Cowichan Tribes Releases Statement to Address Misinformation

In a strongly worded response, Cowichan Tribes leadership has condemned recent statements by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie and BC Premier David Eby regarding their Aboriginal title case, calling the politicians’ characterizations “misleading” and “deliberately inflammatory.”

The dispute centers on a landmark August ruling by the BC Supreme Court that recognized Cowichan Nation’s Aboriginal title over approximately 1,846 acres of land on the south shore of Lulu Island, now part of Richmond. The Nation’s leadership is specifically rejecting claims that their court case threatens private property rights.

“To be clear, the Cowichan Nation’s court case regarding their settlement lands at Tl’uqtinus in Richmond has not and does not challenge the effectiveness or validity of any title held by individual private landowners. The ruling does not erase private property,” the tribes stated in their official response.

The court’s 863-page decision, issued on August 7 following a five-year legal battle, found that Crown and city titles on the land are defective, and that government-granted private titles unjustifiably infringed on Cowichan title. Significantly, the ruling mandates that the province has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan to reconcile Crown-granted private ownership with Aboriginal title.

Historical records show that the Cowichan Nation’s presence on these lands dates back generations. Hudson’s Bay Company officials first documented their substantial village of over 108 longhouses in 1824, and by 1827, the settlement had been charted as a landmark on the Fraser River’s main channel.

The Cowichan Nation contends that during colonial reserve creation beginning in 1859, Colonel Richard Moody, the Chief Commissioner of Lands for the Colony of British Columbia, failed to designate the village and surrounding land as a Cowichan Indian reserve. Instead, according to the Nation, Moody “surreptitiously took part of the lands for himself” and sold portions of the Aboriginal title lands to himself as a land speculator.

Currently, over 780 acres of the disputed settlement are owned by the federal government, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, and the City of Richmond. The Cowichan Nation seeks to recover these publicly held lands, much of which remains undeveloped.

In response to the ruling, Mayor Brodie issued between 125 and 150 individual notices to affected property owners, stating that Richmond will “make legal arguments that Aboriginal title and fee simple title cannot co-exist over the same lands.” Last week, Premier Eby said the province was working closely with Richmond on an appeal.

David Rosenberg, a lawyer for the Cowichan Tribes, emphasized that the Nation “stands with the land owners” and shares their frustration over provincial government inaction. He cautioned against applying this specific case, which involves “extreme circumstances” and “tremendous injustice,” to all fee-simple lands across British Columbia or Canada.

One Cowichan Nation Chief, Pam Jack of the Penelakut Tribe, directed private landowners’ concerns toward the provincial government. “If any individual private titleholders at Tl’uqtinus are concerned about somehow suffering a loss, they should know their remedy is against British Columbia, the party responsible. It is not to get involved in the Cowichan Nation case,” Jack stated.

Chief Cindy Daniels emphasized that while they continue to experience impacts from the loss of title, “We are a respectful people. We intentionally did not bring this case against any individual private landowners, and we did not seek to invalidate any of their land titles.”

Another Cowichan Nation chief, John Elliot, pointed to the province’s role in the dispute: “It has been British Columbia’s historic and ongoing refusal to address reconciliation at Tl’uqtinus that brought us to this point where we have sought to reset the Quw’utsun (Cowichan)-Crown relationship through the Court.”

The chiefs collectively condemned Richmond and the province’s “negative and erroneous messaging” as “provoking unnecessary fears” and being “contrary to reconciliation.” They specifically rejected Richmond’s claim that they abandoned the settlement at Tl’uqtinus as “appalling misinformation in this era of truth and reconciliation.”

British Columbia, the City of Richmond, and the Musqueam First Nation have all indicated they will appeal the ruling. Richmond has scheduled a meeting with property owners on October 28 to discuss the issue further.