Skip to main content

Alec Dan, of the Musqueam First Nation, looks on outside the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Vancouver, B.C., on Monday November 15, 2010.

Darryl Dyck/The Globe and Mail

A fight over aboriginal title and rights that began when natives blockaded a logging road in the Chilcotin region of British Columbia 20 years ago appears headed for the Supreme Court of Canada.

Expressing a "bittersweet" mix of satisfaction and dismay with a ruling the B.C. Court of Appeal handed down on Wednesday, native leaders said they have no choice but to take their legal battle to the highest court in the land.

To do otherwise, they said, would condemn first nations to live in poverty without control over the land they have used for centuries.

Story continues below advertisement

The Tsilhqot'in First Nation, which represents six bands in central B.C., won partial victories when both the Supreme Court of B.C. and the Court of Appeal confirmed their traditional rights to use the land.

But the decisions failed to give the Tsilhqot'in what they really want – a clear declaration that they hold aboriginal title over more than 4,000 square kilometres of land west of Williams Lake.

"It's been a long road," Chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chairman of the Tsilhqot'in National Government, said at a press conference after the Appeal Court released its ruling.

He said the Tsilhqot'in have support from native groups nationally and provincially, and there is wide agreement the case must go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Chief Alphonse said the decades-old fight has cost "a lot – you are talking millions," but the matter is too important to drop.

"We're not here to shy away, we're not here to back down," he said.

"We will not stand down from this fight," agreed Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Story continues below advertisement

In its ruling, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld key aspects of a landmark 2007 decision in which the late B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Vickers found the Tsilhqot'in have rights to the lands they use and that logging unfairly infringes on those rights.

He declined to make a declaration of title over the disputed land, but said: "The court offers the opinion that Tsilhqot'in aboriginal title does exist inside and outside the claim area."

The Appeal Court, however, rejected some of Mr. Justice Vickers' legal reasoning, specifically challenging his notion that aboriginal claims to title can be established simply by proving native people travelled across the land. It said broad use of territory isn't good enough, but rather intense use of specific sites must be shown.

The case began when Roger William, then chief of the Xeni Gwet'in band, brought an action on behalf of the larger Tsilhqot'in First Nation in an attempt to stop several forest companies from logging in the Nemiah Valley.

Band members had blocked roads, claiming that logging was damaging their rights to hunt, trap, trade and capture wild horses.

Chief Phillip welcomed the affirmation of rights, but said the decision by the Appeal Court to narrow how title can be established is a blow to first nations.

Story continues below advertisement

"I'm deeply disappointed at the title aspects of this decision. In my view, it's incredibly racist," he said, because it does not reflect the aboriginal view that land is an inextricably connected web.

Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit also rejected the court's views on title, saying the "postage stamp approach" to land claims isn't acceptable. He said that would give first nations title to specific village and fishing sites, but not the land that connected them.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter