First Nation plans to keep land claim suit dormant
Dormant lawsuit aims to ensure loss of territories is compensated
The Tsilhqot’in have quietly filed claim in B.C. Supreme Court to private land on a vast Interior territory they claimed in their historic 2014 Supreme Court of Canada victory.
The high court granted title (a first for First Nations) to 1,700 square kilometres in central B.C., a portion of the Tsilhqot’in’s claimed territory, but the ruling did not include private land.
The Tsilhqot’in say they filed claim for the private lands, before a two-yearlimitperiodexpiredonthe 2014 high court decision, to protect their rights to get compensation for the loss of those lands.
Tl’etinqox chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chairman of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, said they have no intention of pursuing the lawsuit at this time and it will remain dormant.
“But it’s there. And it is to protect our interests as Tsilhqot’in. We would rather deal with (compensation) at the negotiating table where the provincial representatives are right there,” Alphonse said Wednesday.
“If you go to court, that is the last resort and that tells you that there is no relationship between First Nations and the provincial government,” added Alphonse, who filed the civil suit on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in Nation.
Chief Roger William is also a signatory to the suit on behalf of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, a member nation of the Tsilhqot’in.
Alphonse said there has been no discussion of a dollar figure for compensation.
There are about 130 private land holdings on the 1,700 square kilometres the Tsilhqot’in have title to, largely ranches, according to the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
No private land holding estimate was available for the larger claim area.
Under a five-year agreement signed in February that sets out how the Tsilhqot’in and the province will negotiate the transition of its title lands, the province has the power to cancel the five-year agreement if the Tsilhqot’in launch another title court action.
However, the province said it does not consider the filing of the private land claim an active court action.
In a written statement, B.C. Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister John Rustad said the province has not been served with the Tsilhqot’in court petition, which was filed on June 21.
“By not serving the claim, the claim is effectively in abeyance as neither party is taking any litigation steps at this time,” said Rustad.
The province remains committed to work collaboratively with the Tsilhqot’in under the accord signed in February, said Rustad.
The accord covers the potential compensation of private lands, and also areas such as health, justice, education and economic development.
The Tsilhqot’in title lands and larger claimed area is a sparsely inhabited region southwest of Williams Lake.
However, there are pockets of settlements, noted Alphonse.
One area of interest for compensation is the Tatlayoko Valley, which Alphonse said had been a sacred hunting and fishing reserve with a milder climate than other areas in the region, now settled with ranches.
In the past, Tsilhqot’in people were allowed to enter and hunt and fish in the Tatlayoko area for only two weeks at a time, according to Alphonse.
There is no intention to remove people from the valley, some whose families have lived there for two or three generations, he said.
“It’s the province who issued those properties without consultation, without any input from First Nations. We feel that they have to pay,” said Alphonse.
Recently, other First Nations have claimed title to areas that include private land holdings.
Last fall, the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation, a joint body of Tk’emlups and Skeetchestn Indian bands, filed a court claim to areas that included the proposed $1.3-billion Ajax mine and the City of Kamloops.
The B.C. government issued a public statement in January saying it would vigorously oppose the claim that “has the potential to create uncertainty over the land base and for private property owners across this territory.”
By not serving the claim, it is effectively in abeyance as neither party is taking any litigation steps at this time.