The agreement says its purpose is to recognize those rights, support reconciliation and establish a process for future negotiations between Canada and Musqueam.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In a news release Monday<\/a>, Musqueam said the agreements support the nation’s “long-established role as stewards of the Fraser River.”<\/p>\n Does this affect private property ownership?<\/p>\n Federal officials and Musqueam leaders say the agreements do not affect private property rights.<\/p>\n Musqueam Chief y\u0259\u03c7\u02b7ya\u03c7\u02b7\u0259l\u0259q Wayne Sparrow has previously said the nation is not seeking to take private land.<\/p>\n \u201cOur approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours\u2019 private property,\u201d the nation said in a statement earlier this month.<\/p>\n The agreement says it does not constitute a treaty or land claims agreement and does not define or establish Aboriginal title.<\/p>\n Instead, it creates a framework for future discussions and negotiations between the federal government and Musqueam.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 that would fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal.<\/p>\n WATCH | Why this B.C. land claim is such a big deal:<\/strong> Why this B.C. land claim is such a big deal <\/p>\n 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\u2019s Georgie Smyth explains the significance of the Cowichan ruling and why the legal fight is far from over. <\/p>\n “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.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Why has there been concern about land ownership?<\/p>\n The debate is unfolding following a landmark court ruling last August involving Cowichan (Quw’utsun) Nation.<\/p>\n That ruling says Crown and city titles within an area in Richmond, B.C., are defective and invalid<\/a>, and the Crown’s granting of private titles on the land “unjustifiably” infringed on Cowichan title.<\/p>\n It states that Cowichan has Aboriginal title to between 300 and 325 hectares of land \u2014 including around 150 pieces of private property along the Fraser River.<\/p>\n WATCH | What the Cowichan decision means:<\/strong> Former Squamish Nation leader explains what the Cowichan decision really means and what it doesn\u2019t<\/p>\n Some residents continue to ask what\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019utsun Nation has Aboriginal title to between 300 and 324 hectares (or 750 and 800 acres) of land.<\/p>\n The ruling has raised questions and concerns about how private property can co-exist with fee simple ownership \u2014 the legal name for private property title.<\/p>\n “We recognize how impactful the Cowichan judgement has been on everyone \u2014 including us,” Musqueam said in its statement, noting it is one of the groups appealing the ruling<\/a>.<\/p>\n The nation distinguished its own agreements with the federal government from last summer’s Cowichan decision, saying its agreements have \u201cabsolutely no impacts to fee simple lands\/private property.”<\/p>\n What territory does the agreement cover?<\/p>\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1773506835_673_default.jpg\")
Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow, seen here in September 2020, has said that the First Nation is not coming for anyone’s private property. (Ben Nelms\/CBC)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1773506836_460_default.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1773506837_175_default.jpg\")
<\/p>\n