Article content continued

Kathryn Teneese, the Ktunaxa Nation Council chair, said she was “extremely disappointed” to learn of the decision. She said the Ktunaxa will now discuss next steps among themselves, but will continue to look for ways to protect their sacred land.

Teneese, speaking in West Vancouver, said the debate over the resort has unfairly portrayed the First Nation as being opposed to any public use of the land.

“We feel that there can be ways that that area can be utilized by all people; all we’ve said is that should not require us to have any kind of permanent habitation in that area,” she said. “We didn’t say that we don’t want people there, we didn’t say that we don’t want recreation to occur. We just said the way (the resort) was described to us by the proponent, we don’t believe that’s workable.”

In Ottawa, Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said it seems the justice system still has trouble grappling with the relationship between First Nations people and the environment.

“For us, more work needs to be done about educating the judicial branch about inherent rights, Aboriginal rights, treaty rights,” he said.

“I think if that was done, I think it would have been a different outcome. But people lack that understanding.”

The court decision also said the Constitution Act’s requirement to consult with First Nations was met by the government, which had made significant concessions and scaled back the resort area’s total size by 60 per cent during the two decades of consultation. The concessions had been enough to get the approval of the Shuswap Band, which also claims the land as their traditional territory, but not the Ktunaxa.