Tsilhqot'in First Nation granted BC title claim by SCoC

[oneh2obabe]

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted declaration of aboriginal title to more than 1,700 square kilometres of land in British Columbia to the Tsilhqot'in First Nation, the first time the court has made such a ruling regarding aboriginal land.

The unanimous 8-0 decision released Thursday resolves many important legal questions, such as how to determine aboriginal title and whether provincial laws apply to those lands. It will apply wherever there are outstanding land claims.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, also has implications for future economic or resource development on First Nations lands.

The case focused on the Tsilhqot'in First Nation's claim to aboriginal title over 440,000 hectares of land to the south and west of Williams Lake in the B.C. Interior.​

A B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in 2012 gave the Tsilhqot'in sweeping rights to hunt, trap and trade in its traditional territory. But the Court of Appeal agreed with the federal and provincial governments that the Tsilhqot'in must identify specific sites where its people once lived, rather than assert a claim over a broad area.

The Tsilhqot'in, a collection of six aboriginal bands that include about 3,000 people, argued the court's decision failed to recognize the way its people had lived for centuries.

The court heard the Tsilhqot'in people were "semi-nomadic," with few permanent encampments, even though they saw the area as their own and protected it from outsiders.

In its decision, Canada's top court agreed that a semi-nomadic tribe can claim land title even if it uses it only some of the time, and set out a three-point test to determine land titles, considering:

- Occupation.
- Continuity of habitation on the land.
- Exclusivity in area.

The court also established what title means, including the right to the benefits associated with the land, and the right to use it, enjoy it and profit from it.

However, the court declared that title is not absolute, meaning economic development can still proceed on land where title is established as long as one of two conditions is met:

- Economic development on land where title is established has the consent of the First Nation.

- Failing that, the government must make the case that development is pressing and substantial, and meet its fiduciary duty to the aboriginal group.

In other words, the decision places a greater burden on governments to justify economic development on aboriginal land.

The court also makes it clear that provincial law still applies to land over which aboriginal title has been declared, subject to constitutional limits.

'Absolutely electrifying'

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, was with Roger William, who brought the case, and Tsilhqot'in chiefs when they learned of the top court's decision, and said the mood in the room was "absolutely electrifying."

"We all heard the decision at the same moment, and the room just erupted in cheers and tears. Everybody is absolutely jubilant. It's very emotional," Phillip told CBC News.

"It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a much brighter future. This without question will establish a solid platform for genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia.

"I didn't think it would be so definitive," Phillip added. "I was actually prepared for something much less. It's not very often that I'm without words, and I'm quite overwhelmed at the moment."

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/tsil ... urt-ruling

[hobbyguy]

Hmmm...that decision ought to make the likes of Enbridge very nervous.

It does pose some interesting questions though. In the context of the area in question it seems fairly straightforward.

What I don't understand is how that affects, say, North Vancouver, where the aboriginal peoples have a long history.

[oneh2obabe]

Interesting times ... Vancouver council formally acknowledges city was built on unceded First Nations territory.

Vancouver city council formally acknowledged Wednesday that the city was founded on land that still belongs to three First Nations communities, taking a large step forward in its mission of reconciliation.

Vancouver’s planning, transportation and environment committee unanimously passed a motion on Wednesday stating that "the modern city of Vancouver was founded on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and that these territories were never ceded through treaty, war or surrender."

The motion also formally invited First Nations leaders to work with the mayor to develop protocols that "respect the traditions of welcome, blessing, and acknowledgement of the territory."

The move come days after the conclusion of a Year of Reconciliation in Vancouver, which was focused on mending relationships with Vancouver's First Nations community.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybr ... src=warhol

[bob vernon]

Can't Harper just fire or remove these Supreme court judges? At least the ones who voted against him. He's the Prime Minister and elected by us. These judges aren't and they just make up laws and stuff all the time to stop things from happening. Majority rules, I thought. And why do we need a court in the first place? Just let the Prime Minister decide. If we didn't like him we wouldn't have voted for him.

[maryjane48]

Can't Harper just fire or remove these Supreme court judges? At least the ones who voted against him. He's the Prime Minister and elected by us. These judges aren't and they just make up laws and stuff all the time to stop things from happening. Majority rules, I thought. And why do we need a court in the first place? Just let the Prime Minister decide. If we didn't like him we wouldn't have voted for him.

sounds like you do not respect native land claims and their way of life? am i wrong? please inform the rest of us castanetters why you really disagree with this, let it all out , we wait with baited breath :)

[zzontar]

sounds like you do not respect native land claims and their way of life? am i wrong? please inform the rest of us castanetters why you really disagree with this, let it all out , we wait with baited breath :)

If they returned to their way of life that would be one thing, but using ATV's, power sleds, vehicles, rifles, fishing poles, electricity, houses, horses, TV's, radios, bought clothing, dishes, aspirin, and the thousands of other things introduced by the "white man" and getting the land is absurd.

[zzontar]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#118037

Phillip admitted he was not expecting the decision, but he called it a win for all Canadians.

A win for all Canadians? That makes insane statements seem sane.

[wanderingman]

Can't Harper just fire or remove these Supreme court judges? At least the ones who voted against him. He's the Prime Minister and elected by us. These judges aren't and they just make up laws and stuff all the time to stop things from happening. Majority rules, I thought. And why do we need a court in the first place? Just let the Prime Minister decide. If we didn't like him we wouldn't have voted for him.

Altough your idology is a little skewed I have to basically agree.Giving these Indians free land after the BILLIONS we have been forced to give them in welfare every year adds insult to injury

[wanderingman]

"zzontar"]http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-118037-3-.htm#118037

Phillip admitted he was not expecting the decision, but he called it a win for all Canadians

A win for all Canadians? That makes insane statements seem sane.

[/quote]now theres a TRUE statement if I ever read one

[maryjane48]

Why you call them indians ? Are they not humans ?

[Glacier]

Hmmm...that decision ought to make the likes of Enbridge very nervous.

I believe you mean Prosperity since this is really what the court challenge was meant to stop.

I have a question though. What about hunting? What if the 3,000 members become 10,000? Is there any sort of regulations on the number of moose that can be harvested? Even today, over hunting by aboriginals is thought to be one of the reasons why the moose population has collapsed in the Chilcotin.

P.S. when did oneh2obabe become a moderator!?

[zzontar]

Why you call them indians ? Are they not humans ?

http://www.indianlakesgolfcourse.com/

Who named the golf course? Do you think they don't consider themselves human?

[zzontar]

I have a question though. What about hunting? What if the 3,000 members become 10,000? Is there any sort of regulations on the number of moose that can be harvested? Even today, over hunting by aboriginals is thought to be one of the reasons why the moose population has collapsed in the Chilcotin.

P.S. when did oneh2obabe become a moderator!?

That's the funny thing, the white man introduced limited hunting and fishing seasons so as not to deplete the populations... without claiming to be so in touch with the land. Everyone in the world has ancestors who had to fish and hunt as a way of life, luckily the rest of the world realized that if we all continued to do so at will there'd be nothing left.

[Bsuds]

P.S. when did oneh2obabe become a moderator!?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=57498

[ForestfortheTrees]

Whenever people say things like

Giving these Indians free land after the BILLIONS we have been forced to give them in welfare every year adds insult to injury

really just highlights their level of ignorance. They never talk about the benefits we have derived for the First Nations, or the very fact that we are living where we are. Because Wandingman, the free land you are talking about was theirs before we came along. And, we have behaved in a less than honorable fashion towards First Nations people on many occasions. Do you know the story of the Kenney Dam and the displacement of the Cheslatta T'En people? Basically, they built the dam and only told the Cheslatta T'En they had to move after they closed the dam gates. They had 10 days to relocate and received a fraction of the compensation the white farmers received. Europeans have been systematically destroying First Nations culture and appropriating their land since the 1700s. And, the very fact that Supreme Court judges voted 8-0 in favour means that there must be as least some basis for this in the constitution and rule of law.

I welcome this decision as a step in the right direction towards a better relationship with first nations people.