Evidence on the Adequacy of First Nations Consultation - BC Hydro ...

DRAFT REPORT: Rights and Title Interests in the Columbia Valley Transmission Project Area
It is also significant that it was common for Secwepemc bands to change composition over time.
Teit describes the creation of new bands that became distinct political entities:
as some families were more nomadic than others...on the whole, each
band was composed of a group of families closely related among
themselves, who generally wintered within a definite locality... 335
At the time Teit undertook his investigations circa 1900, there was “very little intercourse
between the Kinbaskets and their western kindred.” 336 Teit’s information is that once they settled
at Windermere, the Kinbasket became an autonomous group with a recognized hunting ground
that extended beyond Golden. This was not an exclusively-used area, for the neighbouring
Columbia Lakes Ktunaxa had established rights in the same manner. It is possible that both the
Kinbasket Shuswap’s and the Ktunaxa’s hunting areas in the environs of Golden had been
formerly held by another group who became extinct. And the known and available evidence
suggests that the Ktunaxa repopulated the area at an earlier time than the Shuswaps. But by the
1840s, both groups had established rights to this area. A document reproduced by the Shuswap
Indian Band’s (Fish Lake Consulting 2009) recent study shows that the Shuswap and Kootenay
residents of the Columbia Valley collectively made an agreement with the Stoney of Alberta
concerning game management. 337 Thus, by the 1880s the two groups worked together to manage
the local resources. 338 There is no suggestion in this document that the Shuswap Lake division
had any interest in the area or that the Kinbasket band’s leadership was representing any interests
other than the local Columbia Valley residents.
The ethnographic data reviewed for this report indicates that each Secwepemc band was a
discrete political entity, even though they maintained a consciousness of being Secwepemc. In
earlier times, hunting territories may have been owned property. But in times of abundance—or
perhaps in areas of depopulation—there existed an intrinsic laisser faire when it came to
acknowledging hunting territories. Still, it was the resident band that exercised customary rights
to the local resources and decided if others were welcome or not.
In reviewing the potential claim of the Shuswap Lake Division to the Columbia Valley
Transmission Project lands, it is the present authors’ opinion that while the evidence is sparse,
what is available does not support Shuswap Lake Division holding rights to the Project lands. No
known evidence exists to support the assertion of the Secwepemc of the Shuswap Lakes region
Information. Prepared for Waneta Expansion Power Corporation, Castlegar BC (Revised in November 2005 from
the August 2004 report with the same title). Page 12.
335 Teit 1909, page 457.
336 Teit 1909, page 467.
337 Chief and Headmen, Abel, Pielle, Pierre Kinbasket, John Cheneka, George Crawler et al. 1895. Record
Group 10, Vol. 3855, File 80,143. Cited in Fish Lake Consulting 2009, pp. 22-23.
338 Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 2009.
Bouchard & Kennedy Research Consultants Page 77
Page 80 of 200