Posted by: syncro
^^^ Maybe, time will tell.
From your same article" "The question of title arises because Europeans settled B.C. for the most part without the treaties that clarified ownership in other parts of North America."
There's also some strength to the idea that many/most of those original treaties in other areas should be declared null and void as they were negotiated under false pretenses and took advantage of differences in language, beliefs and understanding of those treaties. The Douglas treaties here in BC are a good example of that. Europeans came here in the interest of profit by taking what they wanted. The goal was to plunder the resources that existed for profit and push the people that were here out of the way if they interfered with that. They viewed the "uncivilized world" as theirs for the taking. That's the global history of Western European culture for the most part.
On the subject of land tho, we should also recognize that much of the crown land in that map has nothing on it anyways, so I would think that there is not a lot to be "lost" by the Crown if title reverts back to Aboriginal people. And if private corps want to take advantage of resource extraction on Aboriginal land then they should have to work to the terms set out by Aboriginal people.
Edit: To put in into stark contrast it's like a gang of thieves walking into your house and taking over and allowing you to exist to some small degree in the back corner of the yard as long as you don't put up too much of a fuss.
Your analogy is totally accurate, but if thieves take over your house and force you to live in the shed I think we can all agree the only fair verdict from a court would be for the thieves to leave (go to jail) and the homeowners to be paid in full for everything they lost. And the courts are mainly deciding the fate of the country and the province so I tend to agree with the lawyer as to where this is all headed.
From my perspective there is another inequity happening as the country's political elite grapple with reconciliation. The rural communities will have to sacrifice much more because they are not protected by massive tracts of land that are private and their livelihoods are much more likely to be based on the land. If you live in small town BC you are probably surrounded by crown land and money comes in to the community from logging, fishing or mining. All of the decisions come from the big cities where life won't change much. Where I grew up it is traditional territory of the Sechelt people. The Sechelt band controls the waterfront through a dock management program, several place names were officially changed without any consultation with the locals, and all of the local government parks were claimed by the Sechelt band by building longhouses in them including in a park that was created on donated private land (they admitted their mistake but it is still there as far as I know). Meanwhile I don't see Stanley Park going anywhere. The Premier might want to watch the symphony there one day.
I worry about my home town. The animosity toward the Sechelt people grows all the time and other than typical small town racists being assholes it didn't used to be like that. The government is screwing it up by sitting on their hands while the Sechelt band feels as though they don't need to discuss it with the residents once the province gives them the green light.
Anyway, that was a bit of a rant but my worry is that reconciliation is going to be very hard when the small communities across the province, communities that are typically integrated much more than the larger cities, have to accept the changes and the loss of livelihood in ways that the urban centers don't. I don't know how to answer this, but the government seems to be sticking their heads in the sand.
