This paper examines judicial reasoning in the area of Aboriginal title, paying particular attention to the Supreme Court of Canada's Tsilhqot'in Nation (2014) decision. While the decision has been heralded as a ‘game-changer’ within media circles and legal commentaries for its recognition of a claim to title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the authors argue that the decision does not depart substantially from prior judicial logics predicated upon the production of Crown sovereignty and the denial of Indigenous legal orders. In fact, the authors argue that the decision displays a clear judicial orientation towards the present jurisdictional divisions of Canadian federalism which not only serves to eliminate Indigenous legal orders and territorial responsibilities, but also provides federal and provincial governments with enhanced powers of ‘incursion’ into Aboriginal title lands.
Over the course of the past twenty years, the Supreme Court of Canada’s discourse concerning ‘reconciliation’ has shifted from moderating federal power to reconciling the preceding presence of Aboriginal people with an established sovereign (Crown) presence. While scholars postulated that the Court was attempting to maintain colonial relations of power, substantive answers for this discursive shift are lacking within the literature. This paper provides a comprehensive explanation of this shift by comparing the hearing transcripts in the ‘Aboriginal rights trilogy’ to their corresponding written decisions. It argues that particular judicial and geographic commitments underlie the concept of ‘reconciliation’ and ultimately serve to represent Aboriginal identity as inescapably ‘Canadian.’ Au cours des vingt dernières années, le discours de la Cour suprême du Canada concernant la « réconciliation » est passé de l’atténuation du pouvoir fédéral à la conciliation entre la présence antérieure des Autochtones et une présence souveraine (de la Couronne) établie. Bien que les universitaires aient affirmé que la Cour tentait de maintenir des relations de pouvoir coloniales, l’évolution du discours n’est pas expliquée de façon concrète dans la littérature. Le présent article explique cette évolution de façon détaillée en comparant les transcriptions d’audience dans la « trilogie sur les droits ancestraux » à leurs décisions écrites correspondantes. Il fait valoir que des engagements judiciaires et géographiques particuliers sous-tendent le concept de la « réconciliation » et servent en définitive à représenter l’identité autochtone comme étant inévitablement « canadienne ».
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.