In all fairness, naming (or re-naming) public places is usually controversial, and I respect the opinions here. I'll go on enjoying the park whether its name changes or not. Bi-lingual (with both names in equal size font) signage strikes me as a civil gesture of compromise.
SpongeG's post, however, reminds me of how utterly abysmal our country's educational curriculum in first nations history and culture is. We learn a thing or two about furs, fish, bison, the coureur des bois and smallpox, if we're lucky. It's absurd to think in this country that one basically has to be in college or be métis or first nations oneself to have a more well-rounded picture (I've heard the same said for our French language teaching, which is begun far too late for it to have any lasting impression on most people. Our tri- and quadra-lingual counterparts in Europe must wonder at that).
Though extremely inadequate by itself, bi-lingual naming might help spark wider interest in BC's local (colonial and postcolonial) histories and cultures. At any rate, I don't see how a formal recognition of the park's hybrid cultural heritage can be a bad thing.
Sorry for the somewhat off-topic rant.