NEW WESTMINSTER — An Aboriginal law expert has criticized the federal government's recent agreements with the Musqueam First Nation, calling the process “absolutely unacceptable.” Meanwhile, Conservative MPs and other commentators continue raising their own concerns about potential impacts on private property owners..Thomas Isaac, chair of the Aboriginal law group at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, described the pacts as “an acknowledgment of rights and title within a very large area of the Lower Mainland that includes waterways.”“I guess it’s the third largest metropolis in our country, and is an area of significant overlap with other First Nations,” Isaac told Global News, per an article published March 1.The agreements, quietly announced and with sparse details on February 20, 2026 between Ottawa and the Musqueam Indian Band, formally recognize Musqueam’s Aboriginal rights, including title, within their traditional territory spanning much of Greater Vancouver..Isaac highlighted deep concerns over the lack of democratic process.“It is, from a process point of view, it’s, and I’ll say it again, absolutely unacceptable that public democratic governments are entering into agreements acknowledging Aboriginal title in any form when it’s an exclusive right to land, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, without consulting in some way with their constituency, which is the public,” he said..Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis voiced similar unease about potential ripple effects, noting public questions persist despite government assurances.The federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band have signed new agreements recognizing Musqueam rights, including Aboriginal title, and setting up shared decision-making in areas like fisheries and stewardship,” Lewis said.“The government says these agreements do not change private property ownership. They are about working together and recognizing rights. Still, many people have questions about how these agreements affect existing land titles and what this means for homeowners.”.Real estate investor and podcast host Steve Saretsky, known for his analysis on B.C. property markets, echoed these concerns by pointing to the broader legal context created by the recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling in the Cowichan Tribes case..Musqueam isn’t coming for your property (but) the government is acknowledging they have aboriginal title,” Saretsky wrote in commentary on the agreements. “The BC Supreme Court ruled in the Cowichan case that aboriginal title not only ‘co-exists’ but is a senior interest that can burden the land and key land title act protections like indefeasibility don’t apply against it."In the BC legislative assembly, meanwhile, representatives from the BC NDP government, including Premier David Eby and his Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Spencer Herbert claimed they were provided no details on the agreement prior to its announcement..In response to the apparent obfuscation from governing party officials, BC Politics Reporter Rob Shaw, in a March 1 X post, questioned Eby and Herbert's comments in the lesiglature noting that the Premier attended a premier the signing ceremony in person at Musqueam in his own riding on February 20..Premier Eby has yet to offer an official public response to reports highlighting his attendance at the February 20 signing ceremony for the Musqueam–Ottawa agreements, despite his office's admission that he was present in his riding as the local MLA.Instead, on March 2, the premier focused his public remarks on announcing British Columbia's shift to permanent, year-round daylight saving time, ending twice-yearly clock changes after the March 8 "spring forward.".With the BC legislature in session and scrutiny mounting over transparency and provincial awareness of the federal pacts, Eby is expected to face pointed questions from opposition members later today on the Musqueam title recognition, its implications for land titles, and why his initial claims of being unbriefed on the contents appear at odds with his in-person participation at the event.