More Documentation Concerning the “Métifs” of Québec
“by arguments in support of such exception drawn from the apparent necessities of Indian life. Experience dissipates this cause of sympathy. It proves that the Montagnais, Mic-mac, Naskapis, and Metifs, seldom spear Salmon in any considerable quantities for present
subsistence”
More Documentation Concerning the “Métifs” of Québec:
This folder contains a copy of the “Rapport du Commissaire des Terres de la Couronne en Canada, pour l’Année 1859,” which was “Imprime par ordre de l’Assemblee Legislative” (“printed by order of l’Assemblée Legislative”) in 1860. The importance of this document lies in a section of it entitled, “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher,” which can be found on pages 156 to 161 of the “Documents de la Session (No. 12).”
Before I begin our discussion concerning “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher,” I will first provide you with some biographical information concerning both its author and its recipient. The Author of this December 31, 1859 report was a man named “W. F. Whitcher, J. P.” (William Frederick Whitcher) and some information concerning him can be found in an article published by the “Dictionary of Canadian Biography” entitled, “William Smith” (see http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/smith_william_1821_97_12E.html). The relevant information from this article reads as follows:
“… Smith had also made the acquaintance of New Brunswick politician Peter Mitchell. When Mitchell became the first minister of marine and fisheries for Canada, in 1867, he brought Smith to Ottawa, as one of a group from New Brunswick, to serve as his deputy. His original idea was to divide the work of his department between two deputy ministers, because, as he stated to the cabinet, its two branches were “so distinct and so unlike, that a man who is fitted for the one, like Mr. Smith . . . would be utterly unfitted for the other.” Cabinet refused this extravagance but allowed Mitchell to appoint William Frederick Whitcher, former superintendent of fisheries for the Province of Canada, as superintendent (later commissioner) of fisheries for the new dominion. Mitchell gave Whitcher administrative control of the new fisheries branch. Smith, who acted first as secretary of the department, was nominally responsible for its entire expenditure but actually supervised only the operations of the marine branch…”
This is an important excerpt because it informs us that William Frederick Whitcher was at one time the “superintendent of fisheries for the Province of Canada” and later was “superintendent (later commissioner) of fisheries for the new dominion” of Canada. Although I was unable to locate any information to support or disprove this idea, I believe that Mr. Whitcher may have been serving “as superintendent (later commissioner) of fisheries for the new dominion” when he wrote the above-noted “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher” on December 31, 1859. Given this information, I believe it appropriate to conclude that the information found in this report can be considered highly reliable.
Now that we know a bit about the Author of this December 31, 1859 report, it is now time to provide you with some biographical information concerning its recipient, “l’honorable P.M. Vankoughnet” (“the Honourable Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet). This information can be found in an online article entitled, “VANKOUGHNET, P. M. (Philip Michael Matthew Scott) (1822-1869) [Minister of Agriculture] [Emigration],” which can be found on the website of “Lord Durham Rare Books (LDRB)” of Saint Catherines, Ontario (see https://www.ldrb.ca/pages/books/8032/p-m-vankoughnet-philip-michael-matthew-scott-minister-of-agriculture-emigration/emigration-from-europe-to-canada-1857-broadside). An important excerpt from this article reads as follows:
“… Philip Michael VanKoughnet (1822-1869) was a politician and judge. In his 1856 election campaign VanKoughnet had suggested that the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company was invalid and that Canada should claim the northwest. Later in 1856, P.M. VanKoughnet at the urging of his friend John A. Macdonald, whom he had known at least since the meeting of the British American League in 1849, VanKoughnet accepted the posts of president of the Executive Council and minister of agriculture in the Étienne-Paschal Taché-Macdonald government. He was a close political and personal friend of Sir John A. Macdonald, but made his way chiefly through his own abilities. His niece, Gertrude Agnes VanKoughnet, married Sir John's only son, Sir Hugh John Macdonald. VanKoughnet was a forcible and fluent speaker, and an able lawyer. As minister of agriculture, he turned what had been considered a sinecure into an active department. For instance, he offered $500 for the best essay on the control of the weevil, Hessian fly, and other crop-damaging insects. After passing through the “double shuffle” in 1858, VanKoughnet was appointed commissioner of crown lands and became chief superintendent of Indian affairs in 1860 when the department was transferred from imperial control…”
Additional information concerning Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet can be found in an online “Wikipedia” article entitled, “Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Michael_Matthew_Scott_VanKoughnet). An important excerpt from this article, which states that Mr. VanKoughnet was a “Canadian politician, lawyer and judge who held the positions of President of the Executive Council of the Province of Canada; Commissioner of Agriculture; Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chancellor of Upper Canada,” reads as follows:
Deputy Indian superintendent-general Lawrence Vankoughnet was responsible for the 1876 Indian Act’s contents and wording.
“… Spending a fortune to do so, VanKoughnet entered politics in 1856. During his campaign, he expressed the belief that the ownership of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory should be transferred from the Hudson's Bay Company and that they should become part of the Province of Canada. Following the resignation of Sir Allan Napier MacNab he was named President of the Executive Council of the Province of Canada and Minister of Agriculture in the administration of Sir Étienne-Paschal Taché; he was elected to the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada for the Rideau District later that same year.
VanKoughnet efficiently reorganized the Department of Agriculture, and in particular took effective measures to check the ravages of the Hessian fly and weevil. In August 1858, he was named Commissioner of Crown Lands in the Cartier-Macdonald administration, and held office for four years. In 1860, he was also appointed the first Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs. During his time as Commissioner of Crown Lands he established the system of selling townships en bloc, and opened up some of the best colonization roads.
He also acted as Leader of the Conservative Government in the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada, or Upper House of Canada. He was named chancellor of the Court of Chancery of Upper Canada in 1862 and named chancellor of Ontario in 1867. He held that office till his death, having declined the office of Chief Justice which Macdonald made him in 1868. Vankoughnet died at Toronto on 7 Nov. 1869.
He was a close political and personal friend of Sir John A. Macdonald, but made his way chiefly through his own abilities. His niece, Gertrude Agnes VanKoughnet, married Sir John's only son, Sir Hugh John Macdonald. VanKoughnet was a forcible and fluent speaker, and an able lawyer. An annual award is made in his name to a member of the graduating law class of Osgoode Hall Law School, where his full-length portrait hangs. A small village in Muskoka, on the old Peterson Colonization Road, was named for him…”
The infamous “Sir John A. Macdonald.”
Given this information, I believe it appropriate to conclude that not only was Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet a man of great influence in what was to become the “Government of Canada” and was “Commissioner of Crown Lands in the Cartier-Macdonald administration” when William Frederick Whitcher wrote the above-noted December 31, 1859 report for him, he also had remarkably close familial and professional ties to the infamous “Sir John A. Macdonald.”
Now that we know some biographical information concerning both the recipient and the author of “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher,” it is now time to delve into our discussion concerning the importance of this document. The importance of this rather informative report can be found in an excerpt from pages 159 and 160 of “Documents de la Session (No. 12).” This excerpt contains conclusions and observations that William Frederick Whitcher reported to then-“Commissaire des terres de la Couronne” (“Commissioner of Crown Lands”),” Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet concerning the fishery occurring in the rivers of the Côte du Nord, Québec and surrounding areas in late-1859 and the fishing methods that were being used, especially by the “Sauvages” (“Savages”/Indigenous Peoples) of the region. This excerpt reads as follows:
“… On a cherché dans la nomination des inspecteurs de pêche de la côte du Nord à se procurer des gardiens efficaces, et, toutes les fois que les circonstances l'ont permis, on a choisi ceux qui, par l'opération du système de location, ont pu être nécessairement privés de places de pêche.
Les pêches de rivière éprouvent fréquemment des troubles et des dommages par suite de la négligence avec laquelle les vaisseaux et les bateaux qui font la pêche à la morue mettent à l'ancre, et à moins qu'ils ne soient soumis à une règle certaine qui les oblige à mouiller en lieu convenable, il est impossible d'empêcher qu'on ne jette les débris de poisson dans les rivières, ce qui a pour conséquence de les obstruer et de faire tort à la pêche au saumon.
Le capitaine Fortin ou le surintendant des pêcheries devrait être autorisé à marquer par des bouées les endroits du mouillage et les indiquer aussi près que possible du rivage, à mer hante afin que les pêcheurs ne puissent s'excuser sur la distance pour ne pas déposer à terre les débris de poisson.
Je ne puis terminer ce rapport sans, parler de la pêche au dard que font les sauvages.
C'est avec raison qu'on considère comme très pernicieuse la pratique de darder le saumon au flambeau. Comme on fait presque toujours ce genre de pêche au temps où les eaux des rivières sont très-basses et très-limpides, et lorsque le saumon, retenu au pied des chutes, attend la crue des eaux et se rassemble, pendant la chaleur des nuits, aux embouchures des cours d'eau qui se déchargent dans les rivières, la destruction causée par le dard est très-grande. Parfois on tuera ou on blessera de cette manière autant de saumon pendant une nuit que pourrait en prendre, pendant toute la saison, une pêche ordinaire le long de la côte ou dans l'entrée des rivières. Cette pratique de pêcher au dard l'automne et aux époques de reproduction, comme c'est généralement le cas, a des résultats qu'il est impossible de décrire: c'est le couronnement de la destruction.
On tue alors le pauvre poisson à l'époque qui en rend la destruction le plus déplorable. C'est à travers mille périls qu'il a franchi la distance qui le sépare des herbes fertiles du vieil océan. Poussé par la puissance de l'instinct, il a surmonté d'incroyables difficultés et accompli son étonnant voyage. Il touche aux lieux où la nature a pourvu aux nécessités de sa reproduction. Il a eu à franchir des hauts fonds qui interdisent sa retraite aux espèces plus grosses que la sienne; et avec cela, amaigri par sa course et par les circonstances qui accompagnent l'époque du frai, appesanti peut-être par des milliers d'oeufs, ou occupé du soin pénible d'en déposer le fécond fardeau, il périt sous le dard impitoyable. Avec chaque poisson tué ou blessé, il en périt en embryon dix, trente, quarante, cinquante et même jusqu'à soixante mille. Est-il possible d'exagérer les conséquences ruineuses d'une telle imprévoyance?
Il est encore d'autres raisons qui rendent cette pratique ruineuse et injuste. Le saumon dardé est comparativement de peu de valeur comme marchandise; mais, comme on le prend aisément, les pêcheurs le donnent à vil prix et en échange d'effets sans valeur, comme le lard rance et les biscuits moisis. Le tort qui résulte pour le public de laisser ainsi trafiquer le plus riche et le plus beau poisson de nos rivières à une époque où il n'a que peu de valeur, et dans des circonstances où des pêcheurs et des trafiquants sans scrupule peuvent seuls en retirer quelque mince bénéfice est évident pour tout le monde. Ces trafiquants incisent adroitement les parties de chétive apparence, et cachent la mauvaise condition de leur marchandise, en la faisant sécher, la salant très fort, ou encore en cachant le mauvais poisson au fond des quarts, et en le distribuant au milieu d'autre de bonne qualité pour imposer le tout au public. Ce poisson, acheté à bon marché, se vend facilement au-dessous du prix courant. Si l'acheteur voyait une fois le saumon qui a été dardé dans la mauvaise saison, il n'oublierait pas son apparence répugnante, et plutôt que de s'exposer à prendre cette nourriture malsaine, il renoncerait pour toujours au saumon.
Si, au moyen de cette pratique, on en vient à ruiner les pêches de rivière, tout le public en souffrira, parce que ces rivières nourrissent les pêches de la côte. En outre, tolérer cette pratique, c'est exposer les locataires de la couronne aux risques et aux dommages causés par les incursions de ceux qui pêchent au dard. Les punir ne répare pas le dommage. Il s'écoulera des années avant que les rivières dévastées ne ressentent plus les effets de ces destructions successives. Et tant que les sauvages ou les marchands qui les encouragent auront un moyen de s'échapper, la tentation de chaque côté les portera à calculer la chance de se soustraire à la loi.
L'exemption en faveur des sauvages que comportent les règlements sur les pêcheries a eu, je n'en doute pas, des considérations d'humanité pour motif. On a donné sans doute pour argument en faveur de cette exception, les nécessités apparentes de la vie sauvage. L'expérience dissipe cette cause de sympathie, et prouve que les Montagnais, les Micmacs, les Naskapis et les Métifs dardent rarement le saumon en certaine quantité pour leurs besoins actuels, et qu'ils n'en fument et n'en salent jamais peur l'hiver; celui qu'ils tuent va au plus proche marchand qui leur donne en échange du lard, du thé, du sucre, du tabac et quelquefois de la boisson. Ce que je dis s'applique au temps où les sauvages sont aux environs du fleuve, soit qu'ils arrivent de l'intérieur ou qu'ils résident par intervalles au bord du fleuve. C'est une erreur de croire qu'ils prennent ou salent du saumon pour le temps de la chasse…”
This loosely translates to:
“… We looked into the appointment of fishing inspectors for the Côte du Nord to procure effective guardians, and, whenever circumstances permit, we chose those who, by operating the rental system, may have been necessarily privy of fishing places.
River fisheries frequently experience trouble and damage resulting from the negligence with which the vessels and the boats that fish for cod put at anchor, and unless they are subject to a certain rule which forces them to anchor at a suitable place, it is impossible to prevent the throwing of fish debris into rivers which has the consequence of obstructing them and harming salmon fishing.
Captain Fortin or the Superintendent of Fisheries should be authorized to mark the anchorages with buoys and mark them as close to the shore as possible, at sea haunts so that the fishermen cannot be excused in the future for not depositing fish debris on the land.
I cannot end this report without talking about the spear fishing that the savages do.
It is with good reason that the practice of spearing salmon with a torch is considered very pernicious. As they almost always do this kind of fishing when the waters of the rivers are very low and very clear, and when the salmon, retained at the foot of the falls, waits for the rising water and gathers, during the heat of the nights, at the mouths of streams that discharge into rivers, the destruction caused by the spear is very great. Sometimes they will kill or injure as many salmon in a night as they can possibly take, throughout the season, normally fishing along the coast or in the mouths of rivers. This practice of spear fishing in the fall and at times of reproduction, as is generally the case, has results that are impossible to describe: this is the coronation of destruction.
They then kill the poor fish at the time which makes its destruction the most deplorable. It is through a thousand dangers that it crossed the distance which separates it from the fertile grasses of the ancient ocean. Driven by the power of instinct, it overcame incredible difficulties and accomplished its astonishing journey. It touches the places where nature has provided for the necessities of its reproduction. It had to cross shoals which prohibit its retirement to places larger than its; and with that, emaciated by its course and by the circumstances which accompany the time of spawning, weighed down perhaps by thousands of eggs, or occupied with the painful care of depositing the fruitful burden, he perishes under the merciless spear. With every fish killed or injured, perishes in embryo ten, thirty, forty, fifty and even up to sixty thousand. Is it possible to exaggerate the ruinous consequences of such carelessness?
There are still other reasons that make this practice ruinous and unfair. Speared salmon are comparatively of little value as a commodity; however, as they take it easily, the fishermen give it away at a low price and in exchange for worthless items, like rancid lard and mouldy biscuits. The harm that results for the public from allowing the richest and the most beautiful fish of our rivers to be trafficked at a time when it is of little value, and in circumstances where fishermen and unscrupulous traffickers alone can derive some small benefit from it is obvious to everyone. These traffickers deftly cut the parts of the sickly appearance, and hide the bad condition of their merchandise, by drying it, heavily salting it, or by hiding the bad fish at the bottom of the quarters, and distributing it among others of good quality to impose everything on the public. This fish, purchased cheaply, easily sells below the regular price. If the buyer once saw the salmon that was speared in the wrong season, they would not forget its repugnant appearance, and rather than expose themselves to taking this unhealthy food, he would give up salmon forever.
If, by means of this practice, they come to ruin the river fisheries, all of the public will suffer, because these rivers feed the fisheries of the coast. In addition, tolerating this practice, it is to expose the tenants of the Crown to the risks and damage caused by the incursions of those who spear fish. Punishing them does not repair the damage. It will be years before devastated rivers no longer experience the effects of these successive destructions. And as long as the savages or the merchants who encourage them will have a way to escape, the temptation on each side will lead them to calculate the chance of evading the law.
The exemption in favour of the savages contained in the fisheries regulations has had, I have no doubt about it, considerations of humanity as a reason. The argument for this exception has no doubt been given, the apparent necessities of the Savage life. Experience dispels this cause of sympathy, and proves that Montagnais, the Micmacs, the Naskapis and the Métifs rarely spear salmon in sufficient quantity for their current needs, and that they never smoke it and never salt it for the winter; that that they kill goes to the nearest merchant who in exchange gives them lard, sugar, tobacco and sometimes alcohol. What I say applies to the period when the savages are around the river, either they arrive from the interior or they reside at intervals by the river. It is a mistake to believe that they take or salt salmon for the time of the hunt…”
Although rather lengthy, this excerpt is very important for multiple reasons, the first/most important reason being that there is a clear distinction made by its author, William Frederick Whitcher between the “Montagnais,” the “Micmac,” and the “Naskapi” Nations and their mixed-blooded “Métif” relations. The inclusion of the “Métifs” in this excerpt is especially important because the way in which it is worded strongly suggests that Mr. Whitcher considered these people to be their own separate category of “Sauvages” (“Savages”/Indigenous Peoples), yet clearly lived a similar lifestyle to the other Indigenous Nations that he mentions in this report (“Montagnais,” the “Micmac,” and the “Naskapi” Nations), especially in relation to methods used for river fishing.
The second importance of this excerpt, although a negative one, clearly demonstrates that there was a great divide between “Colonial Authorities” (such as William Frederick Whitcher) and the Indigenous Peoples of the regions that this paragraph encompasses (Côte du Nord, Québec and surrounding areas) in respect to what constituted a “livelihood fishery” and what encompasses what was basically perceived by these “Colonial Authorities” as a “waste” fishery occurring during the “incorrect” season of the year/with certain fishing methods, such as spear fishing during the spawning season.
In conclusion, “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher” is a very important addition to this collection for a couple of reasons, the first/hopefully most obvious reason being that the Author of this December 31, 1859 report, William Frederick Whitcher, made a clear distinction between “Montagnais,” the “Micmac,” and the “Naskapi” Nations and their mixed-blooded “Métif” relations.
Mi’kmaq canoe
The second reason why it is important to include this document in this collection is because it clearly demonstrates that the divide between “Colonial Authorities” and the Indigenous Peoples of Canada concerning what constitutes a “livelihood fishery” and what constitutes a “waste fishery,” especially in the Eastern Provinces of the Country, has not narrowed even after almost two centuries have passed since William Frederick Whitcher wrote this report to “l’honorable P.M. Vankoughnet” (“the Honourable Philip Michael Matthew Scott VanKoughnet) on December 31, 1859. I will go so far as to claim here that unfortunately, this divide rather, has instead significantly increased in many situations over the past 162 years.
There really is not much else to say about “Appendice No. 34: Rapport de M. Whitcher” than that.
Full report;
https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.9_03315_1_2/548?r=0&s=1
