A set of agreements signed last month between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band has sparked debate, confusion and political reaction across British Columbia.
Some social media posts have claimed the federal government “gave away” Vancouver to xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), while critics have raised concerns about private property rights and overlapping Indigenous territories.
The Feb. 20 agreements — which include a rights recognition agreement along with fisheries and marine stewardship agreements — outline a framework for how Musqueam rights may be recognized and implemented in the future.
Here is what is in the agreements and what they could mean.
What are the agreements about?
The main document, known as the šxʷq̓ʷal̕təl̕tən – A Rights Recognition Agreement, formally acknowledges that Musqueam has unextinguished rights and title to its territory, and both the federal government and Musqueam are seeking a “new nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationship.”
The agreement says its purpose is to recognize those rights, support reconciliation and establish a process for future negotiations between Canada and Musqueam.
Two additional agreements signed the same day deal with marine stewardship and fisheries management, and create a formal partnership between Musqueam and Canada to manage fisheries together.
In a news release Monday, Musqueam said the agreements support the nation’s “long-established role as stewards of the Fraser River.”
Does this affect private property ownership?
Federal officials and Musqueam leaders say the agreements do not affect private property rights.
Musqueam Chief yəχʷyaχʷələq Wayne Sparrow has previously said the nation is not seeking to take private land.
“Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours’ private property,” the nation said in a statement earlier this month.
The agreement says it does not constitute a treaty or land claims agreement and does not define or establish Aboriginal title.
Instead, it creates a framework for future discussions and negotiations between the federal government and Musqueam.
According to Darwin Hanna, a lawyer with the Vancouver-based firm Callison & Hanna that focuses on Indigenous rights, the agreement doesn’t involve the transfer of private property — that would fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal.
A landmark B.C. Supreme Court decision to recognize Aboriginal title over privately held land in Richmond, B.C. last year has ignited debate about ownership and reconciliation. For The National, CBC’s Georgie Smyth explains the significance of the Cowichan ruling and why the legal fight is far from over.
“Nothing within the agreement at this stage specifically transfers any private property,” Newman told The Canadian Press. However, “there isn’t a clause within the agreement that excludes private property from being part of that recognized title.”
That could stop the federal government from arguing against a Musqueam claim to private property if it ended up in the courts, but Newman says the agreement is designed to avoid litigation by setting out a process for negotiations instead.
Why has there been concern about land ownership?
The debate is unfolding following a landmark court ruling last August involving Cowichan (Quw’utsun) Nation.
That ruling says Crown and city titles within an area in Richmond, B.C., are defective and invalid, and the Crown’s granting of private titles on the land “unjustifiably” infringed on Cowichan title.
It states that Cowichan has Aboriginal title to between 300 and 325 hectares of land — including around 150 pieces of private property along the Fraser River.
Some residents continue to ask what’s in store for their community following a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title over between 300 and 324 hectares land in Richmond. Stephen Quinn spoke with Khelsilem, a former elected councillor of the Squamish Nation, to shed light on what the court decision means and doesn’t mean.
CORRECTION: At the 0:10 mark of this video, there is an incorrect statement that the B.C. Supreme Court decision covers 7.5 square kilometres of land in Richmond, B.C. In fact, the ruling applies to a portion of that area, meaning Quw’utsun Nation has Aboriginal title to between 300 and 324 hectares (or 750 and 800 acres) of land.
The ruling has raised questions and concerns about how private property can co-exist with fee simple ownership — the legal name for private property title.
“We recognize how impactful the Cowichan judgement has been on everyone — including us,” Musqueam said in its statement, noting it is one of the groups appealing the ruling.
The nation distinguished its own agreements with the federal government from last summer’s Cowichan decision, saying its agreements have “absolutely no impacts to fee simple lands/private property.”
What territory does the agreement cover?
The agreements define Musqueam territory as spanning from Harvey Creek in the Howe Sound, east to Indian Arm, and down to the Burrard Inlet and English Bay, all the way south to the Fraser River — encompassing much of Metro Vancouver.
The territory spans roughly 533,000 hectares and overlaps with neighbouring nations’ territories, including the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), sc̓əwaθən (Tsawwassen) and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (Kwikwetlem) nations.
Why have other First Nations raised concerns?
Some neighbouring First Nations say they were not consulted before the agreements were announced, raising concerns about how the framework could affect overlapping territorial claims.
The Squamish Nation says it has requested a meeting with federal officials and has begun a legal review of the agreements.
In a statement, the nation said publicly circulated materials, including maps, appear to show areas within Squamish traditional territory.
“Let us be clear: The Squamish Nation government will defend and uphold our inherent Aboriginal rights and title,” the nation said.
The Tsawwassen First Nation also said it is reviewing the agreements after noting that some publicly available maps appear to overlap with parts of its treaty lands at Brunswick Point.
The Musqueam agreement itself says it does not recognize rights or title for any Indigenous people other than Musqueam and does not affect the rights of other nations.
Wendy John, the chief negotiator for the Musqueam Indian Band for those agreements, said some of the reaction has been driven by misinformation about what the agreements actually do.
“I think the misinformation that’s been set out by media claiming that the government has given us everything within that map has caused angst,” she said.
Federal officials say the Crown would still have a duty to consult neighbouring First Nations if required.
Discussion about this post