Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Sims, Associate Professor of First Nations Studies; Adjunct Professor of Education, University of Northern British Columbia
Canada’s federal government recently signed three agreements with the Musqueam First Nation that, among other things, recognize the Musqueam People’s Aboriginal title to their traditional territory — which includes most of Vancouver.
For that reason, it’s surprising that rather than making headlines immediately, most media outlets didn’t report on the agreements until a week after Ottawa’s announcement. The situation was reminiscent of how the Cowichan case in the summer of 2025 didn’t make news until the City of Richmond started informing residents in October that it might affect their fee simple title, a term referring to ownership of full, permanent property rights.
Given how many residents not only in Richmond and Vancouver, but also the rest of British Columbia, have responded with concern about what this ruling means — including some who blame reconciliation efforts — the delay in informing the public is less than ideal and only causes further anxiety.
It hasn’t helped that when asked in the B.C. legislature, provincial government officials simply responded they weren’t involved in reaching the three agreements.
Cowichan
The Cowichan case is potentially precedent-setting because it stated that Aboriginal title could co-exist with fee simple title, the form of title most Canadians associate with land ownership.
In doing so, it transformed the general understanding of treaty-making in Canada — that only the Crown could acquire Aboriginal title, and having acquired it, could then grant title to third parties.
This concept is enshrined in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is referenced in the Canadian Constitution and often cited as the reason why treaties were — or are — signed with Indigenous nations.
In fact, this belief was so entrenched in Canadian legal thought that in 1923, the federal government and the province of Ontario rushed through what are known as the Williams Treaties — final historic land cessions involving seven Mississauga and Chippewa First Nations — when they realized Aboriginal title had not been dealt with throughout the province.
One of the major exceptions to this way of handling Aboriginal title is British Columbia. Aside from the Douglas Treaties — negotiated by the colony of Vancouver Island, and Treaty 8, negotiated by the federal government without the province — treaties were not historically signed in B.C..
That means most Aboriginal title in B.C. has not been dealt with. They’re
currently being negotiated because past leaders refused to do so.
Perspectives on treaties
There has been a wealth of research and discussion regarding treaties between the Crown and Indigenous nations, and at times they come to some radically different conclusions.
For example, some First Nations view them as sacred agreements while others regard them in less than ideal terms.
The Conversation Canada ran a powerful piece two years ago that reconsidered the Williams Treaties from Anishinaabe perspectives.
Read more:
Revisiting the Williams Treaties of 1923: Anishinaabeg perspectives after a century
Seven years ago, historian Sheldon Krasowski, who was born in Treaty 6 territory in Saskatoon, published his book No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous challenging the Crown’s perspective that treaties extinguished Aboriginal title. It illuminates why not all First Nations in British Columbia are negotiating treaties.
These discrepancies do not mean, however, that First Nations aren’t interested in having their Aboriginal title recognized. Instead, some nations, like the Tšilhqot’in, decided to take the matter to court. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the Tšilhqot’in had Aboriginal title to a portion of their traditional territory.
This prompted other First Nations to make similar legal claims, including the Cowichan and Musqueam, which brings us back to the Cowichan case and the Musqueam agreements.
Put simply, provincial and federal governments appear to be taking a calculated approach when it comes to these claims, fighting those they think they might win in the courts and simply recognizing Aboriginal title if they think they’ll lose.
‘Canadian dream’
As someone who researches this topic, I am amazed by how seemingly OK people are with the Haida Aboriginal Title Agreement in 2024 given that it also stated Aboriginal title can co-exist with fee simple title.
This brings us back to fee simple title. It’s important to remember it’s a legal concept that developed over time. In this sense, saying it can co-exist with Aboriginal title is a new development. That being said, given the place home ownership and land ownership play in the Canadian dream, it’s understandable that people who own property are concerned.
No one wants to worry that their land is not really theirs. Many people think of land ownership as absolute, even though strictly speaking, fee simple title starts with a Crown grant and can be revoked and infringed upon for a number of reasons. It also does not automatically include mineral rights.
In other words, no one has complete control over their land, and Aboriginal title is simply another layer of legal obligation.
Only time will tell what the co-existence of Aboriginal title with fee simple title will mean. The Cowichan case is currently being appealed, and given that in December 2025 the Wolastoqey ruling in New Brunswick found they could not co-exist, it’s possible the Cowichan ruling will be overturned.
Daniel Sims is a member of the Tsay Keh Dene First Nations. Currently he holds an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to research failed economic developments and concepts of wilderness in Tsek’ehne traditional territory (the Finlay-Parsnip watershed).
– ref. The federal government’s Musqueam agreements raise questions about who truly owns land – https://theconversation.com/the-federal-governments-musqueam-agreements-raise-questions-about-who-truly-owns-land-277219