Nuanced.
Where real conversations happen — with host Aaron Pete.
Nuanced.
208. Aboriginal Title vs. Private Property: Cowichan Tribes Court Ruling Explained
The 2025 Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling is shaking Metro Vancouver. Chief Aaron Pete explains its challenge to the Land Title Act, the impact on Aboriginal title, property rights, homeowners and governments, and the path to balancing justice with stability.
If there's one thing Canadians love more than hockey, it's property. Your house, your condo, your cabin on the lake. These aren't just buildings, they're life goals, and our economy, our politics, even our sense of self-worth are wrapped up in the belief that ownership equals security. In fact, canada's entire retirement system basically says don't worry about pensions, just buy a house and pray that it triples in value. And for much of the past 50 years, that strategy has worked. So when a court decision comes along that threatens to complicate that story, canadians freak out. Which brings us to this On August 7th 2025, the BC Supreme Court issued a ruling in Cowichan Tribes versus Canada confirming Aboriginal title over lands in Richmond yes, richmond, the middle of Metro Vancouver. This was the first time in Canadian history that a court recognized Indigenous title in an urban setting that includes private property. Suddenly, canada's sacred cow homeownership property. Suddenly, canada's sacred cow homeownership found itself standing nose to nose with something even older and awkwardly, more legally senior Aboriginal title.
Speaker 1:Now how did we get here? Well, to understand this, we have to zoom out, because Canadians' relationship with land has changed dramatically in the past few decades. In the 1990s, the idea of starting a meeting with a land acknowledgement would have confused everyone. You'd get blank stares and maybe someone asking sorry, are you talking about selling me a timeshare? Back then, canada's official conversation about Indigenous rights was all about treaties. Official conversation about Indigenous rights was all about treaties, constitutional recognition and the aftermath of the Oka Crisis.
Speaker 1:In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a massive 4,000-page report, warned that Canada's relationship with First Nations was broken and unsustainable. It called for recognizing Indigenous governments, respecting land rights and creating new treaties. But land acknowledgements were nowhere to be found. Fast track forward to 2015, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission dropped its final report and the 94 calls to action. That report didn't mandate acknowledgements either, but it created the cultural space for them and almost overnight, land acknowledgements spread everywhere in schools, in universities, in city councils, in governments, in email signatures.
Speaker 1:Suddenly, canadians were calling themselves settlers or guests and starting speeches with I'd like to acknowledge I'm on the unceded ancestral territory of whatever people they were near. To some people, this was a powerful step, a small but meaningful act of truth. For others, it was a slippery slope into existential dread. Add in protest slogans like land back and commentators like Candace Malcolm warning that homeowners are about to lose everything. And suddenly a simple land acknowledgement sounds like a prelude to an eviction notice.
Speaker 1:Which brings us back to the Cowichan decision, because this case takes all those anxieties, the guilt, the gestures, the fear, the property obsession and puts them all on trial literally. And here's why it matters For the first time a Canadian court said Aboriginal title doesn't vanish just because land was handed out in fee, simple. The court even declared that some crown grants, including to the city of Richmond, were legally invalid. And it raises the question if Aboriginal title can exist in Richmond, where else could it exist? Vancouver, victoria or your backyard? So today we're going to break this down the history of Aboriginal people in Canada and title. What the Cowichan decision actually said beyond the headlines, the politics from Indigenous nations who see justice to Conservatives who see chaos, to governments who are stuck in the middle, and, finally, what I think this means for Canada's future and the most likely outcomes. Because, make no mistake, this isn't just about Richmond or even about the Cowichan people. It's about Canada and Canadians being forced to confront a question it has dodged for 150 years what happens when the foundations of property system are built on land that was never yours to give away? History of First Nations title in Canada.
Speaker 1:So before we get into the Cowichan case, let's talk about how we got here, because Aboriginal title in Canada isn't new. It's been around longer than Canada itself. It's been around longer than Canada itself. In fact. The Crown has been acknowledging Indigenous land rights since well before Canada even existed. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is where we'll start. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued by King George III after Britain won the Seven Years' War. It basically said congratulations, britain owns North America now, except for the parts that belong to Indigenous people. The proclamation made it clear Indigenous nations had land rights and only the crown could purchase those lands through treaties. It was a way to stop settlers from running around with shovels and flags claiming whatever land they wanted. In other words, the very foundation of Canada is an admission that Indigenous title exists. And that proclamation wasn't just symbolic. Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court in Calder 1973 and Delcamus in 1997, have cited it as proof that Aboriginal title didn't vanish just because Europeans showed up with canons and confidence. But here's the kicker While the Royal Proclamation recognized Indigenous title in theory, colonial governments spent the next century doing the exact opposite in practice.
Speaker 1:Enter the reserve system. Instead of negotiating fair land agreements across the board, governments began carving out tiny parcels of land and called them reserves. Think of them as Canada's original designated parking spots for Indigenous peoples. Canada's original designated parking spots for Indigenous peoples, except where they were always far smaller than promised, often placed in the poorest soil and came with endless restrictions. And here's the crucial part Reserves aren't owned by Indigenous nations. They're federal lands held in trust by the Crown under the Indian Act of 1876. Communities can live on them, farm them, even lease them out, but they can't sell them, expand them without Ottawa's approval or exercise the same authority a municipality has. In legal terms, indigenous people became tenants on their own land, while Ottawa played the landlord. This legal framework was reinforced in the Constitution itself. Section 91-24 of the British North America Act 1867, gave Ottawa jurisdiction over quote Indians and the lands reserved for the Indians. The system wasn't an accident. It was deliberate. But here's a twist many Canadians don't know.
Speaker 1:The idea of reserves didn't begin until 1867. It started as early as 1817 when Lord Selkirk, or also known as Thomas Douglas, had set aside what were called anticipatory reserves for First Nations in the Red River region. He believed, at least rhetorically, that Indigenous people should have some land protected for them as settlers arrived. Selkirk even wrote that Indigenous nations had an incontrovertible right to the soil. Yet even when the supposedly progressive vision assumed, indigenous people would eventually assimilate into a settler society. Reserves were never designed for permanence, they were designed as holding zones.
Speaker 1:In British Columbia the colony's first governor, james Douglas, initially recognized Indigenous land rights more explicitly than later officials. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, douglas stated in 1850 that the Hudson's Bay Company had no wish to interfere with the rights of the natives to the lands they occupy. Under his leadership, the Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island promised Indigenous signatories that they could retain their village sites and enclosed fields. But even Douglas's policy was limited On the mainland. As settlement accelerated, he shifted from negotiating treaties to simply designating reserves. His vision was paternalistic. Reserves would confine Indigenous peoples to farming plots under colonial oversight. As historian Cole Harris notes in Making Native Space Douglas' reserves were small and intended to facilitate assimilation rather than safeguard sovereignty.
Speaker 1:And then came along Joseph Trutch, bc's Commissioner of Lands and Works. In the 1860s. Trutch openly referred to Indigenous people as savages and claimed they had no real concept of land ownership. In an 1864 letter he wrote the Indians have no rights to the lands they claim, nor are they of any actual value or utility to them? And this was quoted by Harris in Making Native Spaces and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry on Trutch. He then proceeded to slash reserve sizes across BC, sometimes by more than 90%. Imagine your nation had 2,000 acres. Trutch arrives with a pen and a map and says you actually get 200. You're welcome. That was BC's land policy and it was baked into Confederation. The thinking behind Trutch's downsizing was chilling. In its logic, he believed First Nations would eventually disappear, whether through assimilation or extinction. Why preserve thousands of acres for people who, in his eyes, were destined to vanish? So while the Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized Indigenous land rights, the reserve system, and especially Trutch's cuts, systematically dispossessed Indigenous peoples of over 95% of their territories in British Columbia.
Speaker 1:Recognition on paper, but eraser in practice. This leads us into the Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Let's fast forward there. When Canada patriated its constitution, section 35 of the new Constitution Act declared the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby affirmed and recognized. That sounded powerful, a constitutional guarantee. Except and this is peak Canada, nobody defined what those rights actually were. It was like saying congratulations, you have rights, but we'll get back to you on the details.
Speaker 1:But Section 35 didn't appear out of thin air. It was fought for when Pierre Trudeau's government set out to patriate the Constitution from Britain in the late 1970s. The original drafts contained no mention of Indigenous people at all. As historian Brian Swartz notes, aboriginal rights were, at the best, an afterthought. It was only after sustained Indigenous advocacy that Section 35 was inserted.
Speaker 1:In 1980, hundreds of Indigenous leaders and community members boarded what became known as the Constitution Express, a train organized by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs to travel from Vancouver all the way to Ottawa. They were protesting their exclusion from the new constitutional framework. George Manuel, then president of the union, described it as a train to Ottawa to demand that our rights not be left on the platform. The movement drew national and international attention, putting real pressure on Trudeau's government, and the lobbying worked. After rounds of constitutional conferences and political maneuvering, indigenous leaders secured the inclusion of Section 35.
Speaker 1:But even then the language was vague. It recognized and affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights, but without defining what those rights were or how they were to be enforced. That's why for the last 40 years Indigenous nations have had to prove their rights case by case in courts. The Calder decision in 1973 cracked the door open, recognizing for the first time at the Supreme Court that Aboriginal title exists. At common law, delcamus in 1997, defined what title means that it is not just right to the land itself, it's not just a traditional uses case Until Shel Colton 2014,. It was a historic decision the first time a Canadian court issued a declaration of Aboriginal title over a specific territory, each case chiseling out what Section 35 was supposed to guarantee in the first place. And that's why cases like Cowichan today fit squarely in this lineage, because Section 35 promised recognition. But the content of those rights is still being hammered out through costly litigation, nation by nation and generation by generation.
Speaker 1:Now, treaties Canada really has two main categories. The first are historic treaties. These were agreements like the Robinson Treaties of 1850 in Ontario, and later the numbered treaties from 1 to 11, signed between 1871 and 1921, covering most of the prairies, northern Ontario, parts of Quebec and the Northwest Territories. On the one hand, these treaties were Canada's way of providing legal certainty. They opened land for settlement, railways and resource development, while making formal commitments to First Nations reserves, annual payments and guarantees of hunting, fishing and trapping rights as long as the sun shines and the river flow To governments. This was the compromise Indigenous nations kept specific rights, while Canada secured land for growth. On the other hand, many First Nations leaders later said they understood treaties differently, as agreements to share the land, not permanently surrender it, and in practice, the crown often fell short of its own promises. Reserves were smaller than expected, rations sometimes never arrived and resource rights were restricted the moment settlers or companies wanted more access. So while Canada saw these treaties as final settlements, many Indigenous communities viewed them as bargains that were broken.
Speaker 1:Then come in modern treaties, starting in the 1970s. After court cases like Calder confirmed Aboriginal title still existed, ottawa and provinces began negotiating new comprehensive claims with nations that never signed historic treaties. These modern treaties like the Nishka's Final Agreement or the Tawassin Treaty in 2009, were designed to bring clarity. They provided cash settlements, parcels of land in fee, simple and recognition of self-government powers. From a government perspective, modern treaties are successes. They provide stability for investment, legal certainty for land ownership and a framework for Indigenous self-governance. But from the perspective of some Indigenous critics, they still involve giving up broad title claims in exchange for a fraction of traditional territories, and here's where BC stands out, apart from the small Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island in the 1850s and Treaty 8 in the Northeast.
Speaker 1:The rest of the province entered Confederation in 1871 without treaties. To the government of the day, this was pragmatic. Bc wanted land open for settlers without the lengthy negotiations Ottawa had run into on the prairies. But the legal consequence is that much of BC is now described as unceded territory, land that was never formally surrendered. That absence of treaties is what made the Haida's Nation's 2024 Rising Tide Title Lands Agreement so significant. For the first time in Canadian history, a provincial government formally recognized Aboriginal title to an entire territory all of Haida Gwaii. Why? Without forcing the nation to prove it through lengthy and decades worth of litigation. The agreement preserves existing private property rights, but it establishes a transition period in which Haida and provincial laws will be reconciled and land management decisions will be shared. For the Haida, this wasn't a surrender or extinguishment of title. It was land back through governance, a practical recognition that their jurisdiction never went away.
Speaker 1:So, depending on your perspective, you get two very different takeaways. From the government's point of view, treaties, historic or modern, are the way to resolve uncertainty and move forward. From many Indigenous nations' point of view, the absence of treaties in BC means their rights to land were never dealt with at all and agreements like Rise on land that was never formally ceded. Eventually a court is going to notice, which is exactly what happened in Cowichan Tribes vs Canada. Finally, undrip the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, is a relevant place to also discuss.
Speaker 1:Now you know, canada's originally voted against it, standing shoulder to shoulder with the US, australia and New Zealand, basically the colonial settler states club. Why? Because UNDRIP scared the hell out of governments. It recognized that Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination and, crucially, the right to their lands, territories and resources. Crucially, the right to their lands, territories and resources. One of its central principles is free, prior and informed consent, meaning you can't just build pipelines, mines or subdivisions on Indigenous land without meaningful agreement. And, let's be honest, canada's entire economy since Confederation has been built on exactly that. So, of course, on ottawa, panicked. If you admit indigenous peoples have a right to the land, then suddenly the question becomes what about all the land already taken, sold and developed? That's not just a political headache, that's an existential legal migraine. But international pressure mounted and in 2016, canada officially endorsed UNDRIP. Then, in 2021, british Columbia went even further and passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, also known as DRIPA, committing the province to bring its laws into alignment with UNDRIP.
Speaker 1:Why does that matter for title? Because UNDRIP isn't just about consultation, it's about recognition. Article 26 of UNDRIP says Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. That is aboriginal title, word for word. So when BC says it will align its laws with UNDRIP, it's basically acknowledging indigenous people still have rights to land, even in areas Canada has long pretended were settled, and courts like in Cowichan are now putting legal teeth into that principle.
Speaker 1:In short, undrip closes the gap between lofty promises and hard law. It forces governments to stop steamrolling indigenous nations with the old colonial assumption we already own this and you're just lucky we let you live there. Instead, undrip reframes the conversation around this to say this was always yours and now we actually have to deal with the reality. That's why UNDRIP ties directly into Aboriginal title. It takes what Indigenous leaders have been arguing since the Royal Proclamation the title exists until it's properly dealt with and puts it on the world stage as an international human right and that makes it harder and harder for governments or even courts to pretend otherwise. Bringing it all back to Cowichan. Because when the court recognized the title enrichment, it wasn't to Cowichan. Because when the court recognized title enrichment, it wasn't some radical new invention. It was the logical culmination of centuries of promises and law, from the Royal Proclamation to Joseph Trutch's land cuts, to Section 35, to UNDRIP, all pointing to the same reality Aboriginal title exists. It is real and Canada has been trying and failing to wiggle out of that truth for 150 years. So what was the Cowichan decision?
Speaker 1:On August 7th 2025, the BC Supreme Court released its ruling in Cowichan Tribes v Canada. The case had been in the courts for more than a decade, with over 500 trial days the longest in Canadian history. At its core, cowichan Tribes claimed aboriginal title to roughly 1,846 acres of land along the south arm of the Fraser River in Richmond land. They called Deluctinus, a historic village and fishing site. The court found yes, cowichan proved Aboriginal title to part of that area, including submerged riverbeds. Yes, they proved an Aboriginal right to fish in the south arm of the Fraser River protected under Section 35 of the Constitution. And no, bc never had the authority to extinguish that title by granting fee-simple ownership to settlers or municipalities. The court even declared that Canada and the City of Richmond's current fee-simple titles were invalid, though it suspended that declaration for 18 months to allow for negotiations.
Speaker 1:What does that mean? This decision is historic because it's the first time Aboriginal title has been confirmed in an urban area where there are existing private property owners. Previous cases, like Delgamu in 1997 and Tishel Colton in 2014, dealt with more remote or rural lands. Courts had carefully avoided ruling on private lands. Here the court said plainly Aboriginal title can exist alongside fee-simple ownership and when the two clash, it's not about extinguishing one or the other, but reconciling them. That's a major shift because it suggests that the Torrens land system the Torrens land title system the backbone of certainty for Canadian real estate is not absolute when it comes up against Aboriginal title. Title certificates that were once thought ironclad may not be In practice. This doesn't mean homeowners are being evicted, but it does mean the province and Canada have a constitutional duty to negotiate with Cowichan tribes and potentially adjust how land enrichment is managed, developed or compensated. It also signals something bigger If Aboriginal title can exist in Richmond, it could exist in Vancouver, victoria, any city in BC where no treaties were signed.
Speaker 1:So first we'll start with Gowlings WLG. In their post-decision memo bluntly titled Aboriginal Title in Metro Vancouver a lot of unfinished business in this province. They didn't sugarcoat it. The Cowichan decision confirms Aboriginal title in an urban area and highlights the potential for uncertainty regarding fee simple interests. It emphasizes the fact that there is a lot of unfinished business in this province. That's law firm language, for the foundation of BC's land title system just cracked.
Speaker 1:The ruling directly challenges the principle of indefeasibility in the land title act, the guarantee that once your name is on a deed your ownership is final. For decades that's been treated as rock solid. The ruling suggests it's not as absolute as we thought. Then there's miller tidderly. Their take is less about panic and more about responsibility. They argue the ruling goes beyond recognizing title. It actually imposes a fiduciary duty on BC to reconcile Aboriginal title with existing fee-simple property. To quote them, british Columbia now owes a fiduciary obligation to the Cowichan Nation in respect of their Aboriginal title lands, which include the private fee simple lands. In other words, governments can't sit back and wait for the next lawsuit. They now have a constitutional duty to get proactive, to negotiate, to reconcile and to take Aboriginal title seriously.
Speaker 1:But why do these perspectives matter? So two leading legal voices, two very different tones? Gowlings is sounding alarm bells about uncertainty and miller, titterly, is pointing to accountability and responsibility. Together they capture the crossroads we're at. On the one hand, the Cowichan decision unsettles the bedrock of BC's property system, creating fear for homeowners who had thought their titles were ironclad. On the other, it reframes reconciliation, not as endless litigation but as an ongoing duty, a responsibility the Crown can't deny any longer.
Speaker 1:This is why the Cowichan ruling is so divisive. It's not just a legal technicality. It forces Canadians to wrestle with two truths at the same time. One, the Aboriginal title is constitutionally real and that Canadians still need certainty in their own property system. And if we don't deal with those truths honestly, fear will fill the void. And fear, as history keeps showing us, rarely leads to good decisions. So what are its more controversial aspects? This is where the fears, hopes and politics collide.
Speaker 1:For Indigenous peoples, the ruling is validation. It proves what they've been saying for over 150 years their land rights were never extinguished, not even the heart of Metro Vancouver. It's a chance for justice, recognition and meaningful negotiations about land and resources. For governments it's a headache the certainty of BC's land title system is now in question. If upheld on appeal, the ruling could force governments to negotiate not just in Richmond but across the province, destabilizing assumptions that underpinned everything from infrastructure projects to property markets.
Speaker 1:For private land owners it's anxiety-inducing, even though the court said private homes aren't being stripped away. The very idea that Aboriginal title can overlap with fee simple ownership raises fears about property values, mortgages and future development. Commentators like candace milcom have leaned hard into this fear, warning canadians that decisions like cowichan are a slippery slope toward losing their backyards for reconciliation as a. This is a real stress test. The court itself admitted this creates unfinished business that must be dealt with politically, not just legally. That means negotiation, compromise and recognition, things Canada has historically avoided in favor of top-down control, and that's where Kel Salim's response matters. In his piece the Truth About the Cowichan Title Decision, he points out that the Cowichan never asked for private homes. Their focus was on land still held by governments and public authorities For private property.
Speaker 1:The ruling is about negotiation, not about dispossession. Kelsum's warning is clear. The panic you hear in some headlines is fear through confusion. The truth is much less dramatic and much more important. Aboriginal title is a constitutional reality and the Cowichan ruling shows it can be reconciled with existing property rights through negotiation.
Speaker 1:So the big picture is Cowichan a threat or an opportunity? Well, critics see it as destabilization of property rights. Supporters see it as long overdue justice. The court frames it as reconciliation. The Aboriginal title is real, private property is real and the Crown has 18 months to figure out how they coexist. In short, cowichan is controversial because it forces Canada to confront the one issue it has dodged for 150 years, which is what happens when your property system sits on the land that was never yours, to give away Politics. So we've covered the history, the law and what the Cowichan decision actually means. But, as with all big rulings, the real battle isn't just in the courts, it's in politics. And oh boy, does this one bring out the divisions.
Speaker 1:So what does the left think? On the political left, the reaction has been mostly celebratory. For progressives, this decision is proof that reconciliation isn't just a buzzword. It's not just land acknowledgements before hockey games or orange shirts once a year. It's the legal system saying yes, title is real and yes, it applies, even in the heart of metro vancouver. For the left, couching is what reconciliation looks like when you stop being symbolic and start being serious. And they're not wrong. The ruling gives weight to something Indigenous people have been saying for generations this land was never surrendered and it is unceded. But the left also tends to gloss over the practical side. They talk about justice but not about how messy, expensive and complicated reconciliation in urban real estate actually is. It's one thing to say land back, it's another to work out who pays when a condo developer in Richmond suddenly finds themselves negotiating with both the city and Cowichan tribes, which is very complicated.
Speaker 1:So what do First Nations think? For First Nations this decision is deeply validating. For the Cowichan Alliance it's a recognition of a broken promise in the 1850s when Tlucnes was sold out from under them. For Indigenous nations across BC it's precedent. It proves Aboriginal title isn't limited to remote forests or mountains. It can exist in cities, ports and suburbs. That said, many Indigenous leaders know the fight isn't over. The province has already said it will appeal. Negotiations will be slow and governments have a long track record of dragging their feet. But symbolically, cowichan shifts the ground. The courts are backing what First Nations have been saying for 150 years the land question is unfinished business.
Speaker 1:What does the BC government think? That brings us to the provincial government, caught in the middle. Attorney General Nikki Sharma responded quickly, saying BC would appeal and seek a stay. She warned this ruling could have significant unintended consequences for fee-simple private property rights in BC that must be reconsidered by a higher court. In other words, this is too big for one trial judge. We need clarity from the Court of Appeal, maybe even the Supreme Court of Canada. Sharma acknowledged the ruling's importance but framed it as leaving lots of questions about how Aboriginal title interacts with the BC lands title system questions about how Aboriginal title interacts with the BC lands title system.
Speaker 1:From Victoria's perspective, the ruling isn't just a moral or legal issue. It's a potential destabilizer of the entire real estate system, and in a province where housing affordability is already a political wildfire, that's no small thing. What do conservatives think Now? Conservatives and I'm painting a broad strokes here tend to see this as a nightmare scenario For them. This ruling threatens the certainty of private property, the backbone of capitalism, mortgages and yes, backyard barbecues.
Speaker 1:For many on the right land, acknowledgements are already a bridge too far, a kind of ritual guilt they resent being asked to perform. So when a court ruling seems to move from symbolic acknowledgement to actual legal recognition. The fear is what's next? Are they taking my house? And this fear isn't just about economics, it's cultural. Land acknowledgements and decisions like Cowichan make some conservatives feel like strangers in their own country, like they're being told you don't really belong here.
Speaker 1:Conservative commentators have leaned heavily into that fear, framing Cowichan as a slippery slope. The narrative is simple Today it's Richmond, tomorrow it's your backyard. It's a powerful line because it taps into that deep anxiety about security and ownership. But here's the problem. It's not what the court said. The court was explicit Nobody's evicting homeowners. The ruling is about negotiating with governments over public lands and reconciling them overlapping rights, as Kelsalom pointed out in his article. The truth is about Aboriginal title is about coexistence. It doesn't rip up property deeds or evict homeowners. It sets out a framework where governments must negotiate in good faith. So conservative commentary may work as politics, but it doesn't reflect the law. It creates fear but it doesn't describe the ruling. So what's the bigger picture? This is the political landscape. The left sees progress, first Nations see justice, the BC government sees uncertainty and risk, conservatives see danger and commentators see an opportunity to inflame anxieties.
Speaker 1:Messy, imperfect, negotiated reconciliation. And if we're being honest, that's the only path forward, because Canada can't keep saying unceded territory in speeches while pretending it doesn't matter in practice. Cowichan forces the country to live up to its own words. Here's where I want to step out of the courtroom analysis and speak personally. I've sat through countless events where land acknowledgements are read sometimes with sincerity and, to be honest, sometimes with script. I think we've reached a point where they're said too often and risk becoming a lip service. I don't believe anyone should be forced or pressured to say words. I don't believe anyone should be forced or pressured to say words. They don't believe A land acknowledgement that comes from compulsion isn't reconciliation, it's theater. It should be optional and heartfelt, not mandatory and hollow. And that connects to the Cowichan decision.
Speaker 1:Legally this ruling is historic. Politically it's a challenge because it doesn't just live in the law books, it lands in people's living rooms. For homeowners already struggling with the fear they'll never own a home in Canada, the idea the Aboriginal title might overlap with private property rights sounds terrifying. Fear makes people irrational. Fear is powerful. Fear makes people say things and vote for things they might later regret. That's the danger.
Speaker 1:This ruling, while a legal victory for First Nations, could substantiate the idea that Canadians are settlers or unwelcome guests. That kind of framing risks turning reconciliation into an us versus them narrative First Nations on one side, ordinary Canadians on the other. That doesn't build bridges, it builds divides. As a First Nations chief, I'm glad we're moving beyond rhetoric and beyond empty land acknowledgements. Case law like Cowichan helps define the real legal relationship between the Crown and Indigenous nations. That matters.
Speaker 1:But as a Canadian, I don't want to see our communities torn apart through this process. I hear the argument that we are all Canadians and I believe there's truth to that. Yet decisions like this can create distance, and here's the clarified metaphor If that distance isn't filled with honest dialogue, it will be filled with misinformation and fear. And once fear takes over, it's like dropping chum in the water Suddenly everyone's swimming in shark territory. This case will be appealed. Hopefully the higher courts will give more clarity. But legal clarity is not enough. If First Nation leaders don't step forward to explain what this means, not just for us but for everyone, then other voices will define it for us and those voices will not build bridges. We need to hold two truths at once. One the Aboriginal title exists and that it matters exists and that it matters. And two Canada only works if everyone, indigenous and non-Indigenous, feels like they belong here together. If we lose sight of either truth, reconciliation collapses into either empty symbolism or bitter division. Conclusion the Cowichan decision doesn't just test the limits of Canadian law. It tests the limits of our ability to live together.
Speaker 1:At the beginning, we talked about Canada's obsession with property houses, condos, cabins. They aren't just assets, they're our national security. Blanket Owning a home is supposed to mean safety, stability. Blanket Owning a home is supposed to mean safety, stability and dignity. And that's why this ruling hit so hard. Because for the first time, canada's sacred cow, the deed in your hand, came face to face with something older, deeper and legally senior Aboriginal title.
Speaker 1:And here's the thing Aboriginal title is real. It didn't vanish when cities rose, when treaties failed or when crown grants tried to bury it in paperwork. For 150 years, indigenous peoples carried that truth, and now the courts have acknowledged it. But Canadians also live another truth we need stability, and right now that stability is fragile. Inflation, though slowing to 1.7% year over year, still hurts when rent is up 5.1% and groceries up 3.4%. Trump's tariffs have already shrunk Canada's GDP by 1.6%, rattling exports and investment. Add shifting geopolitics and a shaky housing market and Canadians already feel like their footing is a house of cards in a gale. Now layer the Cowichan ruling on top. For homeowners living on a financial knife's edge, the idea that private property might overlap with Aboriginal title sounds less like history and more like instability.
Speaker 1:Fear is a powerful force and fear doesn't build bridges, it digs trenches. That's the risk here. A legal victory for First Nations could, if poorly explained, reinforce a narrative that Canadians are just settlers unwelcome in their own country. That story turns reconciliation into an us-versus-them mentality. It divides the very people it's meant to bring together.
Speaker 1:As a chief, I welcome the legal progress. Words alone are not enough. Law must affirm what acknowledgement began. But as a Canadian, I also worry. If Indigenous leaders don't step up to explain what this means, silence will be filled with fear, misinformation and resentment, and once that water fills. And once that water fills, it's no longer safe to swim. Yes, this case will be appealed.
Speaker 1:The courts may clarify the law, but clarity in law is not unity in a society.
Speaker 1:Unity requires conversation, engagement and trust.
Speaker 1:We need to hold two truths at once.
Speaker 1:Aboriginal title exists and it demands recognition.
Speaker 1:But Canada only works if everyone, indigenous and non-Indigenous, feel that they belong here Lose either truth and reconciliation collapses into hollow gestures on one side or bitterness on the other.
Speaker 1:Because, at the end of the day, reconciliation won't be decided by judges in robes or politicians with microphones.
Speaker 1:It will be decided in classrooms, in workplaces, in city halls and at kitchen tables. It will depend on whether we let fear define us or whether we build trust in its place. It will be decided by whether we see one another as adversaries locked in a zero-sum fight over land and history, or as neighbours who share the same home. And that home is not just soil and property lines. It is the communities we've built, the rivers and mountains we depend on and the fragile sense of belonging that makes Canada possible at all. If we approach each other as adversaries, reconciliation collapses into walls and resentment. If we approach each other as neighbors, reconciliation becomes the difficult but necessary work of sharing space, sharing responsibility and sharing a future. That is the challenge of the Cowichan decision to prove that justice for First Nations and stability for Canadians are not opposites but two sides of the same promise. The only question now is whether we have the courage, the humility and the patience to live up to that promise together.
.png)
