11252 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 25 January 1989 2 Vancouver, B.C. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of British 5 Columbia, Vancouver, this Wednesday, January 25, 6 1989. In the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her 7 Majesty the Queen at bar, my lord. Caution the 8 witness you are still under oath. 9 THE COURT: Ms. Koenigsberg. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KOENIGSBERG: (Continued) 12 Q Ms. Harris, yesterday we had talked about the 13 incidents of adoption in houses and how many houses 14 out of 45 for which we have genealogies as the final 15 product in this trial did not show any adoptions. 16 My number was 4 and I believe you were going to 17 check that, and have you been able to check that? 18 A Yes, yes, I did as you requested. That's what I 19 have here. In fact, I noticed there were few houses 20 where sihlguxlixwst, the raising of a child, was 21 recorded as with a dotted line and with those that 22 were moved, I had noted them. And you can -- you 23 will be able to see these, including the example you 24 gave of Denny Lavaseur, there in fact were 14 houses 25 that have no adoption that are known to me either 26 among living people or dead people; in other words, 27 all people represented on the genealogies. 28 Q You have removed from the list of houses from which 29 there are no adoptions any houses that show 30 adoptions if your reason or if the reason known to 31 you for the adoption was what we have called an S 32 word adoption? 33 A That's correct. 34 Q And do you have that list -- 35 A Yes, this is what -- 36 Q -- of houses? 37 A -- are what these figures are here. It hasn't been 38 typed or anything of course. 39 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Can you give us the list? 40 MR. GRANT: Just — I just want her to clarify whether, Ms. 41 Koenigsberg, the list of houses with no adoptions, 42 the 14 houses -- 43 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I think probably shorter to do the 14 houses. 44 THE COURT: Let me make sure I have it straight. There are 14 45 houses with no adoptions except S word adoptions? 46 THE WITNESS: That's correct, which doesn't affect house 47 population. 11253 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MS. KOENIGS 2 Q 3 A 4 5 THE COURT: 6 7 8 THE WITNESS 9 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. GRANT: 12 THE WITNESS 13 THE COURT: 14 THE WITNESS 15 MR. GRANT: 16 17 18 THE WITNESS 19 20 21 MS. KOENIGS 22 Q 23 24 A 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: 29 MS. KOENIGS 30 Q 31 32 33 34 A 35 36 37 Q 38 39 A 40 41 42 43 44 Q 45 46 47 BERG: Okay. Okay. Amagyet, Dawamuxw, Djogaslee, Gaxsbgabaxs, Gutginuxw, Guxsan, Gwagl'lo, Gwoimt. I am sorry, there were two houses that were close in sound to that. Can you give me the spelling for that? : Gwoimt is -- I believe it was the way it was spelled on the Statement of Claim. G-w-o-i-m-t? That's right, my lord. : Yes. Thank you. : Haaxw. I will spell it, H-a-a-x-w. Can I clarify? There are two words that are very -- two houses that are the very same. Is that the Kispiox group or the -- : This is the Kispiox, Lax Seel, not the Kitwanga one. Hanamuxw, Luutkudziiwus Nii Kyap, 'Wiik'aax and Xsgogimlaxha. BERG: Okay. And so we are agreed that Delgamuukw is removed from that list? Oh, yes. Yes. No, that was -- that other list was referring to just living members and a unilineal. It was more referring to a unilineal kin group, it wasn't directed towards adoption so much. The list you are talking about is footnote? BERG: 7, page 95, and just so I am clear that we understand each other, Delgamuukw does include adoption including a living person, that is Lottie Harris? Yes. These adoptions or houses, or adoptions that I have just named, include those with adoptions of people both living and dead. But they are all S word adoptions in the list that you have just -- No, T word. They are adopted into the house. Those 14 that I just named are houses whose -- I am sorry, those are houses with no adoptions into the house. The remaining ones are the ones that have adoption that have affected the population of the house. All right. And we are dealing, so I understand, with these 14, because I can't do this in my head, these 14 are all separately shown houses by your genealogies? 11254 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A I went by the genealogies, yes. I am not referring 2 to the amalgamated groups; I went strictly by the 3 genealogies. 4 Q So at this point our numbers are 31 out of 45 have T 5 word adoptions which affect the size of the house? 6 A Yes, that's correct. 7 Q Okay. Now, we were dealing with anomolies that we 8 were trying to figure out on the genealogical charts 9 where we could find adoptions out; that is, the 10 designation of a person with the slash through their 11 name, but not find them on correspondingly adopted 12 in, and we had I believe finished with Emma Green 13 and the next one for which we show some difficulty 14 is a person by the name of Gwaslam, it is a male 15 person, in the house is Guxsan, and that's tab 13? 16 A That was a person whose name wasn't shown by the 17 informant and what was indicated there is they were 18 adopted into the house of Gwaslam which is a 19 Kitwancool house so we don't have the corresponding 20 genealogy. 21 Q That will explain that, but maybe we just better let 22 everybody -- 23 A That's why the word Gwaslam is in brackets, to 24 indicate that it is the house we went to. 25 MS. KOENIGSBERG: That's page 24 of Guxsan, so Gwaslam is shown 26 on page 24 of Guxsan which is at tab 13. And it is 27 down at the bottom of the page on the last line. 28 MR. GRANT: What page again? 2 9 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 30 Q 24. And I understand your evidence to be that the 31 reason we don't find him on a genealogy that you 32 have produced is that Gwaslam is a name in a house 33 or a house? 34 A It is the name of the house, the chief's name of the 35 house. 36 Q In Kitwancool did you say? 37 A That's correct. 38 Q Do you know if the reason for that adoption was to 39 increase the size of the house in Kitwancool? 4 0 A I don't know. 41 Q Would you not have made inquiries because that was a 42 Kitwancool house and that was not included in your 43 genealogical chart? 44 A What was the question? Oh, is that why it didn't 45 make inquiries? 46 Q Yes. 47 A Well, partly that, and partly just that there was 11255 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 such a huge volume of work there that there just 2 wasn't time to do absolutely everything. 3 Q Whether it is a significant adoption for Kitwancool, 4 we don't know? 5 A No, I don't know the details of that. 6 Q The next one deals with the house of Luutkudziiwus, 7 that's tab 28, and we will also need tab 29, Ma'uus, 8 and the persons are George Harris, Gloria Harris and 9 Jeff Harris Junior? 10 A And Emma Harris. 11 Q And? 12 A Emma Harris. 13 Q Yes. Probably don't have it because we figured that 14 one out. 15 A Oh, I see. 16 Q Page 5 of Luutkudziiwus shows Emma Brown being 17 adopted out and three of her children, George 18 Harris, Gloria Harris, and Jeff Harris Junior being 19 adopted out, and if I understood the designation we 20 should find them on Ma'uus adopted in? 21 A Yes. I believe I explained this one to Mr. Goldie. 22 It was difficult to diagram this one and one other 23 where a woman had been adopted, and that woman in 24 this case was Emma Harris, was adopted out of the 25 house of Luutkudziiwus and into the house of Ma'uus 26 and, at a later date, it was decided that her -- one 27 of her children which was Vera Wale, who you find on 28 page 4 of Luutkudziiwus, would remain with the house 29 of Luutkudziiwus because she married a man from 30 Gitanmaax and resided in Gitanmaax. 31 THE COURT: I am sorry, who's this, Vera? 32 THE WITNESS: Vera Wale, the daughter of Emma Harris. 33 MS. KOENIGSBERG: My lord, if you put together pages 4 and 5 of 34 Luutkudziiwus, you see that. 35 THE COURT: These on page 5. 36 MS. KOENIGSBERG: You see that Emma Brown and Jeff Harris had 37 four children and Vera Wale is not shown as adopted 38 out. 3 9 THE COURT: Yes. 40 THE WITNESS: It was kind of an awkward thing to diagram and I 41 suppose it might have been more accurate if it had 42 shown Vera to have been adopted out and then adopted 43 back in, but I just thought this was a less unwieldy 44 way to diagram it and still get in the biological 45 connections. It was just a difficult thing to 46 diagram. But I see that the dotted line from Jacob 47 Morrison to Emma Brown is there but it should have 11256 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 MR. GRANT: 6 7 THE WITNESS 8 MS. KOENIGS 9 THE COURT: 10 THE WITNESS 11 MS. KOENIGS 12 13 14 THE COURT: 15 THE WITNESS 16 MS. KOENIGS 17 18 19 THE COURT: 20 MS. KOENIGS 21 Q 22 23 24 25 26 A 27 Q 28 29 30 31 A 32 THE COURT: 33 34 35 THE WITNESS 36 THE COURT: 37 THE WITNESS 38 MS. KOENIGS 39 40 THE COURT: 41 42 43 THE WITNESS 44 THE COURT: 45 MS. KOENIGS 46 Q 47 in brackets under Emma that she came from Luutkudziiwus' house. Jeff and Gloria and George Harris were not adopted separately from Emma. She was adopted before they were born. This is on the Ma'uus genealogy you are now referring to? : Yes. BERG: Bear with me, Mr. Grant. What page in the Ma'uus genealogy? : One. BERG: On page -- no, I am sorry, it is page 2 of Ma'uus. I am sorry, sorry, sorry, I picked up the wrong page. Page 1 or page 2? : Page 1. BERG: I am sorry, it is page 2 of Ma'uus. On page 2 of Ma'uus -- oh, because page -- I see, sorry, my pages were cut in half. It is a double page. BERG: We see Emma Brown being adopted with a dotted line, but under Emma Brown her three children are not shown with a dotted line and you say that that counts -- that shows that that counts as one adoption of Emma Brown? Yes. And that the children, Jeff Harris Junior, George Harris, and Gloria Harris were in a sense born into Ma'uus because they were born after their mother was adopted? Yes, it was just difficult to diagram. I have a note from Mr. Goldie's cross-examination that Emma Brown was adopted by Jacob Morrison before any of her children were born. : Yes, that's correct. I have a note five children were born. : Yes. BERG: There is another child somewhere. If you look on -- That wouldn't make any sense, or does it? Are you saying then that Vera was born into the house of Ma'uus and then adopted back to Luutkudziiwus? : Yes. I could have shown it that way, I suppose. All right. BERG: Just so I understand again, understanding what you have just said about the difficulty of diagramming 11257 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 it, on Luutkudziiwus, what's confusing is that you 2 are showing the children, Jeff Harris, George Harris 3 and Gloria Harris as adopted out but in fact they 4 were never in Luutkudziiwus? 5 A Yes, they were descended from Luutkudziiwus' house. 6 Q And properly for the purposes of understanding 7 adoptions in and out, Vera should be shown as 8 adopted into Luutkudziiwus because she wasn't born 9 in the house? 10 A That might have been a clearer way to put it. 11 Q And do we understand that Vera stayed behind in the 12 sense of stayed or went back to the house of 13 Luutkudziiwus for convenience or to -- because they 14 wouldn't want to lose that many members, or what? 15 A The reason that I was told was because she married 16 in Gitanmaax and it is a lot easier to function in a 17 house in the village that you live, and with -- by 18 then there were enough people in the house of Ma'uus 19 that they were not in fear of becoming extinct of 2 0 members. 21 Q The next problem was on the Luus genealogy and we 22 will also need the Baskyelaxha genealogy. Luus is 23 tab 27, Baskyelaxha is tab 3, and the persons that 24 we want to deal with are the Hillis'. 25 A Yes, this is the same situation again. 26 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Just wait a minute until everybody gets there. 27 Clifford, Myrna, Mamie and Myrna, two Myrnas. Page 28 8. 29 THE COURT: 24 and 27 are we? 30 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 31 Q On Luus, it is at page 8, and we see that on the 32 third line down that -- fourth line down that the 33 children of Emma White and Charley Hillis are all 34 adopted out to Baskyelaxha. I shouldn't have said 35 Charley Hillis except they got their name from their 36 father. It is Emma White we are concerned with and 37 it doesn't show Emma White as being adopted out. 38 A I will start at the beginning. Mable White or 39 Mable -- yeah, Mable White was Emma's mother, you 40 see her on the second line. 41 Q Known as Mable Williams? 42 A Yes, that's her maiden name, that's on the page 8 of 43 Luus. She was adopted into Baskyelaxha's house. 44 The house was virtually extinct at that time and she 45 was adopted into the house with the hope that she 46 would repopulate the house and she did an extremely 47 good job of it and has at this point in time 1125? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 something like 80 macrilineal descendants, so her 2 oldest daughter, Emma, who would have been born in 3 the house of Baskyelaxha or had gone with her as a 4 small child, I'm not sure of the precise date, she 5 also had very many children. So it was decided by 6 the chiefs at a later date that because the house of 7 Baskyelaxha was sufficiently repopulated that Emma's 8 children that she had with her second husband would 9 go back to the house of Luus if you want to put it 10 that way to make it clear. This is the same 11 situation as the last one. It was difficult to 12 diagram because I didn't want to lose the 13 genealogical connections and that's why you see the 14 same group repeated and shown as, I suppose, in a 15 rather unclear manner but that was what I was trying 16 to demonstrate, was the biological connections. I 17 didn't want to lose that but I wanted to demonstrate 18 the fact that half of Mable White's descendants were 19 in Baskyelaxha's house and half was in Luus' house 20 but that was the reason. 21 Q And properly then, however Clifford, Myrna, Richard, 22 Mamie, should be shown with a dotted line in -- 23 A No, no, just Mable because they were the 24 descendants. 25 MR. GRANT: On which genealogy is my friend now? 26 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am sorry, I am looking at Baskyelaxha. 27 THE COURT: Just a moment. I don't think I have it yet. That's 28 23. 2 9 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Tab 3, my lord. 3 0 THE COURT: Yes. 31 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 32 Q I think I have lost the train here. In Baskyelaxha, 33 we do not see anybody adopted in? 34 A I do. Mable White right on the first page and Bill 35 Blackwater as well, but of the group of people we 36 have been discussing, Mable White is the person 37 who's adopted in and all of those people are her 38 descendants but you might want to put it that some 39 of them returned to the house that she originally 40 came from just as in the case with Emma Harris. 41 Again, it might have been clearer to diagram it as 42 having returned because again I didn't want to lose 43 the biological connection. 44 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Is it appropriate to look at these people as 45 not having been adopted? 46 MR. GRANT: Which people? 47 THE WITNESS: Which people? 11259 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 2 Q I am sorry, the Clifford, Myra, Mamie and Myrna? 3 A Yes, because they are the descendants of Mable and 4 she was the only one who there was an actual 5 adoption which took place at a feast and her name 6 was paid for and all of the process that goes with 7 adoption. She was the only one where this occurred. 8 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. But there is a break in time there. 9 When these children were born, what house were they 10 in? 11 MR. GRANT: I am sorry, my lord. 12 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to Clifford, Myrna and Mamie? 13 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 14 Q Yes. 15 A They were born in the house of Baskyelaxha. 16 Q Because their mother, Emma White, was in that house 17 at that time? 18 A Because their grandmother had been adopted into that 19 house is how they ended up in the house of 20 Baskyelaxha. 21 Q Okay. Well, you have got to help me and maybe I am 22 missing something obvious here. Are you not at 23 least initially and prima facie born into the house 24 of your mother? 25 A Yes. 26 Q And at the time these children were born, what house 27 was their mother in? 28 A I am not certain of the situation. I'd have to 29 think about that. I talked to Emma about this but 30 it's been a couple of years. I am not positive if, 31 when the arrangement was made that Emma's children 32 by her second husband would return to Luus or remain 33 with Luus, I am not certain if at that time Emma was 34 returned to Luus as well. I can't remember what 35 Emma said. 36 Q My difficulty is that if I wanted -- want to 37 determine the number of adoptions and in particular 38 if I am concerned with the number of what I will 39 call more than one adoption at one time and 40 attribute some significance to them, I would want to 41 know where this group of children were when they 42 were born so that I could determine if they had been 43 adopted into a house in order to increase the 44 population of the house. Now, prima facie, when I 45 look at Luus and see them as a group adopted out, my 46 assumption is that they are adopted in some place as 47 a group and likely, since there are several of them, 11260 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 it is for a reason to repopulate or contribute to 2 the population of another house? 3 A The problem here is again it was the -- the 4 diagramatic convenience so I have shown these people 5 as being adopted out but there was these -- the only 6 adoption that actually occurred, a formal Gitksan 7 adoption, was the adoption of Mable White out of 8 Luus and into Baskyelaxha, and the arrangement was 9 made at a much later date that some of the children 10 would -- 11 Q Grandchildren you mean? 12 A I am sorry, yes, some of the grandchildren, Emma's 13 children by her second marriage, would return or 14 remain, I don't know the exact terminology the 15 Gitksan might use for that situation, but return or 16 remain in the house of Luus. 17 Q Sorry, you mean return to the house of Baskyelaxha? 18 A No, Luus. 19 Q I am sorry, you are talking about the -- 20 A They were born in the house of Baskyelaxha you might 21 say. Well, because the arrangement was made before 22 they were born, they would consider themselves to 23 have been born in the house of Luus. 24 Q Yes, and whether an actual feast was held to adopt 25 those children or some less formal means was arrived 26 at among the chiefs to determine their house 27 membership, they as a group are in Baskyelaxha in 28 order to assist in the population, to maintain the 29 population of Baskyelaxha and because Luus is quite 30 healthy; is that fair? 31 A I lost track of which group we are talking about. I 32 thought you were talking about the ones that went 33 back to Luus. 34 Q I am talking about Clifford, Myra, Mamie and Myrna. 35 They are the ones as shown as adopted out of Luus 36 and they do appear in Baskyelaxha? 37 A Right, and again as I say -- 38 Q But not as adopted? 39 A They weren't formally adopted. They as individuals 40 were not adopted out of Baskyelaxha, I mean out of 41 Luus. It was their grandmother, and again this was 42 just a convenient method to diagram the biological 43 connections. 44 Q Okay. I don't want to belabour it too long but I am 45 confused about how it is we are going to be able to 46 determine adoptions, if I can put it this way, by 47 function that fit the rules? 11261 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A Well, this was the only two cases, that we have just 2 discussed, Emma Harris and Mable White's 3 descendants. We won't encounter it again. 4 Q So I understand it, the group of children I am 5 talking about being Mamie, Myra, Clifford and Myrna 6 Hillis have been adopted out or shown as adopted out 7 of Luus? 8 A They are shown as but they haven't been. That would 9 not be an appropriate way to put it. 10 Q When you say they haven't been, do you mean there 11 has been no formal adoption proceeding, that there 12 was an informal agreement that when they were born 13 or after they were born that they would be in the 14 house of their grandmother, the adopted house of 15 their grandmother, Baskyelaxha? 16 A No, they were born in the house of Baskyelaxha by 17 virtue of being the descendant of Mable White who 18 was adopted into the house of Baskyelaxha many years 19 ago. The slightly less formal, if you want to call 20 it, arrangement was that the children of Emma White 21 by her second marriage, her Johnson children, that 22 they would return to Luus' house. This was informal 23 in that each one individually didn't pay for a name 24 at a feast but it was formal and legally sanctioned 25 at a feast in that that decision was taken 26 beforehand by the chiefs and the decision was 27 announced and the feast was put up when this was 2 8 done. 29 MR. GRANT: Those are the ones on page 7 and 8 of Luus I 30 believe. I just want to be clear what the witness 31 is talking about. 32 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 33 Q Page 7 of Luus shows a line of children of Emma 34 White and Bruce Johnson? 35 A Yes. 36 Q Four of them. Dora Johnson, Anita Johnson, Valerie 37 Johnson and Bernadine Johnson? 38 A Yes. 39 Q Correct? Do I understand you that they were born in 40 the house of Baskyelaxha and adopted back or taken 41 back into the house of Luus? 42 A They were taken back into the house of Luus but I 43 don't think people would apply the word adopted to 44 it necessarily because of the -- it was not the most 45 common type of arrangement which is usually referred 46 to as adoption. 47 Q Okay. Without stretching it too much, would it be 11262 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 fair to say that in function it looks very much like 2 other adoptions granting that there has been no -- 3 A Yes, in function, yes. As I say, it could have been 4 diagrammed I suppose as having been the descendants 5 of Mable White in the house of Baskyelaxha and 6 adopted back to Luus but this is not the way that -- 7 it was not done in precisely the usual manner of 8 adoption. 9 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. 10 THE COURT: They don't show in the genealogy of the house of 11 Baskyelaxha, do they? 12 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 13 Q No, they don't. 14 A Right. 15 Q They show only in Luus and they don't show as having 16 had an affiliation with Baskyelaxha but, as I 17 understand it, if we were -- if you were to diagram 18 the evidence that you have just given so that we 19 would have understood that from looking at the 20 genealogies, we might see the line of children on 21 page 7 of Luus, the four that I have previously 22 mentioned being born into the house of Baskyelaxha? 23 A No. This arrangement was made before they were 24 born. Yes, that's the way I was told. 25 Q But their mother was in Baskyelaxha? 26 A Yes. 27 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. And — 28 THE COURT: It wasn't just those four, was it? There is also 29 Lily, Margaret — 30 MR. GRANT: No, the line goes to Floyd Johnson on page 8, my 31 lord. Floyd Johnson as well is one of those 32 children. 33 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am sorry, yes, my lord, you are looking at 34 the line above for Lily. 35 THE COURT: Yes. Floyd Johnson, then — 36 MS. KOENIGSBERG: All of those people are shown as adopted out. 37 THE COURT: Yes, all right. 38 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 39 Q But they are also -- I think they are shown as 40 adopted in because I don't show it as not 41 understanding it, so let me double check. I am 42 sorry, actually now there is another anomaly. If we 43 look at page 7 of Baskyelaxha, we find Lily White 44 and Margaret White. Starting on page 3 of 45 Baskyelaxha, we have the line Sara White; page 4 46 then is Phyllis White; page 5, Lesley White; page 6, 47 Freda White; page 7, Lily White; and page 8, 11263 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Margaret White. Those people are shown on page 8 of 2 Luus as adopted out of Luus and into Baskyelaxha? 3 A Again, they were the descendants of Mable, children, 4 and it was just to indicate the biological 5 connections. They were born in the house of 6 Baskyelaxha. They were not individually adopted. 7 The adoption occurred before they were born. 8 Q Okay. So to understand the usage here when we see a 9 slashed line through a whole group of people whose 10 mother was also adopted and we don't find that line 11 correspondingly on the house to which it is shown 12 that they are adopted out, the assumption is that 13 they were born after their mother was adopted? 14 A Yes. It was just these two situations that were 15 very difficult to try and get the information into. 16 Q Okay. I think we now have clear that you could have 17 diagrammed all of the children of Bruce Johnson and 18 Emma White as adopted out? 19 A You know, if these -- I was doing these for the 20 information and that's what I was trying to get in, 21 but for the purposes of the court, obviously it 22 would have been easier to diagram it that way so it 23 was more clear but my idea was to get the 24 information in. 25 Q Okay. I understand that, and my concern is that 26 when the genealogical charts formed the basis of 27 impressions which lead to conclusions about the way 28 the social structure works as in how many adoptions 29 and its function or marriage preferences or 30 whatever, that then the reasons why things are the 31 way they are on the charts become important. Would 32 you agree? 33 A Yes, I would. 34 Q The next one will involve two genealogies, 35 Haxbagwootxw which is tab 25 and Miluulak, tab 30? 36 A Who? 37 Q Haxbagwootxw, tab 25, and Miluulak, tab 30? 38 A You mean Miluulak, M-i-1-u-u-l-a-k? 39 Q Sounds the same to me. 40 A Sorry, I wasn't quite sure. I know it is very 41 difficult to pronounce these. 42 MS. KOENIGSBERG: This deals with Robert Jackson Junior. You 43 see, look at tab 2. 4 4 THE COURT: Tab 2. 45 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 46 Q I am sorry, page 2 of Haxbagwootxw, tab 25. 47 A Page 2 of Haxbagwootxw, is that -- 11264 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am sorry, Haxbagwootxw, page 2. He is 2 shown -- now, I will have to ask for a lot of your 3 help on this one. He is shown as adopted out. 4 THE COURT: Who's this? 5 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Robert Jackson Junior on page 2. 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 8 Q To where was he adopted out? 9 A Sorry, I don't recall that one. He is obvious -- I 10 didn't type these. I see it doesn't say what house 11 he went to. 12 THE COURT: Can you make a suggestion, Ms. Koenigsberg? 13 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am not sure, my lord. One of my notes says 14 Miluulak but I will see if I can find it. I thought 15 you might know. That's why I said Miluulak, but I 16 don't have a page number. 17 MR. GRANT: I think evidence in fact — I think one of the 18 witnesses on commission was examined on this by my 19 friend, in fact Mr. Stanley Williams. 2 0 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 21 Q It doesn't assist me very much I can tell you 22 because I can't remember, believe it or not. 23 A I am sorry, I can't recall. 24 Q I don't see him on Miluulak. Well, I see Robert 25 Jackson on page 15 of Miluulak but that would be 26 Robert Jackson Senior; is that correct? 27 A Yes, it is. 2 8 Q And he is indeed shown? 29 A Yes. 30 Q In Miluulak. Well, I suppose the anomoly is that 31 perhaps we could not find Robert Jackson Junior 32 being adopted in any place? 33 A I don't recall. 34 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, why don't we come back to that one if I 35 can confirm that he does not appear anywhere. And 36 we can determine whether that is an adoption that we 37 count as significant and where he is -- 38 THE COURT: I suppose he might have been adopted to a 39 Wet'suwet'en house or to a Kitwancool house, could 40 he? 41 THE WITNESS: I just don't remember that one. It is a 42 possibility. 43 THE COURT: In your terminology, can the adoption of a male ever 44 be significant? 45 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think it can, especially in the case where 46 the male that's adopted takes a high ranking name. 47 Sometimes an adoptee can become the chief of the 11265 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 THE COURT: 4 THE WITNESS 5 6 THE COURT: 7 8 9 THE WITNESS 10 11 12 THE COURT: 13 THE WITNESS 14 15 THE COURT: 16 MS. KOENIGS 17 Q 18 19 20 21 A 22 Q 23 24 A 25 MS. KOENIGS 26 27 THE COURT: 28 MS. KOENIGS 29 THE COURT: 30 MS. KOENIGS 31 Q 32 33 34 35 A 36 37 38 39 40 41 Q 42 43 44 45 46 47 A house as in the case of Bill Blackwater in Baskyelaxha. And Pete Muldoe? : That's correct, yes, and I think that's very significant. And then their -- his children, although not in his house, would have some claim to a chiefly name in another house; is that the significance? : Well, I think the significance is the fact that that individual leads the house and holds up the house. Just becomes the chief? : Yes, because he is the chief. It isn't his descendants that make it significant. All right. BERG: I believe you agreed yesterday that if we called Steven Robinson and the two Clarks' adoptions, and that we might be able to do that, that they would have been significant adoptions? Yes. Significant in relation to the continuity of the house? Yes. BERG: The next one is Nii Kyap which is tab 31 and we need Tsabux, which is tab 37. Tab 7, no. BERG: 31. 31. BERG: Tab 31 and tab 37, Nii Kyap and Tsabux. We have Mary Jackson on page 15 of Nii Kyap and she is shown as being adopted out to Tsabux but we could not find adoption in of Mary Jackson on Tsabux? I believe that's Mary Black-Hat-Tom on page 5 of Tsabux. That was the -- Black-Hat-Tom was the name of the man that adopted her and I believe it was the case of he raised her as well and so she is -- her birth name was Mary Jackson but she was raised by Black-Hat-Tom I believe is the situation. All right. The reason I didn't -- wasn't able to conclude that on my own is that Mary Black-Hat-Tom, which is the only adoption shown on Tsabux I believe, is shown as married to David Patrick and then Joe Patrick but the Mary Jackson shown on page 15 of Nii Kyap is shown as not married? Oh, yes. I don't put -- to be consistent, I try not 11266 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 to put the additional information on the -- with the 2 person that's adopted out. I try to leave it at 3 that point, and then you find it on the next 4 following genealogy except for in those two unique 5 cases that we just discussed. So ordinarily you 6 won't see that although I have noticed there is a 7 few where that additional information is there. 8 Q So you say that Mary Black-Hat-Tom? 9 A Is Mary Jackson. 10 Q Is Mary Jackson? 11 A Yes, Jackson. 12 Q So Freddie Jackson, her brother -- 13 A Yes. 14 Q -- wasn't adopted? 15 A No. 16 MS. KOENIGSBERG: The next one is Haiwas, tab 22, and we will 17 need Dawamuxw on tab 4. 18 THE COURT: I am sorry, did you say Dawamuxw or Delgamuukw? 19 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 20 Q Dawamuxw. Okay. If we look at page 2 of Haiwas, we 21 see Adam May adopted out; is that correct? 22 A Mm-hmm. 23 Q Into the house of Dawamuxw. If we look at page 4 of 24 Dawamuxw, we find Adam May but not a sign that he is 25 adopted. He is at the very top. 26 A I am trying to remember this. I remember hearing 27 about it. 28 Q Well, to put this in context, it would appear that 2 9 Adam May on page 4 of Dawamuxw is in some lineage 30 which does not seem to have a known biological 31 relationship to any other in the house; is that 32 correct? 33 A I believe that these are two different Adam Mays. I 34 am trying to remember exactly what was said. 35 Because there was an Adam May who was generally 36 known as Adam Snow because he was raised by Lucy 37 Snow, they said he was a retarded person who never 38 really grew up, and Lucy Snow raised him from -- 39 Lucy Snow, from the house of Dawamuxw. 40 Q Is she shown on -- 41 A Yes, she is on the first page of Dawamuxw. 42 Q I see, yes. 43 A See her on the -- near the middle of the page. 4 4 Q Mm-hmm. 45 A And she raised Adam May who was known through most 46 of his life as Adam Snow if I recall, and this was a 47 sihlguxlixwst and I believe that it's this Adam May 11267 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 and it is incorrectly represented as having been 2 adopted out of the house of Haiwas. I am sorry, I 3 am not absolutely positive but, as I recall, that 4 was the situation, that he was raised by Lucy Snow 5 but not necessarily adopted into the house. 6 Q From whom would you have obtained the information -- 7 A Mary Johnson. 8 Q Just a minute. 9 A Sorry. 10 Q -- on Haiwas that Adam May was the brother of Alice 11 May and the son of Louisa Green? 12 A I believe that came from Eadie Shanoss. I am not 13 positive exactly because I remember interviewing her 14 but it could also have come from Nancy Supernault 15 who I also interviewed or Janet Johnson who I also 16 interviewed. There are three sisters that you will 17 find here on the Haiwas genealogy and I interviewed 18 all of them, and I am trying to remember if anybody 19 else from another house told me about that. 20 Possibly Mary Johnson talked about Haiwas. Yes, 21 definitely I remember talking to Mary Johnson about 22 Haiwas' house. I can't remember who precisely told 23 me about that. I remember the story from the other 24 end that I was just telling you about, Lucy Snow 25 raising Adam May and being a retarded boy and so on, 26 from Mary Johnson. 27 Q Is it fair to say that if you tended not to 28 represent S adoptions on these genealogies that you 29 must have received information from someone that 30 Adam May was a T adoption out? Are you to have 31 represented him as one? 32 A I'm sorry, I am not absolutely positive but as I 33 recall, this was an S adoption, sihlguxlixwst, but I 34 am not absolutely positive about it. 35 Q If we research your notes we should look at notes 36 with Mary Johnson? 37 A Yes. 38 Q And Nancy Supernault? 39 A Yes. 4 0 Q And — 41 A Eadie Shanoss. 42 Q And — 43 A And Janet Johnson, and you might find it in there. 44 Q And we might find a note? 45 A Yes, but I don't recall. 46 Q We will have to put this one in limbo because we 47 don't know whether to discard it as in our count as 1126? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 A 3 Q 4 5 A 6 Q 7 8 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q 15 16 A 17 THE COURT: 18 19 THE WITNESS 20 THE COURT: 21 MS. KOENIGS 22 23 24 THE COURT: 25 THE WITNESS 26 MS. KOENIGS 27 28 29 30 MR. GRANT: 31 32 MS. KOENIGS 33 Q 34 35 36 A 37 THE COURT: 38 MS. KOENIGS 39 40 THE COURT: 41 MS. KOENIGS 42 Q 43 44 A 45 46 Q 47 A an S adoption misplaced or a T adoption. I didn't have it on my list. I missed it. Okay. If it is a T adoption then Dawamuxw goes out of your list of 14; is that correct? Yes. Let's go on. We will check that over the lunch hour. When we -- It is not likely it was a T adoption because as a retarded person, it wouldn't -- they wouldn't give him a name, retarded person wouldn't take a name, so that is the way that one is adopted into a house so it wouldn't be done -- the house membership wouldn't be a large concern of a person of that situation. And we should assume there are two persons with the name Adam May? Yes. You will find that in many cases here. Do I have it right that you think this may have been an S adoption? : Yes, if I remember correctly. And if so, it goes off your list of 14? BERG: No, my lord. I had put it the other way around. If it was a T adoption, then it takes Dawamuxw off the list. Yes. : But I don't believe that it was. BERG: The next one we will need, two more genealogies, tab 10 and tab 39. Tab 10 is Gitludahl and tab 39 is Wii Seeks Wiigyet and it deals with Ralph Michell. This is the Wiigyet from Kispiox, just for the record, as I think there is two. BERG: This is the one that we have known as Wii Seeks Wiigyet. Okay. Ralph Michell on page 1 of tab 10 Gitludahl is shown as adopted out to Wii Seeks? Yes, that's correct. I am sorry, on page 1. BERG: Page 1. It is a large page, my lord, if yours are cut in two. He is on the right-hand side. Yes, thank you. BERG: Now, on -- is it correct that Wii Seeks is found on the genealogy of Wiigyet? Yes, that's correct. Wiigyet Waiget and Wii Seeks are the same house, yeah. And I don't find Ralph Michell shown adopted? Ralph Michell is on page 3 of Wiigyet's genealogy, 11269 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 and he was born in the house of Wiigyet, and he is 2 shown there with his biological mother and father, 3 and because Gitludahl's house was extinct and 4 Wiigyet's house considers itself to be closely 5 related. You can see there are a few people from 6 the house of Wiigyet, I guess there was two, who 7 went to the house of Gitludahl to try and hold up 8 the house and Ralph was one of these and he took a 9 chief's name, Aa'lagat, from the house of Gitludahl. 10 Then when Pete Muldoe took Gitludahl, Wii Seeks' 11 name, the name Wii Seeks was open and Ralph who 12 returned to the house of Wii Seeks and took that 13 chief's name. Again it was a diagramatic problem of 14 showing someone adopted out and back in. I didn't 15 know quite how to diagram that. 16 Q He could be shown on page 3 of Wiigyet -- of the 17 Wiigyet genealogy as adopted out into Gitludahl? 18 A I didn't know how to show him as adopted back in 19 again was the problem and if you follow the names 20 and what house they belong to, you can logically 21 assume the pattern there. It was just another 22 difficult problem in the diagram. You have a 23 limited set of symbols and I try to do the best that 24 I can with them but there are some situations that 25 are fairly unique and difficult to diagram. 26 Q Is it fair to say that it would not be incorrect to 27 have shown him adopted into Gitludahl and then back 28 out again? 29 A But how could I do that? I couldn't think of a way. 30 Q Well, bear with me for a second. If you had done 31 that, we would then count that as adoption of a T 32 variety which is of significance to the house of 33 Gitludahl? 34 A Yes, but I can't think of a way to show a person 35 adopted in and then adopted back out without making 36 two symbols for the same person or something that 37 would be worse than what we already have. 38 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I understand. 39 MR. GRANT: Just to clarify, my lord, for the record, that when 40 one looks at the line above Ralph Michell in 41 Gitludahl on page 1, he's indicated as adopted into 42 Gitludahl. My friend's question is, there is no 43 indication that he is adopted into Gitludahl. I 44 suggest it shows he is adopted in because that 45 entire line is a dotted line. 4 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 47 Q When we read this, we should count, if our purpose 11270 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 is to try and confirm an impression of adoptions of 2 significance, we should count Ralph Michell on 3 Gitludahl as adoption in, correct, to Gitludahl? 4 A Yes. 5 Q All right. And the slash through would tell us that 6 he also was adopted out? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And into Wiigyet albeit he was born in Wiigyet? 9 A Yes. 10 Q In terms of the function of moving people by means 11 of adoption or something that looks or serves the 12 function of an adoption, could we fairly count Mr. 13 Michell's travels between houses twice? 14 A See, what we are doing here is trying to squeeze 15 Gitksan realities into convenient English categories 16 and I don't think it really fairly represents the 17 situation in some of these -- some of these 18 difficult situations that we have been discussing. 19 We are using the word adoption that is very accurate 20 in some cases but possibly not a very appropriate 21 way to put it in other cases. And this case and 22 some of the others that are very difficult to fit 23 into, what we have defined as adoption are suffering 24 from this problem. They don't fit the reality very 25 well when we call it adoption and try and fit into 26 that category of having moved back and forth because 27 these two houses have a close relationship as 28 Gitludahl also does with the house of Antgulilbix, 29 and people may not precisely put them as adoptions 30 and people might maintain residual rights in the 31 house they came from which is I believe the 32 situation with Mr. Michell, so he held up the house 33 with Gitludahl and then he returned to his own 34 house. 35 Q If I understand what you are saying, that's why I 36 keep coming back to the function that the movement 37 performs and not worry too much about whether any 38 particular person has called it adoption, and my 39 question is: Ralph Michell moved houses twice for 40 the purpose each time of assisting the house that he 41 moved to in maintain the integrity of that house; is 42 that fair? 43 A Not really because it's when Ralph Michell, because 44 supporting Gitludahl's house as Aa'lagat, he didn't 45 stop entirely supporting the house of Wii Seeks. In 46 the majority of the -- what we are calling adoptions 47 people clearly move from one house to the other, 11271 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 they give up all rights or they would ordinarily 2 give up all rights, I wouldn't know the precise 3 situation of every individual, but ordinarily they 4 clearly move from one house to the other and ties 5 are mostly severed with the original house but in 6 these difficult situations we have been talking 7 about, in most cases it is an effort to maintain the 8 existence of a house that obviously is suffering 9 greatly from population problems as in the case of 10 Gitludahl which has something like ten known 11 adoptions, so -- and a case of a person like Ralph 12 Michell, he is attempting to do his best to hold up 13 Gitludahl's house but is not conceding the fact that 14 he may return to his own house which he in fact did. 15 Q Accepting your explanation of the facts surrounding 16 Ralph Michell's movement, we can look at it in terms 17 of your genealogical charts and understanding what 18 it means to adopt and the function that it plays by 19 saying Ralph Michell was adopted into Gitludahl to 20 bolster that house's viability at one point in time? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. And you have in fact shown that? 23 A Yes. 24 Q I am assisted with that at least with Mr. Grant's 25 explanation. Now, that would be a T adoption that 26 we would count if we are counting adoptions of 27 significance? 28 A Yes, I believe that. 29 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Now, another possibility I am suggesting to 30 you is that when Ralph Michell moved back to the 31 house of Wiigyet, even assuming he maintained some 32 connection with that house -- 33 MR. GRANT: Which? 34 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 35 Q Of Wiigyet and took the name Wii Seeks which had 36 become available, he was performing a function to 37 the house of Wiigyet, they obviously needed someone 38 like Ralph Michell to take the name Wii Seeks? 39 A I am not sure I -- if I know what you mean by 40 performing a function. 41 Q I take it they needed a person with Ralph Michell's 42 qualities to hold the name or to have the name Wii 43 Seeks? 44 A Yes. 45 Q Because at the time that that name came open there 46 were a number of people in the house of Wiigyet; 47 correct? 11272 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 A Yes. Q And I haven't done an analysis to determine if any of them would, by any of the rules we have heard, be eligible for that name but likely with a fairly large genealogy there may have been some but that Ralph Michell had particular qualities that they needed? A Yes. Q And they felt they safely could remove him from Gitludahl as a house member and re-incorporate him into Wiigyet? A As I say, because the links were always maintained, I don't think it is fair to say remove him from the house of Gitludahl because this is one of those cases where a very close association was maintained and a clear break was not made between one house and the other. It wouldn't be viewed by the people involved as having clearly shifted from one house to the other. These two houses are very closely associated within their wilnadaahl. Q Well, is he then an example of a person holding membership in two houses at the same time? A I don't know if it is fair to put it that way either. But it is clearly -- it would be always known that when he held the name Aa'lagat that he was holding a name belonging to the house of Gitludahl. That would be clearly known. But the way he would be involved with the house of Wii Seeks and Wiigyet would be that he would contribute to their feasts. I don't believe he is a trapper or a hunter, but he could possibly use the resources of that house as well. I don't know the situation but he could do that by privileged means anyways since he was related to those members. It's one case where the moving back and forth is not -- is not a complete severing of the rights. In most cases the shift is quite clear but this is one that is just not. THE COURT: When he moved back, when he moved back to his house of origin, would you call that a T adoption or an S adoption? THE WITNESS: Oh, a T adoption. THE COURT: Is this a convenient time? MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. 11273 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. Court will recess. 2 3 (MORNING ADJOURNMENT AT 11:15 a.m.) 4 I hereby certify the foregoing to be 5 a true and accurate transcript of the 6 proceedings herein, transcribed to the 7 best of my skill and ability. 8 9 10 11 12 13 TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter 14 United Reporting Service Ltd. 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 11274 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS) 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: Ready to proceed, my lord. 4 THE COURT: Ms. Koenigsberg. 5 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 6 Q Okay. The next problem involves the House of 'Wii 7 K'aax, tab 41, and Spookw, tab 35. It involves Mary 8 Moore. And on page 15 and -- 14 and 15 -- 9 A Of 'Wii K'aax or Spookw? 10 MR. GRANT: Of which one? 11 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I'm sorry. On 'Wii K'aax it's page 14. 12 Q We see Mary Moore the top line, the first line with 13 people on it, 14, as adopted out to Spookw? 14 A Yes. 15 Q But I don't find her on Spookw. 16 A Mary Smith, page 14 on Spookw. See her husband's name 17 is Joe Smith, and the genealogies usually reflect 18 maiden names of women. 19 THE COURT: On what page of Spookw, please? 20 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I'm sorry. 21 THE COURT: Page 15? 22 A Page 14 of Spookw. I think she is on page 14 on both 23 of them, I believe. Johnson. Yes, she is on page 24 14. 25 MR. GRANT: Same page as Johnson Alexander, my lord. 26 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I see. Okay. 27 A Okay. 28 Q So if we look at the two page 14's side-by-side we see 29 Mary Moore married to Joe Smith, adopted out, and 30 then we see a Mary Smith but not her marriage. I'm 31 sorry, and she is adopted in -- 32 A To Spookw. 33 Q — To Spookw? 34 A Yes. Yes. It was just her, that's why the children 35 are still in 'Wii K'aax. 36 Q I see. Was that a recent adoption? 37 A I'm sorry, I don't know when that was. 38 Q Do you know the reason for the adoption? 39 A No, I don't. 40 Q So we don't know if it's a significant adoption or 41 not? 42 A No, I'm sorry, I don't. I don't recall being told the 43 situation. 44 THE COURT: But she didn't take her children with her? 45 A No. This happened when she was older and the children 4 6 were already grown up. But I don't know exactly 47 when it was. 11275 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 3 Q In doing the genealogical research, and receiving the 4 information with regard to adoptions, and attempting 5 to trace them, I take it from what you're saying 6 that you did not have a sort of standardized way 7 of -- of conducting the interview such that you 8 would always make enquiries as to why something 9 happened? 10 A It's -- it's -- in an informal situation with -- 11 particularly with elderly persons it would be 12 exceedingly rude to demand that they stop talking 13 about something and get back onto the subject. And 14 it is a considerable skill involved in getting the 15 questions answered that you went for. But you 16 certainly come away with all sorts of things you 17 didn't ask for, because the elders will tell you 18 what they want to and you have to try and politely 19 direct them back. It's not like filling in a 20 questionnaire. 21 Q Okay. 22 A So -- I'm sorry, I didn't really answer your question. 23 So I tried to get that information, but it wasn't 24 always possible to return to the subject. And it 25 wasn't always possible to interview everyone enough 26 times to get all of the relevant information. 27 Q The next one involves the Antgulilbix, tab 1, and 28 Luus, tab 27, and it deals with Eddy Tait. 29 On page six of Antgulilbix, on the left-hand side 30 of the page, there's an adoption out indicated of 31 Eddy Tait into the House of Luus, and I couldn't 32 find correspondingly where he was adopted into. 33 A Okay. It is, again, page six of Luus as well. And 34 he's -- Eddy Tait was his birth name, but he was 35 raised by Joe and Irene Cournoyer. So he's 36 represented as adopted in there with the dotted 37 line, and it says Eddy Cournoyer, and in brackets it 38 says Ts'iibasaa. These were all done by memory. As 39 I say, they weren't computerized so this is why we 40 see these kind of inconsistencies with names. It's 41 hard to get in all this information. 42 Q He's adopted by Joe Cournoyer? 43 A No, by Irene. 44 Q By Irene Williams? 45 A Yes. He was raised by Irene and Joe. I guess he was 46 adopted -- he was Sihlguxhlxwst. Raised by Irene 47 and Joe. Irene took him into her house, that's why 11276 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 he's represented on the Luus genealogy. 2 Q So it is a T adoption? 3 A Yes. It was an S and a T in that case. 4 Q Okay. The next one -- 5 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Before we leave that. He became 6 Ts'iibasaa? 7 A No. In brackets -- 8 THE COURT: That's an indication of Antgulilbix? 9 A Yes. That he came out of that house. 10 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 11 Q And you're using there the name Ts'iibasaa as exactly 12 the same as Antgulilbix? 13 A Yes, that's correct. 14 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 15 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 16 Q If I understood you, and I'll confirm because I wasn't 17 sure I did understand you, there never were, as far 18 as you know, two separate houses; Ts'iibasaa and 19 Antgulilbix? 20 A No. It's just a matter of the two highest ranked 21 names changing position over time. It would be more 22 correct to label this genealogy 23 Antgulilbix/Ts'iibasaa, or the other way. I think 24 it might be more appropriate to label the 25 Antgulilbix genealogy as Antgulilbix/Ts'iibasaa, as 26 we did with the Yagosip/Guuhadak genealogy. 27 Q And finally on this list Stephen Skawil. And the two 28 houses are Nii Kyap, tab 31, and Gyetmgaldo'o, tab 29 18. So 31 and 18, page four. 30 A Of which one? 31 Q Of Nii Kyap, tab 31. We see Stephen Skawil adopted 32 out and indicated as to Gyetmgaldo'o, and I could 33 not find Stephen Skawil on Gyetmgaldo'o. 34 A Gee, I don't remember this one. 35 Q I can tell you that on page six there is a Dan Skawil, 36 but I had understood from previous evidence I think 37 I heard there was a Dan and a Stephen Skawil? 38 A Yes. I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this 39 one. 40 Q Do you have any reason to think we shouldn't adopt 41 Stephen Skawil into the House of Gyetmgaldo'o? 42 A I'm sorry, I can't remember either way. 43 Q From whom did you obtain the information about Nii 44 Kyap and perhaps Stephen Skawil being adopted out? 45 A Oh, a lot of the information about Nii Kyap's house 46 came from David Gunanoot, particularly about people 47 farther back in the genealogy. Gerry Gunanoot, the 11277 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Q A A A MR. GRANT THE COURT MR. GRANT current Nii Kyap, also gave me information. And Alice Sampson, also a member of this house. Jesse Sterritt? I don't remember. I don't remember if I talked to Jesse about Nii Kyap's house. And from whom would you have received the information about Gyetmgaldo'o? Jesse Sterritt, Cora Gray, Charlotte Sullivan, Emma Green, Sylvester Green, Kathy Holland. Okay. Can I ask you in what as a genealogist would be the appropriate thing to do with a recorded adoption out and no adoption in in terms of that person? There -- from the charts at this point in time that's a non-person; is that fair? I think this is -- it doesn't affect the person. It's a problem with the recording of the information in that it was an oversight. I can't remember the details of this one, but if Stephen Skawil was adopted out of Nii Kyap as he -- he certainly should have been adopted into Gyetmgaldo'o's house if that is the correct information, but I just can't remember the details of this one. Okay. So assuming that we don't find, or you don't remember any information that tells you that you wrongly recorded him being adopted out and adopted into Gyetmgaldo'o, which we find on the Nii Kyap chart, we should assume that we have a T adoption in Gyetmgaldo'o? : Well, my lord, with respect, the witness I think has said she can't remember. I think that if my friend wants the witness to look at her -- the files relating to these two genealogies to refresh her memory I think that's fair, but I object to my friend saying the witness should assume A or B when the witness quite simply cannot remember. How can she adopt either answer until she has an opportunity to refresh her memory, if my friend so desires her to do that. : Well, really isn't the witness in cross-examination capable of answering hypothetical questions of that kind? : Oh, no, but I don't think it is hypothetical. She's saying if -- the witness has said I don't remember the situation. My understanding of what the question was assuming -- knowing you don't remember this we should assume from these two documents that Stephen Skawil was adopted as a T adoption. She 1127? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. GRANT THE COURT said she can't remember. THE COURT: That doesn't say she can't make that assumption. It may be that she can't, but I see no -- I see no reason why she can't. She might say, for example -- the effect of all this is lost now. She might say if it wasn't recorded it obviously wasn't significant, yes, we can assume it was a T adoption, or she can say I don't know, or she can say I can't make that assumption, but I don't, with respect -- Well, she's just saying she can't remember. I just think she should have an opportunity if there is any way she can to refresh -- I don't think, with respect, that's correct. The question's properly put. I think the witness is perfectly able to answer it, or to deal with the question. She may not be able to answer it. MS. KOENIGSBERG: Q If we assume that you wouldn't be able to refresh your memory from the documents, and I invite you to do so at the lunch hour if you wish to actually determine whether, but my question really is related to how much reliability do we put on the designation of Nii Kyap, in the Nii Kyap chart, genealogical chart, you have recorded the information that you had, which is Stephen Skawil was adopted out. We're to assume it's a T adoption unless he's one of those rare ones which you didn't intend to include, and he should be in Gyetmgaldo'o, that's what we should take from the Nii Kyap genealogy; is that correct? A I -- I would assume he should be represented on Gyetmgaldo'o. As I say, I can't swear by that. Q Okay. Then I would invite you over the lunch hour to see if you can determine from your notes if you were incorrect in your designation for Stephen Skawil on the Nii Kyap genealogy, and if not then we should assume that it's correct and that Stephen Skawil is a T adoption in Gyetmgaldo'o. I will just have to speak with the witness as to which of her notes she wants. I trust my friend doesn't object to that over the lunch hour. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. And she may have them in a more convenient way than Mr. Goldie, but -- and I shouldn't offer Mr. Goldie's beautifully bindered list of seven or eight volumes there, but I believe all of the notes are in them, and she could look at those. THE COURT: Ms. Sigurdson will make them available, I'm sure. MR. GRANT MS. 11279 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MR. GRANT: I can handle that. 2 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 3 Q That completes my short list of problems on adoptions 4 in or out. And I have another anomaly that doesn't 5 fall into that category, and it deals with a person 6 designated as Gideon Johnson. And we need Duubisxw 7 which is tab 7, we need Guxsan, tab 13, and we need 8 Antgulilbix, before you put her away, tab 1. 9 Now, I may have done a grave injustice to the name 10 Duubisxw. Is it Duubisxw? 11 A Duubisxw would be close. Duubisxw. 12 Q And if we look at page two of Duubisxw -- 13 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Just a moment, please. 14 MS. KOENIGSBERG: My lord, it's tab 2, Duubisxw. I'm sorry, tab 15 7 Duubisxw, my lord. And then we'll be looking at 16 tab 13, which is Guxsan. 17 THE COURT: I don't seem to have a tab 13 any more. 18 MR. GRANT: I'm just handing up the Duubisxw one so you can -- 19 oh, and here's tab 13, Guxsan. 20 THE COURT: Just a moment, please. Here's tab 7. Tab 13 is — 21 MR. GRANT: Guxsan. 22 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Guxsan. 23 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I have it. 24 MS. KOENIGSBERG: And Antgulilbix. 25 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. 2 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: On page two. 27 THE COURT: Page two of? 28 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Of Duubisxw. 2 9 Q We have Gideon Johnson shown as married to Evelyn 30 Wesley of the House of Duubisxw. He holds the name 31 Wii Hlooxs? 32 A Wii Hlooxs. 33 Q Wii Hlooxs in the House of -- would you pronounce that 34 for me, please? 35 A Txaaxwok. 36 Q Txaaxwok. We should leave that out. Then if we 37 look -- 38 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I haven't found that yet. 39 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I'm sorry. Page two. 4 0 THE COURT: Of Duubisxw page two? 41 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. On the right-hand side about the middle 42 of the page Gideon Johnson is married to Evelyn 43 Wesley. 44 THE COURT: Yes. All right. Page three comes before page two 4 5 on mine. 46 MS. KOENIGSBERG: To follow this, my lord, you need to make note 47 of his name, his chief's name. 11280 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q 2 A 3 Q 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q 25 26 27 28 29 A 30 Q 31 A 32 Q 33 A 34 Q 35 36 A 37 38 39 40 Q 41 42 A 43 Q 44 MR. GRANT 45 46 THE COURT 47 MS. KOENI Is that a chief's name? I'm not certain. Wii Hlooxs. And that he is designated as being in the House of Txaaxwok. And then if we put that beside Guxsan, page seven -- sorry. Page seven may not be right. Somewhere -- I'm sorry, there's a glitch in my system. I'll just look for him. I believe he's on here. I'm sorry, it is page seven, again on the right-hand side, there is a Gideon Johnson shown there as married to Ellen Williams. He has no Indian name given and no house designation. At that point in time I assumed he was not -- he was not the same Gideon Johnson? I believe it was the Gideon Johnson. I did the Guxsan genealogy early in the research and at the time I didn't know which house and what his chief's name was, and I hadn't recalled since I did the cross-referencing from memory that he had married into Guxsan's house. I would have caught that if I had done a genealogy for his own house, but he belongs to a Kitwancool house. So you see him represented three times on the genealogies as having been married to three different women. Okay. If you turn to page eight of Antgulilbix Mr. Johnson takes a turn for the worse, or the better depending on one's point of view. On page eight on the left-hand side we have Gideon Johnson as a woman. Yes. Married to Sam Derrick. It's supposed to be Gideon. I was going to ask if Sam Derrick knew. Oh. And it is the same Gideon Johnson, because it is the same Indian name and the same house designation. Yes. He and Sam Derrick and Ernest Harris were all married to Nelly Wilson. It should have been a triangle instead of a circle on that hand drawing of Antgulilbix. And I will tell you I found this one when I was trying to figure out marriage preferences. Yeah, that's -- And just so -- : Possibly that could be amended, my lord, on the exhibit as a triangle. : Yes. I think so . 11281 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q All right. And then do I understand that Gideon 2 Johnson of the House of Txaaxwok has been married to 3 Nelly Wilson in the House of Antgulilbix, Ellen 4 Williams of the House of Guxsan and Evelyn Wesley of 5 the House of Duubisxw? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And he's still alive? 8 A Yes, he is. 9 Q He's up there with everybody else on a level where 10 most other people are deceased. 11 A Yes. He's very elderly. 12 Q I understand that Fanny Johnson -- 13 A Are you finished with these ones? 14 Q Yes. Olive Ryan's grandmother -- 15 A Yes. 16 Q -- Adopted Gideon Johnson at some point in time. 17 Olive Ryan gave that evidence. I would turn to it, 18 but I don't think much turns on it. I just want to 19 know what you know about it. Olive Ryan gave that 20 evidence at trial. And that he later went back to 21 his own house, but that he was adopted for a 22 considerable period of time. 23 A I haven't heard that before. 24 Q Okay. As far as you know, and record, if he was 25 adopted, using Olive Ryan's terminology adopted, it 26 would have been an S adoption? 27 A I have no idea whether it was an S adoption or T 28 adoption. I haven't heard this before. 29 Q Okay. So it's possible, is it, that Fanny Johnson 30 adopted Gideon Johnson and that he was in the House 31 of Hanamuxw at one time? 32 A Anything's possible, but I don't have any information 33 about that. That's all I know. 34 MR. GRANT: Does my friend have the reference to that? 35 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. It's volume 20, page 1319. 36 MR. GRANT: Thank you. 37 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 38 Q Going on to another category, or my very rough 39 catagories of anomalies in the charts, and I'll just 40 hand up some books. It happens that the first part 41 of this does deal with adoptions. The first problem 42 I encountered was in regard to the evidence of 43 Stanley Williams. And that evidence has been 44 excerpted out of Volume 3 and is at tab 1(a) in the 45 book I've just handed up in which, and perhaps it 46 would be of assistance if we had Hax bagwootxw's 47 genealogy out, which is tab 25. And so everyone 11282 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 doesn't get confused there was a draft, or a 2 genealogy previously provided to the defendants and 3 marked as an exhibit on Stanley William's commission 4 evidence, and it was marked as Exhibit 6, and so I 5 have included it in these excerpts, and it's just 6 behind the first transcript pages of Stanley 7 Williams. And it, I can advise you, is the 8 genealogy we were looking at with Stanley Williams. 9 Now, this deals with the adoption, or as referred 10 to by Stanley Williams, of Philip Turner and George 11 Turner. And it was Stanley's evidence, which you 12 will find on page 155, and that is toward the bottom 13 of the page, and Mr. Grant is questioning Mr. 14 Williams. And if you just look up to the top of the 15 page you'll see he's looking at Exhibit 6 for 16 Identification, genealogical chart of Stanley 17 Williams, dated January 12th, 1988. And that is the 18 genealogy that is just behind these pages. And Mr. 19 Grant's question was, it's about line 34. 20 21 "I'm referring you to Exhibit 6 which 22 is -- which you have in front of you, 23 the genealogy of the House of 2 4 Gwis Gyen." 25 26 And so we're all not more further confused, 27 actually the name of the genealogy is Hax bagwootxw. 28 And Stanley refers to this as the House of Gwis 2 9 Gyen. 30 31 "And on the first page of that it shows that 32 Philip Turner and George Turner who were 33 the children of Irene Harris have been 34 adopted out of your house; is that 35 correct? 36 37 38 And if you look at Exhibit 6 you see a slash 39 through George Turner and a slash through Philip 40 Turner on the first page indicating that they are 41 adopted out. It does not indicate on that draft 42 where they were adopted to. Mr. Grant goes on. 43 44 "Q And what house are they in now, Philip 45 and George Turner? 46 A In the House of Yal." 47 11283 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 And that was the evidence there. We went on to 2 Ken Harris' adoption. If we look at the Exhibit 3 853-25 on the first page Philip Turner and George 4 Turner are shown in the House of Hax bagwootxw, but 5 not adopted out. And why -- why are they not shown 6 as adopted out on the Hax bagwootxw genealogy that 7 we have now? 8 A Well, why the two genealogies are different you may 9 have to ask Mr. Grant, but the -- again, it's trying 10 to squeeze a situation into English terminologies. 11 The House of Yal at this point in time is entirely 12 composed of Philip Turner and George Turner, as far 13 as I know. I don't know exactly which names belong 14 to Yal, but there may be others from the closely 15 related House of Hax bagwootxw who has Yal's names 16 and therefore considered from the House of Yal. But 17 this is the case of amalgamation I would say. You 18 can interpret it that way. 19 Q Amalgamation of which? 2 0 A Amalgamation. 21 Q Of which houses? 22 A Of Yal and Hax bagwootxw. I believe Yal came out of 23 Hax bagwootxw to begin with and is not -- does not 24 have enough members to function as a separate unit 25 at this time. So you can call it adoption if you 26 wish, but it's a matter of George Turner and Philip 27 Turner having names from the House of Yal and being 28 biological members of the House of Hax bagwootxw, 29 and eventually they could reconstitute the house, I 30 suppose. 31 Q Okay. 32 A But that's the situation at this time. 33 Q Let me follow this according to the rules as I'm 34 trying to understand them. You began your 35 explanation with Mr. Grant would have to explain, or 36 maybe could explain the difference between Hax 37 bagwootxw genealogy number two, being the one that 38 has been marked at trial here, and the -- what was 39 marked as Exhibit 6. Did you not prepare both of 40 these genealogies? 41 A Yes, I did. But the difference between them, the two 42 slashes, why one version appears in one case and why 43 one version appears in the other case, the only 44 difference I know of is the two slashes. Now, I 45 don't know why that has occurred. 4 6 Q Do I understand that then you did not remove the 47 slashes from the Exhibit 853-25? 11284 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE MS. MR. THE MR. MS. THE MS. THE MS. A I'm sorry, I can't recall whether the final version that I submitted had the slashes or did not. I can't recall the details of that. COURT: We don't have a genealogy for the House of Yal. KOENIGSBERG: No, my lord, we have not received a separate genealogy for the House of Yal. And that was my next question. A Right. GRANT: My lord -- my lord, if I may, I do want to set it out that -- I appreciate my friend's very, very careful viewing, and I overlooked this. If you look at the index of Exhibit 853-25 it will refer to that tab as Exhibit 446(6). It was my understanding, and I -- what I had done was taken out the Hax bagwootxw genealogy out of my file of Stanley Williams' evidence. The exhibits were in Vancouver, our copies of the exhibits, but I understood that the one I duplicated and put into Exhibit 853-25 was Exhibit 446(6), which is the genealogy that was tendered. It is an exhibit at trial, and it was tendered with Stanley Williams commission evidence. I am only saying that with some chagrin on my part, but I -- I -- if there was any -- if there was any distinction between Exhibit 446(6) and Exhibit 853-25 that was through inadvertence on the part of counsel, my lord. That was not at all intended, and I had understood I had taken out my copy of the exhibit, and unfortunately I did not have an opportunity prior to preparing these and I relied on the date, and I guess I shouldn't have. So to that extent that may resolve some of the questions my friend -- one aspect of questions my friend has. Of course I just want to advise you of that. COURT: Thank you. GRANT: And I would propose to replace it, or however it's appropriate, that it should be identical to 446-6. KOENIGSBERG: I'm sorry. Is Mr. Grant saying there's another draft around somewhere, or there might be another draft? COURT: I think he's just saying that he thought tab 25 was Exhibit 446(6). It turns out it isn't. KOENIGSBERG: No, it isn't. COURT: At least not with respect to those two persons Philip and George Turner. KOENIGSBERG: And I — there are other problems from my point of view and understanding of Hax bagwootxw. Q But if I can just try and clarify the basis for what 11285 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 is shown on the genealogies, because this is 2 essentially my concern, that you took -- you got 3 information from informants and recorded it, and you 4 had, if you prepared what is -- what is Exhibit 6, 5 and it is at tab 1(a) in the binder I've just handed 6 up, you had received the information that Philip 7 Turner and George Turner were adopted out of the 8 House of Hax bagwootxw by -- it's dated January 12, 9 '88, however, so is Exhibit 853-25. Do I understand 10 correctly that you received information that you 11 have recorded here that Philip and George Turner 12 were adopted out of the House of Hax bagwootxw? 13 A I knew that George Turner had the name Yal and that 14 Yal had once been a separate house, but as I 15 understand it at this time there's not enough people 16 in the House of Yal to constitute a separate house. 17 Q I understand that. Actually, if I can, and I don't 18 mean to cut you off, I would like to explore a bit 19 with you, in any event, Yal as a separate or 20 non-separate house. But first my concern is am I 21 correct that when you recorded Philip and George 22 Turner as being adopted out that reflected 23 information that you had received that that was the 24 case? 25 A Again, it's trying to squeeze realities into 26 inappropriate catagories. I don't think adopted out 27 is an appropriate word for the situation. 28 Q Okay. Just so I can understand you, we are dealing 2 9 now with your terminology and your attempt to depict 30 it on this chart; correct? 31 A Yes. 32 Q Okay. And you had information which you squeezed into 33 the attribution of those two persons as being 34 adopted out; correct? 35 A Yes. 36 Q Okay. What was the information that you had? 37 A That these — 38 Q At the time that this was produced? 39 A That the names that Philip Turner hold and that George 40 Turner hold belong to the House of Yal. 41 Q And that was it? 42 A Yes. 43 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that numerous times on the 44 genealogies we see people in house A with names 45 which belong to house B, we don't have a separate 46 genealogy for house B and we don't have the 47 designation that those people are adopted out? 11286 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A Are you talking about cases of amalgamation -- 2 Q One can assume that they are -- 3 A — As in — 4 Q — A result — 5 A -- Yal and Hax Bagwootxw or of Wiigyet, Waiget and Wii 6 seeks? 7 Q That persons like Philip Turner or George Turner 8 holding a name which at one time were in a separate 9 house, but they aren't designated as being adopted 10 out? 11 A Right. 12 Q Okay. Why then would you have shown George and Philip 13 Turner as adopted out on the basis of information 14 that they held names in a house which was 15 amalgamated or had been in Hax bagwootxw or was in 16 Hax bagwootxw? 17 A Because George and Philip refer to the House of Yal 18 as -- as if it were a separate entity. I believe 19 that they are hoping to reconstitute the house and 20 that this is why they refer to it more separately 21 than would be the case with the members of Wiigyet, 22 Waiget and Wii seeks who don't seem to be attempting 23 to make those houses separate again at this time. 24 This is an assumption on my part that that's why 25 they refer to them as being separate. 26 Q Okay. Stanley Williams is one of your informants? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Did you discuss the House of Yal with Stanley 29 Williams? 30 A I don't recall. I remember clearly talking about it 31 with Philip Turner. 32 Q Is it fair to say that Stanley Williams is referring 33 to Yal as a separate house on page 155 of this 34 transcript which we've just read? 35 A Yes, I believe that's what he's saying on 155. 36 Q The question which was put to him by Mr. Grant was 37 down toward the bottom of the page. 38 39 "And on the first page of that it shows 40 that Philip Turner and George Turner 41 who were the children of Irene Harris, 42 have been adopted out of your house; is 43 that correct? 44 A Yes. 45 Q And what house are they in now, Philip 46 and George Turner? 47 A In the House of Yal." 11287 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 A Yes. He's referring to what I just referred to. 3 Q Might Stanley Williams have told you that they were 4 separate houses? 5 A Possibly. I'm sorry, I don't recall. 6 Q Did you receive any information between the time that 7 Exhibit 6 or the first draft of the Hax bagwootxw 8 genealogy was received and the time that you 9 prepared a final version of Hax bagwootxw that would 10 have made you say that Yal was not a separate house? 11 A As I say, I submitted a version before the -- or with 12 the original date on it and that is the only one 13 that I can speak about. 14 Q Okay. So — 15 A Why there's a difference between them, as I say, you 16 may have have to ask Mr. Grant about that. 17 Q Whether there was an interval -- whether there were 18 two versions of it or a draft in a final form of the 19 genealogy of Hax bagwootxw did you receive any 20 information that Yal was not a separate house? 21 A No. 22 Q In some informants' views in this community Yal is a 23 separate house; is that fair? 24 A Yes. People would interpret it both ways. 25 Q And some persons would say that Yal is a part of Hax 2 6 bagwootxw? 27 A Yes, that's correct. 28 Q How do you as a genealogist determine which informants 29 are the correct ones? 30 A They're both correct. 31 Q Do I understand you to mean that there can be in 32 certain circumstances no difference between a 33 separate house and houses being amalgamated? 34 A It's a matter of degrees. With amalgamations there's 35 not a feast that clearly delineates between the 36 times at which the -- the houses amalgamate 37 necessarily, and so people may view the closely 38 associated houses as being one at a certain point in 39 time or as being two. The reckoning of the 40 properties is kept separately, the land, and the 41 names, and the crests, and so on. And the hope is 42 usually there that the two -- if it's one small 43 house, as in this case, that's been subsumed under a 44 larger house the hope is always there that it can 45 reconstitute itself out of that house. And moves 46 are frequently made in that direction, so it's not 47 inappropriate for people to refer to it as one house 112? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 or two houses. And they know what they're referring 2 to. 3 Q Each person that says it knows what he's referring to, 4 but he may not be in agreement with another person's 5 view; is that fair? 6 A Both of them would understand why each one was saying 7 what they're saying. It's not that they'd likely 8 argue you're right and I'm wrong. They realize it's 9 two interpretations of the same thing. 10 Q Okay. Stanley Williams has used the terms adopted in 11 relation to this separate house, not separate house 12 in relation to Yal and Hax bagwootxw, would you 13 agree? 14 A Yes. He's in the same dilemma as I am trying to 15 squeeze his subtle meanings into English words. 16 Q Yes. And is it fair to say that, at least in this 17 instance, what can be called an adoption out and/or 18 an adoption in if we had a genealogy of Yal we would 19 show Philip and George Turner adopted into the House 20 of Yal; is that correct? 21 A If -- if there was enough people to constitute a house 22 of Yal at this time we could -- we would show them 23 adopted out of Hax bagwootxw and into Yal. 24 Q Right. And we could have those two genealogies 25 side-by-side and we could describe that as either an 26 adoption of two people or more, or an amalgamation, 27 or a division; is that fair? 2 8 A No. 2 9 Q We would take the same facts, the same movement of 30 people for the same reasons and we could chart it as 31 an adoption, as an amalgamation, depending on how we 32 were showing it, or as a division. That is the 33 house is breaking apart. Yal Hax bagwootxw having 34 been one now they're two. Do you understand me? 35 A Again, it's a problem with trying to use words that 36 don't accurately reflect the situation. 37 Q No. I don't -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but I 38 want to be sure we're right on the same point, 39 'cause I don't say it's that easy. I'm assuming the 40 same circumstances, and that for whatever reason it 41 has to be described to communicate it to anybody 42 whether they're Gitksan or non-Gitksan, can you 43 agree with me that we could describe it, and justify 44 our description by the rules that we've discussed in 45 the customs, and so on, as any one of those three? 46 A I don't know the Gitksan words that would be used to 47 describe exactly what happened, but I believe that 11289 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 if enough people were -- a division is usually 2 somewhat different from -- from an individual 3 adoption. An adoption usually refers to an 4 individual, but a division may refer to a whole 5 group. If the House of Hax bagwootxw was to divide 6 it would not be a matter of a whole bunch of 7 individuals one at a time moving from Hax bagwootxw 8 to Yal. But if there was a division of the House of 9 Hax bagwootxw under the leadership of George Turner 10 a group of people would reconstitute the House of 11 Yal. It wouldn't be individual adoptions each one 12 going through the process of moving an individual 13 from one house to another. There would be a feast 14 held and the adoption would be ratified at -- or I'm 15 sorry, the division would be ratified at that feast, 16 but this wouldn't be a whole bunch of individual 17 adoptions. A division would be the movement of a 18 large group of people to reconstitute the House of 19 Yal. It would be a division of what used to be the 20 House of Hax bagwootxw. But they're two different 21 things. It would also be possible to reconstitute a 22 house in the manner that Gitludahl has done with 23 separate adoptions, but that's quite different from 24 a division. 25 Q I understood you to say that Hax bagwootxw, that one 26 way we could look at this situation of George and 27 Philip Turner being described as being adopted out 28 was that they were choosing to or could be seen as 29 reconstituting the House of Yal as separate from the 30 House of Hax bagwootxw? 31 A As moving towards that. It's not -- it wouldn't be 32 considered appropriate to say they make up the House 33 of Yal. Two people don't make much of a house. 34 Q But there are Gitksan persons, notably perhaps Stanley 35 Williams, at least we concretely can see that here, 36 who would describe George Turner and Philip Turner 37 as constituting the House of Yal. If you're correct 38 that there are no other members of the House of Yal 39 at this point in time, there's only George and 40 Philip, because his words to describe this are they 41 were adopted out and they're in the House of Yal? 42 A If Stanley was speaking in his own language he 43 wouldn't use a word that means adopted. 44 Q Well — 45 A He would use something that conveyed much more 46 accurately the realities of what is occurring. 47 THE COURT: Well, who are the other people, if any, in the House 11290 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 of Yal? 2 A There aren't any. That's the problem. That's why he 3 wouldn't refer to it as if it was a completely 4 separate house. As I understand it there's just 5 George and Philip. There may be others I'm not 6 aware of, but that's the only ones I know of. 7 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 8 Q I'm not certain, but I thought -- I actually have a 9 vague recollection that there are other people who 10 would say they are in the House of Yal. I have to 11 ask my researchers if I'm right. I say, even 12 leaving that aside, what I'm getting at is albeit 13 there are what I'll call ideals of describing the 14 rules of the way things work, as you've put it 15 there's reality, and you have to understand the 16 circumstances to determine which of the descriptions 17 that are available to you to describe a situation 18 such as division of, amalgamation, adoption best 19 fits the circumstances. Almost never do you have a 20 perfect fit? 21 A Actually, in the majority of the cases you have a 22 perfect fit, but we're discussing the anomalies. 23 Q That might be so. And I just would like you to 24 confirm for me, if you can, that at least Philip and 25 George, and on the basis of what Stanley Williams 26 has actually said, and I might say he was being 27 examined in his own language. We are stuck, I 28 suppose, with how good his translator who speaks 29 both languages was in translating it. But then, of 30 course, that's your difficulty as well; isn't it? 31 A Yes. 32 Q He is conveying a concept somehow with his words to 33 the translator that we are dealing with an adoption 34 out into a separate house? 35 A Only because it's being very crudely translated, which 36 I would think he thought was sufficient for the 37 situation. 38 Q You have to assume that. 39 A Yes. As do you, I would think. 40 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I certainly do. 41 THE COURT: Two o'clock. Thank you. 42 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. Court will adjourn until two. 43 4 4 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) 45 46 I hereby certify the foregoing to be 47 a true and accurate transcript of the 11291 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 proceedings herein to the best of my 2 skill and ability. 3 4 5 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 6 Peri McHale, Official Reporter 7 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 11292 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 2:00 p.m.) 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. 4 THE COURT: Ms. Koenigsberg. 5 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 6 Q We were dealing with Stanley Williams and the 7 genealogy of Haxbagwootxw. Steven -- I am sorry, 8 before I forget, perhaps before we forget, did you 9 happen to have an opportunity to look at your notes 10 and determine if you could tell us what happened to 11 Steven Skawil? 12 A No, I am sorry, I didn't see a reference in my notes 13 and I can't remember. 14 Q If we look still at the genealogy of Haxbagwootxw 15 and we can look at its -- the trial Exhibit 853-25. 16 A The other way around, isn't it? 17 Q Pardon? 18 A Isn't it the other way around? 19 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Exhibit 853-25 is the trial exhibit. 20 MR. GRANT: The trial exhibit is also 446(6), I think I 21 understand what the witness is -- Ms. Koenigsberg is 22 saying. 23 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 24 Q I suppose the issue is with or without the slashes. 25 It doesn't really matter for my question but I was 26 referring to the trial one which I have which is 27 without the slash. 28 A All right. I just want to be clear. 29 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. Stanley Williams gave evidence that he 30 adopted a person by the name of Sylvia, Sylvia 31 Johnson. I think we find Stanley -- 32 MR. GRANT: This is — I believe I've got some clarification of 33 this distinction, my lord, and this is an example of 34 it. 35 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am sorry, what distinction? 36 MR. GRANT: That is between these two documents. Apparently on 37 the one that is in my friend's document book, it is 38 handwritten in and when I look at Stanley Williams' 39 evidence, this change -- the addition of Sylvia 40 Johnson by adoption shows -- that's shown on that as 41 a result of -- it was corrections to the genealogy 42 that was tendered. 43 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Grant, you are explaining something that I 44 haven't got to yet. 45 MR. GRANT: Okay. 46 MS. KOENIGSBERG: And forms part of my cross-examination I might 47 say and I'd just as soon have the evidence from the 11293 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 witness. 2 MR. GRANT: It is just that the witness wasn't present for that 3 direct examination. 4 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 5 Q No, she was not present. Whether she read the 6 evidence, I don't know and it doesn't really matter. 7 If we look at the Exhibit 853-25 we do not -- and 8 we look at page 4, Stanley Williams is shown there 9 married to Fanny Muldoe and there are no adoptions 10 shown? 11 A Right. 12 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Just so we are not all terribly confused. In 13 what is at 1(b) Exhibit 6 genealogy we see on page 4 14 Sylvia Johnson adopted dotted line written in, and I 15 might advise you all that that's my handwriting and 16 you will soon see why. 17 THE COURT: Just a moment until I get it. Yes. 18 MS. KOENIGSBERG: This notation on Exhibit 6 on Mr. Williams' 19 commission was put there in conformity with Mr. 20 Williams' evidence as it was being given and as it 21 was agreed by counsel it should be shown, so that if 22 we look at page 156 of volume 3 which is at tab 1(a) 23 in the book I have handed up, the evidence of 24 Stanley Williams was as follows. 25 THE COURT: What page, please? 26 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Page 156, my lord, and that's at tab 1(a). 27 THE COURT: Yes. I don't have tab 1(a). I have only got tab 1 28 and 2. There are some dividers here. You are 29 talking about what's in front of the first divider? 30 MS. KOENIGSBERG: You didn't get one of the beautifully 31 decorated ones with new blue tabs? No. Nor I. I am sorry, you have identified it as page 156. 35 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 36 Q It starts actually on page 156. Mr. Grant, 37 question, about the middle of the page: 38 39 "Q Is that Sylvia Harris the same person as 40 you referred to in your interrogatory as 41 Sylvia Johnson? You have Sylvia Johnson 42 and there is another word, this is in the 43 list of -- the list of the interrogatory, 44 and it says Ga -- Gaagim looks, drift 45 away? 46 A Sylvia Johnson is Ronnie Johnson's wife. I 47 adopted her into my house. 32 THE COURT 33 MR. GRANT 34 THE COURT 11294 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 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 Where would she be? you adopted her yourself; Q Okay. And so she is not shown on Exhibit 6 but she should be on your genealogy; is that right? A Um-hmm. Q Okay. MS. KOENIGSBERG: MR. GRANT: Q Well, he says is that right? A Yeah. Q So she should be on -- Exhibit 6 she should be under Gwis Gyen, a dotted line under Gwis Gyen with a reference to circle and Sylvia Johnson. That's on -- I propose to mark that in on the exhibit and it will be marked in by hand but it will be in." We went through that again I might say, and the copy that you have is my copy as I did that. Now, I note therefore that before we corrected the version of the genealogy in conformity with Mr. Grant's questioning of the witness, it did not show Sylvia Johnson as adopted but I also note that the copy that we were given at this time whenever it was prepared, perhaps at the same time, it also does not show Sylvia Johnson adopted. Did you not have the information that Sylvia Johnson was adopted into the house of Gwis Gyen or Haxbagwootxw? A No, I don't remember ever hearing that before. Q Would you have, on the basis of that evidence if you had received the evidence which I have just read to you, the information, would you have recorded Sylvia Johnson as adopted? A Yes, I would have. Q Now, we do see at the same time another problem of identification here. We have on this exhibit, on Exhibit 853-25, there is a Sylvia shown? A Where are you looking at? I am really lost. Q The trial? A This one. MR. GRANT: Yes. THE WITNESS: What page? MS. KOENIGSBERG: Q Sorry, page 2 her? A Yes. Q With the name Sagemloox? We have a Sylvia Mowatt. Do you see 11295 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. And she is shown I believe if we put the 3 pieces together as the natural daughter of Irene 4 Harris and Robert Harris. Do I have that right? 5 A Yes, that's correct. 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: If we look back to Exhibit 6, Haxbagwootxw. 7 THE COURT: Back to, I am sorry, page 6? 8 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 9 Q Back to Exhibit 6, the Haxbagwootxw genealogy, page 10 2, we have a Sylvia Harris with the same name and I 11 believe she is shown as the natural daughter again 12 of Irene and Robert. Do you see that? 13 A Yes. 14 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. 15 THE COURT: I haven't found Irene. 16 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I am sorry, Irene Harris. 17 THE COURT: I found her, how is she shown as being married to 18 Robert Harris? 19 THE WITNESS: Irene Harris was married three times when you look 20 at the — 21 THE COURT: Oh, I see. She was married to Simon Turner, then 22 Robert Harris. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, and they had to be shown separately to show 24 which children had which father. 25 THE COURT: Okay, thank you. 2 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 27 Q Now, if we look at Exhibit 853 tab 11, and I don't 28 even remember which one it is, just tell you what 29 that house is in a second. Gutginuxw, page 8? 30 A I don't have it yet. 31 MS. KOENIGSBERG: And it is not easy to find page 8, it might 32 not have the number on it. Do you have page 8, my 33 lord? 34 THE COURT: Yes. 35 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 36 Q If you look there, you see there is Sylvia Mowatt 37 married to Ronnie Johnson. She is probably Sylvia 38 Johnson who should have been adopted by Stanley 39 Williams? 40 A That sounds like what Stanley is saying in his 41 evidence. 42 Q But her natural parents are here shown as Mary Green 43 and Arthur Mowatt. Is she not the same person as 44 Sylvia Harris? 4 5 A I don't know. 46 Q My difficulty here was in determining who the 47 natural parents are and therefore how I would trace 11296 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 her -- 2 A I don't — 3 Q -- back to a house. 4 A I don't remember -- I don't know Sylvia Mowatt, 5 Ronnie Johnson's wife, personally and I don't know 6 if Lily Harris in fact has a sister named Sylvia as 7 well, so I am not positive if these are two people 8 or one person. This is the kind of problems that 9 you encounter when you initiate the genealogical 10 research and they generally come out in the wash but 11 commonly I would confront this kind of a situation 12 when I was beginning a genealogy, but I would have 13 to inquire further to be sure if this is one person 14 being referred to or if it is two people. I have no 15 way to say at this time. 16 Q Okay. And if it is one person then we would not 17 know, unless you checked out that information, not 18 only who her natural parents were but from that to 19 which house she should properly belong or that she 20 came from in order to go into the house of Gwis 21 Gyen? 22 A Yes. 23 Q There is one other matter with relation to the 24 genealogy of Haxbagwootxw and it arises still out of 25 the evidence of Stanley Williams. At page 218 of 26 Stanley Williams' transcript which is after the 27 next -- I have it just behind the genealogy? 2 8 A Are we through with Gutginuxw? 29 Q For the time being, yes. 30 A Now, I am sorry, oh, okay. What was I supposed to 31 be looking at? 32 Q We are looking at the Haxbagwootxw genealogy and the 33 problem arises out of Stanley Williams' evidence 34 which is at page 218, and he identifies or says that 35 he was married to a person by the name of Dora 36 Johnson and that they had a child, Myrtle, Stanley 37 Williams and Dora Johnson had a child named Myrtle 38 and he was married to Dora Johnson, and you do not 39 show on page 4 of this genealogy any other marriage 40 for Stanley? 41 A I didn't know about it at the time. I have heard of 42 it since. 43 Q And I understand that that Dora Johnson, it actually 44 says on 218, was from the house of Malii? 45 A Yes, so I didn't catch it in the reverse direction 46 as I ordinarily would. 47 Q So it would be correct to alter this and add Dora 11297 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Johnson and put her in the house of Malii? 2 A Oh, to add her as a spouse? 3 Q Yes. 4 A To Stanley, yes, that's correct. 5 THE COURT: We are looking at? 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 7 Q Haxbagwootxw, my lord, page 4. Stanley Williams is 8 shown with one marriage and there are two. And 9 again that would affect or might affect marriage 10 preferences? 11 A I hardly think with 1,550 marriages that one could 12 affect my conclusions -- 13 Q One would at first -- 14 A -- generally. 15 Q -- glance say that with a great deal of safety but 16 in fact isn't it true that in a number of cases in 17 order to reach significance of marriage preferences 18 say house to house which you have discussed, you 19 picked the figure of 20 percent to show 20 significance. Am I correct so far? 21 A Mm-hmm. 22 Q And I know that when we looked, I believe it was at 23 Baskyelaxha, I am doing this by memory, but when we 24 looked at Baskyelaxha there were 41 marriages, 26 of 25 which you knew the spouse's house affiliation and 26 then you had five marriages, probably Gutginuxw -- 27 A Baskyelaxha. 28 Q Baskyelaxha. I can't remember which house it was 29 but there were five, that would have been five out 30 of 26; correct? 31 A Yes. 32 Q To show the 20 percent preference but you barely 33 made 20 percent with five and if by chance we had 34 picked one out of there and added or subtracted, we 35 would affect your ability to say that you had met 36 that particular standard; is that correct? 37 A Yes, but that 20 percent is far in excess of what 38 would be considered statistically significant. I am 39 not a statistician but I know that it would -- it 40 wouldn't have to be nearly 20 percent to be 41 statistically significant with the amount of 42 possible marriage partners there are. I just 43 arbitrarily chose that to demonstrate that there can 44 be a considerable number of marriages between two 45 houses. 46 Q Yes, but you also chose to only count, to determine 47 20 percent, the marriages where you knew the house 1129? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 affiliation? The fact was that -- 2 A Of course. 3 Q -- in almost half of the marriages in that 4 particular house, not quite half, you did not know 5 the affiliation and given that you didn't know the 6 affiliation, that could totally change the numbers? 7 A Yes, it could increase them or reduce them. 8 Q That's right, and my point is that when we are 9 dealing with highly impressionistic data from which 10 to draw conclusions and very small numbers in the 11 whole to conclude significance that actually one or 12 two known marriages with particular preference could 13 alter your conclusion? 14 A I don't agree, not when I have looked at 45 houses. 15 Q But with respect to any one, how is it -- 16 A Well, it could put it under or over the arbitrary 17 line that I set -- 18 Q Yes. 19 A -- at 20 percent, but it does not begin to alter my 20 conclusions. 21 Q Well, I assume that you set the standard at 20 22 percent because it had some significance to you? 23 A No, it was just an arbitrary figure. I thought 24 that, with a number of possible houses that one 25 could marry into, that 20 percent was a very 26 significant figure and it was just arbitrary just to 27 demonstrate that this does occur, that's all. 2 8 Because I knew from my intimate knowledge of the 29 genealogies that in fact there were many marriages 30 back and forth between pairs of houses but this was 31 just an attempt to demonstrate it in numbers and, as 32 I say, if I was a statistician I would be able to 33 determine what was considered to be statistically 34 significant. 35 Q Yes. 36 A But instead I set a very high limit on that. 37 Q Well, it becomes arbitrary what you call the limit, 38 doesn't it? You have no basis for saying 20 percent 39 is high or low; it seems high to you but is there 40 any basis upon which you can say 20 percent is well 41 over significant if you are not speaking about 42 statistics? 43 A Well, with just rudimentary mathematics I think that 44 it seems that if there are 45 houses all together, 45 and I am trying to remember the figure, how many 46 houses that -- at least 27 other houses I believe, 47 that any individual would have to marry into as well 11299 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 as all other categories of people who were not from 2 houses, but just marriage between house members was 3 considered, there would be -- I am trying to think 4 how I figured it. If there is -- if the house 5 has -- has 90 people in it which would be a fairly 6 sort of average figure and there were 27 other 7 houses, if there was 90 marriages that were known, 8 then of those 90 you would expect only three to be 9 in each one of the other 27 houses approximately. 10 That's the only way that I determined what would be 11 below what could be expected on average and what 12 would be above. I certainly didn't go into 13 available persons at any one point in time and age 14 variation and et cetera. 15 Q You have certainly hit on the kinds of variables 16 that I would have thought that you would have to 17 have in order for instance to begin comparing or 18 expressing a preference as an actuality if I can put 19 it that way. For instance, you have to define, 20 would you agree with me, your population so that you 21 can determine chance? 22 A I didn't begin from on the basis of trying to do any 23 kind of a statistical analysis. I began by talking 24 to people, talking about their social structure, so 25 Gitksan people were telling me this is the way we do 26 things. After I was told several times we marry 27 into our father's house, we are supposed to marry 28 into our father's house, then I noticed that this 29 seemed to be true because I do see this demonstrated 30 on the genealogies, and this arbitrary 20 percent 31 figure was just an attempt to put some numbers to 32 it. But it is my opinion that the Gitksan say they 33 marry into their father's house and that you can 34 find that evidence on the genealogy, whatever the 35 figures might be, I believe it is there. 36 Q Well, I don't think we have to belabour this too 37 long, but I want to be sure that I understand of 38 what use you think the numbers are and let me 39 understand what you have said. You did not attempt 40 a statistical analysis? 41 A Right. 42 Q You would agree with me that in order to attempt a 43 statistical analysis you at the very least at first 44 would have to define your population and determine 45 chance for any occurrence that you wanted to test? 46 A How do you mean define the population? 47 Q You have to know how many of whatever it is you have 11300 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 got so that you can determine what the chance is 2 that any particular thing is going to happen in that 3 population, and then you compare what actually 4 happens and see if it happens more often than 5 chance. Have I put it roughly correctly? 6 A Well, even someone who does a statistical analysis 7 like Kasakoff, she has limited information to work 8 on when she did her statistical analysis, and she 9 admits that there were problems involved so -- 10 Q No question, but we know what she did; that is, she 11 tells us what her population is, how she arrived at 12 the population, and then she tells us how she 13 calculated the numbers. Then we can quarrel with 14 her or not about whether that is representative 15 population, whether she should have included other 16 groups into that population or whatever. But to 17 start with, she defined the population, was then 18 able to calculate chance and then can look at the 19 actual numbers within that calculation and tell us 20 if they are greater or less than chance, so are we 21 agreed that's how you would go about it in its 22 basics to do a statistical analysis? 23 A It's -- I don't think it's for me to say, not being 24 a statistician. 25 Q Well, would you agree with me that you do use the 26 words, "greater than chance", "less than chance"? 27 A Right. 28 Q You do have obviously then an understanding of the 29 concept of chance and how one determines it? 30 A Right. 31 Q And it is common sense that -- 32 A Right. 33 Q -- in order to determine it, you have to define a 34 population? 35 A And I defined the population as the members of the 36 house. 37 Q Well, you didn't, did you, because we don't know the 38 numbers of the marriages that you have looked at 39 within houses to say that it's so many of this or so 40 many of that? There are -- 41 A Who doesn't know? 42 Q Well, you say that there are 1,550 marriages. As I 43 understand it, the marriages that you are including 44 in that number, that includes one of those spouses 45 being a Gitksan person? 46 A Yes. 47 Q The other spouse may or may not be a Gitksan person? 11301 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A Correct. 2 Q So therefore may or may not be in a house? 3 A That's right. 4 Q We don't know which ones, when you talk about 5 marriage preferences, are in the population that you 6 are going to count or out? 7 A I don't know what you mean by which ones. 8 Q You don't count, in the instance of Baskyelaxha, 20 9 if there are 25, I think 20 -- approximately 20 10 or -- 16 marriages because you don't know who the 11 spouses are? 12 A I am only referring to the ones between whose house 13 memberships are known, that's correct. 14 Q That's right, and the other numbers could be 15 significant or not, you don't have the information 16 to be able to tell that? 17 A Yes, but as I say, they could be significant in 18 either direction. 19 Q Okay. When you counted up the marriages that you 20 were going to count in determining marriage 21 preferences, in every case where you formed an 22 impression, did you only count the marriages where 23 you knew the affiliations of both spouses? 24 A Yes, I did. 25 Q Okay. But you didn't write this down in -- I mean, 2 6 you didn't write down the numbers, you didn't go 27 through the exercise of writing down the numbers; is 28 that correct? 29 A Yes, I did. 30 Q You did? 31 A I believe so. How else could I calculate them? 32 Q Did you? 33 A I don't know where the notes are, if they were in 34 the files or not. 35 Q I had the impression from your earlier evidence that 36 you actually did that from memory? 37 A No, never. I never said that. 38 Q Okay. You didn't do it from memory? 39 A My impressions to begin with that of what were the 40 principles, the marriage patterns that came from 41 memory, but to get these 20 percent figures, I 42 didn't do that out of my head. I sat down and 43 counted them to get those 20 percent figures but I 44 had already formed my opinions about what were the 45 marriage patterns and preferences from memory, 46 from -- 4 7 Q An impression? 11302 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A From intimate knowledge of the genealogies, from 2 having created these things. And when I did count 3 up the marriages that I knew to have occurred 4 between two houses, I found that it did bear out 5 what my impressions about -- my opinion had been 6 from doing the research but I had formed those 7 opinions before I counted up the actual marriages. 8 Q Okay. Let me just ask you one other question so 9 that I can try and sort this out. How did you 10 determine the 1,550 marriages? What did you count? 11 A I counted all marriages that were in the sample. 12 Q In the sample being the genealogical charts? 13 A All the genealogical charts, yes. 14 Q If I count up all the equal signs? 15 A Yes, that's — 16 Q I should get 1,550? 17 A Let me think. No, you should get double that. 18 Q That's right. 19 A Approximately -- approximately, with the exceptions 20 of people who were married more than once and people 21 who married people -- who were non-Gitksan and 22 therefore who are not represented on -- it wasn't as 23 simple as just counting up the equal signs. I had 24 to keep a separate record of which ones were 25 marriages. If I am looking at one genealogy, I 26 would have to keep a separate accounting of those 27 marriages that were with people from outside of the 28 Gitksan house system because they would only appear 29 once, but any marriage that occurred with somebody 30 who's represented again on the genealogy or even 31 more than once in the case of a triple marriage that 32 a counting had to be kept straight to result in the 33 1,550 figure or whatever it was. 34 Q And you recall going through that exercise? 35 A Yes, I did. 36 Q Because I found it very complicated and I was 37 looking for your notes. 38 A That's because I have it in my head who belongs to 39 what house for the most part. I have forgotten some 4 0 now but at one point in time I could find any name 41 at any time when I was actively working with them 42 every day. 43 Q Okay. I take it that you did that after you 44 completed the genealogies and -- 45 A Yes. 46 Q -- substantially? 47 A Yes. 11303 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q Did you keep the notes of your calculations? 2 A I don't remember. I have no idea. If I did, they 3 should be in the files. 4 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. Why don't we go on to finish off 5 Sakxum -- or dealing with Sakxum Higookx. This 6 deals with evidence of Stanley Williams and it is -- 7 Sakxum Higookx is tab -- 8 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 34. 9 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 10 Q Pages 7 and 8 and it deals with Doris Wells 11 Morrison. You show Doris Wells was adopted into the 12 house of Sakxum Higookx by David Wells? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And David Wells is Doris Wells' father, natural 15 father? 16 A I believe that's so. I am not positive, I forget. 17 Q And from whom did you obtain the information that 18 Doris Wells was adopted into that house? 19 A Gee, that's been a long time. Possibly Olive Ryan, 20 but I am not absolutely positive. 21 THE COURT: Where do I find this? 22 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 23 Q Sorry, pages 7 and 8, my lord, on Sakxum Higookx. 24 If you put them together, you will see David Wells 25 on the left-hand side and then the dotted line all 26 the way across for all of those people adopted and 27 Doris Wells is one of them and she is shown as 28 married to Harold Morrison? 29 A Yes, that's correct. 30 MS. KOENIGSBERG: On page 343 — well, I am sorry, start with 31 page 341 of Stanley Williams' transcript which is in 32 volume 3 and which is after the 218 one. I am 33 sorry, it is volume 5, there is a divider. 34 THE COURT: Yes. 35 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 36 Q On page 341, about the middle of the page. It 37 begins, this is Stanley Williams' evidence: 38 39 "MS. KOENIGSBERG: 40 "Q And did David Wells also hold the name 41 Sakxum Higookx? 42 A Yes, he had the name Sakxum Higookx before 4 3 Alfred. 44 Q Do you know Doris or Dora Morrison? 45 A Yes, I know her. 4 6 Q And do you know her as the daughter of 47 David Wells? 11304 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 A Yes, that's his daughter, Doris." 2 3 Then if we go over to page 343 again about the same 4 place on the page begins Ms. Koenigsberg, and I am 5 concerned with the answer here of Stanley Williams: 6 7 "A I am not aware of the territory that was 8 given, supposed to have been given to 9 Doris, but I am aware that David Wells was 10 supposed to have adopted Doris into his 11 house and I -- this never, ever happened 12 and it is quite serious with the adoption, 13 the adoption is quite serious, because when 14 the adoption occurs you have to spend a lot 15 of money in the feast hall. So I don't 16 think this happened." 17 18 You are showing on your genealogy Sakxum Higookx 19 that it did happen; is that correct? 20 A It was my opinion that it did happen at the time 21 that I did the genealogy. 22 Q And from what did you form that opinion? 23 A As I say, I believe Olive Ryan was one of the people 24 that talked about this and I can't remember. It 25 might be in the files. 26 Q Okay. Were you aware of any controversy over 27 whether Doris Wells Morrison had in fact been 28 adopted or not? 29 A I wasn't aware that there was a controversy over 30 whether she had been adopted or not, but I had heard 31 there was an argument over the name Liginiihlax, 32 that's all I was aware, but I had heard it had not 33 been disputed that she had been adopted by her 34 father into the Eagle house. 35 MR. GRANT: My lord, my friend is reading and I think out of 36 fairness she should read or at least your lordship 37 should be referred to the continuation of that 38 second series at page 343 to 344 line 6 which is 39 part of the same sequence of what occurred and the 40 explanation of Mr. Williams in fairness. 41 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, I don't think that anything that is 42 covered thereafter has anything to do with Stanley 43 Williams' expressed opinion that this was not an 44 adoption that actually happened. It deals with -- 45 goes on to deal with other matters which I am sure 46 Mr. Grant would like to take great exception to 47 cover with Stanley Williams, it has to do with the 11305 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 taking of the name left to Dora Morrison in the will 2 of the Liginiihlax and the alleged selling of a 3 totem-pole. 4 MR. GRANT: All I am talking about is the reference here to Dora 5 Morrison, "Do you know if she holds the name 6 Ligii'Nihlaa?" is directly related to the answer 7 Stanley Williams relating to the adoption. I mean 8 that's what I am saying is that that's part of the 9 sequence. 10 THE COURT: Well, does the passage -- I have just glanced at it 11 but it doesn't seem to me, Mr. Grant, that it refers 12 to the question of adoption, it relates to this 13 name. 14 MR. GRANT: But that's the point, my lord, the question is — 15 and is that the name -- this witness has already 16 explained the relationship of names and houses. I 17 mean, that's part of it, the name is the name 18 connected, what's the name connected to. And that 19 when people talk about people holding names or not 20 holding names, they are talking about what house 21 they are in. 22 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, okay. Why don't I cross-examine her 23 about that? 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Do you adopt Mr. Grant's answer? 26 MR. GRANT: I didn't give the answer, I made an objection. 27 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 28 Q His evidence? Would you agree with the proposition 29 that was just put forward by Mr. Grant that, if 30 Doris Morrison did not receive the name Liginiihlax, 31 that that would signify that she had not been 32 adopted or vice versa? 33 A No, because she may have received another name, 34 especially in a situation where it was a father that 35 adopted her. He may have adopted her many years ago 36 and given her a child's name in the house, so 37 because there is a dispute over that particular name 38 does not definitely determine whether she was or was 39 not adopted. 40 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Thank you. I would say, my lord, that it's 41 really unnecessary to read all of that evidence in 42 of Stanley's evidence. It is in in any event but I 43 don't think it is going to help with this witness' 44 evidence. 45 THE COURT: Well, at the moment, all I have got is that the 46 chart shows the adoption, Mr. Williams says it 47 didn't happen. 11306 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. 2 THE COURT: And I also have that the witness was told it 3 happened by, was it, Mary Johnson or Olive Ryan? 4 THE WITNESS: No, I believe it was Olive Ryan. 5 THE COURT: Olive Ryan, all right. 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG: The next matter deals with Baskyelaxha. 7 THE COURT: What tab number is that, please? 8 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Sorry, my lord. 9 THE WITNESS: 3. 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Sorry, do you have a submission to make, Mr. 12 Grant? 13 MR. GRANT: No, I am just putting my -- I will make it known if 14 I am objecting, Ms. Koenigsberg. 15 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 16 Q I am sure you will. 17 This deals with a problem of Thomas Wright's 18 evidence at this trial and the genealogy of 19 Baskyelaxha, and perhaps the easiest way to deal 20 with it is to go through the evidence of Thomas 21 Wright and compare it to Baskyelaxha. Thomas 22 Wright's evidence that bears on this matter begins 23 on page 51 and that's in your next tab, it is tab 2, 24 and it begins at the bottom of page 51. Perhaps the 25 better place to begin is about the middle of the 26 page, Mr. Grant is questioning, and it's line 24: 27 28 "Q Were you taken or adopted for a short time 29 by Peter Wiigyet? 30 THE INTERPRETER: He doesn't recognize that name. 31 MR. O'BYRNE:..." 32 33 Never mind that. 34 35 "THE INTERPRETER: He didn't know what I was 36 saying. He said Wiigyet and I had to mention 37 Peter again, Peter Wiigyet. Then I said Pete 38 Wiigyet to try, you know, he might have known 39 him by Pete Wiigyet or Peter Wiigyet, but he 40 didn't recognize the name." 41 42 And so on, and then Mr. Grant says at line 44: 43 44 "Q Were you taken in by Mable Jackson when you 45 were a baby? 46 A Yes, she did look after me for quite a long 47 time. Then my dad took me from her. 11307 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q Was Mable Jackson's name Baskyelaxha? 2 A Yes, that was her name. She wasn't 3 supposed to take it because she was a woman 4 but she was the only one left and she took 5 it. 6 Q When you say she was the only one left, do 7 you mean she was the only one left in her 8 house that could inherit the chief's name? 9 THE INTERPRETER: I nodded to him. He asked me 10 who it was and I said -- I agreed. He 11 asked me if it was Mable, and he said she 12 was the only one in that house so she took 13 me, she adopted me into that house because 14 she was the only one in there. 15 MR. GRANT: 16 Q What clan is Baskyelaxha? 17 A She is Wolf Tribe, same as Wiik'aax. 18 Q I believe you told us already but just to 19 be clear, did Baskyelaxha have a separate 20 house from Wiik'aax? 21 A Yes, they're quite different. She did come 22 out of that house, Tsimgaak. 23 Q So is it correct that Baskyelaxha came out 24 of Tsimgaak's house at some earlier time?" 25 26 And then it becomes less intelligible. What appears 27 to be intelligible is -- is, and you can pick it up 28 again over on page 53. I am sorry, start over on 29 page 52 right at the bottom: 30 31 "MR. GRANT: 32 Q Before your father took you on your 33 trapline when you were 13, had you been 34 with Baskyelaxha all that time, or had your 35 mother and father taken you back? 36 A No, they didn't. Baskyelaxha died in 37 Hazelton and Peter Wiigyet, my father, and 38 my parents Alfred and Sarah Wiiminoosikx 3 9 had me. 40 Q How old were you when those other people 41 took you back from Baskyelaxha? Or when 42 Baskyelaxha died? 43 A I was 13 years old and I was given a lot of 44 money and I banked it. 45 THE INTERPRETER: He saved it. 46 THE WITNESS: That's why I was given a lot of 47 land because I paid for all the funeral 1130? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 expenses of people that died." 2 3 Then we go through a discussion of where the name 4 Amayee came from and then about the middle of the 5 page: 6 7 "Q You already told us I believe that your 8 mother gave you this name, the other day, 9 was there a feast held when you were given 10 that name?" 11 12 There I believe he is referring to the Amayee name. 13 14 "A Peter Jackson gave me Ganaaw'mgan..." 15 16 A Ganaaw'mgan. 17 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes, that one. 18 19 "...when I was living there. Then he took 20 it back after I left him. 21 Q How was Peter Jackson related to Mable 22 Jackson? 23 A They were married. Peter Jackson was 24 Fireweed and Mable Jackson was Lax Gibuu. 25 THE INTERPRETER: That's Wolf." 26 27 Then just on down at line 40: 28 29 "Q Do you still hold the name Ganaaw'mgan? 30 A Mable Jackson gave it to somebody else and 31 that person died at Cedarvale. 32 Q Do you know who she gave it to? That 33 person's English name? 34 A Jimmy Tait." 35 36 And then over on to the next page 54, which I think 37 will relate to all of this: 38 39 "Q Was it Jimmy Tait that stayed at Kitwanga? 40 A Yes, it was Jimmy Tait. 41 Q If you had stayed with Baskyelaxha's family 42 and had been raised by them, would you have 43 acquired rights to use Baskyelaxha's 44 territory? 45 A Yes, I would have but they gave me one 46 already, it's called Xsageitsik, on this 47 side of Kisgagas. As yet I haven't walked 11309 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 on it. 2 Q Whose territory is Xsageitsik? 3 A Baskyelaxha." 4 5 Now, from that evidence, we would appear to have 6 a Mable Jackson married to Peter Jackson and the 7 Mable Jackson is said to have been the last 8 surviving member at that time when Thomas was 13 of 9 the name Baskyelaxha. For starters, I don't -- I 10 can't find a Mable Jackson or a Mable Wiigyet; the 11 only person I can find is Mable White with the name 12 Mable anyway on Baskyelaxha. 13 Now, before we get too far with this, I will tell 14 you that Thomas Wright says, and I can find it for 15 you, but you have him on Guuhadakxw as being born in 16 1903, and I believe he said he was born in 1900 so 17 you are pretty close. 18 THE COURT: That's Thomas Wright? 19 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 20 Q And therefore it seemed to me unlikely but I will 21 ask you if you have different information that Mable 22 White was the person that raised him until he was 23 13? 24 A Mable White, no way. Mable White is younger than 25 Thomas, I believe. Mable White is still alive. She 26 was born in 1902. 27 Q That's a contemporary of Thomas Wright? 28 A Yes. Are you referring to Mable Jackson? 29 Q Yes. 30 A All right, sorry. 31 MR. GRANT: Just to clarify one point, I think my friend may 32 have confused it. Ms. Koenigsberg in introducing 33 her question said that he was taken -- Thomas Wright 34 was taken into Baskyelaxha when he was 13 and 35 that — 36 MS. KOENIGSBERG: No, until he was 13. 37 MR. GRANT: I think the first time she said it the other way 38 around. We agree as to what he said. 39 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 40 Q I think that the facts we can fairly take out of his 41 evidence, and I will -- perhaps I should state them 42 so we don't get into an involved argument about it. 43 Thomas White was, in the terms we have been 44 discussing, adopted into the house of Baskyelaxha 45 until he was 13 at which time he left the house of 46 Baskyelaxha and went back to his parent's house 47 and -- but he was in Baskyelaxha long enough and 11310 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 with whatever it is, that is, he required to have 2 received some territory at Baskyelaxha. Not 3 entirely clear exactly why he received it, whether 4 it was because he paid money or because of his 5 affiliations in that house. It also appears to me 6 to be clear that Mable Jackson was -- held the name 7 Baskyelaxha according to Thomas Wright and was at 8 one time the last surviving member of Baskyelaxha. 9 I think we can take that out of what I just read, 10 would you agree? 11 A No, I wouldn't. 12 Q Okay. What would you disagree with? 13 A I would agree that -- most of it. I would agree 14 that it seems Thomas is saying that Mable Jackson 15 had the name Baskyelaxha and that could very well be 16 true and this is someone so far back that I just 17 hadn't heard of her in my research. I never asked 18 Thomas Wright about Baskyelaxha's house, I didn't 19 know until now that there was a connection between 20 Thomas and Baskyelaxha's house. But I wouldn't 21 interpret what he says as meaning that she was the 22 absolute last person in the house, but it is likely 23 that Jack Tait, John Tait and Sarah and Jimmy Tait 24 were too young to take the name Baskyelaxha at the 25 time that Mable took it, but if Thomas was still 26 alive, we could ask him. But I don't feel free to 27 speculate on, you know, to make solid conclusions. 28 I can speculate but I can't make solid conclusions 29 on this information. 30 Q Okay. Let's agree then that according to Thomas 31 Wright's evidence and information, Baskyelaxha -- 32 Mable Jackson held the name Baskyelaxha and at one 33 time was the only member of that house who could 34 take the name either because she was the only one 35 left in the house or she was the only one old enough 36 in the house? 37 A I believe that's what he is saying, yes. 38 Q Okay. Now, you obviously -- well, you do not show, 39 am I correct, Mable Jackson in the house of 40 Baskyelaxha? 41 A No, I didn't know about her. 42 Q Okay. She would by this account have been in the 43 generation that you show as the second -- on the 44 second line on the first two pages; is that correct? 45 A No. I would say she is more likely to be in the -- 46 well, sort of in between the first and the second. 47 I don't know how old she was when she took Thomas. 11311 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 A 9 Q 10 11 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 Q 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A 26 THE COURT 27 MS. KOENI 28 THE COURT 29 MS. KOENI 30 Q 31 32 A 33 34 35 36 37 Q 38 39 40 A 41 42 Q 43 A 44 Q 45 A 46 47 THE COURT Thomas was born somewhere around 1900; Jack Tait was born 1895, which puts him closer to Thomas' age but his brother John seems to be born somewhat earlier so I can't really guess whether the generation of Jack Tait or the one previous would be a more appropriate place for Mable Jackson. Well, we have on that line persons born in 1876? Yes. And if she was raising Thomas when he was 13 -- until he was 13 and was still alive when he was 13 or about when he was 13, she could easily fit into this same age range as John Tait; is that fair? I wouldn't say so because his brother, Jack Tait, is almost the same age as Thomas and it seems to me it would be much more likely that she would have been older than that but it's -- there is no way to tell. Okay. Did you interview Mable White? Yes, I did. And did you interview Bill Blackwater? Yes, I did. Both of whom were adopted into Baskyelaxha? That's correct. And were they adopted in in order to maintain the integrity of the house? Yes, they were. Mable White and what was the other? 3ERG: Mable White and Bill Blackwater. Okay. 3ERG: And did they give you the information that Jack Tait and John Tait had held the names Baskyelaxha? I remember specifically them saying that Jack Tait did but I can't remember if it was either Mable or Bill Blackwater that told me John Tait had it but clearly I remember them saying that Jack Tait was the last Baskyelaxha. And it's your evidence that they did not know beyond the generation above them who had held the name Baskyelaxha? They didn't tell me and I did ask, so I would assume they didn't know. And did you interview Thomas Wright? Yes, I did. And he didn't give you the information about -- I didn't ask him about the Baskyelaxha house, I hadn't realized there was a connection. We will take the afternoon adjournment, Ms. 11312 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Koenigsberg. 2 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes, my lord. 3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. Court will recess. 4 5 (AFTERNOON ADJOURNMENT AT 3:00 p.m.) 6 7 I hereby certify the foregoing to be 8 a true and accurate transcript of the 9 proceedings herein, transcribed to the 10 best of my skill and ability. 11 12 13 14 15 16 TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter 17 United Reporting Service Ltd. 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 11313 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS) 2 3 THE COURT: Ms. Koenigsberg, 4 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Thank you, my lord. 5 Q On a jaunt of discovery over the break, if you look at 6 Wiigyet's genealogy, which is tab 39, and if you 7 look at page one on the left-hand side at the top 8 you see Jack Tait's mother, Baskyelaxha? 9 A Yes. From the House of Baskyelaxha. 10 Q Right. Might the person — 11 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What did you say? 12 A From the House of Baskyelaxha. 13 THE COURT: From the house. 14 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 15 Q Jack Tait's mother was from the House of Baskyelaxha? 16 A Yes. 17 Q You show, of course, an unnamed person -- 18 A Yes. 19 Q — At the top there? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And your assumption is that's Jack Tait's mother? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And would you also assume she held the name 24 Baskyelaxha? 25 A I wouldn't want to assume that. It's possible. 26 Q Given all the rules that you know would it be most 27 likely that she held the name Baskyelaxha? 28 A Oh, that's — 29 Q Since you have no other information as to how he got 30 the name Baskyelaxha? 31 A That's far too speculative. 32 Q All right. Now, dealing just then with Wiigyet. On 33 page two, on the right-hand side, at the top, 34 furthest right-hand side is Peter Jackson. And he 35 would, would you agree with me, fit the description 36 of Thomas Wright's description of Peter Jackson, 37 Peter Wiigyet? 38 A That's a possibility. 39 Q And is it then likely that that Peter Jackson was 40 married to Mabel Jackson? 41 A That's possible. 42 Q And we should show him as married. Is that reasonable 43 information? Would you from the information, if you 44 had obtained it from Thomas Wright directly, that 45 Peter Jackson was called Peter Wiigyet, was in the 46 House of Wiigyet, and that he was married to Mabel 47 Jackson, have assumed that that Peter Jackson was 11314 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 married? 2 A I'd have to be more clear than what I read in the 3 transcript. I would have had to ask further 4 questions, because it is a bit confusing. And I'd 5 want to be really clear that that was -- I mean, it 6 seems likely, and it might bring that to mind if I 7 had remembered that information. I would want to 8 question him further, or someone else. 9 Q There certainly is no doubt, I think you've actually 10 said it, that I think your words were virtually 11 every Gitksan person, and I took that to be of age, 12 was married? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And we don't show a marriage for Peter Jackson. 15 A Yes. 16 Q And we should? 17 A If I had absolutely complete information, which I 18 obviously don't. That's just a lack of information 19 for that specific person. 20 Q On your -- there is no place on your genealogical 21 charts where you show the marriage which is -- for 22 which we have evidence of Peter Jackson and Mabel 23 Jackson; is that correct? 24 A Today, here in this courtroom, is the first time I'm 25 hearing about Mabel Jackson, that I remember. So 26 certainly I don't have knowledge of who she is 27 married to since I never heard of her before, that I 2 8 can remember. 29 Q And if Thomas Wright's information is accurate, and if 30 he was reporting it accurately, that is a marriage 31 which should be recorded on your genealogies? 32 A That would be if I had the information, yes. As there 33 would be others, if I had the information, as the 34 genealogies would go back a hundred generations if I 35 had the information, but the information is just as 36 complete as was possible with the information that I 37 had at the time. 38 Q Well, just so we don't make it quite so speculative, 39 we do have Thomas Wright telling us that there was a 40 marriage between two people for whom that he knew, 41 with whom he lived, and whose names he knew? 42 A Right. And if I had that information at the time I 43 did the genealogy then I would have put it on there, 44 or I could have if I had. I'd have to look it over 45 again to be sure if it sounded correct, but I didn't 46 have it so that's why it's not on there. 47 MR. GRANT: Okay. 11315 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 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 MS. MR. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. GRANT: THE COURT: I stand to be corrected on this, my lord, but in this excerpt -- I can't remember all of Thomas Wright's evidence, but in this excerpt that my friend has included there's a reference to Peter Wiigyet and reference to Mabel Jackson. I didn't notice the reference in this excerpt to the fact that they were both married. Thomas Wright was taken and raised by different people, and that's obvious from this. I'm just wondering if my friend is making an assumption here. I -- in that review of it I didn't pick that up. Well, on page 53: A 'How was Peter Jackson related to Mabel Jackson? They were married." MR. GRANT: I'm sorry, my lord. MS. KOENIGSBERG: And we certainly have enough marriage to keep them out of the Gaats (phonetic) category. MR. GRANT: The clans. MS. KOENIGSBERG: The clans. THE COURT: Satisfied, Mr. Grant? MR. GRANT: I'm sorry, my lord. I just didn't have that note. It's very clear. THE COURT: Yes. Few things are quite that clear. MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. I am finished with the genealogy of Baskyelaxha, at least for awhile, and Wiigyet. And the next one deals with the evidence of Mary McKenzie, and it deals with Luus. And that's tab 27. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Did you say Luus or Ma'uus? MS. KOENIGSBERG: Luus. Tab 27. My diction isn't always up to the language, my lord. Q To put this in some sort of perspective, in your report at the beginning on page eight -- THE COURT: Report, page eight? MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. Q Down at the very bottom, second to the last full paragraph you say: "As I worked to discover who was the current chief of each House and who his relatives were, I began to unravel the recent history of the Gitksan Houses. I learned about cases where two Houses declined in 11316 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 population and had been forced to 2 amalgamate. In such cases, one biological 3 family might be named by informants as two 4 Houses. Luus and Wii elaast, closely 5 related Lax Gibuu Houses from Galdo'o, 6 exemplify this: When the House of Wii 7 elaast became very low in numbers it 8 adopted two people from Luus' House and 9 when the last original member of the House 10 of Wii elaast died, members of the House 11 of Luus undertook to care for Wii elaast's 12 property. It is still known which land, 13 names, crests and other property belong to 14 Wii elaast even through the people using 15 this property are biologically inseparable 16 from the members of the House of Luus. 17 Because this kind of separate accounting 18 of property is kept, the current or a 19 future Wii elaast could take some of the 20 members of the House of Luus and 21 reconstitute the House of Wii elaast, 22 separate from Luus. But if no steps are 23 taken towards the reconstitution of the 24 absorbed House, after a long time has 25 passed, the two Houses will be seen as 26 one, the property as common. What will be 27 remembered for millenia is that there was 28 an amalgamation and it is often remembered 29 why the amalgamation took place." 30 31 Indeed, when we look at the genealogy of Luus we 32 see that, at least in a number of sentences, this 33 genealogy reflects the evidence, or your opinions in 34 your report that I have just read, that is that 35 members of the House of Wii elaast are on Luus and 36 not in a separate house; is that correct? 37 A Right. 38 Q Okay. Now, you had informants, I take it from your 39 report, that told you that Wii elaast was not a 40 separate house, and that the members of Wii elaast 41 were members of the House of Luus; correct? 42 A The informants say that the members of the House of 43 Wii elaast are biologically members of the House of 44 Luus, but they don't say that the House of Wii 45 elaast does not exist. 46 Q No. I think my question was framed in the terms that 47 your informants told you that Wii elaast and Luus 11317 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 were not separate houses. That Wii elaast had been 2 subsumed, or whatever word, into the House of Luus 3 at this time? 4 A I don't know if I can agree with that. As I say, 5 they're one biological family but two houses. 6 That's the way people would commonly say it. One 7 family two houses is the way the informants 8 themselves would put this kind of relationship. 9 Q Well, we have examples where we have two genealogies, 10 two houses, but they are the same biological family, 11 don't we, or at least they have many members in 12 common? 13 A What would that be? 14 Q Well, Guuhadak and Yagosip, Wii gaak, and I have 15 forgotten the other one. They're so closely 16 related -- Spookw? 17 A Those ones I think are quite more clearly distinct. 18 They have managed to maintain enough population in 19 each one that they can be clearly distinct. And 20 that the word adoption may more appropriately apply 21 to the situations that occurred in that I believe 22 Molly May was adopted out of the House of Wii gaak 23 and re-populated the House of Guuhadak, and so on. 24 But that's a different situation than this one, 25 because this Wii elaast did not manage to maintain 26 enough house members to be clearly distinct and they 27 became amalgamated with Luus. 28 Q Okay. You say that, and my question to you -- and you 29 show that, and my question to you is who were your 30 informants who put it to you in such a way that you 31 did not show Wii elaast as a separate, albeit small, 32 house? 33 A Who are my informants? 34 Q Who would have -- 35 A Who would have told me this is the way it should be? 36 Q Yes. 37 A I believe I've talked to many people about this. Jeff 38 Harris, Jim Angus Jr., who's Wii elaast himself, 39 Ellen Johnson when she was alive, Mary Johnson, 40 Irene Cournoyer. Possibly others. 41 Q Okay. When you said at the top of page nine in your 42 report, I believe referring to Wii elaast and Luus, 43 "In such cases, one biological family might be named 44 by informants as Two Houses. Luus and Wii 45 elaast...", did you have some informants who 46 referred to these as two separate houses as opposed 47 to the one house with the visible Wii elaast in 1131? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Luus? 2 A What was that with the -- what do you mean by visible? 3 Q I'm not distinguishing the description as you have it 4 here, "In such cases, one biological family might be 5 named by informants as two Houses" from the 6 situation where it would be described as there were 7 houses, but now there's one. 8 A M'hm. 9 Q You have described informants, I take it, who have 10 told you not what you have on page nine, that is 11 that these might be named as two houses, but rather 12 they say they are today one house in the sense of 13 they're no longer separate? 14 A As I say, the informants usually put it one family two 15 houses. That's the way they put it when they tried 16 to express this in English. 17 Q Okay. Well, let's deal with Mary McKenzie. And her 18 transcript is at page 368-69. And that's tab 3, my 19 lord. 2 0 THE COURT: What page? 21 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Page 368 and goes over to page 369. 22 Q And we start toward -- well, about half way down. 23 Again, Mr. Grant is questioning Ms. McKenzie. It 24 begins at line 25. 25 26 "Okay. I'd like to move to another area 27 now and I'd like to ask you leading into 28 the questions of laws of the Gitksan 29 relating to adoption, my lord. 30 I'd like you to explain through an 31 explanation of the adoption laws of the 32 Gitksan, show how the legal system of 33 the Gitksan works. And possibly the 34 best way of approaching this is by 35 taking some examples. Now, do you 36 recall of adoption in Elaast's House, 37 Wii elaast's House, in an earlier -- 38 with respect to the old Wii elaast? Do 39 you recall that adoption and if you do 40 could you explain to the court what 41 happened? 42 A Yes. The late William Elaast, Wii 43 elaast, and he had no sister at all, no 44 brother, he was just by himself, then he 45 has to see ahead of him that when he 46 dies there's no one in his House to be 47 his successor. So the thing that came 11319 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 to his mind was that he had to adopt out 2 of a house of the Lax Gibuu." 3 4 Now, just for time's sake I'm going to skip all 5 the clans and houses talking to each other about 6 whether this is gonna happen or not. And if you go 7 over to page 369 and we get to line eight -- well, 8 seven. 9 10 "So the Lax Gibuu all agreed that they 11 seen the old Elaast -- old Elaast's view 12 of when he dies he'll have no one to 13 take over his chief name. So they 14 agreed right away and they say there 15 will be adoption, so he mentioned these 16 two people and Alice Williams she -- she 17 had children, she had two, three 18 daughters, but -- and he had one son, 19 Steve Morrison, so the family agreed 20 that they would take these two and only 21 two from the Galdo'o people like from 22 Luus' House, Elaast, Steve Morrison and 23 Alice Williams were all out of had Luus 24 House, so we agree they go to Elaast, 25 and that means they have to sit at 26 Kliiyem lax haa's table because Kliiyem 27 lax haa is the head chief of the Lax 2 8 Gibuu. 29 Q Of Kispiox? 30 A Of Kispiox. So after all the 31 arrangements were made feasting was 32 given by Wii elaast, the chief Elaast, 33 and he announced that he was adopting 34 Mrs. Williams and Steve Morrison into 35 his House. This is why that if he dies 36 Steve Morrison will move up and have the 37 name of Wii elaast and then her -- his 38 mother, Steve Morrison's mother was with 39 her." 40 41 I think he meant him. 42 43 "Now, it was only these two that were 44 adopted, although Alice Williams had 45 three daughters, grand-daughters, but 46 those stayed, they weren't taken into 47 Elaast's House, so this is how it stood 11320 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 for many years until the late William 2 Elaast died, then Steve Morrison got in 3 as Elaast. 4 Q And was Alice Williams given a name in 5 Wii elaast's House? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you recall that now? 8 A Axlax 'Nisxw. 9 Q Now, what happened after Steve 10 Morrison -- Steve Morrison became Wii 11 elaast? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And then he held that name until he 14 died? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And then what happened with respect to 17 Wii elaast's House? 18 A When Steve Morrison died we had -- we 19 had to give -- we had to give permission 20 to take James Angus Junior to take 21 Elaast's place and at that time again is 22 from Luus' House again. So we agreed 23 when we got together that Jimmy Young -- 24 Jim Angus would take the chief name of 25 Wii elaast. 26 Q Did anyone else move over from Luus' 27 House to Wii elaast's House when Jim 28 Angus moved over to become Wii elaast?" 29 30 And she goes on and talks about Irene Cournoyer. 31 But just stopping there, first Mary McKenzie refers 32 to Alice Williams and Steve Morrison, who indeed do 33 show on Luus' genealogy. I'll just find them. 34 A Page six. 35 Q I think they're page six. Yes. On page six we have 36 Alice Williams holding the name that Mary McKenzie 37 attributes to her, and beneath her Steve Morrison. 38 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You're on Wii elaast? 39 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Luus. Luus. And I think you already pulled 40 it out, my lord. And it's page six. 41 THE COURT: Page six, yes. 42 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 43 Q They are not shown as adopted out of Luus. And they 44 are members of Luus by this genealogy. And it shows 45 Steve Morrison holding the name Wii elaast, but from 46 the genealogy we would assume that was in the House 47 of Luus at this time he holds that name, but he's a 11321 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 member of the House of Luus? 2 A Except, you know, the names Elaast and Wii elaast are 3 Wii elaast house names. 4 Q Yes. Assuming that Mary McKenzie's description of the 5 adoptions are for the purposes of the survival of 6 the House of Wii elaast as a unit, she refers to 7 them moving over or going out of the House of Luus 8 into the House of Wii elaast, and she uses the word 9 adopted out. Is it fair to say that the genealogy 10 does not reflect that particular description? 11 A If you again try to cross-examine the reality into the 12 crude terms that we're trying to work with it 13 doesn't, but to the Gitksan the reality is depicted 14 there. 15 Q Well, is this another example where the Gitksan would 16 say -- or where the Gitksan would say they're both 17 right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Yes. That an amalgamation as represented by your 20 genealogy -- depicted by your genealogy looks just 21 like an adoption into a separate house? 22 A Again, an adoption refers to the movement of an 23 individual from one house to another. I think 24 that's fair to say. 25 Q Well, that's one -- one form of adoption. We see here 26 an adoption described with two people at a time, and 27 they aren't -- 28 A Was it at the same time? Possibly, yes. Yes. 29 Q They described it at the same time. 30 A Yes. 31 Q And announced it at a feast. 32 A Right. Well, all of the members of the House of Wii 33 elaast of whom I've ever heard, except for William 34 Elaast, were members of the House of Luus. And the 35 House of Wii elaast does not at this time have a 36 viable separate existence. It has names, and it has 37 property, but it doesn't have sufficient population 38 to function as a separate house. And the members of 39 the House of Wii elaast clearly know that they are 40 from the House of Luus biologically, and that they 41 are using Wii elaast names. And there is a distinct 42 possibility, because their names are concentrated in 43 this one lineage, that they may subdivide in the 44 future. They're in a very good position to do that. 45 But at this point in time it's, I think, more fair 46 to represent this as an amalgamation. 47 THE COURT: I'm missing something here. Firstly, this suggests 11322 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 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 THE COURT A THE COURT THE THE MS. MS. that Alice Williams was the mother of Steve Morrison. She would have only been 12 years old when he was born according to these figures. There's obviously a problem with the dates. But that was common with the Indian Affairs records, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I didn't catch it. All right. Secondly, how would that help to assist the problems of the House of Wii elaast to move Alice Williams and Steve Morrison over? It wouldn't populate the house in any way. That's a good question. And I don't know why that arrangement was made, but I've heard the story exactly the same way as Mary related it in her evidence. And this doesn't show -- and this is part of Ms. Koenigsberg's point. This doesn't show them being adopted out, does it? No, because I think it's -- Because you believe it's really an amalgamation? Yes, that's correct. It's just a difficulty of trying to use this limited set of symbols to relate the information. What house has the name as ascribed here to Alice Williams, Axlax 'Nisxw? Axlax 'Nisxw. That's Wii elaast's name. That's a Wii elaast house name, is it? KOENIGSBERG: That's spelled A-'-A-L-X-N-I-S-X-W on the genealogy. Could this be described in another way then as a possibility that it is nothing more than these people are holding Wii elaast names? That's exactly the way it is put by Gitksan people speaking in English. We're holding Wii elaast names. That's one of the ways they put it. KOENIGSBERG: Q Are you distinguishing that from a situation in which a person has the name and is Wii elaast? A COURT A THE COURT A COURT THE COURT A A Q No. THE MS. You don't mean to make that distinction between holding a name? I don't mean holding a name in reserve and holding a name open. No, I'm not talking about that at all. We were using the Wii elaast name. We have the Wii elaast name. That's the way they put it. All right. Thank you. KOENIGSBERG: Q If we were counting adoptions we would count this as a A COURT: 11323 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 A 3 4 5 Q 6 7 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 A 13 Q 14 15 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Q 34 A 35 36 37 38 Q 39 40 41 42 43 A 44 45 THE COURT 46 A 47 THE COURT highly significant adoption, wouldn't we? It's -- I hate to say the same thing over and over again about trying to categorize the subtleties of these situations with a crude descriptive category. I understand that, and I don't invite you to repeat what you've said. My point is this: It has been described by a person, I'm sure you would agree, who is a very knowledgeable person about Gitksan society, Mary McKenzie. Right. As an adoption for the survival of a house? Right. And in detail it's not that it even looks like an adoption. This was adoption which was acknowledged by the people in that community as adoption. They had a feast, an adoption feast that's being described? Right. So that if we are, for whatever purpose, we are going to describe the mechanism of adoption as a means of social or political or whatever survival this one should be counted? The adoption of Alice Williams and Steve Morrison? And James Angus Jr.. She describes that one too. I would be more likely to put -- again, it should be a continuum. Not this is adoption, this is an amalgamation, but the adoption of Alice Williams and Steve Morrison more closely fits the meaning of the word as you and I are taking it. But with James Angus it seems to more closely fit the meaning of the inception of an amalgamation, but there could be a continuum -- Yes. -- With these placed along a range. I mean, some adoptions are obviously -- the majority are clearly and distinctly adoptions, but these ones I would put somewhere in the middle of the continuum possibly. And it's going to be a matter of degree and interpretation whether the movement of a person or people between houses is an amalgamation or an adoption, or it doesn't make any difference. It's a movement of people for a particular purpose? Right. And that's easy for the Gitksan to know and hard to put on these pieces of paper. : Do we know when old Wii elaast died? I'm sorry, I don't know. I mean -- : I'm a little confused by the fact that Mary McKenzie 11324 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE THE THE MR. THE MR. THE MS. THE MS. THE MS. seemed to group these movements together with James Angus Jr. when he wasn't born in 1943. No. James Angus becoming Wii elaast was a much later date I believe than Alice Williams and Steve Morrison take the Wii elaast. You think it was much later? He -- yes, I know it was much later. When do you think this movement, that's as neutral a term I can give it, if I can call it that, take place? Oh, I would give a rough guess the nineteen-twenties or thirties. I believe I've heard it said that Alice Williams was something like in her fifties at the time that occurred. My lord, just for your clarification, she refers to the James Angus event occurring when Steve Morrison died. Oh, does she? Yes. At the bottom of page 40 — line 45, 369. Oh, yes. And I believe Mr. Sterritt, Neil Sterritt, gave evidence that Steve Morrison's death occurred in 1978. Thank you. KOENIGSBERG: One other small matter arising out of Mary McKenzie's evidence and on the Luus genealogy. At page 375 of Mary McKenzie's evidence, at the top of the page. A COURT A COURT A MR. GRANT COURT GRANT COURT GRANT COURT: COURT: 385? KOENIGSBERG: 375 COURT: Oh, yes. KOENIGSBERG: Q It just goes to 375. She uses the word Tommy Tait. And if you'll take it from me, she later corrects herself and she means Abel Tait. It's here. Actually it's down in the next line she corrects herself. She says at the answer at line five, "Yes. Because Tommy Tait and Lottie Muldoe's mother was -- were brother and sister." A Tommy -- that sounds right. Q And I don't believe that you show that on the genealogy. A Okay. Q And that's page -- A Tommy -- Q It should be Abel Tait. A Abel Tait. 11325 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q She goes on and corrects herself. 2 A I'm sorry. 3 MR. GRANT: Perhaps the notes — 4 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 5 Q You see Abel Tait on page two? 6 MR. GRANT: My friend possibly should start at 374, line 32, 7 where that starts. It doesn't make any sense. 8 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well — 9 A I can explain. 10 THE COURT: Page two, did you say? 11 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, Mr. Grant wants me to read about where 12 people were sitting, and unless his position is 13 that -- that the fact that she is saying Abel Tait 14 and Lottie Muldoe's mother were brother and sister 15 is somehow qualified by that, my only point is that 16 she says they're brother and sister, and when I 17 looked at the genealogy I didn't see them 18 represented as brother and sister, and I didn't know 19 which was right. 20 A On page 374, line 41 of Mary McKenzie's evidence. 21 Q Yes. 22 A It said Fred Harris' family. That's supposed to be 23 Fritz Harris that you find on page one of the Luus 24 genealogy. 25 Q M'hm. 26 A And when she says Fritz Harris is the father of Lottie 27 Muldoe she doesn't say that -- I'm sorry. I 28 confused you. But Fritz Harris is the father of 29 Lottie Muldoe. That's why he adopted her into his 30 house. And she eventually became Axgigii'ii, and so 31 she said Abel Tait. 32 Q And Lottie Muldoe's — 33 A Mother were brother and sister. They're 34 classificatory brother and sister. They are the 35 same generation and in the same house. You see 36 Louisa Ward is Lottie Muldoe's mother. That's Fritz 37 Harris' wife. See Louisa Ward, Fritz Harris' wife 38 there, and she is of the same generation, I guess, 39 and in the same house as Abel Tait. So that's what 40 she means as classificatory brother and sister. 41 House brother and sister. 42 Q It's your evidence you believe she means in a broader 43 sense and not related by blood? 44 A That's correct. 45 Q And that's why you didn't represent them? 46 A Yeah. I'm positive that's correct. I have so much 47 information from really reliable sources on this. 11326 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Okay. Lastly dealing with Mary McKenzie on 2 Wiigyet's house. We need Wiigyet. Okay. We'll 3 need Wiigyet, and I think that's -- 4 THE REGISTRAR: Kispiox, 39. 5 MS. KOENIGSBERG: 6 Q Okay. We can look at it, but on page 374 again we're 7 here dealing with Nellie Starr, and it starts up at 8 the top answer, line three. 9 10 "Now, when there is a feasting, Fred 11 Starr has to attend these feastings and 12 he has a name 'Woos lo'op, as Fred 13 Starr. Now, in Gitksan law a wife has 14 to have a name because her husband a 15 chief." 16 17 I think she means when her husband's a chief. 18 19 "So this is when Joe Starr wanted to 20 adopt Mrs. Starr into Wiigyet's house, 21 so this happened. The family of Fred 22 Starr agreed and the family of the 23 different chiefs agreed because he's to 24 live with us -- she has to have a name 25 and she has to be adopted before she 26 gets a name. This is why Joe Starr 27 adopted her and gave her a name. 28 Q Now, was she -- did she have children at 29 the time of the adoption? 30 A I don't know. Not yet she hadn't. She 31 had a few children after that. 32 Q Are her children considered members of 33 Wiigyet's House? 34 A They are considered after the adoption, 35 and when two of the Starr children have 36 names from Wiigyet's House -- 37 Q Now, I would like to ask you about the 38 adoption of -- 39 THE COURT: could I ask when was Nellie 40 Starr adopted? 41 THE WITNESS: About 20, 25 years ago. 42 THE COURT: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Grant." 43 44 When I look at Wiigyet's genealogy I don't find 45 Nellie Starr there. 46 A Yes. I'd heard that Nellie Starr was adopted into 47 Wiigyet's house, but I didn't get a chance to 11327 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 confirm it. You see Kate Starr is there, because I 2 know that I was there, as a matter of fact, when she 3 received a name. But I was never able to confirm. 4 It was just a matter of time of not getting around 5 to it, because I had heard it in both directions. I 6 heard some people say she had been adopted and 7 others say that she hadn't. I hadn't had a chance 8 to clearly determine. 9 Q Was Mary McKenzie one of your informants? 10 A I didn't ask Mary McKenzie about Nellie Starr. No, I 11 didn't. 12 Q Would you agree with me that she is quite convinced 13 that Nellie Starr was adopted? 14 A It certainly seems so. 15 Q And would it be fair to add Nellie Starr was a person 16 adopted into the House of Wiigyet? 17 A I'd still want to ask again, because I can't remember 18 now who told me it to the contrary. But I would say 19 if I was really interested in this point that I 20 should go to Pete Muldoe. 21 Q Okay. Could I ask you what you would do if Pete 22 Muldoe said Nellie Starr is not adopted into the 23 House of Wiigyet and you have Mary McKenzie very 24 clearly saying not only is she adopted, but her 25 children were adopted and given names? 26 A Well, I think when she says her children were adopted 27 she is referring to Kate getting a name. It was 28 probably not too long before this, because I 29 remember the feast was just two -- two and a half 30 years ago when that happened, but -- 31 Q Kate Starr is the daughter of Nellie Starr? 32 A Yes. But if Pete Muldoe told me she was not adopted 33 into the house it would be very difficult for me to 34 believe that -- that it was so that she was in fact 35 adopted into the house, because certainly Pete 36 Muldoe should remember all of the adoptions into -- 37 into the house that he was from. He may have had 38 the Wii seeks name for at least that far back, but I 39 would want to investigate further. As you can see 40 it can be a very lengthy process to find out one 41 single piece of information. 42 Q If I understand, you would have to resolve the 43 difference in the knowledge of the two chiefs; Mary 44 McKenzie — 45 A That's correct. 46 Q — And Pete Muldoe? 47 A That's correct. 1132? H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 Q And if there was a difference you would take Pete 2 Muldoe because he's a member of the House of 3 Wiigyet? 4 A It would seem that he should know more than anyone of 5 the business of the House of Wiigyet, because he is 6 older than Mary, as well as having been a member of 7 Wiigyet's house. But, as I say, I'd want to go to 8 at least a third reliable opinion, someone like Mary 9 Johnson or another Kispiox elder. Albert Tait if he 10 was still alive. Someone who would have been there 11 20 or 25 years ago, because this is a fairly serious 12 contradiction when you've got two chiefs who are 13 very reliable. This is the hypothetical situation 14 we are 15 talking about where I said that Pete did tell me this. 16 This would be a fairly serious contradiction to 17 encounter two high chiefs saying such opposite 18 things. 19 THE COURT: Aren't we speculating terribly. Pete Muldoe hasn't 20 been asked, has he? 21 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I haven't searched to see if Pete Muldoe gave 22 that evidence. I don't know. My concern is as a 23 genealogist who has to rely on knowledgeable persons 24 for information about what's here, if it's not here 25 how does she -- how do we resolve it? 26 THE COURT: She said she would try and go and get information. 27 A That's how I got the other 4,000 names on these 28 genealogies. 29 THE COURT: And if it's evenly divided I suppose you have a rule 30 of thumb, or something, do you? 31 A If I had two — 32 THE COURT: Or is it a matter of judgment? 33 A If I had two highly respected people I would have to 34 ask for a third opinion and probably give a little 35 more weight to the house member than to the 36 non-house member. It would all have to be taken 37 into consideration. 38 THE COURT: All right. Are you — 39 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, I have another topic I can go into, or 4 0 we can adjourn. 41 THE COURT: How are we getting along? 42 MS. KOENIGSBERG: I would say I would not be longer than a half 43 day tomorrow. 44 THE COURT: All right. You'll remember that I have to adjourn 45 early tomorrow. 46 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Yes. And what time is that, my lord? 47 THE COURT: I should adjourn about — about 11:30 I suppose. 11329 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 H. Harris (for Plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg Proceedings Perhaps -- perhaps maybe we should start at 9:30. MS. KOENIGSBERG: Fine with me. THE COURT: Is that agreeable? MR. GRANT: That's agreeable for myself. THE COURT: And then we can have -- well, you don't have to finish. MS. KOENIGSBERG: I'll hope to finish. THE COURT: And then we might have re-examination tomorrow afternoon. MS. KOENIGSBERG: That's what I wanted to clarify, you would be available later tomorrow? THE COURT: I'll be back shortly after two o'clock. MR. GRANT: That would be fine. THE COURT: Do we have a matter to deal with now? MR. GRANT: Yes, we do have a brief matter. Maybe the witness could stand down. We'll stand the witness down. THE COURT: THE COURT: MR. GRANT: (WITNESS STOOD DOWN) All right. What's the other problem? My lord, maybe I could just speak to the situation. The next witness that is coming up is Dr. Kerry, a linguist, commencing on February 6th. And on -- when Mr. Plant was still with us an agreement was reached, because this next report is a -- I would call it a -- it's one document, one report, but it's authored by two persons. And the first ten to 15 pages are common, then it talks about Gitksan linguistics for, I believe, 40 pages and then it talks about Wet'suwet'en linguistics for a certain number of pages. Dr. Rigsby is the Gitksan linguist, Dr. Kerry the Wet'suwet'en. As you may recall Dr. Rigsby was in Australia. We proposed to the other side we did not wish to tender Dr. Rigsby or bring him up to give evidence. We wished to file the report as his report. And they agreed on September 15th, subject to certain amendments, with which we confirm we'll make to the report, they consent to the filing of the report without the necessity of cross-examining Dr. Rigsby, but they do wish to cross-examine Dr. Kerry. And we'll be leading evidence from Dr. Kerry and there's no problem from that. Now, out of this, my lord, is the practice we've developed after your rulings last fall, and Ms. Mandell is dealing with this from the plaintiffs' 11330 Proceedings Submission by Mr. Grant 1 side, but is that we are listing, providing all 2 draft reports, any draft reports that exist, any 3 notes of the expert witness in advance to avoid 4 delays in cross-examination, subject to time 5 problems as you know, but delivering all of this 6 material, and also what I would call the 7 correspondence. And this is correspondence, as you 8 know, some of which is privileged and some of which 9 isn't, and we list it. 10 In this case all of the material relating to Dr. 11 Kerry has been disclosed, including any 12 correspondence with Dr. Rigsby, or any 13 correspondence of Dr. Rigsby's or any notes of Dr. 14 Rigsby relied upon by Dr. Kerry. In other words, 15 and as well as the drafts of any of the reports from 16 both sides. Now, my friends say, and they, I 17 understand from Ms. Sigurdson, have received his 18 field notes, because they were listed sometime ago 19 and they requested production and they got those. 20 This is Dr. Rigsby. No difficulty with Dr. Kerry. 21 Our position is is that once my friends took the 22 position they did not wish to cross-examine Dr. 23 Rigsby there is no -- and they will accept the 24 filing of his report without cross-examination, 25 there is no rational reason why we should have to 26 have his files, or whatever, delivered from 27 Australia to here so long as those are not notes or 28 files upon which Dr. Kerry relies, because they 29 can't put them -- I mean anything that Dr. Kerry 30 relies on, of course, is discloseable. We have no 31 issue with that. But once they agreed they would 32 accept the tendering of his report without 33 cross-examination there is no utility at that point 34 in the production of his notes. When I say 35 production of his notes, his field notes have been 36 disclosed, or of correspondence upon which doctor -- 37 which have not gone past Dr. Kerry or upon which Dr. 38 Kerry has not directly or indirectly relied upon. 39 Anything that Dr. Kerry has either seen or relied 40 upon, of course, this doesn't apply to. 41 And my friend -- I believe Mr. Willms was going to 42 refer you once again to Phillips and Barrett which 43 we've talked about at length, but we don't differ 44 that filing a report under Section 10 where a 45 witness is being cross-examined puts us in the same 46 situation as Section 11 putting a witness on the 47 stand. But in this case, my lord, we're very 11331 Submission by Mr. Grant 1 concerned about requiring Dr. Rigsby to sort through 2 his files and deliver up material to us, which may 3 or may not be relevant, and we're very concerned 4 about that. 5 With respect to the Federal Crown the 6 correspondence that I've had an opportunity to 7 review is that they had requested Dr. Kerry's 8 material, and I say quite properly on September 9 21st, and they requested all of the Dr. Kerry's 10 material and all other data upon which Dr. Kerry 11 relied upon. And there is no question that that is 12 discloseable, and that has been disclosed. 13 So we are saying what -- once -- my friends may 14 have said before they agreed to filing the report 15 without cross-examination of Dr. Rigsby, they may 16 have then said well, we would like to look at his 17 notes before we make that decision. That's one 18 point. But at this stage that agreement was entered 19 into five months ago, and now they're saying we want 20 Rigsby's material that Dr. Kerry has not used, 21 relied upon, or 22 referred to in any way for his opinions. But they 23 wouldn't be able to put that material to Dr. Kerry 24 or to any other witness. It seems, with respect, a 25 bit of a -- of a goose chase that is not only not 26 necessary, it's not going to advance the issues for 27 any party, because we have an agreement with respect 28 to this one -- the Gitksan report -- the Gitksan 29 linguistic report. Those are my submissions. 30 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Ms. Sigurdson. 31 MS. SIGURDSON: My lord, Mr. Grant is correct, we requested the 32 documents for both. We requested production of a 33 list of documents, drafts, the usual kind of 34 material we've been asking for. We requested 35 production of this on December 6th, and have 36 repeated the request since then for both Dr. Kerry 37 and Rigsby. It's -- our position quite simply is 38 that the report will be tendered, privilege will be 39 lost. We're entitled -- we're entitled to 40 production of those documents. 41 As to the practical or problem that Mr. Grant 42 raised the problem is we can not use it, that may be 43 a problem counsel may face, but it's a problem we'll 44 have to deal with when we see the documents. 45 However, in this case it is a joint report. And at 46 page three of the report there is a sentence "Rigsby 47 was also largely responsible for the chapters on 11332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. GRANT: THE COURT: MS Submission by Mr. Grant Submission by Ms. Sigurdson Proceedings linguistic methodology and on language, culture and society." By these largely responsible for we assume they're co-authored those sections, which are very important sections. It may be that Dr. Kerry is a witness that should have had an opportunity to respond to any comments that we may wish to make. In short, I say they are produceable. Privilege has been lost. They were requested in a timely fashion, and they should be produced in time for Dr. Kerry as he co-authored this report. We don't differ about the co-authored sections, my lord. Of course, we say -- Can you give me a suggestion, Ms. Sigurdson, as how you might use this material? Or I'll put it more broadly than that, about how you might profit from it? SIGURDSON: Very hypothetically — I haven't seen it. If there were sections that were removed from the report we would assume that both Dr. Kerry and Rigsby would have to agree to that. That may be a matter of credibility. There other matters of sections that they rely on each other's evidence that there have been changes in that kind of evidence, amendments, revisions. That too may go to credibility, or it may go to the substance of the report. But I understood Mr. Grant to say that you have -- I don't know if he said you have, or you're going to have anything that Dr. Kerry saw. My understanding is they have -- it's all been delivered, but Ms. Mandell is still searching further just to be sure. She doesn't want any problems. Is that your understanding? SIGURDSON: I understand Ms. Mandell is searching further, but we have -- THE COURT: You have received material already? MS. SIGURDSON: We have received material for Dr. Kerry and in that were included two or three items, not full letters. Page two of a letter seemed to be from Rigsby to Overstall, that kind of thing. I don't know if we've received everything or not. All of those letters are being tracked down by Ms. Mandell today in fact, those missing pages. All right. Well, the trouble I'm having with the problem is simply that the decision has been made not to cross-examine and therefore I'm having THE COURT: MR. GRANT: THE COURT MS MR. GRANT THE COURT 11333 Proceedings 1 difficulty seeing how you could profit from it. I 2 can see how it would be useful to have something out 3 of Dr. Rigsby's file if it might assist in the 4 cross-examination of Dr. Kerry, but I understand 5 you've got that. 6 MS. SIGURDSON: Well, first of all, we've had no drafts, we've 7 had none of the usual correspondence between 8 Overstall and the other experts that seem to pop up 9 with every witness. My assumption is that there is 10 more. 11 THE COURT: Have you had some for Dr. Kerry or Dr. Rigsby? 12 MS. SIGURDSON: We've had some from Dr. Kerry. We've had 13 partial pages of three items I believe that were 14 sent. There has usually been more. My assumption, 15 and it is a guess, is there is more in Mr. Rigsby's 16 possession. We have had no drafts, and I assume he 17 has kept a bunch. The tribal council, I understand, 18 often keeps a copy or under the contract is supposed 19 to. There is a body of material out there we have 20 not seen. 21 MR. GRANT: Just to clarify that, there is a file that Ms. 22 Mandell, I spoke to her at the break this afternoon, 23 has reviewed which is correspondence between 24 Overstall, Kerry and Overstall, Rigsby, and she's 25 prepared that list. So what my friend is concerned 26 about here when she talks about those documents 27 there is no dispute over that. We have to list 28 that, and usually it's my experience it's been ten 29 to 20 pieces 30 of correspondence usually, and whether or not it's 31 privileged that's no problem. Draft reports Ms. 32 Mandell says that she has -- she had one more place 33 to check, but thus far has been unable to locate any 34 drafts. If there is drafts once again we have no 35 difficulty with that. We are not an opposing that. 36 Again, I think the central thing is it's a question 37 of the Rigsby material that Dr. Kerry has not used, 38 not relied on, not seen, and that's where we have 39 difficulty. 40 THE COURT: Ms. Koenigsberg, have you anything to contribute to 41 this? 42 MS. KOENIGSBERG: Well, I certainly could say that my friend can 43 take comfort from the fact I haven't got around to 44 asking for these documents yet therefore I must not 45 want them. I hadn't, been otherwise occupied at the 46 moment, given it a great deal of thought. It would 47 seem to me really the nature of the kinds of 11334 Proceedings Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg 1 documents one might find in Dr. Rigsby's file 2 whether strictly speaking Dr. Kerry has seen them or 3 not are drafts of the co-authored, but actually 4 written by Rigsby sections which are adopted by Dr. 5 Kerry, and that there may have been a back and forth 6 about those. And that it's one -- we've dealt with 7 the problem in this case frequently of 8 miscommunication, I suppose, between counsel in 9 asking for things and witnesses, but the end result 10 of what we see, of course, is that when a witness is 11 in the box it turns out that they have things that 12 just didn't turn up when they asked for them before. 13 If Dr. Rigsby has been asked to divulge from his 14 files all of those things which Dr. Kerry and 15 doctor -- as far as Dr. Rigsby knows has seen who 16 knows if he has in fact turned over those things 17 which do actually fall into that category, or he 18 simply doesn't know. He just assumes that Kerry has 19 it. The problem is that quite frankly the 20 methodology section and the general cultural section 21 are undoubtly the most important parts. I mean, I 22 don't say they're -- they're certainly going to be 23 the underpinning. And Dr. Rigsby would have, one 24 assumes, material in his file and it may not 25 surface. Not -- I don't say that anybody's actually 26 trying to hide it. It's been a very difficult 27 problem to turn these things up. 28 Having said that, I don't really understand what 29 the difficulty is in asking Dr. Rigsby to send from 30 Australia documents which are relevant, and to say 31 go 32 through his files. Surely he must have gone through 33 his files if he has produced the documents Dr. Kerry 34 has seen. I'm not too sure why it's such a 35 difficulty. 36 THE COURT: All right. I would like to — I would like to adopt 37 the Solomon school and cut this baby in half and say 38 you should produce whatever is conveniently 39 available and not bother with what's in Australia, 40 but that seems to lack even the remotest connection 41 with logic. I think that the defendants are 42 entitled to see anything Dr. Rigsby has that relates 43 in any way to the portion of the report that is 44 co-authored with Dr. Kerry. It may be that the 45 disclosure of everything Dr. Rigsby has which was 46 passed to Dr. Kerry will be all that counsel will 47 need, but I don't think it wise to speculate that 11335 Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg Ruling by the Court 1 such will necessarily be the case. And I cannot say 2 that looking at Dr. Rigsby's notes in this 3 connection will not set counsel upon a train of 4 inquiry in the cross-examination of Dr. Kerry that 5 will be at least relevant if not useful. For that 6 reason it seems to me there must be production of 7 those documents, even though Dr. Rigsby is not to be 8 cross-examined, because as counsel have said they 9 are relevant, or they may be relevant, and they are 10 produceable notwithstanding the fact that counsel 11 have agreed that they won't require that witness to 12 be produced for cross-examination. 13 Having gone that far, and having applied or 14 attempted to apply rational principles by ordering 15 the production of anything that is relevant and is 16 no longer privileged it seems to me that I ought to 17 go all the way and order Dr. Rigsby to produce the 18 balance of his relevant material relating to the 19 entire report. And I say that, because it doesn't 20 seem to me the fact that he's not going to be 21 cross-examined excludes the ordinary rules of 22 production. And at the risk of repeating myself I 23 had the view that the documents being or being 24 possibly relevant and no longer privileged are 25 indeed produceable. And I think the defendants are 26 entitled to look at them whether they're of any use 27 to them or whether they can be used at trial or not. 28 It is not beyond the realm of possibility that 29 looking at a relevant document produced under the 30 order I am now making Dr. Rigsby will not also set 31 in train an inquiry or area of investigation either 32 in cross-examination of Dr. Kerry or, indeed, in the 33 preparation of cross-examination for other witnesses 34 or in the preparation of the defendants' own case. 35 And, in summary, therefore, I think I should 36 follow the principle that the documents being not 37 privileged should be produced. I regret that this 38 would come at such a late date when we're a little 39 more than a week away from the time when the 40 documents might be useful. I regret they're as far 41 away as Australia, and there would be some 42 difficulty, but there are regular communications 43 between Australia and Canada and I would think that 44 the facilities that are available would be adequate 45 to ensure the delivery of that material in a way 46 that is going to be useful. I believe I was told 47 that Dr. Kerry would be on the stand for about two 11336 Ruling by the Court 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 weeks. MR. GRANT: No. THE COURT: One week? MR. GRANT: No, my lord. This ruling, of course, will affect the position. As you may recall, last week I requested my friend -- some clarification from Mr. Goldie regarding confirmation, but Dr. Kerry was scheduled for one week. THE COURT: I would think the material would be here before the commencement of cross-examination. I don't tie it to that, because, as I said, I think the material being relevant and produceable may be useful in some other part of the case. For that reason I don't think I can refuse to order its production. All right. Anything else? MR. GRANT: No, my lord. MS. SIGURDSON: No, my lord. THE COURT: 9:30 tomorrow morning then. THE REGISTRAR: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. Court adjourned until 9:30 a.m.. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 26, 1989 AT 9:30 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. Peri McHale, Official Reporter UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.