork in the  26 area?  27 A   No, I have not.  28 Q   And in fact you have done no field -- ethnographic  29 fieldwork anywhere as I remember rightly?  30 A   No, I have not.  31 Q   And you've done no archival research with respect to  32 this area?  33 A   Not specifically for this opinion report.  34 Q   All right.  35 A   However, I have done fairly extensive archival work  36 prior to this which did inform my own opinion on this.  37 Q   Right.  And you have those two Hudson's Bay records  38 which are the archival sources that you referred to in  39 this report?  40 A   For the land based fur trade.  There are also some  41 Maritime fur trade references.  42 Q   That's right.  I think Scarlett, if I remember  43 rightly?  44 A   Bartlett.  45 Q   Bartlett?  46 A  And William Sturgiss.  47 Q   Can you look at page four of your report? 21710  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Excuse me, if I could add some other primary source  2 reference materials from the historic records to that  3 list.  Tyler, Walker.  4 Q   Are these Maritime?  5 A   Yes.  Tikhmenev.  I am sorry, I am going backwards  6 from page 84, but there are several relating to the  7 early history of the northern coastal region.  8 Q   Okay.  9 A   This again is in this reference list other than those  10 Hudson's Bay Company records.  11 Q   What I want to know is there any other archival  12 sources that deal specifically with the Gitksan and  13 Wet'suwet'en territory other than those two Hudson Bay  14 sources?  15 A   No, there are not.  16 Q   You state on page four, and Mr. Willms quoted this to  17 you, that:  18  19 It is important to emphasize the limitations  20 inherent in any theory of aboriginal land use  21 which attempts to reconstruct a 'reality' that  22 existed before any relevant written records  23 were kept and long before the memory of living  24 man.  In my research I have discovered no  25 conclusive evidence that suggests that, prior  26 to the advent of European influence in the  27 claim area, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  28 lineages and families identified ownership  29 rights to large and precisely defined tracts of  30 hunting territories."  31  32 Why here, the only place I could find in your report,  33 unless you can correct me, do you say you find no  34 conclusive evidence, whereas in other parts of your  35 report you say you suspect, and you use other  36 terminology, not throughout but you use that kind of  37 terminology, but here is the only place where you say  38 no conclusive evidence.  Why is that the wording  39 you've used here?  40 A   I don't know if I can reconstruct a reason for precise  41 phrasing.  I could -- I could give you --  42 Q   It may have been --  43 A   -- reasons, but I may not be reflecting the reason I  44 had at the time.  45 Q   "No conclusive evidence," that's not the type of  46 terminology that you generally use in your reports, is  47 it? 21711  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  Q  4  THE  COURT  5  MR.  GRANT  6  7  THE  COURT  8  MR.  GRANT  9  10  THE  COURT  11  MR.  GRANT  12  Q  13  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Q  41  A  42  43  Q  44  45  46  A  47  Q  I don't know.  I don't -- it doesn't surprise me, the  phrase.  Well —  :  Where is this passage, Mr. Grant?  :  I am sorry, page four, the second sentence in the  second paragraph.  :  All right.  :  My lord, "in my research I have discovered no  conclusive evidence."  :  Yes.  Thank you.  Where have you looked for the evidence?  And I  understand, I assume that you have looked at the  sources you've cited, I understand.  Yes, I have.  So that's obvious.  Have you looked anywhere else, and  if so where, for this conclusive evidence that you  appear to be looking for?  Well, to start with, and to perhaps backtrack a bit, I  would say in the reading that I've done in the broader  sense than simply in this northwestern North American  region, the reading that I have done in cultural  ecology suggests that it's indeed going to be a rare  situation where there are any hunter-gatherer  societies that have evidence of large and precisely  defined tracts of hunting territories that are not  European influenced.  So I'm coming out of that kind  of broad perspective as part of my reference to saying  there is no conclusive evidence.  And I am also  deriving some support from comparative examples from  other regions.  But I am aware that there are  references in the 1822 and the 1826 reports by Brown  of tracts of land associated with beaver-hunting  territories and I accept the general interpretation,  because it sounds like a consistent and sound argument  to me that's being offered for those, which is to  suggest that they are in keeping with a post-European  influence situation.  They are historic, a historic  defined territories.  Okay.  Can I --  So that's why I say there is no conclusive evidence  for prehistoric.  Okay.  Do you agree with me that William Brown is the  commencement of the historic period in the  Wet'suwet'en territory, territory as defined by --  At the Village of Hotset.  The territory as described in Exhibit 646-9B? 21712  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  Q  4  5  THE COURT  6  MR. GRANT  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  27  A  28  29  30  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  A  39  40  41  Q  42  A  43  44  45  46  47  Yes.  And most of the observations are about Babine  Lake, but there is some, yes.  Okay, I am not just referring to Hotset.  I am  referring to the Wet'suwet'en territory as on 646-9B.  :  I doubt if the witness knows what that is.  I am sorry.  Yes.  The map, you understand I am talking about the  Wet'suwet'en --  Yes.  -- overlay?  Yes.  Okay.  Mackenzie never travelled into that area, did  he, in 1806?  No, he didn't.  1793.  I am sorry, 1793, you are right.  Yes.  So Brown is the commencement of the historic period?  Yes.  And Mackenzie is part of the protohistoric period?  For that region.  That's right, for that region?  Yes.  When Brown says tracts of country, have you  interpreted what tracts of country means?  Only to the extent that they appear to be associated  with the hunting of beaver.  And they appear to be  owned or in the proprietorship of certain individuals,  some of whom are named.  Okay.  Who are described sometimes as possessors of land.  Okay.  Why do you conclude that those are -- they are  held only by certain individuals rather than by  representatives of larger groups?  You are familiar  with house groups; you would know what I mean by that,  don't you?  Yes, and that's why I just used the word  proprietorship of certain individuals, because that's  what I was suggesting.  Sorry.  Tell me what you were suggesting.  Well, they appear to either be owned or in the  proprietorship of certain individuals and by that I  was suggesting that those certain individuals who are  named by Brown might indeed be custodians of tracts of  land who, if we can borrow from the ethnographies of  this and other area -- areas, we are able to direct 21713  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  THE  A  Q  A  Q  A  GRANT  the activities of people junior to them.  But Brown was talking about the Carrier, the  Wet'suwet'en, wasn't he?  He doesn't have to go to the  Yukon.  We can see what Brown said in 1822 about the  Carrier, can't we?  I wonder if you can refer me to that passage.  To him?  Yes.  Sure.  Thank you.  :   This is Exhibit 964, tab five.  You can put it in  at the next tab.  REGISTRAR:  Tab 8.  (EXHIBIT 1191-  964)  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  Q  Extract from Report of Brown (Ex  Tab 8, isn't it?  I think it would be tab 8.  Yes.  Thank you.  And also Exhibit 964-5 you may want to  cross-reference.  Have you seen this before?  Yes, I have.  Now, I am just going to start at the top there.  He  states -- this is the Report of the Establishment of  Fort Kilmaurs Babine Country 1822, 1823, right?  Yes.  He statements:  "The Babine Tribe of Indian who inhabit the  Country to the North West of Stuart's Lake, and  are considered as belonging to the  Establishment of Fort Kilmaurs, by the best  information I have been able to procure amount  to two hundred married men or thereby.  And are  divided as follows - The two Villages of  Nahtemcuz"  N-a-h-t-e-m-c-u-z  "and Thachy"  T-h-a-c-h-y.  "which are about twenty miles asunder, at the  former of which our present Establishment is 21714  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 situated contains twenty-four married men,  2 twenty-six married women, seven young men,  3 Fifteen young Girls and widows and twelve Boys.  4 Caspine"  5  6 C-a-s-p-i-n-e  7  8 "is the principal Chief of these two Villages,  9 after him the following are considered the most  10 respectable being heads of families and  11 possessors of particular tracks of country,  12 which they claim an exclusive right to."  13  14 Then he makes reference to the names, certain of the  15 names.  When it says:  "The following are considered  16 the most respectable being heads of families and  17 possessors of particular tracks of country," what do  18 you take out of that to say that the individuals are  19 the proprietors of the -- of those particular tracts  20 rather than the houses?  How can you interpret that  21 that way?  22 A  Well, I wonder if we could move to a passage that  23 reflects the Wet'suwet'en or Hotset, as I understand  24 it.  This is Babine or Fort Kilmaurs.  25 Q   Okay.  Well, let's —  26 A   So I —  27 Q   I am referring -- I'd like to ask -- did you not  28 consider this at all, this particular passage?  29 A   I considered it in light of the arguments presented by  30 people such as Charles Bishop in Limiting Access to  31 Limited Goods, the article we've referred to before  32 and also the article and thesis by Vernon Kobrinsky  33 and their analysis which talks about the  34 proto-historic development of a different system of  35 land holdings and also the evolution of a rank and  36 phratry system in this area is how I looked at this  37 passage.  38 Q   You —  39 A   In light of that.  40 Q   -- adopted Kobrinsky's conclusion; you just took it as  41 your own, right, with respect to this point?  42 A   Yes.  And I put it in the blotter context as saying  43 that Kobrinsky certainly doesn't stand alone and that  44 he's referring not only to several scholars who have  45 done work in that area in related areas in the Carrier  46 vicinity, but also I am referring to several other  47 scholars who have similarly looked at precisely this 21715  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  A  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Q  18  19  20  21  22  A  23  THE  COURT:  24  25  MR.  GRANT:  26  THE  COURT:  27  MR.  GRANT:  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  THE  COURT:  39  MR.  GRANT:  40  THE  COURT:  41  MR.  GRANT:  42  THE  COURT:  43  A  44  45  46  47  kind of comment and have attributed it to  proto-historic changes.  Does Kobrinsky deal with this statement, "being heads  of families and possessors of particular tracks of  country"?  I don't know if he does.  What do you understand particular tracks of country to  mean when William Brown writes it?  Well, I think there are several other passages in this  particular report that perhaps we should consider in  conjunction rather than just take this one in  isolation.  But there are several references through  Brown's writing to particular tracts of country  associated with particular individuals.  These also  seem to be associated with the hunting of beaver.  We  know that there is a European market for skins.  Okay.  But here he doesn't -- he doesn't talk about  individuals, does he?  I don't see that word here.  He  says "heads of families and possessors of particular  tracks of country."  He doesn't refer to the beaver  here?  No, he doesn't in that particular one.  Can counsel agree on what the next line says in  which they claim --  Sure.  -- an exclusive right to what?  "An exclusive right to" and then it's -- then you  see -- you see after "him":  "The following are considered the most  respectable being heads of family and  possessors of particular tracks of country  which they claim an exclusive right to."  My reading of that, then he starts to list them:  Ool-lach, O-o-l dash 1-a-c-h, Chief of the Village of  Tachy, Sawbuck, and he's listing the names --  All right.  -- my lord.  All right.  That's why I stopped there.  Yes.  All right.  I think one of the reasons, if we read further in that  first passage that I may not have read houses into it,  is the notion that these individuals have little or no  control over their followers, or what Brown observes  are the followers, "as everyone as far as I can judge 21716  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  considers himself his own master." Now, my  understanding of --  GRANT:  Q   Wait.  Wait.  Before you go on I think you have  misstated it and I think you may have just overlooked  it.  It says:  The others are more or less related to some of  those eight."  A  Q  A  A  Q  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  That would mean the other people presumably, right?  Yes.  Presumably.  "and may be considered as their followers, but  they have little or no control over them."  Are you suggesting that "they," he's referring the  leaders have little control over the followers or the  followers have little control over the leaders?  Well, this is one of the problems with interpretting  the historic documents.  Just a minute.  I'll have  to —  Well, if you don't know you can tell me that.  If you  haven't put your mind to that, that's all right.  I haven't until now.  Okay.  Seeing that you could read it either way, and I am not  sure that you can, in that I was reading the list --  the named individuals had little control over the  followers.  But there is nothing to tell you whether that's the  case or the followers have little control over the  leaders.  :  Well, the last clause -- I haven't made a decision.  The last clause is possibly relevant to that:  "As everyone as far as I can judge considers  himself his own master."  Does that more likely refer to the followers consider  themselves their own masters than that the masters  consider themselves their own masters?  Well, yes.  I agree entirely that it may be ambiguous.  Right.  But you come to know people by the company they keep  and I have a preliminary view that that last clause is 21717  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 relevant to the proper construction to put it in that  2 sentence.  3 MR. GRANT:  Right.  Okay.  4 Q   Well, we'll leave this and I am going to take you to  5 the second page.  Okay?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Because you had asked about Hotset.  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   I think that's -- the last paragraph on the second  10 page:  11  12 "Hotset"  13  14 That's H-o-t-s-e-t,  15  16 "the largest and most populous of the Babine  17 Villages is situated on the Banks of the  18 Ochitcho"  19 O-c-h-i-t-o,  20  21 "or Simpson's River, which is one days march in  22 summer and three in winter to the west of this  23 lake.  I have had various accounts of the  24 number of Indians who reside here judging from  25 which I believe the following will be nearly  2 6 the truth.  From one hundred and forty to one  27 hundred and fifty married men."  28  29 Now, before I go any further, do you understand where  30 he refers to as Hotset, it's within Wet'suwet'en  31 territory, isn't it?  Do you know the Simpson's River?  32 A   I know that only by the recommendation of some other  33 people who suggest that Hotset's got an association  34 with Wet'suwet'en.  The description that it's three  35 days in winter's march to the west of this lake, which  36 presumably is Babine Lake, or one day's march in  37 summer made me think that it was probably the Bulkley  38 River area that was being referred to, but that's as  39 best we can do.  40 Q   Okay.  41  42 "From one hundred and forty to one hundred and  43 fifty married men, an equal number of married  44 women, and from one hundred and sixty to two  45 hundred young men, young women, widowers and  46 children of these there are twenty chiefs of  47 different graduations and sixty-seven married 2171?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 men whom they denominate respectable heads of  2 families and possessors of lands.  The  3 following is a list of the chiefs according to  4 their rank, and as they are placed at their  5 Feasts, but having seen little of them I can  6 say nothing as to their character."  7  8 And he starts with Oss, O-s-s, "him I sent the present  9 to." That's, I presume, Mr. Brown's comment.  10 "Smugglhuim."  S-m-u-g-g-1-h-u-i-m.  Now, you are  11 familiar with this passage, aren't you?  12 A   That you just read?  13 Q   Yes.  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And once again, we now have a description of twenty  16 chiefs and sixty-seven married men whom they  17 denominate respectable heads of families and  18 possessors of lands.  Okay?  Now, once again, what you  19 do is you rely on Kobrinsky and by so much to  20 interpret that as that they are individual  21 proprietors.  I am saying your interpretation is that  22 they are not holding their lands for their house, for  23 their families as he's talking about?  24 A  Well, this is -- I would just like to point out that  25 this is one of Brown's hearsay accounts and he was  26 someone who was aware of the value of firsthand  27 observation.  Just so that -- so that we realize that  28 this is an account that he's saying is a summary of  29 accounts he's had from other people.  That's one point  30 I'd like to make.  But yes, he's describing what looks  31 like maybe from a third to half of the men as  32 respectable and as being --  33 Q   Respectable heads of families?  34 A   -- respectable heads of families and being possessors  35 of lands.  36 Q   Right.  And you cannot interpret from that if they are  37 holding the land as individuals or as heads of house  38 groups or family groups, can you?  39 A   Not from that alone.  40 Q   And so what you do is you say well, I go back to  41 Kobrinsky, Kobrinsky's article and I rely on his  42 conclusion which, as you say, he refers to many other  43 people.  That's -- and then I interpret it as  44 individual proprietors, is that right?  45 A   No, I don't think I am reading that into that passage.  46 I am just noting that that's one of many descriptions  47 of individuals as proprietors of land or possessors of 21719  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 land.  2 Q   Well —  3 A  Well it's —  4 Q   — is it?  5 A   It's single names associated with a tract of land.  If  6 I suggested that that was individual ownership as  7 opposed to some kind of group ownership, what I will  8 say now to clarify is that I cannot say that from this  9 record alone to make a distinction between individual  10 or group ownership or assertion of right to some land.  11 Q   And you can't say whether in the 1823, 1822, '23 this  12 description of William Brown, you cannot say whether  13 or not at that time these chiefs were holding as  14 individuals or on behalf of family groups?  15 A   No.  If I did have an opportunity to review this  16 particular report, though, I do know that Brown has,  17 and I forget, I am sorry, which of the Brown reports  18 this is referred to in, but there are comments about  19 some people not having lands or not having access to  20 lands or they seem to be dependent on either asking  21 permission or somehow being connected with some of  22 these possessors of land.  That's a confusing point,  23 but there are observations made by Brown about some  24 people not having lands or access to them.  25 Q   But you had this report since 1987, didn't you?  You  26 saw this in 1987 before you completed your own report?  27 A   Possibly.  28 Q   You've had two and a half years to consider how  29 this -- and you've seen Dr. Ray's evidence, too,  30 haven't you?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   And you've seen Dr. Ray's consideration at his  33 presentation of how you do not deal with Brown.  34 You've seen that, haven't you?  35 A   I'm not sure.  I was aware of it.  I am not sure if I  36 have looked at it.  37 Q   Okay.  38 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I also have no recollection of Dr. Ray  39 suggesting that Dr. Robinson doesn't deal with Brown.  4 0 I don't -- I don't know how -- where that is.  Brown  41 is in here, but if my friend can help us all out with  42 that suggestion.  43 THE COURT:  I didn't understand Mr. Grant to say that, but if he  44 did I missed it.  Is that what you said, Mr. Grant?  45 MR. GRANT:  No.  I was saying that Dr. Ray deals with Dr.  46 Robinson's, how she handles or doesn't handle this  47 William Brown reference and that's a treatise that was 21720  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  filed and put to Dr. Ray.  In fact, immediate -- it  immediately follows the filing of this report, follows  that basis upon which my friend filed it the report  some months ago of Dr. Robinson.  : All right. I think it's a convenient time to  adjourn. We'll look forward to continuing this  tomorrow morning.  :  Thank you, my lord.  :  Thank you.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1989  AT 10:00 A.M.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Laara Yardley, Official Reporter,  United Reporting Service Ltd.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0019908/manifest

Comment

Related Items