HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

protect our land, that it will not be small for us; many are well pleased with their reservations, any many wish that their reservations be marked out for them.”76 To this Seymour responded: “As you say, there is plenty of land here for both white men and Indians. You shall not be disturbed in your reserves.”77 Leaving his mark on the petition was “Kothwemelton – Chief of Maskwe [Matsqui].”

21.13. Governor Seymour, however, soon reneged on his promise. Bowing to pressure from settlers who regarded the large reserves demarcated under Douglas as excessive,78 Seymour delegated most responsibilities for Indian lands over to the new Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, Joseph Trutch, and Colonial Secretary, Arthur Birch, both of whom who worked assiduously to reduce Indian reserves to a bare minimum.79 Matsqui people protested these actions, at one point hand delivering a petition to the governor stating “The white men tell us many things about taking our lands: our hearts become sick. We wish to say to Governor Seymour: Please protect our lands.”80 The petition also outlined concerns over the introduction of liquor, their desire to preserve their fishing grounds, and their frustration at being required to pay money for freighting lumber and other supplies on the rivers of their ancestors (as the laws currently required them to pay tolls for passing either cargo or people under the Alexandria bridge in canoes).81 To this Seymour replied, “they shall not be reduced

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 76 The assembled Indian Chiefs of the Districts of New Westminster, Fort Yale, Fort Douglas, and Lillooet, Speech to the Governor, New Westminster, May 24, 1864. BCA, C.O60/19, 99-102. Two years later Kothwemelton again signed a collective petition by Coast Salish leaders to Governor Seymour, delivered on the occasion of the Queen’s birthday celebration. This time his name was rendered as “Kotkwemeltroo – Maskwey [Matsqui].” see Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas, Appendix 2: Stó:lõ Petitions and Letters, “1864 Stó:lõ Speech to Governor Seymour,” 170-171. 77 Fredrick Seymour, Speech to Aboriginal Leaders in the Queen's Birthday, New Westminster, May 24, 1864. BCA, C.O. 60/19, 103-108. Note, the “bad Indians” in Seymour’s speech is a reference to the Chilcotin people who two weeks earlier were involved in what was then called the “Chilcotin Massacre.” For further descriptions of the day’s events see “The Celebration” in The British Columbian, May 24, 1864. 78 Editorial, “The Last “Potlatch’”, The British Columbian, April 27, 1864. 79 Arthur N. Birch to A.C. Elliott, Colonial Secretary's Office, July 20, 1864, BCA, C/AB/30.1 J/6-4 B-2652, 30; John C. Haynes to Arthur Birch, New Westminster, April 7, 1865, BCA, GR 1372 B-1333 F741/13. 80 "Petition from Indian Chiefs to Colonial Secretary," February 19, 1867. Petition is an enclosure in Gov. Seymour to Right Hon. Earl of Carnarvon, Feb 19, 1867, BCA, C.O/27. (emphasis added). 81 Ibid. 67( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

without my personal inspection.” This statement, the governor recorded in his correspondence to the the Colonial office, “were received with loud cheers.”82

21.14. And yet, despite these promises, and for reasons that are beyond the scope of this report, Seymour and Trutch worked in what in my opinion was a mendacious manner so that in 1867 the once giant 9,600 acre Matsqui reserve was reduced to a mere 80 acres.83

21.15. Matsqui people protests this reduction,and eventually had several hundred additional acres added to their reserve base. On December 8, 1868, nine men from the Matsqui community, including Chief Louie, also submitted a petition to the Governor. In it they reminded Seymour that at the annual Queen’s birthday celebrations they had assured that the Queen’s representative would look after their interests “with fatherly care.” And yet, men had arrived in their village with orders to reduce their reserve; orders the men fulfilled by leaving only land unsuitable for agriculture in the new Matsqui reserve:

21.16. Some days ago two men arrived at our village and told us that they had order to measure our land; these men to the greatest sorrow of your memorialists, instead of including in our small reservation the dry land where we have our potatoes and our Grave yard situated but a few acres from our houses, insisted to have the line of our Reservation running into the marsh adjoining where the water stays the greater part of the year, and where it is impossible for us to raise potatoes or anything else.

In our yearly visits to your Excellency on the 24th of May, feast of our First Chief the Queen, we have been told of her kind feelings towards the children of the forest and of your fatherly care for them. It is then with confidence, that in these Days of sorrow we

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 82 Seymour to Earl of Carnarvon, New Westminster, February 19, 1867, BCA, C.O. 60/27, 227-240. 83 Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, Joseph Trutch, to Acting Colonial Secretary, August 28, 1867, in Papers, 41-43. 68( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

send that [this] paper to your Excellency praying that you may be good enough to remove the cause of our grief.84

21.17. When the Colonial Secretary asked William Ball and William Pearse to comment on the petition Ball explained that “At the time I visited this reserve with Mr. Pearse most of the Indians were absent and no information could be gained as to what they required or where their cultivated ground extended, or instructions would have been given to extend the lines to these points.” And yet, in his original report Ball had noted that the Chief of Matsqui was indeed present during his visit to the village. In fact, in the original report he noted that the 80 acre Matsqui reserve had caused “great dissatisfaction” with the Chief. Pearse likewise “concurred” with Ball’s response and suggested that another 20 chains of frontage be added to the reserve.

21.18. Colonial-era Cranberries Matsqui people continued to express dissatisfaction with the encroachment of settlers and the impact this had on their land use activities. In particular, Matsqui leadership protested the destruction of cranberry gathering sites in what likely was the Matsqui Prairie. In 1870, Kothwemelton, on behalf of the Matsqui tribe, signed a petition with 20 other Coast Salish tribal leaders “in the vicinity of the Fraser Valley” opposing the sale or lease of lands to non- First Nations where they gathered cranberries.85 This petitions is unique in that it discusses women’s gathering sites rather than areas typically associated with male resource use activities. The specific location of the cranberry patches are not revealed in the petition, however, oral histories document that cranberries were one of the resources that formerly grew and were harvested in the Matsqui prairie.

22. The Early Confederation Period 22.1. The issues of land quantum and access to their traditional resources remain front and centre for the Matsqui into and through the twentieth century. As the Matsqui moved toward the twentieth century, they continued to voice their criticisms and grievances ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 84 Petition from the Matsqui Tribe to Governor Seymour, December 6, 1868, BCA GR 1372, File 503/2. 85 This petition is transcribed in Carlson et. al. eds., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas, 172. 69( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

with government representatives. Although they experienced significant changes to their surrounding political, social, economic and natural environments impacted their land use practices, the Matsqui people continued their traditional hunting, gathering, and migration practices as best as they were able. However, they also integrated and adapted to change. At times, the Matsqui chose to adapt their practices based on their perceived advantages. At other times, change was forced on the Matsqui due to outside restriction and limitations. 22.2. The land question and the formalizing of reserve lands for the Matsqui and other BC First Nations persisted as British Columbia contemplated confederation with Canada. By the time British Columbia joined Canada on June 20, 1871, divisions on how the local and Dominion government approached Indian policy were apparent.86 This division in part explains the disputes that follow between the Governments of Canada and British Columbia regarding the amount of land to be reserved for the Indians of the province. The coming decades would be rife with disagreement between BC Provincial representatives and representatives of the Dominion government on the best way to settle the land question, with the province slowing the settlement process nearly to a standstill. 22.3. The province of British Columbia’s main interest lay in maximizing the amount of land available for non-Indigenous settlement. The federal government preferred that British Columbia follow the reserve policies established in the rest of the country that favoured the negotiation of treaties and set land formulas. Attempts to have the province adopt the approach of the federal government failed early in the confederation process, as during the debate on the union in British Columbia, a motion advocating the extension of Canadian Indian policy to the new province was withdrawn.87 22.4. The overlapping jurisdictions between provincial and federal powers, coupled with the unwillingness on part of provincial officials to recognize Indian title and rights, provide essential context for understanding the issues faced by the people of Matsqui with regards to the history of their land use practices and occupation of their traditional ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 86 Fisher, Robin, Contact and Conflict, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1992),175-177 87 British Columbia, Legislative Council, Debate on the Subject of Confederation with Canada, Reprinted from the Government Gazette Extraordinary of March, 1870 (Victoria: Ro. Wolfenden, 1870), 146-47, 157-59. As cited in Fisher, ibid. 70( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

territory. Positioning the experience of the Matsqui within the broader context of the treatment of claims to Indian title in BC is therefore necessary understand the history of Matsqui land and resource use and the effects that the policies and practices of these governments had on traditional land and resource use practices. 22.5. The Terms of Union transferred the jurisdiction of Indian Affairs from British Columbia to the Dominion government. Specifically, Article 13 of the Terms of Union transferred control and management of Indian reserve lands from British Columbia to Canada. It stated that such lands “shall from time to time be conveyed by the Local Government to the Dominion Government in trust for the use and benefit of the Indians, on application of the Dominion government,” and that “a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government shall be continued by the Dominion Government after the union.”88 Although on the surface the two parties appear to agree to an approach to the administration of Indian lands, the attempts to implement this approach proved otherwise. 22.6. As part of their newly assumed management of BC Indian Lands, the Dominion government began a review of all reserve lands in BC. On October 16, 1871, B.W. Pearse, Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works for BC, forwards a schedule of existing reserves in the province at the request of the Dominion government. In a letter accompanying the schedule, Pearse explains the Colonial government’s approach to laying off and locating reserve lands: 22.7. The 'Land Ordinance, 1870,' under which alone lands can be acquired by intending settlers, especially exempts all Indian lands and settlements from its operation. It has generally been the practice to lay out on the ground the Indian Reserves synchronously with the settlement of the district by the whites. ... Other reserves can be made from time to time as may be found necessary. No titles to lands held by Indians have been issued. The Executive has always exercised a general control and supervision

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 88 British Columbia, British North American Act, 1867, Terms of Union with Canada, Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly… (Victoria: R. Wolfenden, 1881), p 66. 71( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

over the Indians and their lands, and has always prevented them from alienating in any way any portion of their reserves.89 22.8. Pearse also transmits “a series of tracings lettered A to Q inclusive [no longer with this letter] showing all the Indian Reserves which have been surveyed, together with a Schedule showing the locality, number of section, general description, acreage, name of tribe...”A description of the Matsqui reserve lands surveyed in 1869 are included, and are described as follows: “[Sheet] I. Left bank [of Fraser River], 96 [acres]. Left bank of Fraser River, 52 [acres].”90 Using the 1877 census data for the Matsqui, as this is the closest available data, this would have provided just over 12 acres per family.91 22.9. In 1872, Israel Wood Powell was appointed the first Indian Superintendent to administer federal Indian legislation in BC. Powell was critical of BC’s ten-acre policy, and advocated the enlargement of the BC Indian reserves. Throughout the summer of 1873, Powell corresponded with representatives of the provincial and dominion governments regarding the formula for the allotment of reserve lands. Canada supported his position and in 1873, and forwarded a letter suggesting that BC adopt an 80-acre standard in establishing reserves.92 BC agreed to a 20-acre standard for new reserves but soon reneged on this agreement.93 Powell commenced a survey and allotment of all existing reserve lands in the attempt to address land inequities, but was told by the Provincial Secretary that the 20-acre formula applied only to new reserves. Powell explained in his Indian Affairs BC Superintendence report dated January 31, 1873 that he must stop laying out reserves until this dispute is settled.94 22.10. As part of the report mentioned above, Powell forwarded a lengthy report, which included a schedule of reserves and leases in the province. In his description of the Lower Mainland First Nations, Powell made it clear that “No treaties have ever been ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 89 Report of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for British Columbia for 1872 and 1873, (Ottawa: I. B. Taylor, 1873), 17-18. 90 LAC RG 10 Vol 3596, File 1241. 91 LAC RG10 Vol 3650, File 8424, Reel C-10114; See pages 4-8, Entry 24 for Matsqui census data. 92 LAC RG 10 Volume 3605, File 2907, Reel C-10105. 93 “Report of the Government of British Columbia on the Subject of Indian Reserves,” 17 August 1875, B.C., Papers Connected with Indian Land, appendix, 9. 94 Powell to Superintendent General, 4 February 1875, Canada, Department of the Interior, “Annual Report…1874,” 64. 72( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

made with First Nations of the Mainland.”95 Powell forwarded the aforementioned letter and schedule of existing Indian Reserves in the Province, dated October 16, 1871 from Chief Commissioner of Land and Works, B. W. Pearse, which included a description of Matsqui IR 1 & 2 at 96 and 52 acres.96 It is important to note here that reserve numbering is later reversed, so that the larger main reserve became IR 2, and the smaller reserve, also known as Sahhacum, became IR 1. 22.11. First Nations leaders in British Columbia did not simply remain silent while the provincial and Dominion governments lagged on settling the land question. Many leaders from the Lower Fraser Stó:lõ Nations, including Matsqui, voiced their frustration with these governing bodies. They forwarded a number of petitions that demonstrate their keen awareness of the details of the dispute between the Province and Dominion, advocating for a settlement that reflects promises of Douglas’ colonial government. In 1873, George of Matsqui joined numerous other tribal leaders in petitioning I.W. Powell during the celebration of Queen Victoria’s birthday at New Westminster. The principal concerns expressed were the inadequate size of their reserve lands and the lack of compensation they had received for the alienation of land outside their reserves.97 A portion of the petition states: “we feel like men trampled on and are commencing to believe that the aim of the white men is to exterminate us as soon as they can, although we have always been quiet, obedient, kind and friendly to the whites.”98 22.12. The following year, 1874, George of Matsqui again joined other tribal chiefs in signing a much angrier petition to Powell complaining of the inadequacies of their reserve land base, and the fact that little of their remaining lands were available due to the influx of non-First Nations settlers.99 Showing their awareness of the reserve formula proposed by the Dominion government, the Chiefs declared that 80 acres per family was necessary for their support and future welfare. Article 8 states:

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 95 Ibid. 96 LAC RG 10, Volume 3596, File 1214, Reel C-10103. 97 “1873 Petition to Powell from Lilloet, Lower Fraser, and Bute Inlet Indians,” as transcribed in Carlson et. al. eds., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas, 172. 98 I.W. Powell to Secretary of State for the Provinces, June 25th, 1873. “George” is listed as representing Matsqui; This petition is transcribed in Carlson et. al. eds., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas, 172. 99 Ibid., “1874 petition to Superintendent of Indian Affairs,” 173. 73( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

We consider that 80 acres per family is absolutely necessary for our support, and for the future welfare of our children. We declare 20 or 30 acres of land per family will not give satisfaction, but will create ill feelings, irritation, amongst our people and we cannot say what will be the consequence.100

22.13. In 1875, the Dominion government passed an order in council recommending that the BC government allot 80 acres of land to every Indian family of five persons. BC refused, asserting that not more than 20 acres of land are required for each Indian family. The 1874 BC Land Act, which allowed for the alienation of land without regard for First Nations Title was also disallowed in 1875, prompting the passing of a revised BC Land Act that set the 20-acre Indian reserve formula, while providing 160-acre land grants for individual settlers free of charge. 22.14. Also that year, British Columbia was divided into two separate Indian Affairs Superintendencies: Victoria Superintendency (Vancouver Island and Northwest Coast) under I.W. Powell, and the Fraser River Superintendency (Mainland Division) at New Westminster under James Lenihan, therefore placing Matsqui under the jurisdiction of Lenihan. In his Indian Affairs report dated October 18, 1876, Superintendent James Lenihan showed a marked difference from Powell’s perspective on Indian lands and title. Lenihan discussed the settlement of the Indian Land question, which was tied to his general ideas related to settlement of Indians on reserves and methods of "civilizing" them. Lenihan then put forward the possibility of settling all of the Lower Fraser Stó:lõ Nations onto five central reserves, each with central farm lands, indicating a lack of understanding of how each of the Stó:lõ Nations operated as individual tribal governing bodies within their separate territories, albeit with overlapping boundaries to form a collective nation.101 22.15. On May 15, 1875, Chief Alexis of Cheam forwarded a letter to Lenihan signed in the name of the other Chiefs of the Lower Fraser. In it, they express their dissatisfaction—and near outrage—at the Crown’s refusal to fulfill their promises made

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 100 Ibid. 101 New Westminster-Confidential Report on the Indians of British Columbia by Superintendent James Lenihan. 1876. RG 10, Vol 3641, File 7493. C-10112; See also Carlson, The Power of Place the Problem of Time. 74( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014( to BC First Nations regarding land settlement. They insist that they have not been consulted in the present land settlements:

We have heard that you have obtained from the Dominion some money in order that we should celebrate properly the Queen’s birthday.

We come to inform you that we do not wish to celebrate the Queen’s day. She has not been a good Mother and Queen to us. She has not watched over us that we should have enough land for the support of our families. She knows that the British Columbia Government has deprived us of our land leaving but few acres and in some cases not even one acre per head. She knows that we have made a petition nearly one year ago praying that eighty acres is allowed to every family. She has not yet sent a world in our favour. If she is so great as we have been told, she must be powerful enough to compel the British Columbian Government to extend our present Reserves so that every Indian family will have eighty acres of land.

We come to tell you to send back the money the Dominion allowed for the celebration of the Queen’s Birthday. We do not wish it to be spent for us as long as our land question is not settled according to our wishes….

If our land question is not settled immediately there will be no possibility to extend our present insufficient reserves….

We write to you as we have no confidence in the other Indian Commissioner. He has been pulling along with the British Columbia Government. He willingly accepted in our name the allowance of the local Government 20 acres for a family of five members—four acres per head!!! and he went on helping the local Government. Sent surveyors to divide some Indian Reserves in 20 acre lots. Not telling

75( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

us a word about it, not asking our consent though he was perfectly aware that we would never agree to such terms.102

23. The Indian Act and the Joint Reserve Commission 23.1. With the passing of the Indian Act into law in 1876, the Dominion government consolidated all previous legislation regarding Indians and Indian lands in Canada. The Indian Act outlined provisions relating to Canada's obligations to Indians and lands reserved for Indians, defining what reserves were and how they could be used, owned, and occupied. By way of settling some of the continuing issues surrounding Indian Lands, BC and Canada established the Joint Indian Reserve Commission (JIRC) in August 1876 to examine and allot Indian reserves in BC and to settle the dispute over Indian reserve size. It operated until 1878 and was comprised of three commissioners: A.C. Anderson, appointed by the federal government; Archibald McKinley, appointed by BC; and Gilbert Malcolm Sproat, appointed by both governments. The JIRC’s progress was significantly constrained by the provincial government’s inactivity when it came time to review or approve Indian land settlements.103 23.2. Over the following years, several more petitions were drafted by the Stó:lõ leadership and presented to government officials. On April 12, 1876 Sproat reported:

…a deputation of six chiefs, representing the Indian Chiefs and their people between Yale and the mouth of the Frazer, came… to see me at Victoria about their lands.

They appeared to be very much in earnest….

The Indians say that their lands are not sufficient in area, and that, for several years, white settlers have been coming into the district, and, in some cases, have been permitted to take up lands which the Indians were hoping to get.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 102 Chief Alexis of Cheam in the name of the other Chiefs of the Lower Fraser, to James Lenihan, May 1875. 103 Fisher, 188-198. 76( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

They ask that this be no longer permitted.104

23.3. With the replacement of the JIRC with the Indian Reserve Commission (IRC) in 1878, Gilbert Malcolm Sproat became the sole Indian Reserve Commissioner. Sproat spent the next two years visiting reserves throughout BC until his resignation in 1880. Sproat’s observations are significant in relation to understanding land use patterns of the Matsqui. Specifically, As Indian Reserve Commissioner Sproat recognized, the traditional territories of the Stó:lõ nations, like the Matsqui, were spread over a vast territory, with different areas being used for various seasonal activities throughout the year.105 Sproat outlined the importance of the Fraser canyon to all nations, and explained that the nations along the Fraser River gather “up in the mountains or some place of fishing…where, at certain seasons, they assemble to fish, dig roots, and race their horses.”106 Those gathered here would also have been trading various resources they could not access in their own territories. 23.4. The extensive and overlapping use of territory problematized the Province’s approach of formalizing reserve boundaries only once settlement occurred. The type of land use and occupation of First Nations like the Matsqui differed markedly from the clearing and cultivation of land by settlers. As Sproat himself complained numerous times, this led to problems when settlers encroached on unceded First Nations lands, since the land used seasonally may have appeared unoccupied. In a November 25th, 1878 report on his examination of “Indian questions” on the Lower Fraser, Sproat wrote: “The whole district is so much settled up or owned by non-residents that it will be extremely difficult to extend the reserves in many places should land extension prove to be necessary.”107 Whereas land “development” was viewed as an indication of land use in the eyes of the settler governments, Matsqui traditional land use practices encompassed a vast area of territory and were far less visible to outsiders. 23.5. By the end of 1878, when Sproat arrived to review Matsqui reserve lands, settlement on the Matsqui prairie not only swallowed up their traditional lands, but land

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 104 Sproat to Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, April 12, 1876. 105 Sproat to Superintendent General, 10 November 1879, LAC RG 10 Vol. 3669, File 10691. 106 Sproat to Superintendent General, 26 October 1878, LAC RG10 Vol 3612, File 3756 (1). 107 Joint Indian Reserve Commission and Indian Reserve Commission, Federal Collection, Vol 1, 296. 77( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014( development began to impact the landscape and waterways. In particular, the illegal construction of a dyke on Matsqui reserve lands by a San Francisco man named Mr. Derby affected the Matsqui’s land, resources and waterways. After being alerted to this construction, as well as the plans to construct the rest of the dyke on Sumas and Chilliwack Indian lands, Sproat attempted to intervene on the part of the Matsqui, who had been particularly affected by the construction. Sproat reported on his meeting with the Matsqui in the aforementioned report dated November 25, 1878, forwarding their complaints to the Lieutenant Governor:

Somewhat down the river, a Mr. Derby representing a company engaged in an important enterprise authorised by an act of the Local Legislature for dyking low lands on the Fraser, has used to the extent he wanted, two Indian reserves without asking permission of the Indians or of the Department.

The Department at New Westminster does not appear to know this fact.

When Mr. Derby was getting his bill through the House of Assembly I wrote to the Local Govt to ask them to see the bearing of the act on the lands of the Indians.

Mr. Derby, who is an American states he did not know what was necessary in the case of Indian lands.

I have informed him that the Dominion Govt is bound by law to attend to the interest of the Indian and that such high handed proceedings on the part of his company with respect to Old Indian Reserves formally assigned to the Indian by the Crown will be viewed with regret, but that I cannot say more until I have personally examined the ground.

In the meantime it is manifest that the Indians are a little confused by these occurrences.

The Crown, long ago, they [the Matsqui] say, gave them land and by and bye a white chief came along, and said they had too much land, and cut it down. They

78( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

heard some years ago that their wishes were to be listened to, and a chief to look after the Indians was appointed, but ever since that white men have continued to take land until it is now nearly all taken up and Mr. Derby, who may or may not be a “chief,” has used their land.

This is their statement and I, of course, will look into the matter, and report to you on it, and on other questions on the Lower Fraser, in due course.108

23.6. On a subsequent visit to Matsqui on December 26, 1878, Sproat found that the construction of the dyke continued in spite of having notified the provincial government of the illegalities of the project. While at Matsqui, Sproat notified Derby to cease construction on the dyke or face legal action.109 23.7. At the centre of the argument surrounding the dyking project is the issue of what constitutes proper land use in the eyes of the various parties. Clearly to Derby and certain representatives of the provincial government, the acreage reclaimed by the dyke meant more land for settlement and development for agricultural lands. However, for the Matsqui, this added to the impact that settlement had on the ability to use their territory. Their reaction to the dyking project offers some understanding of their land, water, and resource use patterns. The Jan 25, 1879 Memorandum to Indian Affairs from Sproat relays Matsqui’s perspective. Sproat writes:

…after examining the Matsqui reserve, on which Mr. Derby has encroached, I had some conversations with the Matsqui Indians, and in order to approach the question of the dyke in the fairest way, I assumed in conversation that the dyke would benefit their reserve. They corrected me. They said, in the first place, that the reserve was unsuitable, and that it had been laid off some time ago without their wishes having been consulted. Next, they said that Mr. Derby had appropriated a portion of their reserve-land which they had used, and had made a dyke which they knew would, at their reserve, be useless because, in case of

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 108 Sproat to Lieutenant Governor, November 25, 1878. 109 New Westminster Agency - Correspondence and Reports Regarding Surveys and Dyking on the Sumass, Chilliwack, and Matsqui Reserves 1878-191, LAC RG 10 Vol 7538 File 27, 150-3-20, Reel C-14809. 79( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

freshets, the water rose up inland before it came over the bank of the river, and so it would rise up inside of the dyke.

23.8. I listened to what they said without expressing any opinions one way or the other about the dyke. Matsqui is the only place where dyking work has been done and at Matsqui, you could observe the Indians statement is that their reserve was unsuitable before Mr. Derby appeared; that he has appropriated land upon their reserve which they had wood and has thus made it more unsuitable that the dyke would not keep the water out, that it was a structure running longitudinally through a portion of their reserve and an object of fear to them, because, they have been told by white men that if they, or their cattle, injure the dyke, they would be put in prison.110 23.9. As both the Matsqui and Sproat communicated, the dyking project significantly impacted the Matsqui lands and waterways. Derby took a large portion of the Matsqui reserve when constructing the dyke, and had been “diverting streams or otherwise” without consulting the First Nation or Indian Affairs.111 The complaints of the Matsqui therefore provide insight into the extent that they relied on the waterways in their territory. Clearly, the provincial representatives had a different perspective on how land values were determined. For the Matsqui, these lands were valuable for their resources. The seasonal flooding allowed them to access to hunting and gathering areas via waterways, and were also habitation areas for key subsistence species such as fish, waterfowl, and certain types of plants. In spite of the province’s protests that no injustice had been done, the dyking significantly altered the ability for the Matsqui to access and use their traditional territory. 23.10. The province granted all Crown lands near Matsqui, Sumas, and Chilliwack to Derby, in spite of their agreement with the Dominion government that these would be held until the reserve boundaries were settled. As Sproat explained on January 27, 1879:

“Notwithstanding their agreement with the Dominion Government as to the adjustment of Indian Land questions, had granted all the Crown Lands near the Matsqui, Somass

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 110Memorandum to Indian Affairs from Sproat, Jan 25, 1879, LAC RG10 Vol 7538 File 27,150-3-20, Reel C- 14809. 111 Ibid. 80( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

[Sumas] and Chilliwack Indian Reserves to Mr. Derby, and had thus practically dealt with the question with the sufficiency of these Reserves, which question it had been agreed between the two governments the Reserve Commission should consider and adjust.”112

23.11. Meanwhile, the settlement of their reserve boundaries remained on hold while the IRC waited for the Provincial and Dominion Governments to decide if the dyking project would proceed, and if the Crown lands in the area would indeed fall to Derby. 23.12. On April 3, 1879, the Indian Affairs Deputy Superintendent General Vankoughnet telegraphed Sproat with instructions to proceed to the Matsqui, Chilliwack, and Sumass Reserves to determine if they were sufficient.113 In a Memorandum sent to John A MacDonald on the same day, Vankoughnet explained that the Matsqui were dissatisfied with their reserve lands, and clarified that Sproat had been instructed to ascertain whether or not the reserve lands met their needs.114 From April 8 to May 7, surveyors were employed at Matsqui “ascertaining the areas washed away by the Fraser River, and the effect or probable effect of the dyking scheme of Mr. Derby upon the various Indian Reserves.”115

24. IRC Survey of Matsqui Reserve Lands 24.1. Upon arriving at Matsqui, Sproat arranged an agreement whereby Derby and his partner Mr. Sword were allowed to continue with the dyke project, provided that they agreed to not lay claim to any additional reserve lands designated by the Commission.116 Sproat then set to examining the reserve lands at Matsqui. Enclosed in a Memorandum to Derby and Sword was the following description of Matsqui reserve:

Matsqui: The present reserve on left bank of the Fraser to be extended south to north boundary of section 6.T 17 and West to the line between T.14 and 17. The

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 112JIRC Provincial Collection, Binder 3 107/79. 113 New Westminster Agency - Correspondence and Reports Regarding Surveys and Dyking on the Sumass, Chilliwack, and Matsqui Reserves 1878-1914, LAC RG10 Vol 7538, File 27, 150-8-20, Reel C-14809. 114 Ibid. 115 LAC RG 10 Vol 3679, File 12,068, Reel C-10119. 116 JIRC Federal Collection, Volume 2, 214. 81( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Islands in the Fraser in T.17 and in Eastern portion of T.14 to be given to the Indians. Mers. Derby and Sword to keep the dyke which goes through the reserve fenced.

The Reserve at the McClures [IR 1]:

Note—if the Indians agree to give up the McClure Reserve and the above one on the left bank of the Fraser, a new compact single Reserve to be given in lieu as may be agreed upon.117

24.2. On June 20, 1879, Sproat recorded the Minutes of Decision for Matsqui Reserves IR1 (Sahhacum), IR 2 (Main Reserve), IR 3 (3 Islands) and IR 4 (Aldergrove). He described the allotted reserve lands as follows:

A reserve situated in Township 16 bounded as follows—On the South by lot 208 Group 2. On the west by lot 209 Group 2. On the west by lot 202 Group 2. On the north by lot 357 Group 2. Also a reserve situated on the left bank of Fraser river on Township 17 and bounded as follows. From a point on the left bank of Fraser River where the Township line between Townships 14 and 17 crosses the said river thence true south along said Township line to the north east corner of Section 1 Township 14. Thence true east 7770 links thence true north 2718 links to the north east corner of the old Indian reserve thence in a westerly direction along the bank of Fraser River to the initial point. Also a reserve situated in Township 14 and 17 consisting of 3 Islands in Fraser river oppose the main Matsqui reserve. Also portion not exceeding 40 acres of the south east quarter of Section 6 Township 13, to include the Indian’s houses and cultivated enclosures.

I squared up the old reserve on left bank of the Fraser, and confirmed it and the other old small piece back on the prairie near Mr. McClure’s.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 117 JIRC Federal Collection,Volume 2, 227. 82( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Mesrs McClure, Turner and Sword asked me to cut off this last named piece, but the Indians being much attached to it, and no reason appearing why it should be cut off, I did not accede.118

24.3. However, his notes raise questions as to whether or not Sproat consulted the Matsqui people regarding the sufficiency of their reserve lands, as no part of Sproat’s Minutes of Decisions reference any discussions or consultations he had with the Matsqui people—a fact that is out of the ordinary for the Commissioner, whose notes typically contain significant description. Additionally, around the time of his Minutes of Decision for Matsqui, Sproat complains that his work along the Lower Fraser was being rushed, explaining that this time of year was not ideal for laying off reserve lands due to the mosquitoes. He explained that he had been “carrying on at the same time without stoppage my regular duties among reserves at the Lower Fraser, so infested by mosquitoes that the Indians temporarily abandon them.”119 He provides no indication of why two additional reserves were allocated to the Matsqui, although it can be assumed that this was in exchange for lands affected by the dyke. As both IR 2 and IR 4 contain similar acreage, the addition of IR 4 may also have been a pre-emptive exchange for IR 2, which Sproat ultimately decided to keep as part of the Matsqui reserve lands. 24.4. Sproat’s June 24, 1880 instructions to surveyors for the Matsqui reserves reveal additional information regarding the Matsqui traditional territory and land use. Among the notes on the boundary locations for each of the four reserves designated by Sproat are instructions for the surveyors to ascertain the acreage taken up by dyke. In addition, Sproat also directed the surveyors to lay off a reserve of around 40 acres where “Indian Charlie and his brother” are living:

The surveyors will visit the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 13, and carefully ascertain the position of the houses of the Indian Charlie and his brother.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 118 JIRC Provincial Collection, Binder 4, 86-88; JIRC Federal Collection, Vol 18, 255.

119 LAC RG 10 , Vol 3679, File 12068, Reel C-10119. 83( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

In case these Indians are occupying any portion of the section referenced to and as interference is made with the rights of any settler the surveyor will lay off say 40 acres as a reserve for them.

Note: Probably the easiest way of reaching this place is by the trail by McClures to the boundary line.

24.5. As this area is surveyed as Matsqui Indian Reserve No. 4 by W. S. Jemmett on September 30, 1881, we know that Matsqui people occupied these lands.120 The trail that Sproat referred to here is likely an old trail that ran from Matsqui IR 1 [Sahhacum] to the location of the Matsqui houses, as IR 1 bordered the McClures homestead. This clearly demonstrates that the Matsqui continued to use and occupy the southern portion of their traditional territory. As this includes lands bordering the Canada-US border, we can presume that the Matsqui also carried on some of their land use activities south of the border as well. 24.6. As mentioned above, Matsqui reserves 1 through 4 were surveyed by W. S. Jemmett on September 30, 1881. Jemmett’s map of the surveyed Matsqui reserve lands was endorsed by I.W. Powell, Indian Superintendent on May 30, 1882 and approved by F.G. Vernon, Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works on March 19, 1892.121

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 120 BC7 NRCAN. 121 NRCAN, Legal Surveys Division, TBC245; See also JIRC Federal Collection, Volume 13, 407-409.

84(

HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

additional waterways ran south through the Matsqui traditional territory into the United States.123 The 1877 survey map of Township 17 ECM by Surveyor George Turner depicts two major tributaries of the Fraser River running through Matsqui territory: Matsqui River and Gifford Slough. The waterway named the Matsqui River is prominently depicted running in an easterly direction from the Fraser, with a number of tributaries waterways branching off to run south. As well, a creek is depicted that runs from IR 1, ending at a small lake. It can be surmised that these were major travel routes for the Matsqui in the eastern portion of their territory. 25.2. The 1876 BC Lands and Works map shows a creek through IR2 or the Matsqui Main Reserve. This is the water body now called the Gifford Slough, which runs directly south from the Fraser River through the Main IR. Later maps reveal that both the Matsqui River and Gifford Slough, along with their tributaries, were severely disrupted with the construction of the dyke in and around Matsqui lands--so much so that Kwaa- chem Creek was renamed “Matsqui Slough.” 25.3. The extensive network of rivers and lakes in the Matsqui territory provided avenues of communication and travel were essential to Stó:lō social and economic. Extensive overland trail networks along mountain ridges and the banks of rivers, streams, and lakes were developed to access spiritually significant locations and seasonally abundant plant and animal resources. These routes also provided communication links among villages and were used to warn of coastal raiders. These waterways would therefore have been a part of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of watershed-based tribal identity and territoriality of Stó:lõ society. 25.4. As demonstrated earlier in the report, not only would these waterways have been used by the Matsqui, but the smaller rivers would have been controlled by the Matsqui community, since various Stó:lõ tribal communities claim tributary side channels and even certain stretches of the shoreline of the mighty lower Fraser as their exclusive tribal territories. Individual tribes held within their local watershed-based territories a number of special resources that were obtainable only at specific times and found only in specific locations. This in part explains the significance of the waterways within Matsqui

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 123 LAC RG10, Vol 7538, File 27,150-3-20, Reel C-14809. 86( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

territory. Not only were these used as travel routes, but they were also significant resource areas for plants, fish, and animals. To re-emphasize, the Matsqui would have exercised ownership over these smaller waterways and resources. 25.5. In December 1890, a settler nearby to the Matsqui sought to purchase Sahhacum. A Memorandum written by Edward Dewdney on December 1, 1890 outlines the request from Sam McClure to purchase Sahhacum or IR 1. Dewdney related McClure’s claims that the dyking has “rendered [the reserve] quite useless to the Indians owing to the floodgates which have been erected from the dyking company preventing their canoes passing.”124 This requested sale of Sahhacum demonstrates how changing environment impacted the Matsqui’s ability to access and manage their traditional lands and resources. Indian Agent McTiernan sent a letter to Vowell Dec 26, 1890 detailing his visit to the Matsqui to discuss the request. In addition to issues of access, he noted that the reserve was used to plant potatoes for many years, but the crops were destroyed by pigs belonging to settlers. Because they could not protect their crops from the pigs, they found it useless to continue planting in that area.125 The Department of Indian Affairs ultimately denied the request for the land purchase in January of 1891. 25.6. As the details surrounding the use of Sahhacum show, access to lands on which the Matsqui practiced traditional subsistence activities was diminishing. This problem is compounded with the expropriation of Matsqui lands for rights of way for roads, railroads, and the dyke. The Matsqui soon lost access to IR 1 due to the expropriation of a portion of the lands by the federal government for the railway belt. OCPC 1653 of July 22, 1891 authorized “the acceptance of the offer and for a sale of the land as a right of way being granted to the above Company,” although the OCPC does not cite the authority under which the Governor in Council purported to authorize the sale of Matsqui reserve lands to the Canadian Pacific Railway.126 Portions of the Main Reserve, IR 2, were also expropriated for the Canadian National Railway, the B. C. Electric Railway, and Glenmore Road.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 124 LAC RG10, Vol 3844, File 73321, Reel C-10148. 125 Ibid. 126 OCPC 1653. 87( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

26. Farms and Fisheries 26.1. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Matsqui adapted their land use practices to include newly available resources and economies largely due to increasing restrictions on access to their traditional territory. To supplement their subsistence practices, the Matsqui adopted agricultural and horticultural practices. In particular, they planted crops, grew gardens and orchards, and raised cattle and other stock. The 1877 Census and Indian Affairs Annual Report indicates that the Matsqui planted about three acres of potatoes, had some small gardens, and had horses, cows, steers and oxen.127 Over a decade later, Indian Agent McTiernan wrote, “[t]he Matsqui band cultivate considerable land and produce good crops, chiefly potatoes and hay.”128 26.2. These agricultural and horticultural practices were adopted to varying degrees of success, as the lands along the Lower Fraser were prone to yearly flooding, and crops were often ruined.129 In 1882, recorded flooding along the Lower Fraser, including on Matsqui reserve lands, destroyed all the planted crops. In 1894 Indian Agent Frank Devlin wrote, "...the Matsqui follow farming chiefly for a living….On most of these reserves all the crops planted by the Indians last spring were entirely destroyed by the floods, many of their farming implements and household effects have been washed away and lost." From the start of the allocation of their reserve lands, the Matsqui had stated that their lands were unsuitable as reserve lands because they were prone to flooding.130 Although not explored in any extent within the Indian Affairs records, given the unreliable nature of these horticultural and agricultural practices, it can be assumed that the Matsqui continued to pursue their traditional subsistence practices alongside of these new pursuits. 26.3. The annual reports draw attention to the role of fishing in the Matsqui’s economy. The 1882 report indicates the Matsqui were “all employed and getting good wages” at

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 127 LAC RG 10 Vol 3650, File 8301. 128 Annual Report Of The Department Of Indian Affairs For The Year Ended 31st December 1888, (Ottawa: Dominion Of Canada, 1889), 107.

129 Annual Report Of The Department Of Indian Affairs For The Year Ended 31st December 1882, (Ottawa: Dominion of Canada, 1883), xxiv. 130 Memorandum to Indian Affairs from Sproat, Jan 25, 1879, LAC RG10 Vol 7538 File 27,150-3-20, Reel C- 14809. 88( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

the fisheries.131 Because these government-authored reports are primarily concerned with documenting First Nations people’s progress toward western-style civilization, they spend little time discussing traditional subsistence or ceremonial activities. As such, reference is regularly made to the Matsqui people’s participation in the commercial fishery supplying the industrial canneries, but few references speak to salmon fishing in other contexts. For this sort of information, more can typically be gleaned from the individual correspondence of the Indian Agents as recorded in their letterbooks. In both the 1893 and 1894 Annual Reports, Indian Agent Frank Devlin reported that the First Nations people within the New Westminster District “have plenty of dried and salted salmon.”132 In 1904, the Annual Report states that in addition to mixed farming, all of the Matsqui residents “also fish for the canneries during the salmon canning season.”133 26.4. Adaptations to Matsqui land use practices were not just limited to on-reserve practices internal to the Matsqui community. Their participation in the wage economy enabled them to acquire resources required to continue more traditional land use practices such as fishing, trapping, and gathering. In the 1905 and 1906 Annual Reports, the Matsqui Band report changes slightly in its description of the occupations of the Matsqui referring more generally to fishing as a part of their mixed economy, rather than fishing for the canneries stating, “Their chief occupations are farming and fishing; they all do more or less mixed farming.”134 References to farming and fishing continue until 1910, when picking hops is added as another occupation: “they spend most of their time in farming and fishing. They also work in hop-yards during the hop-picking season.” In addition, the Matsqui sold fruit harvested from their orchards and sold timber harvested from their reserve lands.135

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 131Annual Report Of The Department Of Indian Affairs For The Year Ended 31st December 1882, (Ottawa: Dominion of Canada, 1883), 60.

132 Frank Devlin, Indian Agent, to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, June 30, 1893. 133 Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1904, 231. 134 Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1905, .251; Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1906, 213. 135 Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1900 states that Matsqui mixed farmers and fish for canneries, see page 249; Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1905 states that chief occupations are farming and fishing, see page 215; Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1908 states “they also earn a good deal at hop-picking.” See page 220; Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1913 reports on Matsqui Chief having sold a “great deal of fruit” to the cannery. see page 290.

89( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

26.5. As the people of Matsqui adopted and adapted additional land use practices to supplement traditional activities, they encountered increasing encroachment on their territory and limitations on their ability to access resources. Although the Department of Indian Affairs heavily controlled the sale of timber from their lands, the Matsqui did their best to profit from the small amount of resources they were able to regulate and control. In 1898, Indian Agent Devlin sent a letter to Matsqui Chief Augustus requesting that Matsqui people stop cutting cottonwood on Matsqui Island until Devlin has the chance to visit their reserve and approve cutting timber. Chief Augustus later responded, stating that he did not know it was illegal for them to cut wood on their reserve land. Over the next two years, the timber rights for the Matsqui people remained a contentious issue between Devlin and Chief Augustus as the Matsqui continued to sell timber cut from their reserve. The issue of timber rights for the Matsqui remained an issue through to the World War One years when it was raised by Matsqui leaders at the McKenna- McBride Commission.136 26.6. Beyond the Federal Indian Affair bureaucracy, the federal department of fisheries also kept somewhat systematic files relating to the activities of First Nations people, primarily as related to fishing activity. In the case of Matsqui, the records indicate a sustained engagement with the Fraser River salmon fishery. For example, on February 1, 1896, John McNabb, Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, reported that fisheries Guardian Purkiss of Mission, BC had seized a “large number of salmon” at the mouth of the Sumas River and “near Mission,” among which were “three short nets belonging to old Indians who were I believe fishing only for food, and I had their nets returned to them with a caution. I have good reason to believe most of the nets were supplied to Indians, and half breeds by a man who has a trading establishment near Sumas…”137 After corresponding with officials in the Fisheries and then Indian Affairs offices in Ottawa, McNab released nineteen nets that were held in custody of Purkiss in Hatzic (immediately adjacent to Mission) “to Old Indians, who came to see me, and

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 136 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of B.C. – Meeting with the Matsqui Band or Tribe of Indians on Monday, January 11th, 1915. (Complete transcript available through the Union of BC Indian Chiefs web site - http://gsdl.ubcic.bc.ca/cgi-bin/library.cgi?site=localhost&a=p&p=about&c=royalcom&l=en&w=utf-8) 137 John McNabb, Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, to Hayter Reed, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, February 1, 1896. RG 23, Reel C-2635, File no. 1467, pt. 1. 90( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

satisfied me that they had used the nets to catch fish [which he subsequently clarified were sockeye salmon] for their own subsistence only.”138 26.7. While a subsequent investigation by the Indian Agent for New Westminster District, Frank Devlin, could find no evidence of the alleged white trader who had furnished nets to the First Nations fishing at the mouth of the Sumas River and at the second undetermined site near Mission, he did discover that there were an additional “six other Indians besides the three referred to by Mr. McNabb [who had] made application… for their nets claiming that they were only fishing for food for themselves and their families.”139 26.8. Shortly thereafter, on May 16th, 1896, McNabb reported to Commissioner Prince that he had seized sockeye nets near the mouth of the Pitt River and three short sockeye nets near the mouth of the Sumas River, and then “two full length and almost new 7 ½ inch mesh nets drifting near Hatzic – the fishermen […?] the Launch approached abandoned their nets.”140 26.9. While it is unclear which tribal community the various First Nations fishers discussed in the February-through-May 1896 correspondence belonged, it is likely that at least some of those references were Matsqui. This is not only because of the fact that the mouth of Sumas River is near the border between Sumas and Matsqui territory, and that the reference to “near Mission” implies a proximity to the historical-era main Matsqui village which is across the river from Mission, but also because of the possibility that the Matsqui people referenced by Boas as living on Sumas Lake may have entered the Fraser to fish via the lower Sumas River rather than through the network of sloughs and portages that link the upper Sumas River to the Fraser River via the Matsqui River.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 138 John McNabb, Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, to E.E. Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, Ottawa, February 11, 1896. RG 23, Reel C-2635, File no. 1467, pt. 1. 139 Frank Devlin, Indian Agent, to A.W. Vowell, Indian Superintendent for British Columbia, February 26th, 1896. RG 23, Reel C-2635, File no. 1467, pt. 1. 140 John McNabb, Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, to E.E. Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, Ottawa, May 16th, 1896. RG 23, Reel C-2635, File no. 1467, pt. 1.

91( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

27. Dyking at Matsqui 27.1. Matsqui IR 2 is further disrupted when a second dyke is constructed, beginning sometime in 1897. Originally the proposed path of the dyke did not cross Matsqui Reserve land, but this was changed during construction in the spring of 1899 so that it cut directly adjacent to the bank of the Fraser River on Matsqui IR 2. Neither the Matsqui nor the Indian Department were consulted prior to the appropriation of Matsqui land for the construction of this dyke, which resulted in a complaint by the Matsqui to Frank Devlin, Indian Agent for the New Westminster Agency. The Matsqui explained to Devlin that the new the dyke was too high to cross efficiently with their wagons, and that the new path of the dyke threatened to damage or destroy established gardens, orchards, and other improvements. The Matsqui stopped the contractors from constructing the dyke, which forced Devlin to go to Matsqui and make an assessment:

“The property of Indians which have been destroyed by the Dyke running through and necessitating in many cases cutting down of fruit trees and doing other damage that the Indians are certainly entitled to compensation for… The Indians pointed out to me their objection to the change of location, the engineers pointed out the necessity for making the changes also as well as the Commissioners for dyke pointed out the damage likely to be caused through any stoppage of the work, as the river was then rising fast. They promised to compensate the Indians for the land taken and for the damage done. On explaining this to the Indians they consented to let construction of the Dyke proceed.”141 27.2. This was largely a continuation of similar processes from the first dyking scheme. The Dyking Commission and Provincial Inspector of Dykes and Engineer FG Gamble promised to furnish Devlin with maps, plans, and assessments showing the changes to the dyke, but although Devlin stated that he “met Mr. Gamble frequently afterwards…[Gamble] always promised to send me the plans but he has not done

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 141 Frank Devlin, Indian Agent, New Westminster Agency to A.W. Vowell, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs, September 1, 1899, National Archives, RG10, Reel C-14266, Volume 1453, files 669- 670. 92( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

so.”142Devlin reminded Gamble that the Matsqui had endured a long period of dyke construction in their territory, and that “no settlement has ever been made and no compensation allowed the Matsqui Indians for the loss of their orchards and grounds.”143 As constructing the Dyke resulted in the flooding of Matsqui orchards and improved lands, the evidence was literally unreachable.

27.3. In 1903, Anthel of Matsqui (known to Devlin as ‘Barrie’) requested compensation for his lost lands. Devlin reported the complaint to Vowell asserting that, During the construction of Matsqui Dyke, this old Indian as well as other Matsqui Indians who had garden patches cleared on the high ground on the bank of the river suffered the loss of their cleared ground also quite a number of fruit trees and some fences, rails. They have never received one cent of compensation. I have written many letters and done my best to get settlement for these Indians.144 27.4. With the construction of the second dyke, the Matsqui First Nation witnessed additional changes to the streams and creeks of Matsqui Territory. These changes significantly degraded the aquatic habitats that were once productive for a variety of freshwater fish.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 144 Frank Devlin, Indian Agent, New Westminster Agency to A.W. Vowell, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs, January 2, 1903, National Archives, RG10 Volume 1458, file 368, Reel C-14268. 93( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Figure 10: Map of Matsqui showing line of dyke and lands reclaimed. 1876, 1 map: Manuscript coloured; 37 1/2" x 37 1/2" Library and Archives Canada, MIKAN no. 4160554, reproduction number e011157173.

94( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

28. Twentieth Century Development and Fish Decline 28.1. The combined effects of overfishing, dyke construction along the Fraser River, clearing of the forested landscape, intensive agricultural activity, and urban development are suspected to be major contributors to the serious decline of fish stocks in Matsqui Territory. On January 11, 1901, twenty-three Fraser River Indian Chiefs, including Chief Augustine of Matsqui, petitioned the federal minister of Fisheries protesting the newly introduced law requiring First Nations people to purchase licenses to commercially fish for sockeye: Dear Sir, I take the pleasure of writing these few lines to ask you a question about law, long ago, our grandparents God put us on this fraser [sic] River, and then the white peoples came here on our country, then we give them our country, so now you know that we very good, and Kind to the white peoples as soon as we see the them we give them lots of our land. So please, mind us and listen what ever we to say and do it for us. There is one thing we want, about the Sockeye License, the Sturgeon License, we do not want to bye it, for there is some of the white peoples the Magastrates are talking about it. We do not want to go against the law, just because that we are poor. So I do not think that you to not mind us [sic] so we will sign our names, all the fraser River Chiefs. We are 23.145

28.2. While the petition ultimately fell short of achieving what Augustine and the other Chiefs had hoped for (the requirement to purchase licenses to fish sockeye was not lifted), the petition does revealed just how central the sockeye fishery was to Matsqui society. 28.3. As a staple of the Stó:lõ culture and way of life, fishing and the protection of fish habitat—particularly salmon—remained high priorities for the Matsqui people and their leaders. In 1902 Chief Augustan (also spelled Augustine) of Matsqui joined 14 Lower Fraser River chiefs and several family leaders in signing a petition to the Minister of

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 145 Petition of 23 Stó:lõ Chiefs protesting requirement to purchase sockeye fishing licenses, to Sir Louis Davis, K.C.M.G, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada, January 11, 1901. RG 23, Reel C-2603, File 678, pt. 3. 95( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Marines and Fisheries requesting that non-First Nations and First Nations fishers alike have the size of their nets restricted so as to ensure sufficient salmon were not only caught by people farther upriver of the Steveston Canneries, but also to ensure an adequate number of salmon reached the spawning grounds. The letter states:

What we are anxious for the Department to do, towards all parties concerned, is to adopt a uniform depth of nets of not more than 60 meshes to be used in the future. This will give an equal chance and leave a big margin of space to allow fish not gilled to pass on to the spawning beds. Unless this plan is adopted, the Salmon industry will be greatly injured in the future.

We, on a former occasion, gave the Government timely warning as to the fate of the Sturgeon fishing and what results we all know now to our loss and regret. The Sturgeon now have been destroyed in the Fraser.146

28.4. The federal fisheries records compliment the federal Indian Affairs’ records to demonstrate that the Matsqui people continued to regard salmon fishing as integral to their society for both food and social purposes, and also reveal that the Matsqui people were among the Stó:lõ tribes who were keen to focus their salmon fishing activities within their traditional tribal territory – regardless of whether they were fishing for food or to supply the canneries at Steveston.

29. DIA Letterbooks and Twentieth Century Resource Use 29.1. The annual reports from the Federal Indian Department provide what might be considered a big picture of activities in Matsqui and the broader Coast Salish region. For more detailed information one needs to consult the individual Indian Agent’s letter books. In December 1908, for example, Agent McDonald reported that five Indian Chiefs residing within the agency had provided him with a letter “complaining of provincial fisheries regulations.” The actual letter from the Chiefs was not included in the federally archived material, unfortunately, and so we cannot know for certain

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 146 Carlson, et. al. eds., A Stó:lõ – Coast Salish Historical Atlas, “1902 Stó:lõ Letter to the Minister of Marines and Fisheries,” 175-176. 96( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

whether the Chief at Matsqui was one of the signatories. However, given that McDonald’s report indicates that the area of the Fraser that was affected by the provincial closure was “above the New Westminster bridge,” it is reasonable to assume that the concerned chiefs were most likely those from the five tribes immediately upriver from New Westminster, Viz., Coquitlam, Katzie, Kwantlen, Whonnock, and Matsqui.147 Given that Kwantlen and Whonnock were regularly treated as a single tribe, it is also possible that the five tribes additionally included Sumas. This would make sense given that that the Fraser River was tidal as far as the mouth of the Sumas River and as such was the region where the commercial fishery was sanctioned. In either scenario, it is reasonable to expect that the Chief of Matsqui would have been among the signatories. Shortly thereafter, on January 9, 1909, Chief Cassimire of Langley (Kwantlen) received a letter from McDonald stating that the provincial regulations had been deemed ultra vires and therefore not applicable to the five Chiefs or their communities.148 29.2. Not long after this, on April 27th, 1909, Agent McDonald replied to a letter from Chief Augustine of Matsqui clarifying that the government authorized Matsqui Indians to access “relief” supplies from Mr. DesBrisay’s store in Mission. Among the various provisions Chief Augustine requested was twine for weaving and repairing gill nets for catching salmon. The Indian agent, however, noted in his reply that he had already provided salmon net twine to several Matsqui Indians earlier in the year, and as such he was unwilling to provide them with additional salmon supplies now:

In reply to your letter of the 24th instant, I enclose herewith relief orders on r. DesBrisay’s store, Mission City, for provisions for the following Indians viz., Chief Augustine, twine [for salmon nets] and provisions; Borry, twine [for salmon nets]; Mrs. Louie, twine [for salmon nets] and provisions; Frank, provisions; Mrs. Julian, provisions; Charley [the future Matsqui Chief] provisions; Mrs. George, provisions. It is noticed that you have asked for twine for

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 147 R. McDonald to A.W. Vowell, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for British Columbia, December 16, 1908. RG 10, Reel C-14273, Vol. 1469, 537. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1908-1909. 148 R. McDonald to Chief Cassimere, Langley, January 9, 1909. RG 10, Reel C-14273, Vol. 1469, 602. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1908-1909. 97( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

all these people, which is a most useful thing to supply such a quantity to one reserve at a time. In this connection, I beg to point out that Frank, Mrs. Julian, and Charley received orders for salmon twine in the month of February, and are certainly not entitled to any now.149

29.3. One year later, un-named Chiefs from the tribes residing along the Fraser River between New Westminster and the Mission Bridge (therefore most likely including Matsqui) petitioned the government to allow them to continue to fish sockeye salmon for commercial purposes in the same manner that they had become accustomed to since the establishment of the canneries at Steveston; namely, they wanted to be able to continue fishing within their tribal territory “near their reserves, where they could at the same time, attend to their farms” during the same weekend hours as those who fished salmon below New Westminster adjacent to the canneries.150 Unless the regulations were changed the Matsqui people and members of other tribes within the New Westminster- to-Mission Bridge district of the Fraser would be required to relocate their fishing activities to regions outside of their tribal territories. A follow-up letter mailed to Chief Cassimire of Langley (Kwantlen) on September 26, 1910, (with a request that it be circulated to the other Chiefs who signed the original petition) stated that the Department of Fisheries was unwilling to alter their regulations.151 29.4. On August 9, 1912, Indian Agent Peter Byrne reported that the previous month he had visited various Indian Reserves within his agency, including Matsqui, and noted that many First Nations people were at their fish camps catching salmon.152 29.5. On August 8, 1912, Indian Agent Peter Byrne reported that he visited the Matsqui reserve among others along the Fraser River and that he also visited the various tribal

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 149 R. McDonald, Indian Agent, to Chief Augustine, Matsqui, April 27, 1909. RG 10, Reel C-14273, Vol. 1470, 344. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1909. 150 R. McDonald, Indian Agent, to Secretary of Indian Affairs, September 1, 1910. RG 10, Reel C-14274, Vol. 1473. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1910-1911. Unfortunately, the actual petition with the various Chiefs signatures was not microfilmed and included in the RG10 archives. 151 R. McDonald, Indian Agent, to Chief Cassimire, September 26, 1910. RG 10, Reel C-14274, Vol. 1473. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1910-1911. 152 Peter Byrne, Indian Agent, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs, August 8, 1912. RG 10, Reel C-14276, Vol. 1476, 666-668. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1912. 98( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

communities’ salmon fishing camps. While his report was primarily concerned with discussing the sanitary condition at the fish camps (which were good) his work does indicate the continuing Matsqui participation in the salmon fishery.153 29.6. Sometimes the archival records are available but are so badly deteriorated due to improper handling and storage, archival records are often illegible. In the New Westminster Agency letterbook for 1913, for instance, there is a document titled “"FISHING TAG FOR THOS. [Thomas] CLINE OF MATSQUI", but the document is so faded as to be completely illegible. Records such as these, regardless of their limited readability, show that the Matsqui tribe continued to participate in the salmon fishery in their territory in spite of the cumulative impacts on their rights and waterways.154 29.7. The next explicit reference to Matsqui salmon fishing is found in the archived letterbooks in a July 14, 1914, letter from Indian Agent Peter Bryne to Mrs. Lucy George. Mrs. George, a fisher and member of the Matsqui First Nation, had earlier written to Bryne complaining that her salmon fishing net had been lost. Bryne’s patronizing reply was:

I may say that I am very sorry to hear that you lost your net. I have been making enquiries at the Fisheries office, and so far I have not been able to get any trace of it, nor are there any pieces of old net there, which I could send to you. You really should look after your net and see that it was not taken up occasionally, especially at night, and then it would not have been lost.155

29.8. Indicative of the Matsqui interest in salmon fishing on both the Fraser River and the Sumas watershed is a letter written to Indian Agent R.C. McDonald by Chief Ned of Sumas over a decade later on March 8, 1911. In this correspondence, Chief Ned outlined his and other Stó:lõ people’s dissatisfaction over the confiscation of salmon nets by

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 153 Peter Byrne, Indian Agent, to the Secretary Superintendent of Indian Affairs, August 8, 1912. RG 10, Reel C- 14276, Vol. 1476, 677. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1912. 154 "FISHING TAG FOR THOS. CLINE OF MATSQUI" [illegible doc] RG 10 Reel C-14276, Vol. 1478, 38. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1913. 155 Peter Byrne, Indian Agent, to Mrs. Lucy George, Matsqui Indian Reserve, July 14, 1914. RG 10, Reel C-14277, Vol. 1480, 264. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1914. 99( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Fisheries officers. Significantly, Chief Ned explains that in addition to the complaints of members of his Sumas community are those of “Mrs. Chief Charley,” the wife of the Matsqui Chief in 1911, who had a net taken “about two weeks ago.”156

30. The BC Land Question and McKenna-McBride Commission 30.1. As access to the traditional territory and resources of the Matsqui, specifically, and the Stó:lõ, generally, became increasingly limited, the Chiefs of BC pushed to settle the land question. In 1911, BC Chiefs forwarded a Petition to Frank Oliver, the Minister of the Interior, requesting that they be compensated for their lands and resources through a treaty process:

All parts of all reserves are known to us are used by us one way and another as fully as possible, considering our present disadvantageous position, and the nature of the lands. If by occupancy Mr. McBride means actual living on or cultivating of each part of reserve, then we plead guilty to our inability to occupy the greater part of them, for we cannot live on and cultivate rocks, side hills and places where we can get no water…

Had this Government paid us for all our timber that was used, and all our fifty millions of gold that was taken out of this country, and all our salmon that has been caught and destroyed, and many other things which might be mentioned…Good trails we had in plenty before the whites came. The whites are indebted to us for having them ready made when they came, and allowing them to use them without charge. …

We desire a complete settlement of our whole land question, and the making of treaties which will cover everything of moment to us in our relations between the whites of this country as represented by their Governments, and we as Indian tribes.” Signed by Charles Jacob, Chief Matsqui Band, Lower Fraser Tribe.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 156 Chief Ned to R.C. McDonald, Indian Agent, new Westminster District, March 8, 1911. RG 23, Reel C-2636, File 1469, pt. 2. Note, in a follow-up correspondence of March 27th, 1911, William A. Found, (for the Superintendent of Fisheries) notes that Chief Ned “feels very sorry” about the fact that the Inspector of Fisheries pointed a gun at him the last time he was out. RG 23, Reel C-2636, File 1469, pt. 2. 100( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

30.2. In spite of increasing limitations on movement and restrictions enforced through the Indian Act and other legislation, as well as the changing social and economic environments, the Matsqui continued their traditional land use practices to the extent they were able. Records specify that the Matsqui continued their traditional land use practices in their traditional territory well into the twentieth century, including the southern portion of the Matsqui traditional territory down to the 49th parallel and into the United States. As the 1912 Indian Affair Annual explained, the Matsqui continued traveling throughout their territory, and “many of them seem to be as much at home on the American side as in British Columbia.”157 30.3. In 1913, the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in the Province of BC, also known as the “McKenna-McBride Commission” began to hold hearings in First Nations communities. For the next three years, the Commission travelled throughout the province holding meetings and interviews from which they produce volumes of testimony and 98 interim reports. The Commission held hearings at Matsqui on January 11, 1915. Chief Charlie spoke on behalf of the Matsqui people, and discussed issues related to hunting, fishing, grazing, and timber rights. He also recalled a number of promises made by Crown officials that remained unfulfilled, such as the reserve lands and revenue sharing. Chief Charlie began by addressing the Commission:

I would like to say a few words to you - I have been waiting a long time to see you - I want to see you because I am a poor man. We have no facilities for doing anything - I think that the Commission did not come over here to see the whites; I think they came over here for the purpose of seeing me; that is the reason I am glad to see you come here because you know I am stopping here on this Reserve - Our forefathers have been stopping here and that is the reason we have been living here from time immemorial. I used to hear my grandfather talking about how long he had been here in this province, that is the reason I think that I am the right owner of this Reserve. I did not come here from another country or from other nations - I was always here and always will be. The principal thing I want to

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 157 Indian Affairs Annual Report, 1912. http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/first- nations/indian-affairs-annual-reports/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=24954 101( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

see you about is, anything that we want to do around here in the fishing, hunting or cutting timber we are always stopped from doing these things. Often I start away from home with my gun on my shoulder and try to get a deer and some of the white people will see me and they want to have me arrested right away. This is all that we have been living on before and it is the same thing today - we live on wild fowl and deer…158

30.4. Chief Charlie then proceeded to read a Memorandum he had composed for the Commission, wherein he states:

We are very pleased to greet the Royal Commission, for their coming to visit this land of our forefathers. For we are the real owners of the land from time immemorial as God create us Indians in this territory, so as God created the white people and other nations in their own territories in Europe; therefore we claim a permanent compensation for the enormous body of land known as the Province of British Columbia, in which taking by the British Columbia Government and sale to our white brothers and occupied by them. In the time of Sir James Douglas he made a lasting promise to us Indians, as all the Indians Reserves lasting support and benefit by the name of Queen Victoria. Also Governor Seymour the second Governor. He also made a lasting promise to us Indians in New Westminster that we will receive or deserving one-fourth from all taxes this money for our support and to improve our land. The promises were never kept. If those good promises was kept up by the British Columbia government the Indians would be all rich, and they would be all living comfortably; be as happy as our white brothers today. And therefore our reserve is very much smaller from the line that Governor Seymour gave us as the Government sold to the whites and we never got our payment for the land that was taken from us. We ask the Commission to give us our payment for the land was taken away from us and we want to obtain a lasting and secure title to our Indian land.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 158 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of B.C. – Meeting with the Matsqui Band or Tribe of Indians on Monday, January 11th, 1915. (Complete transcript available through the Union of BC Indian Chiefs web site - http://gsdl.ubcic.bc.ca/cgi-bin/library.cgi?site=localhost&a=p&p=about&c=royalcom&l=en&w=utf-8) 102( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

We claim that the Provincial Government has no right to claim our property's interest in our reserve and that no other but the Indians have a clear or full claim to the Indian reserve. I want the Royal Commission to know and find out about the money that is supposed to belong to us from the railway line, electric line, and timbers that has been cut by the whites on our reserve, for we never see or hear of it. And what has become of the money. The Indian Agent tells us that he sends the money to Ottawa, and then at time I would ask him for some money to get what we want. He would say the money is all gone and have no money in the Bank - that is the way with all the Indian Agents that have been with us - they never tell us what becomes of our money and we cannot get what we want from the Indian Agent. (snd). Chief Charlie Matsqui Reserve.159

30.5. In his interview with the Commission, Chief Charlie added that, for the Matsqui, “work now is confined to working their own land and fishing.”160 Detailing the impacts of settlement of development in Matsqui territory, Chief Charlie’s testimony reveals the persisting issues related to limitations and restrictions to the Matsqui’s access to lands and resources. 30.6. In 1916, the McKenna-McBride Commission released its Final Report , establishing new reserves and confirming, increasing or reducing existing reserves. Cut- offs amounted to over 36,000 acres of land, mostly in the southern and interior territories. Generally speaking, valuable reserve land was reduced or cut off, while most new and enlarged reserves contained rocky, arid or otherwise undesirable lands. Some reserves were cancelled completely. Many communities whose reserves were cut off or cancelled did not gain any land in return. The Minister of Indian Affairs promised that Indian consent was required before any cut-offs occurred. Canada and BC moved slowly to implement the report.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 159 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of B.C. – Meeting with the Matsqui Band or Tribe of Indians on Monday, January 11th, 1915. (Complete transcript available through the Union of BC Indian Chiefs web site - http://gsdl.ubcic.bc.ca/cgi-bin/library.cgi?site=localhost&a=p&p=about&c=royalcom&l=en&w=utf-8) 160 Ibid. 103( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

30.7. The Minutes of Decision published in the final report of the Commission in 1916 confirmed the reserves allocated to each First Nation. The Minutes of Decision confirmed the reserve boundaries for the Matsqui on April 11, 1916 as follows: ORDERED: That the Indian Reserves of the Matsqui Tribe or Band, New Westminster Agency, described in the Official Schedule of Indian Reserves, 1913, at Page 98 thereof, and numbered from One (1) to Four (4), both inclusive, BE CONFIRMED as now fixed and determined and shewn on the Official Plans of Survey, viz.:

No. 1 - Sahhacum, 49.80 acres; No. 2 - Matsqui Main, 328.33 acres; No. 3 - Three Islands, 608.50 acres, and No. 4 - Matsqui, 60.00 acres." Victoria, B.C., April 11th, 1916. The reserve acreage remained largely the same, with the exception of a small reduction of IR 1 related to railway and utility rights of way.

31. Fish and Gaming Laws 31.1. In the early twentieth century, the BC government instituted a permit system requiring all First Nations hunters or trappers to acquire a permit to carry out these traditional activities. This at once criminalized and restricted these traditional use activities for nations like the Matsqui. In reference to the restrictive permit system, the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs sent a letter to Provincial Game Warden Bryan Williams dated Sept 10, 1914, requesting “if it would be possible to modify the game laws in such a manner as to give the Indian a better opportunity to support himself and family during the present winter.”161 31.2. Records kept by local Game Wardens in the areas nearby to the Matsqui reserve lands suggest that hunting, fishing, and trapping continued to occur in the territory in spite of increasingly restrictive laws. On August 11, 1917 the Provincial Game Warden

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 161 Letter to Provincial Game Warden Bryan Williams Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Sept 10, 1914, British Columbia Archives [BCA], GR0446 British Columbia Game Warden, 1904-1922.

104( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Bryan Williams sent a letter to Chief Inspector of Indian Agencies W. E. Ditchburn regarding Indians shooting ducks on Sumas Prairie. This likely included Matsqui, as they frequently hunted in the area, according to the Matsqui people interviewed for this study.162 On Feb 2, 1918, Deputy Game Warden A. O. Cummins at Sardis recorded complaints regarding the netting and selling of steelhead at Abbotsford.163 Again on Feb 8, 1918, Cummins wrote a letter to Indian Affairs in which he discussed the “wholesale” selling of steelheads around Abbotsford.164 Although they do not provide details on the individuals who involved in these activities, we can assume that since they occurred in or near Matsqui territory, at the very least Matsqui people were involved in similar land use activities. 31.3. In his March 31, 1915, agency report, Peter Byrne reported that he had visited Matsqui, among other agency First Nations, and that “the chief occupation of these Indians are fishing, hop picking, farming, gardening, a great many of them also work in the canneries during the fish canning season, and others work for their white neighbours as farm hands. Many of the women are expert basket-makers and derive a considerable income from this source.”165 31.4. In his March 1916 agency report, Peter Byrne stated that he had been trying to engage the Indian people more intensely in agriculture so they would become less dependent upon “their catch of fish as they have been.”166 And in September, 1916, Indian Agent Byrne reported that the health of First Nations within his agency was quite good, despite the fact that the First Nations people brought the sick and old with them to their fish camps where, presumably, illness was able to spread more easily among the clustered people.167 Although the Matsqui community is not specifically mention in the Indian Agent’s report of November 2, 1916 (indeed, a mere 10 First Nation tribes are (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

163 Journal of Deputy Game Warden A. O. Cummins, Feb 2, 1918, BCA, GR0446 British Columbia Game Warden, 1904-1922. 164 Letter from Deputy Game Warden A. O. Cummins to Indian Affairs, Feb 8, 1918, BCA, GR0446 British Columbia Game Warden, 1904-1922. 165 Peter Byrne, Indian Agent, to Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, March 31, 1915. RG 10, Reel C-14278, Vol. 1481, 732-734. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1914-1915. 166 Indian Agent Peter Byrne to Assistant Superintendent of Indian Affairs, August 2, 1916. RG 10, Reel C-14279, Vol. 1484, 215-216. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1916. 167 Indian Agent Peter Byrne to Assistant Superintendent of Indian Affairs, September 12, 1916. RG 10, Reel C- 14279, Vol. 1484, 371. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1916. 105( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

mentioned by name), Byrne reported that he was pleased to see that the autumn runs of coho, humpback, and dog salmon were all strong and so “the Indians who were engaged in other occupations during the early part of the season are now enabled to obtain ample supply of fish to preserve for their winter food.”168 31.5. Overall, the Indian Affairs letterbooks provide information about the importance of the salmon fishery as a source of food and a source of income to Matsqui people. They reveal an ongoing connection to the salmon that connects back to the contact period, though some of the specific expressions change over time due to increased and cumulative impacts and effects that restricted the Matsqui’s ability to use their waterways, as well as pressures on fish stocks. It is unfortunate that the letterbooks, by definition, do not contain information relating to ceremonial use of salmon, and as such cannot be used to comment on that aspect of Matsqui society. The letterbooks do clearly indicate that salmon were being caught for a commercial market so that Matsqui fishers could provide for their relatives and community. These records therefore indicate that while all salmon caught by Matsqui and other Stó:lõ were not used for “traditional” practices in the most narrow sense of that term, they are used for a traditional purpose— that is, to maintain a distinct way of life, family networks, and cultural ties that persist among the Matsqui today. 31.6. The section above provided a brief overview of the cumulative effects that colonialism, settlement, and development had on the ability of the Matsqui to use their lands and resources to the extent they had prior to contact. In spite of these changes, the Matsqui continued to maintain the traditional land use practices, which were built into their way of life. Historical records show that the Matsqui people continue to hunt game and birds throughout their territory, fish in the streams running through Matsqui prairie, as well as fish for salmon and sturgeon on the Fraser River proper, and gather resources in the hills, meadows, sloughs and prairies throughout Matsqui territory.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 168 Indian Agent Peter Byrne to Assistant Superintendent of Indian Affairs, November 2, 1916. RG 10, Reel C- 14279, Vol. 1484, 628. New Westminster Agency Letterbook, 1916. 106( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

32. Contemporary Traditional Land, Water, and Resource Use

32.1. This section provides an overview of contemporary land, water, and resource use practices by Matsqui First Nation. Information contained in this section is derived from interviews conducted with Matsqui First Nation, and also incorporates information from previous studies involving the Matsqui. A total of five group interviews were conducted from November 2014 to March 2014 with 10 community participants. Information provided by the participants focused on the experiences and recollections of the participants. All site-specific information related to Matsqui traditional land, water, and resource use has been converted to mapped GIS data. The site-specific mapped data recorded for the purposes of this project include:

● Hunting areas— ● Trapping areas— ● Aquatic Harvesting areas (including fishing)— ● Terrestrial Harvesting areas— ● Sxwoxwiyam (stories of first people and Transformers) places-- ● Xa:Xa (taboo or spiritual) places-- ● Ceremonial Practice areas— ● Management of Resources activities/areas (e.g. burning berry fields)-- ● Travel Routes--

● Habitation Places-- ● Material Culture (e.g. archaeological sites)-- Halqeméylem Place Names--

32.2. Prior to the intense development of the latter half of the twentieth century, Matsqui territory hosted numerous mammals, a high diversity of bird, amphibian, and riparian species, and diverse plant and fish species. Matsqui traditional territory includes the dry maritime coastal variant of the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. These dry coastal forests are largely composed of Douglas-fir and western hemlock

107( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

trees. The forest understory is typically dominated by salal, sword fern, bracken fern, vanilla leaf, and dull Oregon grape.169 Matsqui territory combines a variety of habitats: wetlands, prairies, hills, creeks and rivers, which provides a diverse range of habitat for plant, fish, and wildlife species. As many of the habitats of the area have been modified by human development, plant, fish, and wildlife diversity has declined over the past century and a half. Urban and agricultural environments typically have a lower diversity of wildlife species than less disturbed areas.170 32.3. The experiences and recollections of the Matsqui who participated in this study date back to the 1940’s and 1950’s, although participants could relate intergenerational information regarding the land use activities of their parent’s times. Together, this information reveals a continuity of engagement with the Matsqui territory that builds on the historical precedents and traditional knowledge of Matsqui people’s ancestors, and also indicates their ability to adapt to changing circumstances while prioritizing their traditional activities.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 169 Aboriginal Interest and Use Study for the Bevan Avenue Wells Groundwater Supply Development Project, (Unpublished report, 2010), 13. 170 Ibid., 17. 108( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Figure 11

109( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Figure 12 110( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

-

--

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

ǀ -

111( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

--

—

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

112( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

113( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

- 114( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

- -

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

–

115( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

116( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

117( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

118( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

—

.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

119( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

120( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

121( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

122( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

123( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

124( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

125( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

126(

HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

128( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

129( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

- -

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

- -

130( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

131( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

132( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

133( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-- --

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

135( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

— —

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

136( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

.

-

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

137( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

- -

–

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

138(

HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-

-- -

-

— —

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

-

140( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

- -

- -

- -

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

- - 141( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

–

-

142( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

-- -- —

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( B.C. Hydro Interior to Lower Mainland (ILM) Reinforcement Project: Stó:lō Traditional Land and Resource Use Impact Assessment Study, 2009.

143(

HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

47. Conclusions 47.1. It is our opinion that the Matsqui have a core traditional territory on the south side of the Fraser River that stretches between Crescent Island and Sumas Mountain and from there southward beyond the US/Canada international boundary. This territory, though much of it has been alienated from effective Matsqui day-today-use and governance, remains of central importance to the Matsqui people as is revealed through the numerous historical incidents where they have attempted to protect it (eg. through reserve creation) and exercise land use and occupancy activities throughout. 47.2. Relatedly, it is clear from both the archival sources and the words shared by contemporary Matsqui people that the salmon resource is of particular importance and concern. Matsqui people have indicated that they are especially concerned to ensure that the salmon resource will be available to Matsqui people of future generations. 47.3. For the Matsqui, the traditional knowledge that they have of their traditional territory, and the activities they either continue to live or remember having lived in the past, are clear indications of their rights and title over their core territory. As this report has outlined, the use, occupancy, and stewardship of the Matsqui core territory indicates that their interests in their lands and waterways has not dissipated over time, even if their ability to exercise some of their rights on the land and water has been compromised through colonial and subsequent government actions. 47.4. Many factors have contributed over time to restrict the Matsqui’s use of, and access to, the resources of their territory. And so while in the past the Matsqui have been open to sharing their territory with outsiders, the number of times they have been betrayed by the government or by corporations (ie. the reduction of their colonial reserve, the imposition of dykes in their territory, the restrictions placed on fishing, hunting, and trapping) they are also understandably suspicious of government and corporate intentions. Put simply, because of these past precedents, the Matsqui today are reluctant to enter into agreements without first securing guarantees for their rights and interests. 47.5. Numerous land use areas and cultural sites, including the wetland and riparian habitats, fish-bearing streams, and the Fraser River are potentially affected by the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline project. These are areas that have been identified as

146( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014( areas where continued/future use is planned. Avoidance of traditional use areas where continued use is planned is the preferred management option. As explained above, resource sites are linked to intangible heritage and traditional knowledge, much of which is unmappable, either due to Stó:lõ intellectual property protocols or simply because it is impossible to capture and adequately represent as mapped data. This means that whereas the proposed pipeline project has the potential to affect Matsqui land and water, it also has the potential to affect intangible heritage sites, traditional knowledge, and spiritual sites within the project corridor. Matsqui people, in our opinion, have a special interest (rights and title) in their core territory. It would be impossible for the proposed pipeline to pass through Canadian territory on the south side of the Fraser River without running through the Matsqui people’s core territory, and as such the Matsqui are rightly concerned about the impacts of that proposed pipeline, especially as relates to the salmon resource.

147( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Bibliography

Aboriginal Interest and Use Study for the Bevan Avenue Wells Groundwater Supply Development Project. Unpublished report, 2010.

Annual Report Of The Department Of Indian Affairs For The Year Ended 31st December 1882, 1888, 1900, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1912, and 1913. Ottawa: Dominion Of Canada.

Boas, Franz. Indian Myths and Legends from the North Pacific Coast of America [A translation of Franz Boas’ 1895 edition of Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen Küste Amerikas]. Edited by Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy; translated by Dietrich Bertz. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2002.

______."The Indian Tribes of the Lower Fraser River." In 64th Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1890 (1894): 454-463.

British Columbia. “British North American Act 1867.” Terms of Union with Canada, Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly… Victoria: R. Wolfenden, 1881.

British Columbia. Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question, 1850-1875. Victoria: Government Printer, 1875.

_____. A.T. Bushby, on behalf of the Governor, to William McColl. April 11, 1864.

______.Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, Joseph Trutch, to Acting Colonial Secretary. August 28, 1867.

_____. “Mr. Williams McColl’s Report.” May 16, 1864.

_____. “Report of the Government of British Columbia on the Subject of Indian Reserves.” 17 August 1875.

_____. William Young to R.C. Moody. Colonial Secretary's Office. June 9, 1862.

British Columbia Legislative Council. Debate on the Subject of Confederation with Canada, Reprinted from the Government Gazette Extraordinary of March, 1870. Victoria: Ro. Wolfenden, 1870. 148( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Carlson, Keith Thor. with David Shaepe, Albert McHalsie, David Smith, Leanna Rhodes, and Collin Duffield, eds., A Stó:lõ-Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2001.

_____. “1873 Petition to Powell from Lilloet, Lower Fraser, and Bute Inlet Indians.” as transcribed in Carlson et. al. eds., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. “1902 Stó:lõ Letter to the Minister of Marines and Fisheries,” In Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. Appendix 2: Stó:lõ Petitions and Letters. “1864 Stó:lõ Speech to Governor Seymour.” In Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. “Expressions of Collective Identity.” In Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. “Intercommunity Conflicts.” In Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. “Orality About Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” In Keith Thor Carlson, Kristina Fagan, and Natalia Khanenko-Friesen eds., Orality and Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.

______.“Reflection on Indigenous History and Memory: Reconstructing and Reconsidering Contact.” In John Lutz., ed., Myth and Memory, 45-68. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.

_____.“The Numbers Game: Interpreting Historical Stó:lõ Demographics.” In Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas.

______. The Power of Place the Problem of Time: Aboriginal Identity and Historical Consciousness in the Cauldron of Colonialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Collins, Cindy. Interview. December 12, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

Custer, Henry. Unpublished Journal. April 1858.

149( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Danyluk, Stephanie. “We Let Them Be Our Extended Family.” MA Thesis: University of Saskatchewan, 2012.

Darnell, Regna. And Along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolution in Americanist Anthropology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Penn.: J. Benjamins, 1998.

Donald, Leland. First Nations Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. Berkley: University of California Press, 1997.

Douglas, James. Fort Vancouver, to Gov. James Simpson, 18 March, 1838. In E.E. Rich, ed., The Letters of John McLaughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, First Series, vol. 4, 1825–38, Appendix A, 280–1. Toronto: Champlain Society, 1991.

Duff, Wilson. Unpublished Fieldnotes, Book 2. Unpublished bound volumes (1950). Royal British Columbia Museum (Copies at Stó:lõ Nation Archives, Chilliwack BC).

Fisher, Robin. Contact and Conflict. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1992.

Galloway, Brent. Dictionary of Upriver Halkomelem, Vol. 1. Berkeley California: University of California Press, 2009.

_____. Nooksack Placenames, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011.

Gardner, G. Clinton. Unpublished Journal. September 1857. Bancroft Library.

George, Rosaleen and Elizabeth Herrling. Personal Communications 1995-2001.

Gibbs. Unpublished Journal. March 1858. Beinecke Library at Yale University.

Hendrickson, James ed., Journals of the Colonial Legislatures of the Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1851-1871, Vol.1. Journals of the Council, Executive Council, and Legislative council of Vancouver Island 1851-1866.

Hill-Tout, Charles. “The Tcilqeuk (Chilliwack).” In The Salish People, The Local Contributions of Charles Hill-Tout, Vol. III: The Mainland Halkomelem. Edited by Ralph Maud. Vancouver, Talon Books, 1978.

150( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Indian Affairs Record Group 10. The National Archives of Canada.

Jeffcott, P.R. Nooksack Tales and Trails. Sedro-Woolley Washington: Sedro-Woolley Courier, 1949.

Jenness, Diamond. “Chapter VII: Community Rituals.” In Faith of a Coast Salish Indian. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1955.

Joint Indian Reserve Commission and Indian Reserve Commission, 1876-1910. Federal and Provincial Collections of Minutes of Decision, Correspondence, and Sketches: Materials. http://jirc.ubcic.bc.ca/.

Julian, Louis. Interview. December 11, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

Kelleher, Cornelius. Interviewed by Guy Symons for Mission City radio station, 1954. Transcript of Tape #705. (Unpublished manuscript held in Mission City Archives, Mission City, B.C.)

Kinkade, Dale. “Prehistory of Salishan Languages.” In Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 197-208. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1990.

Lamb, W.K., ed. Simon Fraser: Letters and Journals, 1806-1808. Toronto: MacMillan Company of Canada Ltd., 1960.

Lerman, Norman Hart. “An Analysis of Lower Fraser Indians, British Columbia.” Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of Washington, 1952.

MacLauchlin, Morag, ed. The Fort Langley Journals, 1827-1830. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1998.

Malloway, Mary. Interview. Dec 12, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

McHalsie, Sonny. “Halq’eméylem Placenames in Stó:lõ Territory.” In Keith Thor Carlson, ed., A Stó:lõ Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2001.

_____. “We Have to Take Care of Everything that Belongs to Us.” Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish. Edited by Bruce Granville Miller. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007. 151( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

McKay, Alice. Interview, December 11, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

McKay, Stan. Interview. December 11, 2014. Matsqui, BC

Miller, Jay. Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanistic Odyssey: An Anchored Radiance. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999.

Morgan, Stan. Interview. December 12, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

Parsons, Cpt. R.M. to Moody, April 15, 1861, BCA C/AB/30.6J/5.

Petition from the Matsqui Tribe to Governor Seymour. December 6, 1868. BCA GR 1372, File 503/2.

Petition of 23 Stó:lõ Chiefs protesting requirement to purchase sockeye fishing licenses, to Sir Louis Davis, K.C.M.G, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada. January 11, 1901. RG 23, Reel C-2603, File 678, pt. 3

Peytavin, Rev. Fr. to Rev. Father MacGuckin, February 21, 1887. .Missions de la Congrégation des Missionnaires Oblats de Marie Immaculée, 1887, Vol. 25.

Provincial Game Warden Records. British Columbia Archives. RG0446. 1904-1922.

Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of B.C. Meeting with the Matsqui Band or Tribe of Indians on Monday, January 11th, 1915. Union of BC Indian Chiefs. http://gsdl.ubcic.bc.ca/cgi- bin/library.cgi?site=localhost&a=p&p=about&c=royalcom&l=en&w=utf-8.

Seymour to Earl of Carnarvon. New Westminster, February 19, 1867. BCA, C.O. 60/27.

Seymour, Gov., to Right Hon. Earl of Carnarvon. Feb 19, 1867. BCA, C.O/27.

Seymour, Fredrick. Speech to Aboriginal Leaders in the Queen's Birthday, New Westminster, May 24, 1864. BCA, C.O. 60/19, 103-108.

152( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Schaepe, David. “B.C. Hydro Interior to Lower Mainland (ILM) Reinforcement Project: Stó:lō Traditional Land and Resource Use Impact Assessment Study.” Stó:lõ Research and Resource Management Centre, 2009.

______.“Pre-Colonial Stó:lõ-Coast Salish Community Organization: An Archaeological Study.” PhD Dissertation, ii-iii, 15, 59, 66, 255, 259-265. UBC Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, 2009.

______. “The Land and the People” Glaciation to Contact.” In Keith Thor Carlson, et. al., A Stó:lõ Historical Atlas, 12-19. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2001.

Silver, Joan. Interview. December 11, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

Smith, Marian. The Puyallup-Nisqually. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Snyder, Sally. ‘Skagit Society and Its Existential Basis.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation, Washington: University of Seattle, 1964.

Stó:lõ Nation, Stave River/Lake Traditional Use Study. Unpublished document on file in the Stó:lƃ Archives, Chilliwack, BC, 1996.

Stó:lõ Research and Resource Management Centre [SRRMC]. Final Report – Matsqui First Nation Traditional Use Study For The Bc Hydro Interior To Lower Mainland Reinforcement Project.Unpublished report. Chilliwack, BC, 2009.

Suttles, Wayne and William Elmendorf. “Pattern and Change in Halkomelem Salish Dialects.” Anthropological Linguistics 2 no.7 (1960):1-32.

The British Columbian. “The Celebration.” May 24, 1864.

_____. “The Last Potlatch.” April 27, 1864.

Tommy, Rod. Interview. Nov 21, 2014. Matsqui First Nation.

Woods, Jody. “Coqualeetza.” In A Stó:lō -Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Edited by Keith Carlson. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2001.

153( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Work, John. “The Journal of John Work, November and December, 1824.” Washington Historical Quarterly 3 no. 3 (1912): 198–228.

WRG Westland Resource Group, Inc,.“Overview of the Effects of BC Hydro Mission-Matsqui and Clayburn Projects.” Unpublished Report. 2008.

Young, William A.G to R.C. Moody. Colonial Secretary's Office, April 05, 1861, BCA, GR2900 B11043, Vol. 2.

(

154( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Appendix I

Matsqui TLU Study Participants

155( HEARING(ORDER(OH+001+2014(

Appendix II

Matsqui Traditional Land Use Maps

156(