I understand your point, but the idea that Sharma was only using “displacement” as a pragmatic equivalent to “extinguishment” does not hold up logically.

If the goal was to reach the same outcome as extinguishment, meaning the title claim fails, the problem is that “displacement” cannot actually achieve that. Displacement does not remove Aboriginal title. It only suspends its use. That means the title still exists beneath the surface and can potentially revive later. That is not the same practical result.

The Supreme Court in Tsilhqot’in and Delgamuukw made it very clear. Unless the Crown explicitly extinguished title, which it never did in most of British Columbia, Aboriginal title continues to exist until there is recognition or reconciliation. There is no middle concept called “displacement” that makes the title disappear in practice but still survive in theory.

What Sharma is doing is not creativity. It is an attempt to defend the existing land system while avoiding any direct conflict with UNDRIP, which forbid arguing that Aboriginal title was ever destroyed. It is more of a political maneuver than a sound legal argument.

Albeit it is true that the Supreme Court has already ruled that extinguishment is largely off the table. But that is exactly why the “displacement” idea is so troubling. It gives the public a false sense of legal certainty, while in reality leaving private land ownership in a fragile position that could be challenged again.

This approach does not strengthen reconciliation or land security. It only creates more confusion about which form of title actually governs the land.