In case anyone missed the heavy coverage of it, the billboard near the Burrard Bridge is up. (I was first alerted to this by Councillor Suzanne Anton yesterday, who gasped in dismay or surprise or something on the phone while talking with me when she first saw it.)
The billboard’s appearance on the Kitsilano Reserve represents a significant moment in the ongoing relationship between Indigenous nations and the City of Vancouver. The Squamish Nation’s decision to exercise their jurisdiction over their own land by installing signage has exposed deep-seated assumptions about who controls visual landscapes in the city.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the selective outrage it has generated. For decades, Vancouverites have accepted the visual pollution of countless commercial billboards throughout the region. Major outdoor advertising companies like Pattison Outdoor have installed massive illuminated signs along highways, bridges, and transit corridors with minimal public controversy. These corporate advertisements sell everything from cars to fast food, yet they’ve been normalized as part of the urban landscape.
The reaction to the Squamish billboard reveals an uncomfortable truth about public attitudes toward Indigenous sovereignty. When corporations erect advertising, it’s business as usual. When an Indigenous nation exercises the same rights on their own territory, it becomes a “controversy” worthy of breathless media coverage and political hand-wringing.
Councillor Anton’s reaction – a gasp of dismay – perfectly encapsulates the cognitive dissonance at play. Her surprise suggests an expectation that Indigenous nations would somehow consult with or defer to the City of Vancouver before making decisions about their own land. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Indigenous jurisdiction and the legal relationship between nations.
The billboard sits on reserve land that was never ceded to Canada. The Squamish Nation’s legal right to use their land as they see fit is not subject to Vancouver’s approval or regulatory framework. Yet the public response suggests many people view the city’s aesthetic preferences as somehow taking precedence over Indigenous sovereignty.
This controversy also highlights the racialized nature of urban planning discourse. When commercial developers propose massive digital signs or neon advertisements, the discussion typically focuses on technical issues like brightness levels, traffic safety, or zoning compliance. When Indigenous peoples exercise similar rights, the conversation shifts to questions of legitimacy and proper procedure.
The media coverage itself has been revealing. Stories frame the billboard as an unexpected disruption to the urban order, rather than a routine exercise of property rights. Headlines emphasize the “controversy” while giving minimal context about the legal and historical basis for Indigenous jurisdiction over reserve lands.
The Squamish Nation’s decision to install the billboard also comes during a period of increasing assertiveness by Indigenous nations throughout British Columbia. Legal victories in courts, successful challenges to provincial and federal jurisdiction, and growing economic power have created new opportunities for Indigenous peoples to exercise their rights on their traditional territories.
For many Indigenous observers, the reaction to the billboard demonstrates exactly why such assertive actions are necessary. The assumption that Indigenous peoples should somehow seek permission from colonial governments before using their own land reflects attitudes that Indigenous nations have been challenging for decades.
The location near the Burrard Bridge is particularly symbolic. This area represents the intersection of traditional Squamish territory with the modern city that was built without their consent. The billboard serves as a visual reminder that Indigenous peoples continue to exist and exercise jurisdiction in the heart of what many consider to be a purely “Canadian” city.
Link to one of the many stories (but best pix) here.
The extensive media coverage of this single billboard stands in stark contrast to the minimal attention paid to the dozens of commercial billboards installed throughout the region each year. This disparity reveals much about whose voices are considered newsworthy and whose rights are seen as requiring public debate.
