Why everyone is suddenly talking about the Kamloops aboriginal land claim

And five things to know about it

The Cowichan Nation land claim decision sparked fear and uncertainty for BC property owners, in part, over how many similar court cases are out there.

The decision is being appealed from all sides while news about a decade-old Secwepemc case claiming aboriginal title over land in the Kamloops area is recirculating.

While politicians wrangle over what the land claim cases mean for British Columbia, here are five things you might not know:

Cowichan isn’t the only First Nation with a land claim before BC Supreme Court.

The 2015 Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation (SSN) claim is one of those cases, which was filed amid the proposed Ajax Mine assessments, along with the Kwikwetlem First Nation in Port Coquitlam in 2016. Neither have been tested in trial yet and both First Nations say they are not seeking to usurp private property ownership.

They came shortly after the Cowichan claim was filed in 2014, and it’s not clear how that decision will affect future trials or how long it will be before either is resolved.

The vast majority of BC land is unceded.

Unlike much of Canada, almost none of BC’s territory was taken through treaties with First Nations, and some lawyers suggest the Cowichan case might not have happened if there had been one in place.

BC has a process to negotiate so-called modern treaties, prompted by a 1991 provincial task force. It’s a voluntary process that many First Nations have started since then, but there are only five completed modern treaties in the province.

Westbank First Nation, for example, has had a self-government agreement in place for more than 20 years, but it will eventually be superseded by an in-process treaty which should settle any outstanding land claims.

While there are treaty negotiations at various stages, including one with the Cowichan, SSN members, Tk’emlups te Secwepemc and Skeetchestn Indian Band, have not begun any process through the BC Treaty Commission.

Go here for more information on modern treaties in BC.

The Kamloops land claim has not been hidden from the public.

When SSN filed its claim a decade ago, local news outlets covered the case against the backdrop of the controversial Ajax Mine proposal. In 2016, the province issued a news release about its response to the claim and a copy of the court document. The case has moved slowly through the courts since, but hasn’t reached a trial.

MLA Elenore Sturko publicized the ongoing claim earlier this month, calling on the BC government to notify property owners of claims that could impact them. Unlike the Cowichan case, where the court ruled against providing proactive notice for property owners in Richmond, it’s not clear whether the court yet considered a need to inform Kamloops-area property owners.

Far-right politicians are capitalizing on concerns around First Nation land claims.

OneBC party leader Dallas Brodie recently visited Kamloops and focused the majority of her public statements on criticizing Indigenous reconciliation. Brodie, who was ejected from the BC Conservative Party for mocking Indian residential school survivors, is calling on the province to cease reconciliation efforts altogether.

She falsely claimed Tk’emlups described suspected graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School “murders” and “mass graves” during the visit, but she also said the SSN land claim seeks to “take over Kamloops… homes.”

Tk’emlups Kukpi7 (chief) Rosanne Casimir responded in a statement to say the claim seeks “recognition of Secwepemc rights and not eviction of homeowners” and called for Brodie’s resignation.

Brodie’s focus on denying reconciliation efforts only appeals to a fraction of right-wing voters in BC.

Recent polling has found people who voted for the BC Conservative Party are more likely to disagree with reconciliation, but it’s not consistent. The Research Co. poll from March 2025 found NDP and Green voters were in favour of reconciliation by a large majority, Conservative voters were almost evenly split.

A recent BC Conservative Party ad campaign, however, appears to hone in on the concern surrounding land claim cases, calling for a protection of private property while describing BC as “not stolen land.”

Aboriginal title is not the same as First Nation reserve land.

Nor does it mean private property ownership is revoked. Aboriginal title under Canadian law has evolved over time, but previous decisions have not ruled that it usurps private ownership.

This is unlike reserves where a First Nation is granted use and authority over the land.

Many reserves have been expanded over the years, like Westbank First Nation, which got 4,000 hectares in 2015 or Tk’emlups te Secwepemc with 0.7 acres in 2018. This can happen, for example, through negotiations, claims of treaty violations or the First Nation’s purchasing of a property.

SSN’s challenge over aboriginal title is largely concerned with rights to mineral rights, environmental approvals and cultural practices over traditional land rather than outright ownership, according to the notice of claim.