Post New

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/feds-sign-ag...

Feds sign agreements with Musqueam recognizing Aboriginal title over parts of Metro Vancouver

'Parts'? Lol. Look at the map. They gave it *all* away:

VANCOUVER — The federal government has signed three “landmark agreements” with the Musqueam Indian Band formally recognizing Aboriginal rights — including Aboriginal title — across its “traditional territory” in Metro Vancouver and surrounding areas.

The full details have not yet been disclosed.

"Aboriginal title" has special significance in Canadian law.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/...
In Canadian law, Aboriginal title is sui generis (meaning of its own kind or unique), in that the land title originates in an Indigenous group’s occupation of its ancestral lands prior to the European assertion of sovereignty. As such, it is different from other forms of property rights because it is a communal right belonging to specific Indigenous communities. In that regard, Aboriginal title may not be sold or purchased by individuals; it may only be voluntarily surrendered to the Crown by an Indigenous community through agreements such as treaties. It includes both surface and subsurface resources, such as mineral rights and oil and gas developments. (See also Resource Rights and Resource Management.)

Jedi: Here's your Canadian punishment!

Back to the article:
The government has released no full texts, no detailed territorial maps, and no breakdowns of how its so-called “gradual implementation” will unfold or what financial resources will support it beyond the fisheries component.

What is known at this time is that the Musqueam’s “traditional territory” encompasses most of Metro Vancouver and surrounding coastal areas where the First Nation has long asserted rights tied to its history in the region.

The agreements focus on control over fisheries, marine planning, and emergency response.

In its announcement, the federal government noted the new agreement with the Musqueum “honours Canada’s commitments to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” thereby “exemplify(ing) reconciliation in action.”

Details of the full texts have not been publicly released, however, leading to rampant speculation about what this could mean for property owners.

Way to go, government of Canada, for transparancy!

So what does this mean for Canada?

A lot. It means nothing's getting financed until they sort this out:
It still remains unclear what the full ramifications of that decision will be, especially for private property owners, some of whom have already reported difficulties obtaining financing in the fallout of Justice Young’s decision.

Get woke, go broke.

And if the tribes want your home, they'll boot you out (despite saying they would honor private property rights before):

https://cheknews.ca/residents-at-trailer-park-call...

People living in a trailer park in the Comox Valley say they’re being evicted unfairly by the K’omoks First Nation.

The First Nation has given notice that residents at the Queneesh Mobile Home park have less than two years to move off the property.

Many considered them their forever homes.

With the high cost of moving a trailer and extremely limited places to legally move them, the residents say they deserve better.

“There’s no place to move our trailers to on the Island. We are stuck. We have put our life savings into this trailer, and now we have to leave with nothing. That is ludicrous,” said Kathy Jenkins, a park resident of 34 years.

And nobody told them the tribes owned the land:
Some still hold mortgages, one woman still owes $80,000 on hers, and at least one trailer was listed for sale before the nation warned in October 2025 that the park’s initial 50-year lease might not be renewed.

“When I took possession of my property, I was not made aware of any kind of lease or anything like that,” said Cropley. When he asked the group of neighbours around him, they agreed they too were in the dark about a lease.

“We came here for our forever home, and I’m sad,” said Valerie Bell, who said her 87-year-old husband now has to dismantle the reinforced metal roof he built on their home.

The K’omoks First Nation declined an on-camera interview, but in a press release said it’s willing to waive pad rentals until the eviction. The Nation says it needs the land back to advance urgent and long-term housing priorities for its members as there is a growing housing demand, including some who are experiencing housing insecurity.

So what does this mean for Canada?

A lot. It means nothing's getting financed until they sort this out:
It still remains unclear what the full ramifications of that decision will be, especially for private property owners, some of whom have already reported difficulties obtaining financing in the fallout of Justice Young’s decision.

Get woke, go broke.

Are you sure about all that?

It seems like you'd need to see the terms of the agreement. It might be something that gives the tribes some form of actual ownership interest title in the lands.....but that seems like an utterly implausible outcome.

A far more plausible outcome is that the feds and the tribes have clarified what "aboriginal title" actually means in a way that doesn't confer an ownership interest that would affect financing or formal transfers of property. IOW, that this is the tribes settling in a way that gives them something but doesn't cloud title.

The latter point seems far more likely than the idea that the federal government would voluntarily do something that gave the tribes everything they wanted in the original lawsuit, particularly since the federal government fought that lawsuit below and appealed it when they lost.

It seems like you'd need to see the terms of the agreement. It might be something that gives the tribes some form of actual ownership interest title in the lands.....but that seems like an utterly implausible outcome.

The financing part?

Already happening. Loads of loans are being held up in the Vancouver area because no one is sure who owns what:
https://www.ainvest.com/news/indigenous-ruling-spu...
Legal and Financial Implications for Developers
Montrose Property Holdings had been in advanced discussions with lenders to secure $35 million in financing for a new industrial warehouse in Richmond. The company said it could no longer confirm clear title to its land, a requirement in lending agreements with financial institutions and pension funds. This has effectively halted the project, as developers rely on the ability to borrow against real estate to fund large-scale developments.

In another post I linked how the tribes are asserting their ownership of the land...over people who had no idea the tribes were the real owners.

A far more plausible outcome is that the feds and the tribes have clarified what "aboriginal title" actually means in a way that doesn't confer an ownership interest that would affect financing or formal transfers of property. IOW, that this is the tribes settling in a way that gives them something but doesn't cloud title.

The latter point seems far more likely than the idea that the federal government would voluntarily do something that gave the tribes everything they wanted in the original lawsuit, particularly since the federal government fought that lawsuit below and appealed it when they lost.

Except that...no one knows. And that's part of the point. Given the ramifications of the ruling and any deals the Canadian government makes on behalf of the citizens who thought they owned property there should have been much more transparency.

The financing part?

Already happening. Loads of loans are being held up in the Vancouver area because no one is sure who owns what:

Right. Which makes it pretty likely that if the federal government is entering into agreement, one of the things the agreement would do is resolve that issue. Because that's what the federal government would probably regard as a necessary prerequisite to giving the tribes anything.

In another post I linked how the tribes are asserting their ownership of the land...over people who had no idea the tribes were the real owners.

Yeah, but that's a completely different legal issue. Those properties were lands that the tribe actually owned through "conventional" forms of ownership, and the people who had the mobile home thought - mistakenly - that they had some right of ownership in the mobile home tracts. They didn't. That's not uncommon, BTW; we run into it from time to time here in Florida. People who "buy" mobile homes often mistakenly think that they're buying a house the way that someone buying a single-family detached home is buying a house. But they usually are not. They're buying the structure itself which is not a fixture to the land, and (at best) are taking over a lease on the mobile home lot which is under the mobile home.

Given the ramifications of the ruling and any deals the Canadian government makes on behalf of the citizens who thought they owned property there should have been much more transparency.

Maybe. From what you've posted in the past, it seemed like the federal government regarded this as a whackadoodle judge who was certain to get overturned on appeal. And the tribe itself had elsewhere said that they were not interested in obtaining any ownership interests in private property in their lawsuit, but rather "to defend its traditional territory and fishing rights":

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mu...

...which makes it pretty likely (though not certain!) that the agreement isn't to give away Vancouver, but rather the federal government agreeing to tribal requests for sovereignty on its own land and concessions on those fishing rights in exchange for formal acknowledgment by the tribe that they're not claiming ownership of private property.

Again, we won't know until we see. But that seems vastly more likely than the implausible scenario that the federal government has entered into an agreement that would worsen any title uncertainty on the better part of Metro Vancouver, much less "give Vancouver away." If they reached an agreement, it wouldn't do that - if that was what the tribe demanded, they'd just continue the appeal.

Right. Which makes it pretty likely that if the federal government is entering into agreement, one of the things the agreement would do is resolve that issue. Because that's what the federal government would probably regard as a necessary prerequisite to giving the tribes anything.

Are you sure about that? Canadian land ownership law is quite interesting.
And if the government had fixed it, why keep the terms secret? It's in their best interest to unjam the bottllecks ASAP.

"Since Trump’s transformed America into a flaming clown car hurtling toward a fireworks factory,
I’ve decided to redirect my blissful ignorance northward—to the frosty, maple-scented sanctuary of Canada!" ~Dopel, Covfefe crusader

Are you sure about that? Canadian land ownership law is quite interesting.
And if the government had fixed it, why keep the terms secret?

They're not secret. You can read the agreements at the links at the bottom of the government's press release announcing them back in February:

https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relation...

They're not secret. You can read the agreements at the links at the bottom of the government's press release announcing them back in February:

Several of those links seem to be agreements to set up relationships, like the fisheries one.

The declaration of rights has some cool stuff in it:
Our legal tradition addressed key principles such as permissible access and presence in the territory and mechanisms to address uninvited or unwelcomed people (known as trespassers in the modern-context). We have consistently protected and governed access to our territory and resources throughout our history.

Ooo, here's a good one:
At great investment, Musqueam has pursued various avenues to secure recognition of its rights. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has recognized and determined that Aboriginal title is an inherent right and a legal interest in land and includes a jurisdictional and inescapable economic component and the right to participate in decisions about the use and development of territory. Musqueam's Aboriginal title has not been extinguished. It is Musqueam's inherent rights and title which serve as the foundation for arrangements that seek to support a sustainable, modern Musqueam economy that reflects the economic component of Musqueam rights.
Musqueam has a long-standing history of successfully entering into and maintaining arrangements with various levels of governments, Crown corporations and industry partners based upon Musqueam's inherent title and rights and the core principle of nə́c̓aʔmat ct. Such arrangements represent a clear demonstration of Musqueam's proven and ongoing ability to implement our inherent rights and jurisdiction within Musqueam territory and to beneficially contribute to the economic and social fabric of Canada.

Heh.

In its 1976 Declaration, Musqueam describes šxʷtəl̕a :wməxʷ ʔə ƛ̓ xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam's native/ancestral place), as the lands, lakes and streams defined and included by a line commencing at Harvey Creek in the Howe Sound and proceeding Eastward to the height of land and continuing on the height of land around the entire watershed draining into English Bay, Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm; South along the height of land between Coquitlam River and Brunette River to the Fraser River, across to the South of left bank of the main stream and the South Arm to the sea, including all those intervening lands, islands and waters back along the sea shore to Harvey Creek, and the sea, its reefs, flats, tidal lands and islands adjacent to the above described land and out to the centre of the Straight of Georgia.
It is Musqueam's view that through its kinship ties, Musqueam accessed and utilized the Salish Sea and adjacent lands and waterways, extending up the Fraser River to the Fraser Canyon and adjacent lands and waterways.
Musqueam has unextinguished Rights and Title within the Musqueam Territory. Musqueam has and continues to exercise Rights and Title within its traditional territory. The existence of Musqueam's unextinguished Rights and Title within Musqueam Territory is not contingent on recognition by court declaration or any agreement.

That's basically all of Vancouver. "Unextinguished rights and title".

The Parties wish to continue moving beyond historic legacies of Crown denial, unilateralism and the Doctrine of Discovery to a new nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationship based on the recognition of rights, reconciliation, respect, co-operation and partnership as the foundation for transformative change.

This is a list of declarations and principles...and has very few specifics.

I like the nation-to-nation part. That means citizens of Canada get to deal with a whole other country inside of British Columbia now. One that by design doesn't have anything written down in terms of its laws.

Several of those links seem to be agreements to set up relationships, like the fisheries one.

Yep - because Canada didn't "give Vancouver away," but set up a framework for resolving things in the future (like fisheries) so that they didn't have to go to court.

The declaration of rights has some cool stuff in it:

Yeah, these sorts of documents always have tons of interesting bits in the "Whereas" clauses and other non-operative provisions. Lots of history - but those terms don't actually provide for rights or obligations of the parties.

I like the nation-to-nation part. That means citizens of Canada get to deal with a whole other country inside of British Columbia now. One that by design doesn't have anything written down in terms of its laws.

Nation isn't the same as country. For example, we have tribal nations in the U.S. - but none of them are separate countries. They don't have militaries, they don't have enforceable borders, they don't have foreign policy or diplomatic relations with other countries. It's certainly a significant status, don't get me wrong. But it's not the same thing as having a separate country.

Yep - because Canada didn't "give Vancouver away," but set up a framework for resolving things in the future (like fisheries) so that they didn't have to go to court.

Reading the declaration of rights, they're going to court.

The agreements focus on control over fisheries, marine planning, and emergency response.

This is the key Dope. If you would do a dispassionate analytical analysis first you would be good reading, and you have that capacity, your choice. Fisheries and marine planning are tied together, but I'd be interested in the emergency response. The Indians have fishing rights over a chunk of Vancouver - horrors! They're in on the marine planning - terrorism! And they want emergency response - such a fickle demanding bunch.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.