[amackera]

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

[gotoeleven]

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

[michael1999]

Canada is already a federal structure with overlapping jurisdictions. Adding another layer to it complicates things, but doesn't fundamentally break anything. Treaties are just more laws in a constitution that is already a mix of Common Law, written law, (French) Civil Law, our history with the BNA act, and our recent constitutional patriation.

The USA has similar treaties, and the US Supreme Court has been flip-flopping trying to decide the limits of Oklahoma criminal authority in half the sate. It can be messy.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta

[FooBarBizBazz]

There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.

[grecy]

Yes, that is exactly the case today. There are 43 self-governing first nations communities in Canada where "Canadian" laws mean nothing, and "Canadian" police have no power.

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...

[AndrewKemendo]

Yes that’s exactly right

[Tiktaalik]

I don't really see how this is that challenging. It's just another jurisdiction with its own governance structure, just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.

[TSiege]

This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation

[somedude895]

Times have changed and these peoples don't live the romanticized lifestyles of the olden times anymore. For the most part, they're just as modern and profit-seeking as any other group of Canadians. If you allow them to not have to adhere to Canadian law, you have a group of people that enjoy all the benefits and none of the restrictions of the country they live in. If you argue for sovereign rights, they should have their own separate countries, so they have to deal with any imbalances or environmental issues they create themselves.