Potential lawsuit looms as First Nations dispute territorial history of key Chilcotin fishing site

Winding through the Chilcotin Plateau southwest of Williams Lake, BC, Farwell Canyon, with its dramatic cliffs and blue-green waters teeming with fish, has been a place of cultural significance and beauty since time immemorial.

In the summer months it is a hub of activity, including Chilko salmon fishing in one of British Columbia’s strongest remaining salmon areas.

It’s a landscape steeped in rich and complicated history – and now long-standing tension has flared between neighboring First Nations over the status and use of the canyon.

Both the Williams Lake First Nation (WLFN) and Tŝilhqot’in National Government claim it as part of their traditional territory.

As talks between the two nations have stalled, public statements from both leadership groups making these claims have followed in quick succession, with Tŝilhqot’in National Government Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse saying he is not afraid to go to court on the matter .

But Indigenous legal experts worry that the colonial legal system will offer few solutions to a conflict that has in many ways been caused by colonial violence and dispossession.

Simmering conflict

Earlier this month, WLFN announced plans conducting research and planning activities in Farwell Canyon, including archaeological surveys, environmental data collection, and wildfire investigations.

Just days later, the Tŝilhqot’in replied with a statement reaffirming their claim to the canyon, saying they opposed “archaeological work or any other disturbance” without his approval.

“I do not think so [WLFN] be completely honest or truthful. They do not do this for the purpose of making a good plan for the areas. They do this to pick a fight with Tŝilhqot’in’, Alphonse said.

Sellars said this latest process is just aimed at giving his people peace of mind that the canyon is part of their traditional territory.

“Historically, we occupied those lands for thousands of years, but after 1865 we were decimated by smallpox,” Sellars said.

He says the Secwe̓pemc peoples, of which his nation is a part, out of necessity consolidated their smaller populations, but did not give up claim to the area and continued to use Farwell Canyon for fishing and cultural practices.

Meanwhile, the Tŝilhqot’in say they have inhabited and used the area for over 150 years. creating partnerships with local and federal governments to manage fisheries in the area.

Alphonse believes his community’s previous experience in the legal system will be to their advantage if they proceed with a lawsuit. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed native title to over 1,700 square kilometers of territory in the Chilcotin.

“That courtroom is not our process, but we’ve been there and we’ve been successful… we’re not going to shy away from that.” [process]’ said Alphonse.

But Sellars says the situation is more complicated than that. He says that the communities of northern Secwe̓pemc were forced inland after colonization in the late 19th century and when they left, the Tŝilhqot’in moved in.

“We had encroachments along our western border and we couldn’t do anything about it because of the colonial system that was being implemented and in place at the time,” Sellars said.

He said the dispute could have been resolved long ago if the colonial government had not been disrupted and suppressed.

But he says no one is “going to war” and he would like the nations to avoid court.

Legal restrictions

Indigenous legal expert Merle Alexander, a lawyer for the Kitasoo Xai’xais First Nation, says the colonial legal system often falls short when it comes to Indigenous rights and titles, especially in areas of shared cultural significance.

But Alexander said there is currently no way to resolve these disputes other than the courts, and judges typically don’t have the training necessary to understand the nuances of issues or take oral histories.

“The law is a bit clumsy,” he said.

Alexander believes that both the WLFN and Tŝilhqot’in appear to have a legitimate claim to the territory, so whatever the courts decide will ultimately serve neither group.

“It will be somewhat artificial to draw a historical line in the sand to indicate when one country’s history begins and another ends,” he said.

Going through the courts offers a number of possible outcomes, none of which are ideal, he added.

The courts could decide in favor of one group, which could lead to lengthy appeals, or the courts will decide that both nations have some claim to the land and require them to come to an agreement through another resolution process.

“For many First Nations … they end up exactly where they would have been at the starting point,” Alexander said.

But that could have benefits, he added, because neither group can deny the other’s claim and that mutual understanding could be a first step forward.

Both the WLFN and Tŝilhqot’in operate within a colonial system that Alexander describes as hostile.

He would like to see something that honors Tŝilhqot’in as well as the laws, traditions and values ​​of Secwe̓pemc.

“In those agreements is where that agreement would be,” he said.