A recognition and reconciliation act was the proposed outcome of these negotiations but later on such legislation was dismissed as dead by the First Nations summit in August 2009. (All Chiefs Assembly 2009) Though the act in its proposed form was not acceptable to the majority of indigenous people, all these new debates have an importance of their own as stepping stones towards evolving consensus. The whole thing failed only because of the ambivalent acts of the Province as on one side the authorities said they were implementing the New Relationship while on the other, the court cases against the indigenous communities and conflicts lingered as usual. (All Chiefs Assembly 2009).
But this debate provided a platform for the aboriginals to demand that “enforcement of (the) indigenous titles and rights as called for by the United Nations’ Declaration on the rights of indigenous people” is the only viable solution. Christian paper, 2009, para.3). Thus a tilt in public discourse is evident which in turn will put weight on the arguments of the First Nations people. So the negotiations have to continue and any new legislation must be based on deep consultation.
Question 2-The authors of the Christian paper see their titles and rights as “inherited from (their) ancestral origins as indigenous people (Christian paper, 2009, para 4). This includes sovereign rights to the land they have inhabited in British Columbia for centuries. This also includes rights on the natural resources of that land. The Christian paper also declares without doubt that the Province had no jurisdiction over the indigenous titles and rights of the aborigines (Christian paper, 2009, para 2).
The paper clearly states that the indigenous people would accept nothing less than an endorsement of the United Nations’ Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people (Christian paper, 2009, para 3).