"f15ee741-5ea3-445e-bdd4-59c0d68d4770"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts"@en . "British Columbia. Supreme Court"@en . "2013"@en . "1988-06-03"@en . "In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, between: Delgamuukw, also known as Albert Tait, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the House of Delgamuukw, and others, plaintiffs, and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada, defendants: proceedings at trial."@en . ""@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/delgamuukw/items/1.0019467/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " 6900 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 June 3, 198 8 2 Vancouver, B.C. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of British 5 Columbia, this Friday, June 3, 1988. Calling 6 Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen. 7 I caution the witness. You're still under oath. 8 9 GLENFORD WILLIAMS: Resumed 10 11 THE COURT: Mr. Macaulay. 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MACAULAY CONTINUED: 13 Q Mr. Williams, the people, the chiefs with names in the 14 Kitwancool houses and, for that matter, the Gitwangak 15 houses, those are the people who have agreed to take 16 those names? They're not compelled to take them, are 17 they? I'm talking about chiefs names. 18 A It's -- it's lineage. It's blood ties. In some cases 19 they're compelled to take them, because it's carrying 20 on the laws and the traditions of your forefathers. 21 Q But when you say \"lineage\", you mean there are certain 22 families that are expected to produce chiefs from 23 among their children? 24 A Yes. 25 Q But nobody can be forced to take a name? No 26 particular person can be forced to take a name? 27 A Not -- maybe not forced to take a name. 28 Q And Mr. -- Mr. Bright, for instance, he had -- did he 29 have a name in your house? 30 A Bob Bright? 31 Q Bob Bright. 32 A Yes, he did. 33 Q He lived in Houston most of his -- most of his life, 34 didn't he? 35 A From what I understand, yes, he did live in Houston. 36 Q In fact, he had gone away to the army during the war? 37 A He may have. I believe he did, yes. 38 Q And only returned to Kitwancool, what, for the last 39 couple of years of his life? 40 A He may have. I'm not too sure of that. 41 Q Did you know him well? 42 A Yes. I knew him fairly well. 43 Q Did he have one of the -- the important names in your 44 house? 45 A Yes, he did. 4 6 Q And do you know what he did at Houston when he was 47 living there for, as I understand it, 20 years or 6901 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. THE MR. MR. THE THE MR. MR. A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A more? No. I didn't know what he did. When you took a name, was that at his funeral feast? Yes, I did. You were there? You were present? Yes, I was. Was there a protest made by a member of one of the Gitwangak houses over the giving of some names -- I'm not talking about your name -- at that time? Not that I recall. You don't remember anybody speaking up about that? No. Now, the -- the Westar Mill, there are some head chiefs, such as Art Mathews Junior, who -- who worked in the mill? Yes. And Art Mathews Junior is the head of a department, isn't he? He's the saw filer, but I don't know if he's the head of that department. You don't know who the department heads are? No, I don't. MACAULAY: The -- I'm showing you -- it's a band council resolution, my lord. That was delivered to my friends on June 1st, which it's not yet been included in a list. COURT: It was produced what year? MACAULAY: Q This band council resolution is March 14th, 1986. It has to do with a subject that was already addressed earlier in the -- this witness' evidence. I'm showing you a band council resolution regarding the successful negotiations with the CNR. Do you recognize that resolution? Yes, I do. And have you signed there -- signed that resolution? Yes. That's my signature. As chief counsellor? Yes. MACAULAY: Could that be marked, my lord? COURT: Yes. REGISTRAR: Exhibit 589, my lord. MACAULAY: And a copy for his lordship. (EXHIBIT 589: Band council resolution dated March 14, 1986) MACAULAY: Q As a result of that successful negotiation, the CNR A Q A Q A 6902 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 assigned the -- to you leases on the -- was it 29 2 acres in question? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And the intention is to have that land covered by this 5 resolution returned to the reserve; is that right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And at the moment you're holding it in trust, the land 8 that is, the 29 acres? 9 A Yes. We had no other choice but to -- the land 10 couldn't be registered in the band council's name, so 11 that was put into my name, personal name. 12 Q In trust? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And the idea is that as soon as the land registry 15 problems are dealt with, it will become -- it will 16 become band -- Indian reserve property? 17 A That was our intent, and to revert it back to reserve 18 land so at least we can look at the possibility of 19 generating taxes from the sawmill coming back to the 2 0 band. 21 Q Well, that was the purpose of the assignment of the 22 leases, wasn't it, so that you would get that revenue? 23 A A small part of it, yes. 24 Q Where does the rest of it go? I mean, there are 25 certain -- there are certain tenants on that land? 26 A Yes, there is. 27 Q For instance, the Gitwangak Timber Company Limited is 28 a tenant? 29 A Yes. 30 Q And they pay rent? 31 A Yes. 32 Q And to whom do they pay it now? 33 A They pay it in trust to my legal counsel, and that 34 goes back to the band. 35 Q Yes. And the CNR -- rather, the Anglican Senate is 36 another tenant, the Anglican Church? 37 A Yes, there is. 38 Q Do they pay rent? 39 A A nominal rent, I believe, yes. 40 Q And Westar is a tenant? 41 A Yes. 42 Q And they pay rent in the same way? 43 A Yes. 44 Q And how about Celgar for a log storage site? Do they 45 pay rent for a log storage site? 46 A That's the same as Westar and, yes, they do pay rent. 47 Q And at the moment that's paid into your solicitor's 6903 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 account, is it -- 2 A Yes. 3 Q -- pending the resolution of these land registry 4 problems? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Now, are there any band members, that is the Gitwangak 7 band members, who work for the Department of Highways? 8 A I believe there's one right now. 9 Q One? Does that vary? In other words, are there 10 sometimes more, sometimes less depending on what's 11 going on? 12 A No. I think there's only just the one that I'm aware 13 of. 14 Q I see. And how about the school district? Do any 15 band members work for the school district? 16 A There's one that I know. 17 Q There -- the school that's established at Gitwangak 18 now, is it staffed by band members? 19 A A good majority, yes. You mean in the village itself? 2 0 Q Right. 21 A Yes. A good majority of the band members work there. 22 Q How many of them work there? 23 A Six and two non-Indian teachers. 24 Q Six band members? 25 A Yes. 26 Q And are they not employees of the school district? 27 A No, they're not. They're employees of the band. 28 Q Of the band council? 29 A Yes. 30 Q You agreed with me that there were at least 15 31 employees of the band council. Would that include 32 those six? 33 A Yes, they would. 34 Q And, in addition, are there social workers who are 35 employees of the band council? 36 A Yes. There's a social worker, a band manager, a 37 receptionist, community health worker and a NDAP 38 worker. 39 Q And those are employees of the band council? 40 A Yes. 41 Q Now, when the purification centre, which you mentioned 42 in your evidence, when that opens, that will be in, 43 what, a couple months' time? 44 A Yes. 45 Q And how many employees will it have? 46 A There will be a total of 16 employees at the treatment 47 centre. 6904 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 Q And they will be band members? 2 A Not all of them. They're still staffing right now and 3 there's a selection process that's going on. 4 Q Why would they not be band members? 5 A Because there's -- there was a training programme that 6 the -- that was held for counsellors, and you require 7 specialty training to work at the treatment centre. 8 MR. MACAULAY: Yes. I understand that. 9 THE COURT: I suppose some will come from other band 10 memberships? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. And the non-Indian community as well. 12 MR. MACAULAY: 13 Q So you don't know how many band members will be 14 working there? 15 A No. There's a selection process. There's job 16 postings done and people make an application and they 17 interview them. I don't know how many band members 18 will be working there. 19 Q Are you -- were you involved in the selection process? 20 A No, I'm not. 21 Q Who is doing the selecting? 22 A There's probably a hiring committee made up of the 23 board of directors. 24 Q The directors of the band of the -- 25 A Society. 26 MR. GRANT: My lord, I'm just wondering what the relevance is of 27 a selection process for the treatment centre for 28 hiring employees to the issues in the case. I'm not 29 suggesting the treatment centre isn't relevant, but 30 now we're getting into the details of how people are 31 hired and who is hired. 32 MR. MACAULAY: I asked the witness who is hiring them and he 33 answered it's a committee of the tribal council. I 34 think that follows from my earlier questions. 35 THE COURT: I think it's sufficiently closely connected, Mr. 36 Grant, to the subject-matter that was introduced in 37 chief that I shouldn't limit cross-examination 38 unnecessarily. 39 MR. MACAULAY: I'm \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I wasn't certain, still not certain, how 40 the purification centre is relevant in this action, 41 but I assume it is and I have to take my -- assume my 42 friend led it for some purpose and I'm just exploring 43 that. 44 THE COURT: I think the door was open to you in chief and I 45 won't slam it. 4 6 MR. MACAULAY: 47 Q You -- you're familiar with the Kitwanga Native 6905 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 Development Incorporated, KNDI? 2 A I'm not totally familiar with it. I've heard about 3 it. 4 Q Well, it's engaged in some kind of forestry 5 enterprise, isn't it? 6 A Yes, it has. And they've since been bankrupt or in 7 receivership and they don't exist anymore. 8 Q Was that operated by the band council? 9 A I don't believe so. It's a separate entity altogether 10 from the band council. 11 Q So it had a board of directors, a separate board of 12 directors, did it? 13 A Yes. It was a totally separate entity from the band 14 council. 15 Q Were you aware in 1982, particularly November, 1982, 16 the Gitwangak Band Council and the Kitwanga Native 17 Development Incorporated were applying for a forest 18 licence in the Kispiox timber supply area? 19 A Yes. I was aware of some of that, yes. 20 Q Were you involved in those negotiations? 21 A No, I wasn't. 22 Q Who on the band council was looking after that, that 23 particular initiative? 24 A I believe it was Richard Morgan at the time. 25 Q He was a counsellor then, was he? 26 A He was the chief counsellor. 27 Q Oh, I see. In November, 1982 were you a counsellor at 28 that time on the Gitwangak Band Council? 29 A I'm not too sure. I wasn't elected for a two-year 30 period, but I'm not sure whether it was that time. 31 MR. MACAULAY: Did you take part in a public legal education 32 programme that was sponsored by the Gitksan-Carrier 33 Tribal Council, which was its name at the time? 34 MR. GRANT: When was this? 35 MR. MACAULAY: 36 Q November -- well, September up to December, 1982, 37 January, '83? 38 A I don't recall it, not a public legal education. I 39 don't recall that. 40 Q And do you recall, for instance, a programme on wills 41 and estates that was to be held or was held on 42 November, 1982? 43 A I was aware of a workshop to that effect, yes. 44 Q You didn't attend? 4 5 A No, I didn't. 46 Q Took no part in it? 47 A No. 6906 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Macaulay 1 Q How about a landlord/tenant course in January, '83? 2 A No. I didn't take part in that. 3 Q Or a consumer law course in September, '82? 4 A No. I didn't take part in that. 5 Q You were aware this was going on? 6 A I wasn't aware of this particular subject, no. 7 Q Which -- which one were you not aware of? 8 A This one that you just mentioned. 9 Q The consumer law course? 10 A Yes. 11 Q I see. Did you have anything to do with a smokehouse 12 feasibility study undertaken by either of the tribal 13 council or the Gitwangak Band Council? 14 A I wasn't really involved in the -- that's to do with 15 the inland commercial fishery feasibility. I wasn't 16 totally aware of the details to that, but I was 17 generally aware of what the intent was. 18 Q That was part of a programme that you -- you and 19 others hoped would lead to an inland commercial 20 fishery pursuant to the fishery bylaw that you gave 21 evidence about? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Is -- are you familiar with a -- the 24 Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Local Services Society? 2 5 A Yes, I am. 26 Q Did you play a part in forming that? 27 A Yes. 28 MR. MACAULAY: And what was the purpose of that society? What 29 is the purpose of that society? 30 MR. GRANT: My lord, with respect, this may move into the area 31 where I -- I deferred on direct, and it -- I believe 32 the evidence will indicate that this is post 1984, and 33 I would ask my friend what the relevance is of the 34 creation of this society after 1984. It was an area 35 that I had intended to lead but -- as a result of 36 other examinations but deferred given the ruling that 37 you made or the -- the comments made and your 38 tentative ruling about new initiatives. 39 MR. MACAULAY: I'll be glad to withdraw the question. If my 40 friend is showing that admirable restraint, I will 41 too \u00E2\u0080\u0094 42 THE COURT: Thank you. 43 MR. MACAULAY: \u00E2\u0080\u0094 follow his good example. Those are my 44 questions for this witness. Thank you. 45 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Grant. 46 MR. PLANT: Perhaps I should go first, because there was the 47 matter of some further questions. 6907 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Plant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE COURT: Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PLANT CONTINUED: Q I was about to make reference to one of the documents which my friend delivered yesterday. My friend -- it's the package from the Gitwangak Band general meeting dated April 15, 1987. And my friend says his recollection is that's been made an exhibit for identification, and I have -- if so, I have omitted to mark it. THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 577 for identification. MR. PLANT: Yes. THE COURT: It's the package and material for band council general meeting April 15th, '87. MR. PLANT THE COURT MR. PLANT THE COURT MR. PLANT Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Yes. This was said to be the only package he located. Yes. 577 for identification. I ask that a copy of that be placed before the witness. Mr. Williams, you have that document before you? Yes, I do. And the description that this is a package prepared for the Gitwangak Band general meeting April 15, 1987 is correct? Yes. Is this document typical of such packages that were prepared for the band general meetings that occurred while you were chief counsellor of the band? Yes. And your evidence was that such meetings were held three or four times a year while you were chief counsellor? Yes. And you were chief counsellor between 1985 and last month? Yes. As I recall your evidence, there were 90 or so people in attendance at each of these meetings? Yes. And these would be band members, generally speaking? Yes. Were copies of these packages prepared for distribution to people who attended at the meetings? Yes. And if they come to the meeting, they'd pick up a package on their way in so they'd have the material 690? G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Plant 1 with them when they were following the business at the 2 meeting? 3 A Yes. 4 Q The package, which is Exhibit 577, appears to be 5 composed of a number of different documents that -- 6 the first document -- the first page, rather, of the 7 exhibit, that's an agenda for the meeting? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And then there is -- in this case there is 10 correspondence from B.C. Tel, B.C. Telephone, about 11 cable television? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And that would be a letter that would have come to the 14 Gitwangak Band Council? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And later on in this package there's a proposal for 17 Gitwangak school expansion? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And it was typical of these packages that there would 20 be correspondence that the band had received and are 21 proposals and studies that had been commissioned by 22 the band? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And these would be documents that would be kept on 25 file by the band in the ordinary course of its 26 business? 27 A Yes. 28 Q And then prior to one of these meetings, you or 2 9 someone in the band would -- having decided what was 30 to be on the agenda, would pull together these 31 documents and those documents which related to the 32 agenda items and then prepare this package or a 33 package similar to it? 34 A Yes. 35 Q At these meetings you've described the process of 36 discussion and decision making that would take place? 37 A Yes. 38 Q Would some of the matters on the agenda be matters for 39 decision by the general membership of the band? 40 A Yes. 41 Q And would there be a secretary present at those 42 meetings to record -- make minutes of the meetings? 43 A Yes, they would be. Just make notes of what the 44 decisions would be on specific guidance, yes. 45 Q So there would be a record made of the decision? 4 6 A Yeah. 47 Q And those records would be kept by the band as a 6909 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 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Cross-exam by Mr. Plant Re-exam by Mr. Grant record of the decisions? A They're mainly just notes. Q And the notes would be kept so that there would be some written record of what was decided at the meeting? A Yes. MR. PLANT: Thank you. Those are my questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Grant. MR. PLANT: My lord, when I say those are my questions, those are the questions I have arising out of all of the documents that my friend has delivered to me. We're now engaged in discussion with respect to what other documents may or may not exist and what other documents may or may not be producible, but I don't think I need to trouble your lordship further with that. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Grant. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT: Q I just want to clarify so that you have some completion to the witness' evidence. Mr. Williams, you were asked about the relationship of how much persons put in at the feast and were directed to the Maggie Johnson feast book as an example where it appeared that Marie Hobenshield, I believe it was, put in quite a bit of money. Does the amount of goods -- I'm sorry. She didn't put in money. She put in a lot of goods. Does the amount of goods or money that a particular person puts in at a feast depend on their relationship to the deceased? A Yes, it does. Q Can you explain further? A It's usually pre-arranged at a meeting, planning meeting prior to the feast that -- for instance, Marie Hobenshield and my mother, Esther Williams. That's usually pre-arranged and discussed at how much money or gifts that we put out at the feast. And when they actually go to the feast, there's an explanation to the public as to why they're doing that. And it's generally their own family, immediate family, that feels comfortable that will -- they like their grandmother or their mother and that's told publicly at the feast, and that's done because of the -- you exceed more than the high chief. Then they just want to explain that so that people understand it. Q You were asked about carving of poles and you gave evidence -- you were asked about whether or not when a chief wants a pole carved, they sometimes have 6910 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE someone from another house carve the pole. Is that always the case, that when you -- when a particular chief wants a pole carved, he would go to another house or another clan? A Definitely. The Wilksiwitxw does the actual -- that's the connection. There is always a connection there. It's -- that's the laws. That your Wilksiwitxw performs the tasks for you for -- I mentioned already the casket, the purchasing of the casket, the clothing and all the tasks during the feast, and the same applies to the fence around the grave site and the same thing applies to a pole. Your Wilksiwitxw carves the pole for you. Q You were directed to Solomon Marsden singing the song, the Limx o'oy at your house of the funeral feast of Maggie Johnson. Why was he -- and you explained that he was from another house, and you -- I think you indicated in cross-examination that that's -- that could be done. Why would a person from another house at another clan in fact sing this song at your house in that circumstance? A It was mainly between Gordon Johnson and Solomon. That was mainly their arrangement. And he asked him to sing it because he could sing it really well. And that was mainly between those two, Gordon and Solomon. And then he mentioned that in the feast. Gordon mentioned it in the feast and then he paid Solomon. GRANT: I'd just like you to refer to the provincial documents book, the grey book. COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Grant. Before you go on to that, may I just clarify something? If you're getting a pole carved, would it be the Wilksiwitxw of the chief of the house to whom the pole is to be carved? WITNESS: Yes. COURT: But if you were getting a casket or building a fence, it would be the Wilksiwitxw of the deceased? WITNESS: Yes. COURT: So there would be a -- things would be done for a house by different Wilksiwitxw for collections of people depending on the particular function? WITNESS: It's always the Wilksiwitxw of the deceased that \u00E2\u0080\u0094 COURT: Yes. But when you're talking about a pole, you're not dealing with the deceased, so then it would be the Wilksiwitxw of the chief? WITNESS: Yes. That's correct. COURT: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Grant. 6911 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 MR. GRANT: 2 Q Could I have the grey book? I'd like you to refer 3 briefly to Tab 8 and to page 109 in Tab 8. And have 4 you had an opportunity to read that first paragraph 5 under \"origin\", the longer paragraph there? If not, 6 I'd like you to do so now. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, as I recall your evidence, you indicated that 9 this was part of the Adaawk of Malii. Is that the 10 entire Adaawk of Malii or is the Adaawk more than 11 that? 12 A That's part of it, yes. 13 Q That's part of it? 14 A Yes. 15 Q So there is more to the Adaawk than is set out in 16 there? 17 A Well, generally when you talk about an Adaawk, you 18 expand this. It's more detailed than this. This is 19 mainly just a summary of it. 20 MR. GRANT: Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you to turn over \u00E2\u0080\u0094 21 THE COURT: Just on that, Mr. Williams, this says: \"While the 22 ancestors of Malii were living at Salmon Creek, 23 Shugunia\". That's near Kispiox, is it not? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 25 THE COURT: And that's part of the Adaawk of your house, is it, 26 that your people at one time lived at Salmon River? 27 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. That was the migration when they 2 8 migrated from Gitanmaax. 2 9 MR. GRANT: 30 Q So can you just describe where they migrated from 31 Gitanmaax? 32 A They migrated from Gitanmaax and they went up and they 33 went to -- to -- to Git an gwalkxw. That's on the 34 Kispiox River just above Sweetin River. 35 THE COURT: Sorry? 36 THE WITNESS: Just above Sweetin River. It's about four miles 37 above on the Kispiox River. 3 8 MR. GRANT: 39 Q And in the course of that migration, they were at 40 Salmon Creek or Shugunia? 41 A Yes. They just camped along the way. 42 THE COURT: And from there to Kitwancool? 43 THE WITNESS: Yes. 44 THE COURT: From Git an gwalkxw? 45 THE WITNESS: From Git an gwalkxw to Kitwancool. 46 THE COURT: And the spelling of Git an gwalkxw is? 47 MR. GRANT: Git an gwalkxw. 6912 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 THE COURT 2 MR. GRANT 3 THE COURT 4 MR. GRANT Was it Gitwangak? No, it's not. It's totally different, isn't it? I think you should have the spelling. 5 THE SPELLER: G-i-t a-n g-w-a-1-k-x-w. 6 THE COURT: That's near the confluence of the Sweetin and 7 Kispiox Rivers, is it? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's upstream from that. 9 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. 10 MR. GRANT: 11 Q I'd just ask if you can turn to page 175, which is in 12 the same tab. It's just a couple of pages over. This 13 is the page that appears to be summaries. And just 14 that heading, just up from the bottom, that main 15 heading, it says \"Origins of the Crest Explained in 16 Myths\", brackets, \"(Adaawk and traditions)\". Do you 17 agree -- well, would it be correct to say that Adaawk 18 are myths? 19 A No. I don't agree with that. 20 MR. GRANT: Can you explain what you understand Adaawk to be? 21 MR. PLANT: Well, the witness was asked what he understands 22 adaawk to mean during his evidence in chief. 23 THE COURT: Yes, he was. 24 MR. PLANT: That the answer, as I recall it \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I don't have a 25 reference now -- is -- was information you have to 26 know. But the answer was expanded on at some length. 2 7 THE COURT: Yes. 28 MR. GRANT: I won't pursue it. 2 9 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 0 MR. GRANT: 31 Q You were asked on cross-examination about -- on page 32 6861 and 6862, Volume 108, about Lelt's fishing site 33 and your use of that fishing site. And you were 34 asked, line 8 at 6862: 35 36 Q \"So would it be fair to say that keeping 37 a presence there at the fishing hole is 38 a way of preserving his ownership? 39 A Yes, and that nobody else comes around 40 and uses it without his consent.\" 41 42 And then you were asked: 43 44 Q \"Did the Gitksan recognize a concept of 45 abandonment? In other words, if you 46 leave your territory alone you might 47 lose it to somebody else? 6913 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 A Oh, no, no.\" A MR. A GRANT MR. PLANT THE COURT MR. GRANT Now, if you were not present over the last three years on Lelt's fishing site, would that affect under Gitksan law the recognition of who owned that fishing site? No, it wouldn't. Our very teaching in the law of our people and that sticks to everybody's mind and the fundamental principle of law that we're teached is that you inherit land. You inherit territory or fishing sites. And what we're always told is that we must always pass this on to future generations, to the future children, and it stays right into that house. And that would be the case even if Lelt did not have a young person like yourself present at his fishing site? That is correct. : Now, you were asked on the same page and in the same vein, line 31: Q \"Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your evidence about how you acquired this name was that Roddy Good lost\"... This is your name, Ax gwin dexw. \"... that Roddy Good lost his right to it because he never fulfilled the responsibilities that went with it? A That's correct.\" Is Roddy Good still considered a member of Malii's house? : I object to that. I was simply going over evidence that my friend had canvassed at some length. I don't think that there was any ambiguity or confusion left by that that permits re-examination. : I think Mr. Plant is right, Mr. Grant. I would be happy to have the witness answer that question, because it can be yes or no, but it is a new subject and I don't think you're entitled to pursue it in re-examination, but the question whether he remains in the house or not is a matter that I see no harm in having it answered, but I don't think you're entitled to explore that. : I wasn't going to explore it in any further. 6914 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE THE MR. THE MR. THE MR. COURT: Does he remain in Malii's house? WITNESS: Yes, he is. GRANT: Now, I'd like you to refer to the grey document book, Mr. Williams, and I'd like you to refer to Tab 9. And this is Exhibit 582 for identification, which is numbered 15. COURT: I'm sorry. The tab number? GRANT: Tab 9 of the grey book. And it's the \u00E2\u0080\u0094 well, maybe it's the only excerpt you have. Yes, it is. COURT: GRANT: Q And you've had an opportunity to read over that. This is from Mr. Sterritt's notebooks, the reference to a telephone conversation with yourself -- A Yes, I have. Q -- on the right-hand column of page 9 there. Now, this was put to you on cross-examination by Mr. Plant, and I would refer you to page 6863, line 46, after referring you to this, and he asked you where An dam dam is, and you said that's in the Kitselaas area. Then he says: Q \"Now, as I understand it, Mr. Williams, one of the responsibilities that goes with a name and territory is feasting?\" Answer in the affirmative. Q \"You are nodding and I think that means yes? A Yes. Q If a chief dies, then the clan has to hold the feast and pay the expenses? A That's correct. Q So the lesson that we should take from this story of Little Oliver Creek is that you might lose your land if you can't feast for it? A It may be, yeah. Q In effect that would be a kind of abandonment, wouldn't it? A Abandonment, no, I don't think so. I don't think you would abandon your land.\" And then the Court interjected at that point in the conceptualization of abandonment. Why was the land at 6915 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 A 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 A 9 10 11 12 Q 13 A 14 Q 15 16 17 A 18 19 Q 20 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 26 A 27 Q 28 29 30 31 32 A 33 MR. GRANT 34 35 36 37 MR. PLANT 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE COURT Little Oliver given to Luulak? Because they had -- there was nobody to help that particular family and when -- when there was death there, the Luulak and Dax jok found the person that had died with another lady, and there was nobody to -- to take care of the funeral, so they came along and -- Was it right at the place? Yes. And they helped with the funeral. They performed all the tasks for the funeral, and then they had a feast in Gitwangak, and that's when the lady got up and gave the land to Luulak. And this lady was a Gitksan or a Kitselaas? Kitselaas. And in those kinds of circumstances, what you've just described, who decides if land is given when another house or clan buries a chief? It's mainly the person that owns the land, the chiefs in that house. Does such a transfer happen automatically in a way like by operation of law or is it a decision that would be made in each circumstance? In other words, would that chief have to give the land? No. He wouldn't have to give it. I'm not going to ask you to pull out the map, but you remember we all pulled out big maps yesterday? Yes. Which we've all now put away. And you were asked if that map was a -- a draft -- or I'm sorry. You were asked if that map was the map that you had prepared or you were working on. You remember Mr. Plant asked you that? Yes. : And I think you said yes, and we all put our maps away. Was -- do you know what happened to that map or the work on that map after you left the tribal council? : Well, I think I object to that, my lord. My friend asked this witness in chief about his work as a mapper, and the sole purpose of my question was to identify the document, that is Exhibit 102 at this trial, as the map which was the product of his research. And I -- that was the extent of my cross-examination on the subject. I don't know that the faith of that map is not something that could have been led by my friend in chief as he was carrying on with the subject of research and mapping and so on. : You are splitting your case, aren't you, Mr. Grant? 6916 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 MR. GRANT 3 4 THE COURT 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. GRANT 11 12 13 14 THE COURT 15 MR. GRANT 16 17 MR. PLANT 18 MR. GRANT 19 20 MR. PLANT 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GRANT 26 27 28 29 THE COURT 30 31 32 33 MR. GRANT 34 THE COURT 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MR. GRANT 47 THE COURT You brought it up. Your friend -- : I didn't bring up the map. I didn't bring up that map. : No, no. You brought up the fact that he was engaged with the tribal council to work on mapping, and your friend merely identified the map that he worked on. Surely you have embarked upon and opened up that subject. Surely it's not open to you to start over again on that same subject, is it? : Well, I'm -- okay. I'm not going to press the point on that question. I would like to ask another question directly related to that document and hopefully avoid having to pull it out. : Yes. We don't want to do that, do we? Go ahead. : Was that -- I believe it's Exhibit 105, that map, for the record. Was that map -- : It's 102. : 102. Was that map that you pulled out yesterday, was that a working draft that you were working with? : Well, I object again for the same reason. The characterization of the map was not the subject I pursued. I simply wanted to identify the document as the map which is the product of Mr. Williams' research efforts. : Now, my friend has introduced a document, which is the specific document. I just want Mr. Williams to explain what it is. I didn't introduce that document at all to this witness. : Well, I think Mr. Plant's objection is legally well founded. Re-examination is not a blank cheque to introduce evidence on subject-matters which have been raised and dealt with on -- in chief. : If I had raised the map, my lord -- : But you raised the subject of mapping and the work he did in mapping, and having done so, it seems to me that that's as far as you can take it. If you wanted to get into mapping, you should have done so, I suppose. I think the objection is well founded. On the other hand, I don't see much harm in hearing the evidence subject to the objection in case someone sometime may think that I have erred in my application of the rule against extending evidence by re-examination, so I'm going to allow you to adduce the evidence to the extent of answering the question you've asked, whether it's a working draft. : That's all. : I think I know what he's going to say. I'm not sure 6917 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 6 THE COURT 7 MR. GRANT 8 THE COURT 9 MR. GRANT 1 where that's going to take us, but I'll allow you to 2 ask that question subject to an objection. 3 MR. GRANT: 4 Q Was that map a working map? 5 A Yes. The number's 102? Exhibit 102. Not 120. Oh, yes. It was 102. It was 102. I'd like to refer you to Exhibit 583. 10 I'm sorry. That would be -- 11 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 10. 12 MR. GRANT: Yes. Tab 10. And it would be \u00E2\u0080\u0094 13 THE REGISTRAR: March 24th, 1980 band council resolution. 14 MR. GRANT: 15 Q The fifth band council resolution there, which is 16 dated, as the clerk said, March 24th, 1980. It's 17 Exhibit 583. And you were asked to identify this band 18 council resolution, which you did. Can you explain 19 what that was about and what happened with respect to 20 that band council resolution? 21 A It was mainly to get the Department of Indian Affairs 22 to issue a timber permit to sell timber on one of the 23 reserves, or two reserves. 24 Q And in fact did that occur? 25 A Yes, it did. 26 MR. GRANT: And on which -- on which territories or on which 27 clan's territory was that -- did that logging occur? 28 MR. PLANT: I thought the witness' evidence was that the permit 29 had been issued. If you want to establish -- 3 0 MR. GRANT: 31 Q I see. Did logging occur after the permit was issued? 32 A Yes. 33 MR. GRANT: And on whose territory did it occur, which clan's -- 34 Let me ask you another question. Was there any 35 dealings with the hereditary chiefs relating to that 36 logging? 37 MR. PLANT: There's been lots of evidence about that, my lord. 38 THE COURT: It seems to me, Mr. Grant, this is all a matter that 39 was part of your case in chief. 40 MR. GRANT: I never introduced this document or led -- 41 THE COURT: No, but the rule against re-examination was based 42 upon subject-matters, not individual documents. 43 MR. GRANT: I never dealt with this witness with respect -- my 44 lord, with respect to the issue of logging on the 45 reserve. 46 THE COURT: There's a lot of evidence of the logging on the 47 reserve, as I recall. 691? G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. GRANT: There was logging on territories, not the logging on reserve. This is a -- THE COURT: Well, even then it's a matter of logging. It seems to me it was never intended that re-examination would go on like this. It really never was. This is quite an unusual trial, but not that unusual, I should think, that I should give an opportunity to two full examinations in chief. MR. PLANT: My recollection of the evidence in chief on logging was that it did not differentiate between logging on reserves or logging outside reserves. It's where has there been logging, and there was some evidence about that and other evidence followed from that. MR. GRANT: I'd like to refer you to the last band council resolution, which is Exhibit 584, which you identified. COURT: That's Tab? THE THE MR. THE MR. REGISTRAR: GRANT COURT GRANT Q A Q Tab 10. Tab 10, the very last document. Thank you. Do you have that? Yes. Mr. Williams, can you explain? What was that band council resolution about? Why was that passed? A That was mainly to try and attempt to recover a loan that was granted to Kitwanga Native Development Incorporated and to appoint solicitors to try and recover the funds. MR. GRANT: Now, in examination by Mr. Macaulay yesterday -- I just want -- I don't want to misstate. Oh, yes. Exhibit 588. You're shown this, and this was a -- a fishing -- Indian Food Licence, it's entitled, dated June 30th, 1983. Now -- and I'm not certain. Do you recall anything about the circumstances around that? MACAULAY: My lord, the witness gave evidence that he recognizes the signature. He knew nothing else about it. And I don't think that that's a proper subject of re-examination. He had no recollection of anything about it. COURT: That's what he said, Mr. Grant. MACAULAY: I don't \u00E2\u0080\u0094 this is an unusual area of re-examination. Surely that can't be improved on or expanded on. COURT: I think it would be proper to ask the witness if he has since his evidence yesterday acquired any further recollections about the matter -- the matter suggested MR. THE MR. THE 6919 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 yesterday, if he's now thought of something. And I 2 know that because of the restriction of counsel he 3 doesn't have any anticipation one way or the other, 4 but I think it would be a fair question to ask him if 5 in view of the answer he gave yesterday, if time has 6 refreshed his memory overnight, and I think you may 7 ask him that. 8 MR. GRANT: Yes. And I'm sorry. That was a better formulation 9 of the question. 10 MR. MACAULAY: I have no objection to that. 11 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. 12 MR. GRANT: 13 Q This document was -- was shown to you for the first 14 time yesterday afternoon. You didn't recall anything. 15 Having had overnight to think about it, can you recall 16 anything else about that 1983 licence? 17 A I know at one time that we've always resisted the 18 Department of Fisheries issuing individual permits to 19 individual band members, and we tried to work out some 2 0 arrangements where that wouldn't happen. That's 21 basically all I can remember on it. 22 Q Now, you were asked, page 6894, by Mr. Macaulay about 23 expenditures, and it indicates: 24 25 Q \"The expenditure by the band council in 26 the average year exceeds a million and a 27 half dollars, doesn't it? 28 A Yes it does. 29 Q Do you remember what it was in 1986, 30 '87? 31 A It may be around a million and a half 32 dollars.\" 33 34 What proportion of those -- of that budget would be 35 for social assistance to band members? 36 A Social assistance is about at least $300,000, 37 $300,000-a-year budget. 38 Q And what would be -- what proportion of that budget 39 would be for education, for paying students who are 40 going to school? 41 A It will be a bit higher than social assistance. It 42 may be around 400,000 a year. 43 Q And what proportion of that budget would be for 44 economic development? 45 A Very little. I would say maybe around 25,000 maybe. 46 Q And you indicated that there was, I believe, 15 47 employees. What proportion of that budget would be 6920 G. Williams (for plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant 1 for salaries for band employees? 2 A We have different programmes. We have CHR. I can't 3 remember offhand what their budget is. It's usually 4 around 45,000 for community health programme with 5 health and welfare, about 25,000 for social worker, 6 about the same for an education worker, and the band 7 manager and office administration was probably around 8 90,000 maybe, and there's Canada Manpower programmes 9 that come on, and probably at least $50,000 for that, 10 short-term programmes. 11 Q Now, you were asked about -- just a minute. Right at 12 the end yesterday. This was page 6897 -- by Mr. 13 Macaulay about the funeral feast of Maggie Johnson. 14 15 Q \"... do you remember that evidence? 16 A Yes. 17 Q She was a very important person in 18 Kitwancool? 19 A Yes, she was. 20 Q Was she a high chief? 21 A Yes. 22 Q The first chief of her house? 23 A Yes.\" 24 25 Was Maggie Johnson the Miin Simoogit of her house? 26 A On the woman's section, yes. 27 Q And who would have been the Miin Simoogit of the whole 28 house? 29 A Gordon Johnson. 30 MR. GRANT: My lord, I believe I'm through. I also see the time 31 and there was some other outstanding matters that Mr. 32 Rush was dealing with other counsel on relating to 33 Monday's events, and I believe Mr. Plant's got some 34 instructions. Maybe if we could take the break, and 35 I'd just like to review my notes in case there's 36 something out of this morning. 37 THE COURT: All right. 38 THE REGISTRAR: Order in Court. Court will recess. 39 4 0 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 6921 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings transcribed to the best of my skill and ability. Kathie Tanaka, Official Reporter UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 6922 G. Williams (for Plaintiffs) Re-exam by Mr. Grant Exam by the Court 1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO AN ADJOURNMENT) 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Grant. 5 6 RE-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT: 7 Q Yes. I just had one or two more questions, my lord. 8 Yesterday, you were asked about the Gitwangak sawmill 9 and about the number of band members who were employed 10 there and tax exemptions, et cetera. Mr. Williams, 11 does the band have control over how -- over whether or 12 not the mill remains open or not? 13 A No, it doesn't. 14 Q Does it have control over who Westar hires to work 15 at the mill? 16 A No, it doesn't. 17 Q Aside from the Moricetown Band which has their own 18 sawmill and evidence has been given, and your band 19 which has Westar mill located on it, do any of the 20 other reserves have sawmills located on them? I am 21 talking about the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en reserves? 22 A No. 23 MR. GRANT: Those are my questions on re-direct and my re-direct 24 is finished, my lord. 25 2 6 EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: 27 Q Thank you. 28 Mr. Williams, two maters I wanted to ask you 29 about: Firstly, in terms of size by population, would 30 Gitwangak be the biggest population reserve or is 31 Hazelton or Moricetown bigger or approximately the 32 same size or what? 33 A Hazelton is the biggest population, next comes 34 Moricetown, and then Kispiox, and then Kitwanga, and 35 then Kitsegukla, and there is three other ones; 36 Kitwancool is probably next biggest, and Hagwilget and 37 Glen Vowell are the smaller bands. Population is 38 about 6,400. 39 Q In all of the villages or in the whole area? 40 A In all the villages. 41 Q All right, thank you. That's helpful. The fishing 42 by-law -- I am just looking at Exhibit 575 which is in 43 tab 15 of the black book. I am not purporting to ask 44 you to construe the language but particularly clause 45 4(a) says Git'suwet'en persons are permitted to engage 46 in fish in waters of the Bands at any time and by any 47 means. I haven't read this carefully, 6923 G. Williams (for Plaintiffs) Exam 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 A Q A A THE COURT MR. GRANT THE COURT MR. GRANT THE COURT: Q but is there some reason why that's limited to Git'suwet'en people? I am sorry, it is Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people. That wasn't a really good question. As I would read that, it would permit you, and I know that you have your own views of conservation, but it would permit you if you wished to literally take all salmon that go by, that go through the reserve? Take all salmon? Yes, as I would read that clause 4(a)? Yeah. The other thing it includes is the trout and those sort of things, but the main salmon that we take is the steelhead, spring salmon, sockeye. What I am trying to sort out in my mind is that if the Gitwangak band took all the salmon, there would be none left for Kispiox, Hagwilget, Moricetown. There doesn't seem to be any limits to the amount of salmon you can take. Is there something that I am missing in all this that makes what I have just stated untrue? It does suggest that, but our -- we have to live there all our lives and future children, and one of our major philosophies of the elders is conservation. We have to ensure that there is more salmon for the future. : Yes, I understand all those concepts, and all those intentions. I am just wondering if, when this was prepared in this form and it means you didn't disallow it, it was recognized that literally, very literally, you could suggest you could take everything. : I think of course it's subject to variations or restrictions made pursuant to the by-law in 4(a) and I'd ask -- the witness may be able to explain in the context of paragraph 6 which allows for the fishing and the use accordance with traditional laws and customs. : Well, that sounds to me that that deals with the consequences of fishing. : Well, but persons could only fish -- what I am saying is persons could only fish for all the fish if that was in accordance with the Gitksan laws and customs. That's not the way I would have read this, but that's a possible construction, Mr. Grant. And I don't think it's necessary for me to construe this, I am just wondering if such was the intention when it was prepared and passed and not disallowed or -- and 6924 G. Williams (for Plaintiffs) Exam by the Court 1 2 3 4 A 5 Q 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 THE COURT 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT 20 21 MR. GRANT 22 THE COURT 23 MR. GRANT 24 25 26 27 28 THE REGIS 29 MR. GRANT 30 31 32 33 MR. PLANT 34 THE COURT 35 MR. GRANT 36 MR. PLANT 37 MR. GRANT 38 39 40 THE COURT 41 42 MR. PLANT 43 MR. GRANT 44 45 46 47 understood that that read literally the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en at the Gitwangak reserve could take all the salmon that were going up the stream? No. I don't think we would take all the salmon. I don't think you would either, but I have to deal with that on a slightly different level and it seems to me that that is -- I am wondering if there is any reason why that interpretation could not be placed upon this language and if you can assist me in that regard? It does suggest that, and I would -- But you say you wouldn't do it? We would never do it. : Yes, all right. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Williams, you are excused. (WITNESS ASIDE) : All right. You are not going to call any more witnesses today, Mr. Grant? No. There is a couple of topics. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. I'd like to deal with them in order. One of them is there was a document which I keep assuring madam -- there is the filing, I see this is again the bottom of the page has been used rather than the top. I think it is Exhibit 57 -- RAR: 576, 514. 576, yes. I will just look, and pagination is -- there was some confusion. I have got pages 13 to 16 now instead of 14 to 17. I will file that as the exhibit. I will arrange for that immediately after. What were the pages? Page 1 and 14 to 17. Yes. That's the note I have. I had the table of contents, page -- the title page, the table of contents which is the page right after and pages 14 to 17. I haven't got the table of contents, but no one will object to that. No. It makes sense as to what it is. The other matter was I believe that -- of course I would be asking my friend and he and I reviewed his grey book, and I understand he will be excising all of the documents except those that are exhibits. 6925 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE MR. COURT: GRANT: THE MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. THE THE MR. THE THE MR. THE THE MR. MR. THE THE THE THE MR. COURT PLANT GRANT PLANT GRANT PLANT GRANT PLANT COURT Yes. The other matter was that I had put in two exhibits yesterday for identification, 577 and 578, and I would ask that those be marked as exhibits proper now? My friends had not had an opportunity to review them at that time and I ask that they be marked as exhibits proper? What do you say, Mr. Plant? Well, I'm \u00E2\u0080\u0094 One of them my friend cross-examined on. I am in a bit of disarray. 577 was the package? Yes. And 57 8 was the -- January '86 Band Housing Report. Yes. I don't oppose marking those. Tab 577 is the package. It should be marked now just as 577. (EXHIBIT 577 PACKAGE OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED FOR BAND MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1987) No objection there, Mr. Plant and has loose COURT: The other one? GRANT: 578. REGISTRAR: Band Housing. COURT: Yes, all right. Mr. Macaulay? MACAULAY: My lord, I take the position that this 57? not been proven. This includes expressions of opinion. COURT: I am sorry, can you tell me, is it -- is it a document or is it a tabbed document? REGISTRAR: Loose document, my lord. GRANT: It was a document authored by -- it was a report on the housing conditions in January of '86 authored by the witness. MACAULAY: And it is not relevant. REGISTRAR: I don't have copies for you. COURT: I don't think there was a copy for me. REGISTRAR: You do not have 577, either. COURT: Your objection, Mr. Macaulay, is that it doesn't comply with the Evidence Act and is not admissible? MACAULAY: That's correct, and it is not relevant. It includes such statements as: \"It is our opinion that we are being denied the full benefit of the R.R.A.P. Programme and, as a result, we are wasting both time and money to implement the current R.R.A.P. Programme\". We have no idea what the R.R.A.P. 6926 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. THE COURT MR. MR. GRANT: Programme is and it is somebody's opinion. MR. GRANT: I am not seeking to adduce it for the opinions, of course, but only the facts that are set out therein with respect to the reports as to specific houses and the problems on those specific houses. I don't intend to rely on it for any of the opinions. With respect to the R.R.A.P. Programme, that is a question of law; it is governed by regulations, federal legislation, but again, I am not seeking it for the opinions. MACAULAY: There is no evidence about it. Your lordship really doesn't know anything about the R.R.A.P. Programme. Unless, as Mr. Grant says, I go to the statutes and find it in the regulations. Well, I wonder if the way to solve the matter would be for Mr. Grant to take the document and see if he can exclude from it those matters that are not admissible and put forward a document that he says is admissible. Just the report on the housing itself. I will do that, my lord. MACAULAY: What relevance has the question of siding got to do with it? The author of this document says the major problem with siding is the poor quality of materials were used for siding and goes on to talk about three-eighths inch plywood was used and uninsulated contributes to the heat loss, and that kind of thing. There is no evidence -- we have no evidence of that at all, just some unsigned opinion that cluttered up the record. That won't assist your lordship with the issues that's raised by the pleadings at all. MR. GRANT: Well, my lord, I think it came directly when it was dealt with by cross-examination. Both defendants are saying that everything is fine, the reserves are established and -- COURT: I don't think anybody suggests everything is fine. GRANT: Not everything is fine, but let's work through what we have. And the defence of the establishment of the reserves, the acceptance of the reserves, Section 34 of the Provincial defence, the cat's paw position of the Federal defence in that regard. I take the position, my lord, that my friend says, well, your band members are really way better off than any other IWA workers. In that context I think that you have to look at the whole picture and the witness gave extensive evidence about housing priority for four years. THE MR. 6927 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. THE MR. MR. THE MR. THE MR. THE COURT: That's a problem we have with a case like this. You get evidence from a witness and then it is sought to be buttressed by a long report that the witness prepared. MACAULAY: Not the witness' evidence we are talking about. We are talking about, for instance, the -- all the contents of the Social Housing Programme. COURT: But the witness wrote the report, did he not? GRANT: Yes, he wrote this report. PLANT: No. That's not the evidence, my lord. COURT: I thought he said he wrote it. PLANT: He was involved in the writing of it with someone else. COURT: Yes. MACAULAY: And an unresolved issue with the consolidated revenue fund, guide-lines by the C.M.H.C. THE COURT: I think either Mr. Grant can take it away and see if he can edit it or, fading that, I think I will have to read it and see what I think should be in and what shouldn't be in. I haven't read the document and there wasn't a copy available so I haven't looked at it. MR. GRANT: Yes, you indicated it was an exhibit for I.D. THE COURT: Yes. MR. GRANT: I am happy to do that and I can appreciate my friend's concerns relating to the opinions. I think I am going to leave it for identification at the moment and you can speak to it again whenever convenient, Mr. Grant. I think that deals with the documents relating to this witness. I don't think there is any difficulty with Mr. Plant and I as to his documents. We agreed as to what goes in and he'll speak to the reporter. What I would like to comment on is with respect to the viewing. THE COURT: Yes. MR. GRANT: On Monday, my lord. I have arranged, and these documents have been couriered over or faxed over to my friend's office. Mr. Rush has been dealing with this while I have been in court. But we have a document which is an itinerary for the court view June 6, 7, and 8, together with maps and a copy for yourself which has a water-proof container in case things are not as -- THE COURT: That won't be necessary, Mr. Grant. MR. GRANT: The water-proof container, I hope that you have effect on your rulings on that point, my lord, as I am THE COURT MR. GRANT 692? Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. THE MR. PLANT COURT GRANT THE COURT MR. THE MR. MR. MR. GRANT COURT PLANT GRANT PLANT THE MR. THE MR. COURT: GRANT: not looking forward -- To protect the documents from the tears of joy. Will it dissolve if it gets wet? Well, we hope that the lines on the maps won't dissolve when they get wet. Just as a matter of curiosity, who's going to go on the view, you or Mr. Rush? I will be on the view. And for the Province? Well, my lord, Mr. Mackenzie and a provincial representative which is contrary to the likes that Mr. Mackenzie gave you earlier this week. Those are the only matters I wish to speak about. I should say that Mr. Mackenzie, who is behind me in court, advises me he hasn't yet had the pleasure of seeing the maps that are supposed to be contained in this brochure or pamphlet or material that you have handed, but he looks forward to that opportunity. And for the Federal Crown. MACAULAY: Laurel Russell, my lord. COURT: All right. Yes, Mr. Grant. Okay. As you recall on Monday, you suggested that counsel communicate with each other directly and that was done, and this itinerary, the itinerary itself has been delivered to Mr. Mackenzie and to the Federal Crown, and it incorporates the Federal and Provincial -- or the -- basically the Provincial concerns with respect to additional areas. We also -- there was -- yesterday a series of letters were faxed back and forth and I will just say this: That there are two -- there are a number of points that give rise to concern. One is that yesterday for the first time, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Mackenzie corresponded with Mr. Rush -- I am sorry, it was yesterday. I won't say it was yesterday afternoon because I don't have the time of it, but in any event, he corresponded with Mr. Rush and he stated that he wished the -- contrary to my earlier advice to you and to the court we do wish to have a lay representative for the Province in attendance during the helicopter view. My lord, we relied on the position taken in court and the fact that there was no change in that position after your lordship commented that of course if the Province wished someone on the flight they could do that. But decisions were made, co-ordination has been set up and established, and in order to have the persons who are necessary for the expanded view, all of that was done 6929 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE COURT MR. GRANT MR. PLANT MR. GRANT based on the decision made on Tuesday, and we say that a whole series of decisions and organization has been undertaken by the plaintiffs and that this very late change in plans by the Provincial defendant is disruptive and that it's too late in the day. And so we ask that you consider not agreeing to that at this time. The second point raised was that Mr. Mackenzie, again by correspondence yesterday for the first time, suggested a Forest Service air co-ordinator one half hour check-in procedure on June 6 and 7 while the helicopter view is in process. What does that mean? Well, what it means and Mr. Rush -- I'd be happy to explain what it means in order that my friend would have an opportunity to consider it perhaps more fully than was permitted by the language of the letter. Simply a procedure that happens there is during the summer fire season and Forest Service people have an air co-ordinator stationed in the Smithers Airport and he has his primary function. He or she, their primary function to keep track of fire activity, but they also will on request provide the service of keeping track of aircraft that are in the area for safety reasons and, in this particular case, after we had -- were making some inquiries about the logistics of the view, I am instructed that the Forest Service people offered this service. All that's contemplated is that every half hour the co-ordinator who's in the air traffic control office, some such place in the Smithers Airport, will make contact with the pilot or pilots of the helicopters to make sure that everything is all right, find out where you are, and it was offered to us as a safety mechanism. And I might say without being impertinent that Mr. Mackenzie was delighted to receive such an offer and it was intended to be passed along. It was passed along with the same spirit if I might put it that way. Well, I have been involved with this communication. Mr. Rush communicated by fax letter yesterday to Mr. Mackenzie and I just spoke with him at the break. He hasn't heard back from Mr. Mackenzie concerning it, but Okanagan Helicopters, which this arrangement is made with, has their own safety procedure. They have regular contact and call-in bases at all times. And that monitoring -- in fact, I think it is probably required by regulations. In any event, they have that 6930 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 THE COURT MR. GRANT THE COURT MR. GRANT procedure. The concern expressed by Mr. Rush was that it was, a) it was not necessary that there would be -- that there is a Provincial representative on the plane. And we are concerned about monitoring by a representative of the Provincial Crown. Mr. Rush was under the impression that of course it leaves the logistics open for tape recording of the two communications between the two plaintiffs which we are opposed to. I understand now from what Mr. Plant was saying it was a voluntary offer because I guess this person isn't busy with forest fires right now, but we have made our own investigations with Okanagan Helicopters. They call in and make regular contact to not only the Smithers base but to all their bases at every time, so I don't think that is necessary and that may be easily resolved. : Well, I am not going to get into that, Mr. Grant or Mr. Plant. I am going to leave it to the pilot to make such arrangements that he thinks are necessary to ensure the safe return of us all and, if there is a free facility that's available and it is useful, I would expect the pilot to take advantage of it. But subject to that, I am not going to report to pass here on what is safe for the flying practises required. If there is a system in place as I expect there would be, I would nevertheless expect the pilot to take advantage of any other facilities that come available and I am not going to second guess him on it. I will leave it to him. I don't think it is a matter that I should have to try and deal with, and I don't propose to do so. : Okay, my lord. There is just the other point in terms of logistics that the plaintiffs have -- and Mr. Mackenzie was advised of this. The plaintiffs will arrange for all of the lunches en route and co-ordinate that so there is no need for everyone to -- and also on the third day is a river trip subject to of course river conditions, and I think you have already been apprised of that. : Where is the river trip? I took it, when I heard about it, we were just crossing the river. Were we doing more than crossing the river? : We are going down the river. And it is proposed that it would be commencing at a place called Mission Point which is across from Hazelton, and it would go down the river to Wilson Creek which is downstream 6931 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 of -- downstream of Gitwangak, so it would be a sector of the river. And the arrangements would be made for you and the others to get road passage back up so we don't have to spend the time going up the river. And finally, my lord -- THE COURT: Spent most of my life \u00E2\u0080\u0094 MR. GRANT: Well, after your comment on slippery slopes, my lord, I didn't want you to feel you had to paddle up the river as well. The other point is that -- is that a number of the plaintiffs have proposed a barbecue for the Tuesday evening and our -- would be happy to do that at Moricetown and make arrangements for that. And I of course wanted to advise you, of course all parties who are involved would be welcome at this, and it would just be a get-together and they suggested that this might be something that -- THE COURT: I am going to leave it to counsel with that sort of thing. If they all agree, I am perfectly happy to have it programmed. If anyone does not agree and I don't want to know what the position of anyone is -- MR. GRANT: Yes. I wanted to alert you to that. We will discuss that between counsel. THE COURT: I will be happy to be governed by whatever all counsel agree on. MR. GRANT: I believe then the only matter that I have outstanding was the concern about the logistics with respect to the late notification on the late representative -- THE COURT: Before I deal with that, counsel don't think we have to take any maps with us beyond these? MR. GRANT: No. This would be all that we'd see. What this is is basically, as it is coded with a key map, is to show the areas that are there. PLANT: I haven't seen the maps so I can't say -- COURT: Well, how be it if you advise Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Plant, that he brings along any other maps that he thinks ought to be with us and Mr. Macaulay may want to take one of his. MACAULAY: Very useful, my lord. COURT: All right. Well, on the question of the logistics, I take it, Mr. Macaulay, that the Federal Crown still only wants one seat in the one which I will be riding? MACAULAY: Yes, my lord. COURT: Four seats in the other. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Grant, that we are not playing checkers. I think if the Provincial Crown wants one out of four seats, that's not unreasonable. There may be difficulties MR. THE MR. THE MR. THE 6932 Discussion 1 and there may be destruction but equity loves equality 2 and 25 percent isn't asking too much I don't think. 3 MR. GRANT: No. Of course on Tuesday, we weren't all opposed to 4 that but it was based on the -- what happened. 5 THE COURT: I understand that. I think one's entitled to change 6 his mind on a matter of this kind because of the fact 7 that we are going to different locations each day. I 8 am sure your logistical problems can be rearranged to 9 that so I am certainly not going to say that the 10 Province can't have one out of four seats on the 11 second aircraft. 12 MR. PLANT: There is another matter which my assistant, Mr. 13 Goldie, would like to speak to. 14 THE COURT: Yes. 15 MR. GOLDIE: My lord, yesterday, your lordship may recall that 16 we were advised that Mr. Sterritt would be the next 17 witness. That gave rise to some difficulties which I 18 will outline in a minute. I spoke to my friend, Mr. 19 Rush, to whom I was directed about deferring Mr. 20 Sterritt until the week of the 20th; that is to say, 21 one week. I indicated to him the reasons why I made 22 that request and, a few minutes ago, he advised me 23 that his instructions were such that he could not 24 agree to that. I understand Mr. Sterritt to be the 25 last witness to be called, the last live witness to be 26 called, before the summer break, and that he is being 27 called as a lay witness. Heretofore of course we had 28 understood Mr. Sterritt was going to be tendered as an 29 expert and indeed we had a summary of his evidence of 30 his opinion delivered to us last year, and our 31 preparations have been in respect of the summary he 32 has given us. 33 I do not know at this point what he is going to 34 be giving evidence on as a lay witness. I haven't 35 seen summary and my friend, Mr. Rush, tells me that he 36 will touch on some things which he has dealt with in 37 his opinion but he will of course be tendered as a lay 38 witness and not be qualified as an expert. The reason 39 why I ask that it be deferred was that next week I 40 will be in the Supreme Court of Canada four days out 41 of five. 42 THE COURT: Next week or the week after? 43 MR. GOLDIE: I mean next week, the week that would normally be 44 devoted to preparation. The week after that, I am 45 presently engaged to attend at a trial but not in a 46 major capacity and I can take care of that particular 47 problem, although my retainer was -- I have yet to 6933 Discussion 1 discuss that with the client. There is therefore a 2 case of involuntary overbooking primarily resulting 3 from the fact that the dates in the Supreme Court of 4 Canada are fixed. My understanding of my friend's 5 inability to defer Mr. Sterritt a week is that he 6 wants to be assured that his -- he will have completed 7 his evidence before the trial is adjourned for the 8 s umme r. 9 It is my understanding that your lordship was 10 good enough to say that in order to complete a witness 11 you would be prepared to sit for whatever time was 12 necessary in the week of the 4th of July. I asked my 13 friend, Mr. Rush, how long he anticipated Mr. 14 Sterritt's examination in chief to be and he said 15 about a week. On that basis, I can say to the court 16 that I would certainly be completed my 17 cross-examination prior to the end of June and I think 18 well before the end of June. I am not aware of the 19 reasons why my friend is unable to agree with the 20 suggestion I have made other than to say that his 21 instructions did not permit him. 22 With respect to the week of the 13th, it was our 23 understanding up until yesterday that if Mr. Williams 24 was indeed the last lay witness that we would start on 25 the question of the commission evidence and indeed we 26 understood that the first witness who would be called 27 in that respect would be Mr. Stanley Williams and, if 28 that was done, that would be perfectly all right as 29 far as we are concerned. I would ask my friends -- I 30 understand Mr. Grant is prepared to speak to this. I 31 would ask my friends to reconsider the position that 32 they have taken and, if they are unable to do so, then 33 I would ask that the cross-examination be deferred one 34 week. 35 THE COURT: Mr. Grant or, Mr. Macaulay, I am sorry, do you have 36 any position on this? 37 MR. MACAULAY: I have no submission to make other than Mr. 38 Goldie's proposal seems eminently reasonable. Could 39 I add we are at a disadvantage in the sense that we 40 haven't got a subject either. 41 MR. GRANT: Before I respond, and I am prepared to deal with it, 42 I just wanted to clarify with Mr. Goldie one of the 43 points of his last comment was, if unable to -- that 44 we defer cross-examination for one week. I don't know 45 whether he means that he proposes cross-examination if 46 Mr. Sterritt is not finished -- is finished on direct 47 on the week of the 13th if he proposes the 6934 Discussion 1 cross-examination not start until the 20th? 2 MR. GOLDIE: No, the week after that. 3 MR. GRANT: The 27th. I just want to be clear on that, my lord. 4 MR. GOLDIE: When I say cross-examination, that would be my 5 cross-examination. 6 MR. GRANT: Yes, I understood. My lord, Mr. Sterritt was 7 ordered to be examined for discovery generally on 8 behalf of all plaintiffs, and I believe my 9 recollection is that he was -- his discovery was 10 approximately eight days. As Mr. Goldie has advised, 11 there was a summary report given of Mr. Sterritt's 12 evidence with respect to opinion evidence one year ago 13 and components of that report as well as areas he 14 covered on his discovery are going to be -- that is 15 going to be canvassed in his evidence. Now, my lord, 16 the difficulty from the plaintiff's perspective, and 17 it is not obstreperousness or inconvenience, but the 18 difficulty is this: That the plaintiffs do not have 19 the luxury of these adjournments. We are on a very 20 tight schedule. Our clients are on a tight schedule. 21 There is an office establishment here that was set up 22 specially for this trial. A deferral of one week is 23 not a deferral -- is a high cost for the plaintiffs 24 and it is not costs of course that anyone could 25 normally say, well, tax these costs or that kind of 26 thing. It is the ongoing costs of operating this. 27 The schedule is based on your schedule of ending at 28 the end of June or possibly that first week of July. 29 If Mr. Sterritt will be finished long before the end 30 of June, we do have another witness and we will 31 proceed to the next witness. We are endeavouring to 32 get through our witnesses as quickly and as 33 expeditiously as we can. With all due respect to my 34 learned friend, I submit, my lord, that this question 35 of inconvenience at this stage is a little difficult 36 because they have those discoveries which I believe 37 ended before the trial started over a year ago, and 38 they have -- and of course they have other counsel. 39 Now, we have had to make these kinds of alterations 40 ourselves where different counsel has taken on 41 different responsibility. If Mr. Goldie wishes to do 42 the cross-examination himself, given the schedule that 43 Mr. Rush has indicated to him and I understand there 44 is no difficulty that cross-examination will not start 45 in the week of the 13th, if Mr. Goldie can get out of 46 the other trial, that is, that trial in the week of 47 the 13th, he would have the option of either preparing 6935 Discussion 1 or -- or the option of being present. It's very, very 2 difficult and it's very difficult for us at this stage 3 to adjourn a week and it's very, very costly. 4 THE COURT: He is not suggesting we adjourn; we will stay and do 5 something else. We will do the commission. 6 MR. GRANT: Well, yes, but the logistics of doing the commission 7 do not need the extensive support systems that we do 8 with the live witness. This is the one reason we wish 9 to proceed with the live witnesses. That there was a 10 thought last week when there was thought that possibly 11 Mr. Muldoe would be finished early before Mr. Williams 12 started and you may recall Mr. Rush referred to this, 13 that there would be some commission evidence so we 14 wouldn't waste a court day, but that's not what we 15 anticipate. We would like to complete these live 16 witnesses, and the costs of having these people down 17 here and back and forth is a cost that we don't -- our 18 clients are not in the position of just turning on 19 that tap of just saying, well, cost is no object. And 20 it's very, very problematic for our clients to have 21 this adjournment and it is very costly and it is not 22 something that can be dealt with by tax -- by having 23 the defendants just pay our taxable costs. It is 24 those kinds of logistical things that are a concern. 25 If we did not have those problems, then we would 26 be in a better position vis-a-vis this issue. But the 27 defendants have -- you know, of course they have -- 28 all parties have different counsel and we are not 29 trying to deprive Mr. Goldie of the position that he 30 should be able to elect who cross-examines, and I have 31 been instructed that if Mr. Sterritt's examination in 32 chief completed before the end of that week and Mr. 33 Goldie was unavailable the week of the 13th to 34 commence his cross that we would have no opposition to 35 adjourning over for his cross-examination at the 36 beginning of the -- on June 20th. We don't anticipate 37 that it will happen as Mr. Rush has indicated he 38 anticipates his direct examination to be one week. 39 But we have daily transcripts, we have all of these 40 things, and they have eight volumes of discovery 41 evidence. There is not -- I must say -- I dare say 42 there is not a witness which the defence has not had 43 fuller disclosure than Mr. Sterritt in terms of 44 material. We have -- 12 volumes of his notebooks have 45 been disclosed to the defendant a year and a half ago, 46 some of which you have had the pleasure to look at or 47 filed with you. And I say, my lord, it is very, very 6936 Discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MR. MR. MR. MR. GRANT MR. THE difficult and problematic for us to have this adjournment at this time. I mean, the costs of this trial being maintained in Vancouver to our clients is a high cost and we are trying our best to keep it on track. We don't want to be in a situation as that you recall last fall where we were coming to you seeking adjournments on financial need, and that's effectively ultimately what will happen if this kind of thing happens, and I say that the defendants can certainly reorganize themselves to the extent and Mr. Goldie still would have the opportunity of cross-examination of Mr. Sterritt, I mean, so the real problem of whether he can cross-examine him or not, he is clear on the week of the 20th. GOLDIE: I am not clear, my lord. I said that I believe I can make arrangements but I have not spoken to my client. GRANT: Oh, see, I thought that was the week of the 13th. GOLDIE: The week of the 13th I am in the Supreme Court of Canada, and I have no choice with respect to that. I see. I am sorry. When Mr. Goldie said next week, I thought he meant the week -- his preparation week was my note. So in any event, I have no difficulty with adjourning any cross-examination of Mr. Sterritt over to the 20th but, my lord, we are just -- we are in a difficult situation and we want to proceed. We want to use up all the time that we can and get these witnesses through. Well, it doesn't seem to me there is any problem getting the witnesses through on the statements that have been made. The estimates are subject to Mr. Macaulay's cross-examination of Mr. Sterritt which we haven't heard from Mr. Macaulay about, we have an estimate for -- of Mr. Sterritt of two weeks. And then we have another witness. And I am prepared to sit another week if necessary to finish. So it doesn't seem to me there is a problem with that. Well, it's a loss of a week of live witnesses effectively what it is, my lord, before the summer recess. If the adjournment is granted for the one week with respect to the live witnesses and Mr. Sterritt is completed within that time, then in September, the witness that would be coming after him would be there. I mean, I submit, my lord, that the defendants have -- you know, they have -- they are in a much better situation to deal with this matter THE COURT GRANT COURT MR. GRANT 6937 Discussion 1 through their resources than the plaintiffs are, and I 2 ask that we be allowed to proceed and get on with this 3 witness's evidence. 4 THE COURT: Well, this isn't the sort of thing I should be asked 5 to deal with. 6 MR. GOLDIE: I was going to say, my lord, there is no desire on 7 my part to press the plaintiffs if they feel they 8 cannot accommodate me. That's -- I will have to make 9 whatever submission I can make at the time when the 10 cross-examination comes up, but it may be that I will 11 simply have to say that I have been unable to prepare 12 and ask for an adjournment on that basis, and that is 13 of course a well known and well recognized reason. I 14 had understood, and I have received no information to 15 the contrary, that up until yesterday the proposal was 16 to use the time available to put in the commission 17 evidence, and that was the basis of my request today. 18 If commission evidence is not to be dealt with, then I 19 would ask my friend to advise us when it is to be 20 dealt with and I would ask my friend to let us know 21 who the other lay witnesses are so we can make the 22 necessary preparations to keep things going. 23 THE COURT: Well, I find this a most distasteful matter. I 24 don't think I should have to deal with it at all. I 25 think it creates the worst atmosphere possible for the 26 trial. I think I have to say with some regret that I 27 don't think Mr. Goldie's commitment, if such it is 28 with respect to another trial, is a matter that I can 29 give any weight to. I cannot treat the need to be in 30 the Supreme Court of Canada the same way as something 31 that no one can do anything about. If I am driven do 32 it, I think with respect if I am it is unfortunate and 33 I hope counsel will reconsider the position, and I 34 think we will have to proceed with the evidence of Mr. 35 Sterritt; although, I say I find this almost makes me 36 ill to have to say this. We will have to proceed with 37 it on the 13th. I just am so troubled that this would 38 happen. This is a profession, this isn't a business 39 we are supposed to be in. We will proceed with the 40 evidence of Mr. Sterritt on the 13th and, if it is 41 necessary to adjourn the cross-examination, we will 42 then have to do so. I hope that the matter might be 43 reconsidered. 4 4 MR. MACAULAY: My lord, I have another matter if I could 45 address? 4 6 THE COURT: Yes. 47 MR. MACAULAY: Two or three days ago some reference was made to 693? Discussion 1 the burning of nets. I believe I am not -- 2 THE COURT: Not burning as badly as I am, Mr. Macaulay. I am 3 sorry, I didn't intend that at you. 4 MR. MACAULAY: I thought I should deal with this. 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 MR. MACAULAY: Perhaps the evidence was hearsay evidence and not 7 admissible, but there is some question of burning of 8 fishing nets, and Mr. Grant in response to your 9 lordship's question told him that -- advised us that 10 there was no right to do so, although, there was some 11 question of forfeiture. I have looked at the Act and 12 Regulations, I am not as familiar with that Act and 13 Regulations as Mr. Grant is or Mr. Rush, and I find 14 that there is provision for forfeiture of unmarked 15 nets. There is also provision for relief of 16 forfeiture if the owner of the net comes forward 17 within 30 days. These are nets that are not 18 identified. The fishing regulations require certain 19 regulations of nets. If the owner comes forward 20 within 30 days, claims that he is the owner of a net 21 and qualifies in certain respects, then the nets are 22 returned. Otherwise, they are forfeited to the crown 23 and the statute provides that they are to be disposed 24 of as the Minister directs. I wanted to tell your 25 lordship that. If there is any evidence of the 26 disposal of nets, there is a net context, unmarked, 27 unclaimed nets. 28 THE COURT: And presumably after 30 days. 29 MR. MACAULAY: And after 30 days. 30 THE COURT: Presumably, yes. 31 MR. MACAULAY: There has been some local litigation up there 32 about all of that. Mr. Grant is much more familiar 33 with that than I am with the results of the local 34 litigation. 35 THE COURT: All right, thank you. We will adjourn then until a 36 week Monday and I will look forward to seeing counsel 37 in Smithers. Thank you. 38 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. Court will adjourn. 39 40 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JUNE 13, 1988) 41 42 I hereby certify the foregoing to be 43 a true and accurate transcript of the 44 proceedings herein, transcribed to the 45 best of my skill and ability. 46 47 6939 Discussion 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 4 TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter 5 United Reporting Service Ltd. 6 7"@en . "Pagination does not continue directly from previous document, possibly due an omitted cover page."@en . "Trial proceedings"@en . "British Columbia"@en . "KEB529.5.L3 B757"@en . "KEB529_5_L3_B757_1988-06-03_01"@en . "10.14288/1.0019467"@en . "English"@en . "Uukw, Delgam, 1937-"@en . "Indigenous peoples--Canada"@en . "Oral history"@en . "Wet'suwet'en First Nation"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Vancouver : United Reporting Service Ltd."@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images, please contact the Courts of British Columbia: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/"@en . "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Law Library."@en . "[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1988-06-03]"@en . "Text"@en .