Land Acknowledgments Are Not the Problem
- Mar 24
- 4 min read
The problem is politicians who use this custom to whip up fear and anger
I live in a close-knit community of about 500 people. When meeting someone new, it's customary to ask where they live. If they respond with a street name and house number, it is often met with a puzzled look, followed by “yes, but who lived there before?” Once this information is shared, the stories begin to unfold and history comes alive.
Comments like, “There were some great parties in that house back in the day,” or “That place belonged to my great aunt’s mother-in-law, and we’d go there for tea,” or even “Decades ago, I was given raspberries from their garden; they’re still the best producers in my yard,” reveal the layers of our community's past. These anecdotes give context—not just to a house, but to the connections and memories of our community. It tells us not only where we are, but who has been here before and how their presence shaped the space we inhabit.
Land acknowledgements serve a similar purpose, though on a much broader scale.
Thirty-five years ago, fresh from Ontario, I visited a home on the north end of Vancouver Island. Looking out across the waters toward the Broughton Archipelago, I asked, “Who owns all that land?” My hosts explained that First Nations have called this place home for generations and their communities can still be found amongst the islands and inlets. It was astonishing to me to discover that the ‘Namgis, Kwakiutl, Mamalilikulla, Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwa’mis, and other Nations continue to thrive here today. My formal education had framed Indigenous culture as something relegated to the past, fit for museums. My hosts’ simple land acknowledgment filled gaps left by my incomplete and inaccurate grade 10 history books, offering a richer understanding of the past that continues to influence the communities and country we share. At that moment, I started to really understand the historical context that has led to the need for reconciliation. Today, land acknowledgements are more common, giving more Canadians a window into the past that is shaping our collective future.
Unfortunately, NIPR MP Aaron Gunn is stuck in the teachings of my outdated grade 10 history books.
He incorrectly claims that when Canada or BC use the term “unceded” in land acknowledgements, they are relinquishing legal authority over the land. If he took the time to understand history, he’d know that, unlike other regions of this country, Canada did not negotiate treaties with First Nations in BC, and the land remains, for the most part, unceded.
This is precisely why the governments of Canada and BC are currently negotiating modern treaties and agreements. And if negotiations don't occur, it’s likely that the courts will be asked to decide.
In using this convoluted logic, Aaron Gunn has purposefully and incorrectly linked land acknowledgements to the loss of private property—a simplistic political tactic that ignores facts and preys on people’s fears.
It’s rage baiting, pure and simple. And while he does not state that he opposes reconciliation, his rants and tactics signal a desire to return to a time when First Nations culture and governance were studied only as relics of the past, rather than accepted as part of our society today. This isn’t leadership, nor is it good governance. It’s a shortsighted attempt to gain power by manipulating public sentiment.
North Island Powell River deserves better.
Recent court decisions and government-to-government agreements—such as the Cowichan decision (Cowichan Tribes v. Canada) and the Musqueam Agreement—have prompted landowners to ask what this means for their property. That’s normal, and it’s healthy to ask. As a landowner myself, I have questions. To learn more, I read several articles about land ownership and Aboriginal title (links below), and here are a few key points to consider:
In all land claims addressed through the courts, none of the Nations are seeking to take property from landowners.
No agreements between a Nation and government are designed to take away homes.
Negotiated solutions, such as the Musqueam Agreement, avoid expensive, drawn-out court challenges and offer more opportunities for all parties to reach consensus.
The courts have defined Aboriginal title, distinguishing it from Crown land and fee simple. When a Nation receives title, those lands must be used for the benefit of the community and cannot be sold to anyone except the Crown.
Establishing Aboriginal title requires a Nation proving they historically had exclusive use of the land.
Aboriginal title and fee simple (private property) can coexist.
The land acknowledgement I heard 35 years ago set me on a journey to better understand the history of this region and our country. I’ll admit, the journey hasn’t always been easy as I’ve worked to grasp Indigenous worldview, culture, title, and governance. I’m grateful for the individuals and scholars who’ve guided me, and for the patience and grace shown when I stumble and continue to learn. I suspect I am not alone in this experience, and I know I will have more questions as reconciliation progresses—for myself, my community, and our country. I look forward to open and transparent conversations about this important issue - conversations that are grounded in facts, committed to reconciliation, and designed to find solutions.
And I will engage from my home in Sointula, previously owned by my neighbour, on Malcolm Island, within the territory of the ‘Namgis, Kwakiutl, and Mamalilikulla Nations, in the Regional District of Mount Waddington, Province of BC, Canada—land acknowledgements that I am proud to make.
