It seems like most of the commentators are unaware of the nuances of “Aboriginal title”, in Canada, and are interpreting the court decisions as if they were ordinary land claim disputes, for which there is ultimately a single “owner” of the land under dispute, rendering all other claims invalid. JFK Law tries to explain that treaty disputes are not like that, and nor for that matter is land ownership in Canada. The treaty negotiations are at the federal government level, above the provincial level, and does not necessarily impact what we think of as private ownership in the provinces. Instead of your title being a contract between yourself and the Crown, it could be between yourself and the Tribe and the Crown, or the Province and the Tribe. It is still being worked out.
It seems like most of the commentators are unaware of the nuances of “Aboriginal title”, in Canada, and are interpreting the court decisions as if they were ordinary land claim disputes, for which there is ultimately a single “owner” of the land under dispute, rendering all other claims invalid. JFK Law tries to explain that treaty disputes are not like that, and nor for that matter is land ownership in Canada. The treaty negotiations are at the federal government level, above the provincial level, and does not necessarily impact what we think of as private ownership in the provinces. Instead of your title being a contract between yourself and the Crown, it could be between yourself and the Tribe and the Crown, or the Province and the Tribe. It is still being worked out.