Musqueam First Nation signs Aboriginal rights deal with Ottawa

[pescador]

Musqueam First Nation signs Aboriginal rights deal with Ottawa – read the full agreement - BC | Globalnews.ca

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.

globalnews.ca

“According to a release from the government, the agreements also strengthen Musqueam’s roles in fisheries, stewardship and marine emergency management.”

This can’t be good. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

 

[salmonkiller01]

Sounds like all of Vancouver is on Fn land. Expect a new tax on properties

 

[Hardy Guy]

Probably not property tax but maybe you should pay to fish in their territory.... like the the lodges do in the charlottes.

 

[pescador]

Probably not property tax but maybe you should pay to fish in their territory.... like the the lodges do in the charlottes.

Their territory? Our territory.

 

[Hardy Guy]

I agree, but that is not the way things are going .... once again ..... we get what we vote for

 

[salmonkiller01]

I agree, but that is not the way things are going .... once again ..... we get what we vote for

Yup, vote liberal and middle class gets wiped out.

 

[Captain PartyMarty]

This thing is brutal. There are like 1400 band members and they now have title over the whole of Vancouver and surrounding area. This insanity has to stop!

 

[searun]

This thing is brutal. There are like 1400 band members and they now have title over the whole of Vancouver and surrounding area. This insanity has to stop!

And, what is co-management of fisheries entail. Who's fishery?

 

[PEETZcanada]

I remember sharing vast amounts of information from both the Province and the FED quite a number of years ago. I distinctly spoke on the topic of the UN, UNDRIP, WEF and was the first to speak about Government to Government negotiations. I was also the first to suggest building partnership and building strong lasting relationships Some of the conversation goes back 20+ years. Imagine if only then maybe someone would have seen what I saw then, perhaps things may have become different by now. Oh the battles and names I was called. Oh well, that was then, today is now. I am no longer certain how to help other than doing the letters and such as I have. I still believe and trust in the good people that are tirelessly working on behalf of all anglers to help secure a solid continued opportunity to participate in a shared public fishery.

 

[OldBlackDog]

The deal is signed . It’s over and now we wait to see the details. This is Federal, not provincial, so the only way to change it is to get rid of the Liberals! BC cannot even get rid of the NDP, so what do you think the odds are of getting rid of the Liberals?
The public do not vote about fish, they don’t really care. But taking away their houses is a huge motivator. It might be enough to get rid of the Liberals .
And it appears their fisheries management covers the total mouth of the Fraser.
That is really going to effect fishing.

 

[PEETZcanada]

The deal is signed . It’s over and now we wait to see the details. This is Federal, not provincial, so the only way to change it is to get rid of the Liberals! BC cannot even get rid of the NDP, so what do you think the odds are of getting rid of the Liberals?
The public do not vote about fish, they don’t really care. But taking away their houses is a huge motivator. It might be enough to get rid of the Liberals .
And it appears their fisheries management covers the total mouth of the Fraser.
That is really going to effect fishing.

It is Federal and Provincial. BC adopted UNDRIP into law a number of years ago which aligns with the FED direction. An area that I warned about long before the Province even thought of adopting it. The LAW can be repealed, but Campbell won't do it. He also may not be running in the next round. I remember individuals arguing that this is Canada and the UN has no power over us. Hmmm.

 

[OldBlackDog]

See attached. From agreement.

 

[PEETZcanada]

Always keep in mind that because the Province of BC has adopted UNDIP into LAW it allows for expedient implementation of both Federal and Provincial initiatives where related to this conversation. Primarily because most of the Provincial hurdles no longer exist due to the alignment in LAW with UNDRIP. I am not saying that it is neither a good or a bad scenario, only that it allows for demonsterous change in the Province that can either be very prosperous for everyone or have a dangerously negative binding impact for some. The issue is the way the LAW was rushed in and the way it has been written, it allows for a far too broad of interpretation as to its meaning and for any remedy.

------------------

An aside note broken down...

On February 20, 2026, the Musqueam Indian Band and the Government of Canada signed three landmark agreements to recognize Musqueam’s Aboriginal rights and title within their traditional territory.
Canada.ca +1
While the
Province of British Columbia
was not a signatory to these specific federal agreements, B.C. Premier
David Eby
attended the ceremony as a local MLA, and his office clarified the province's awareness of the ongoing negotiations.
Daily Hive Vancouver +1

The Three Agreements
The deals establish a framework for "incremental implementation" of rights rather than a single sweeping treaty:
Canada.ca +1

• šxʷq̓ʷal̕təl̕tən Rights Recognition Agreement: Formally recognizes Musqueam’s Aboriginal rights, including title, and sets a foundation for a nation-to-nation relationship.
• xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Stewardship & Marine Management Agreement: Creates collaborative working groups to use Musqueam knowledge in managing and protecting water resources and marine ecosystems.
• xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Fisheries Agreement: Grants Musqueam a shared decision-making role in fisheries management and provides federal funding for vessels, gear, and implementation.
  Canada.ca +2

Scope and Territory

• Geographic Reach: The agreements cover Musqueam’s traditional territory, which includes most of Metro Vancouver (Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, and parts of the North Shore and Delta).
• Private Property: Both the federal government and Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow have emphasized that these agreements do not affect private property. Chief Sparrow stated the focus is on partnership and managing public lands and resources.
• Legal Status: These are not formal land claim settlements or treaties; they are "incremental" steps intended to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
  Daily Hive Vancouver +7

Context and Criticism
The announcement has sparked debate regarding government transparency, with some critics and opposition parties expressing concern that the deals were reached without broader public consultation. This follows other recent milestones, such as the Musqueam Self-Government Agreement initialed in 2025.
Canada.ca +4

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, the solution is very complicated?

Get rid of the present BC government and undo undrip.

Get rid of the Federal government and undo indrip?

Leave Canada and undo undrip?

All require changes in government and do not see that happening as the east holds the power of the Feds.

So, are we stuck with this?

 

[searun]

Everyone should read the actual agreement closely. There are a few concerning statements the Government of Canada has made within it. Amongst the list of concerning statements is....this government signed an agreement stating that UNDRIP was the "minimum standard" - look closely at UNDRIP and to meet that as a minimum standard Canada and by extension the public will be significantly burdened to meet those.

Supreme Court of Canada and other lower courts affirmed that the government of Canada must bear the full cost of reconciliation - and yet, we the public are being hung out to dry and will pay that cost through uncertainty around land title and access to Magna Carta fishery rights - in other words, contrary to the direction of our courts ordinary Canadians will bear the cost of reconciliation and these reconciliation agreements.

There are no specifics within the agreement with regard to what has been reported in the media about co-management agreements for fisheries, other than the agreement specifies Section 35 rights as well as the Sparrow decision, both of which contain details regarding fisheries - the lack of clarity again creates significant uncertainty for non-indigenous Canadians and of course recreational interests.

Seat belts firmly attached....here we go for another ride.

 

[IronNoggin]

Interesting.

Eby publicly states he was "mystified" over this deal, and that the Province had not been briefed on the deal whatsoever.
Then when pictures of him front row dead center at the signing ceremony emerges, he somewhat changes his tune...

Also interesting that in this case, the local liberal MP (Wade Grant) is a member of the Musqueam band...

 

[ship happens]

I think we can all expect what will happen next. They already said they do not want sport fishing around the inside SOG. They call it " their fish "

 

[PEETZcanada]

Everyone should read the actual agreement closely. There are a few concerning statements the Government of Canada has made within it. Amongst the list of concerning statements is....this government signed an agreement stating that UNDRIP was the "minimum standard" - look closely at UNDRIP and to meet that as a minimum standard Canada and by extension the public will be significantly burdened to meet those.

Supreme Court of Canada and other lower courts affirmed that the government of Canada must bear the full cost of reconciliation - and yet, we the public are being hung out to dry and will pay that cost through uncertainty around land title and access to Magna Carta fishery rights - in other words, contrary to the direction of our courts ordinary Canadians will bear the cost of reconciliation and these reconciliation agreements.

There are no specifics within the agreement with regard to what has been reported in the media about co-management agreements for fisheries, other than the agreement specifies Section 35 rights as well as the Sparrow decision, both of which contain details regarding fisheries - the lack of clarity again creates significant uncertainty for non-indigenous Canadians and of course recreational interests.

Seat belts firmly attached....here we go for another ride.

There is some area of concern that should be researched further, that being around the Magna Carta. Years ago when I was discovering everything regarding Agenda 21, public fishing rights etc... and later UNDRIP, Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2050 and well before I found out about my heritage, that being a "Status Indian". I say Indian because that is what I am recognized as under the Indian Act. I did not find out until my Step Father had passed, I always believed him to be my blood. Regardless...

The way the Magna Carta is being referenced is not 100% correct. Right now at this time and ever since Tidal licenses have come into play, we have all fished under contract. We are operating under a Licensed Privilege. Only two sectors operate under privilege contract, Commercial & Recreational. The Magna Carta rights were in play for all history of recognized law back to the Vatican and Kings. Personal Rights can not be extinguished accept through an agreement to contract. That's the pickle that needs to be exposed and studied and referenced in order to be taken serious in LAW. I don't know it all and I don't pretend to either, but I do see things long before most ever do. There is so much more that folks need to educate themselves on and hopefully people are more open now than they were way back when I was trying to share these potential harms with them. I no longer have my archives or links or documents, but all that info is still all out there. The mix up in many cases is with Common Law, Maritime Law and the Magna Carta. You have rights, they can never be extinguished, the burden is in learning what you need to know in order to get back to where we came from prior to these De jure by law and according to law contracts were accepted by the public.

 

[OldBlackDog]

There is some area of concern that should be researched further, that being around the Magna Carta. Years ago when I was discovering everything regarding Agenda 21, public fishing rights etc... and later UNDRIP, Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2050 and well before I found out about my heritage, that being a "Status Indian". I say Indian because that is what I am recognized as under the Indian Act. I did not find out until my Step Father had passed, I always believed him to be my blood. Regardless...

The way the Magna Carta is being referenced is not 100% correct. Right now at this time and ever since Tidal licenses have come into play, we have all fished under contract. We are operating under a Licensed Privilege. Only two sectors operate under privilege contract, Commercial & Recreational. The Magna Carta rights were in play for all history of recognized law back to the Vatican and Kings. Personal Rights can not be extinguished accept through an agreement to contract. That's the pickle that needs to be exposed and studied and referenced in order to be taken serious in LAW. I don't know it all and I don't pretend to either, but I do see things long before most ever do. There is so much more that folks need to educate themselves on and hopefully people are more open now than they were way back when I was trying to share these potential harms with them. I no longer have my archives or links or documents, but all that info is still all out there. The mix up in many cases is with Common Law, Maritime Law and the Magna Carta. You have rights, they can never be extinguished, the burden is in learning what you need to know in order to get back to where we came from prior to these De jure by law and according to law contracts were accepted by the public.

 

[ship happens]

Yep it all boils down to what's written within the constitution, Bill of rights, treaties, Indian acts, all of the agreements with the UN. Long list. It boils down to one common denominator. That's human rights. I'm not sure if wording it like that is ok for this forum, and if not I will gladly delete it. From what I can understand from all the reading and research is that before we can fix a issue like fisheries, you have to fix the main root of the problem and that's our legal binding constitutional code that was very poorly done. I'm not sure it's even possible.