Cowichan ruling is not a threat to your property rights
The B.C. Cowichan land title case does not endanger property rights. It’s a necessary move toward fair treatment of Indigenous peoples
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling regarding Indigenous land claims has caused a significant level of anxiety across Canada, due largely to a letter from the mayor of Richmond, B.C., to his constituents. What are the concerns? Are they justified? What does the future hold?
In his letter, Mayor Malcolm Brodie stated, “Please take note that the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada … made some very important decisions that could negatively affect the title to your property.”
The case centred on whether the Cowichan Tribes and their partners could proceed with a claim for Aboriginal title over lands in the Richmond area, despite the land being privately held and developed. The court ruled that the claim could move forward, meaning a future trial could determine whether Aboriginal title might still apply to developed, privately owned land.
As a homeowner in British Columbia, I have no fear whatsoever that the title to my property will be negatively affected. I welcome the decision and see it as an important step in Canada’s reconciliation process.
B.C. homeowners are sounding the alarm. But what does the court ruling actually say?
The ambiguity surrounding land claims in British Columbia dates back to colonial times. University of Northern B.C. professor Daniel Sims notes that while the Colony of Vancouver Island signed a few treaties in the 1850s, the Colony of British Columbia never did. As a result, Aboriginal title has never been resolved across most of the province. This legal reality has been acknowledged since at least 1850.
Aboriginal title is a legal recognition that Indigenous Peoples have land rights based on their long-standing occupation and use of traditional territories. It is not based on deeds or purchases under Canadian property law, but on continuous use and stewardship of the land.
Archaeological evidence shows the Lheidli T’enneh have lived in what is now Prince George, B.C., for at least 9,000 years. The land where my house stands was once part of the Fort George Indian Reserve. In 1911, the Indian Act was revised to allow railways to take lands from Indigenous communities, including entire reserves. That is precisely what happened when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway decided to build a townsite at the confluence of the Nechako and Fraser rivers.
Many would argue this forced displacement could be viewed as falling within what some scholars describe as ethnic cleansing, depending on how the term is applied. The Oxford Public International Law database defines ethnic cleansing as “various policies or practices aimed at the creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the displacement of an ethnic group from that particular area.” Even B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad acknowledged in an interview that “they (the Lheidli T’enneh) were forced out of that community and relocated to a community further upriver.”
Stoking fears about land title loss reflects a colonial mindset that ignores the historical reality of how Indigenous lands were taken in the first place.
To understand the mindset of Indigenous leaders, we need to listen. In a recent video produced by Tourism Prince George, Lheidli Elder Darlene McIntosh states, “We … invite our guests to come to our unceded ancestral territory to now honour our people.”
“Unceded” means the land was never legally surrendered or sold to the Crown through treaty or agreement. This situation applies to most of British Columbia. As a result, legal uncertainty remains unresolved in many areas.
The truth is, we do not yet know the full implications of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. But the steps we have already taken, from land acknowledgements to public education, have been constructive. This decision is part of that journey.
When I share my own land acknowledgement, I recognize the long history of the Lheidli T’enneh, the wrongs done to them, and how grateful I am to live where I do. Cowichan Tribes v. Canada gives us a chance to continue the reconciliation process, and any price paid to heal those wounds and build a better future is worth the investment.
Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.
Below is the undedited version of this article. Feel free to comment on which version you prefer.
A recent BC Supreme Court ruling regarding Indigenous land claims has caused a significant level of anxiety across Canada, due largely to a letter from the Mayor of Richmond, BC to his constituents. What are the concerns? Are they justified? What does the future hold?
In his letter, Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie stated, “Please take note that the recent BC Supreme Court decision of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada … made some very important decisions that could negatively affect the title to your property.”
There are many problems with Brodie’s statement, the first being that, at best, it is disingenuous. I am also a homeowner in British Columbia, and I have no fear whatsoever that the title to my property will be negatively affected. I welcome the court decision and see it as an important step in Canada’s reconciliation process.
The fact that there is ambiguity regarding land claims in British Columbia goes back to colonial times. University of Northern BC professor Daniel Sims points out, “The Colony of Vancouver Island stopped signing treaties in the 1850s and the Colony of British Columbia never signed treaties, this means Aboriginal title has not been dealt with in most of the Province of British Columbia. And to be perfectly clear this has been a known issue since 1850.”
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Lheidli T’enneh have lived in what is today Prince George, BC for at least 9000 years. The land where my house lies was once part of the Fort George Indian Reserve. In 1911, the Indian Act was revised to allow railroads to take lands from Indigenous communities, even entire reserves. This is precisely what happened when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railroad decided that they wanted to build their townsite at the confluence of the Nechako and Fraser Rivers.
While there is debate as to its exact meaning, the Oxford Public International Law database states that ethnic cleansing “refers to various policies or practices aimed at the creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the displacement of an ethnic group from that particular area.” Many would argue that this is what happened in Prince George in 1913, and in much of Canada. Even BC Conservative leader John Rustad acknowledged in an interview with the extreme right media outlet Juno News that, “They (the Lheidli T’enneh) were forced out of that community and relocated to a community further upriver.”
Taking other people’s land and resources is what colonizers have done for centuries and continue to do. It is therefore safe to conclude that stoking fears about the rights of BC landowners is simply a projection of the intent of those who cling to a colonial mindset.
To understand the mindset of Indigenous leaders we need to listen to what they are saying. In a recent video produced by Tourism Prince George, Lheidli Elder Darlene McIntosh states, “We … invite our guests to come to our unceded ancestral territory to now honour our people.”
The truth is, we don’t know what the implications of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, nor do we know what the future holds. The steps that we have already taken in the reconciliation process, however, have been helpful, and land acknowledgements have thus become commonplace in Canada.
When I share my personal land acknowledgement, along with recognizing the long history of the Lheidli T’enneh on these lands, as well as the wrongs that have been done to them, I express how thankful I am to live where I live, to feel welcomed, and to have found a home. I also pledge embrace the reconciliation process.
Cowichan Tribes v. Canada is the opportunity to continue this process, and in my mind, any price that is paid to right past wrongs, heal lingering wounds, and build a better future for our children is well worth the investment.
I greatly prefer the edited version. In fact, I really liked the line “Stoking fears about land title loss reflects a colonial mindset that ignores the historical reality of how Indigenous lands were taken in the first place.” Excellent point! I found the unedited sentences to be more hostile than thoughtful.
Besides that, the unedited description of the mayor’s letter as “disingenuous” rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, I thought it itself was disingenuous, since the unedited version acknowledged that the status of claims was unresolved… so the resolution “could negatively effect the title to [people’s] property.” From what I’ve read in these two versions, the mayor’s letter seems like a reasonable notification to their constituents, in the same way that notifying people of an approaching hurricane could be appropriate even before the storm’s path is fully resolved.