RUBENSTEIN: Who owns Vancouver? The Musqueam Agreement and quiet redefinition of land title in Canada

Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.According to a February 20, 2026, Canadian government news release:“The Musqueam Indian Band and the Government of Canada signed three landmark agreements that recognize Musqueam’s Aboriginal rights and strengthen Musqueam’s roles in fisheries, stewardship, and marine emergency management. These agreements represent a major step forward towards reconciliation and incremental implementation of Musqueam’s Aboriginal rights as affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”But these “Aboriginal rights” include rights to territory never exclusively occupied or owned by the Musqueam people of British Columbia.The news release stated, "The Musqueam people have been stewards of their traditional territory since time immemorial," but this is a claim that other indigenous groups who have also lived in the same area could easily make and substantiate, employing folklore and oral history as well.Accordingly, these “landmark agreements” between the Musqueam Indian Band and Ottawa are as prehistorically and historically thin as they are broad.Musqueam “traditional territory and waters” — an elusive phrase if there ever was one — are now said to span a massive territory worth countless billions of dollars stretching from central Vancouver to an upper border about 60 kilometres north of the city. That includes claims to what are now called Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, New Westminster, Delta, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Surrey, UBC Endowment Lands, YVR Airport, and Coquitlam..The three “landmark agreements” are grounded in a declaration of its rights passed by the Band in 1976, in which the Musqueam claimed the right to travel across this region’s land and waters “without foreign [read: Canadian] control or restriction,” and to consume the area’s natural resources regardless of Canadian legal restrictions on doing so.More particularly, the declaration states that Musqueam people “hold Aboriginal title to our land, and Aboriginal rights […] within that territory occupied and used by our ancestors, namely: The lands, lakes, and streams defined and included by a line commencing at Harvey Creek in 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 or left bank of the Fraser River and proceeding downstream taking in the 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 Georgia Strait.”.The map below, listing significant Musqueam place names, was included in the Musqueam Declaration (June 10, 1976)..The government of Canada seems to have now accepted these unproven boundaries despite overlapping claims from other indigenous bands based on competing oral histories and legends, an issue that is bound to be challenged in court for years, if not decades.Meanwhile, it is generally unknown to outsiders that the tiny Musqueam “Nation” already has three reserves under the administration of what is legally called an Indian Band: Musqueam 2, at the mouth of the Fraser River to the north of Sea Island, 470 acres; Musqueam 4, to the east of Canoe Passage near Westham Island, 142 acres; and Sea Island 3, on the northwest corner of Sea Island, 16 acres. These 628 acres are more than enough to support the housing and other needs of a minuscule Indian Band..Still, the Band’s leadership has proclaimed that “We have never considered the bits of land called ‘Indian Reserves’ as compensation for our lost rights and cannot consider that as adequate compensation,” the document says, testimony that indigenous reconciliation means restitution, lots of it.Population numbers at first contact with the European settlers are hard to determine, but today this “First Nation” — another contentious term with no legal meaning — numbers a mere 1,435 Musqueam members. According to the Band’s website, “Musqueam’s ancestors have lived throughout and stewarded the Fraser River estuary for thousands of years, a claim substantiated by archaeological evidence.”Still, several other tribal groups also occupied this same territory over the centuries, rendering exclusive “ownership” by the Musqueam people highly questionable. For example, Musqueam has overlapping and/or shared territory with several of its Aboriginal neighbours, including the Kwikwetlem, Squamish, Tsawwassen, and Tsleil-Waututh.This overlap is the understandable result of the hunting, trapping, and fishing traditional lifeways of all of BC’s indigenous peoples, ways of surviving employing a Stone Age technology that required periodic movements based on the shifting availability and over-exploitation of local food sources and other resources, exacerbated by thousands of years of inter-tribal warfare in which neighbouring groups displaced, enslaved, eliminated, or assimilated each other in a constant search for resources, glory, status, and power.Thomas Isaac, chair of the Aboriginal law group at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, claimed, “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,” Isaac said.“It’s just unacceptable.”.Isaac said this is not the way toward reconciliation or economic stability.Chief Wayne Sparrow of the Musqueam Indian Band told Global News that the agreement signed with the federal government does not include private properties in that region.“It does not include third party, it does not include land,” he said. We have an agreement with the government with MST (MST Development Corporation), which is in the core territory of all three in crown land, and it does not include private properties.”In a statement to Global News, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations Canada also stated that the Musqueam Agreement does not affect privately owned land.“The Incremental Recognition Agreement provides general recognition that Musqueam has Aboriginal rights and title within their Territory and establishes a framework for ongoing discussions and future negotiations to define how and where those rights and title could apply,” the spokesperson said, an equivocal answer at best.Isaac said governments have to come up with a better way of engaging in reconciliation.“I know what title means at law, there’s no debate,” he said.“It’s the exclusive right to that land over and above everyone else, including the Crown government, according to the Supreme Court of Canada.”The Musqueam Agreement comes on the heels of increasing polarization, after the BC Supreme Court recognized Cowichan Aboriginal title over parts of Richmond and, in doing so, declared that historic Crown grants of fee simple and other interests can be an unjustified infringement of that title — even where today’s owners were never served or named in the case. The Court did not void private titles, but it held Aboriginal title is a “senior” interest that can burden the land and said key Land Title Act protections like indefeasibility don’t apply against it, while also suggesting Aboriginal title and fee simple can “co-exist” only in a limited, reconciled way where one must ultimately yield.Only time will tell whether the Musqueam Agreement eventually evolves into a troubling Cowichan-like court decision.Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

RUBENSTEIN: Who owns Vancouver? The Musqueam Agreement and quiet redefinition of land title in Canada

Related Stories