Clarity and confusion?

This paper makes no criticism of the substance of the new jurispru- dence of aboriginal title; it is the mandate of the Supreme Court to explain and develop the law. [...] In a dispute between Ontario and Canada over who should control the lands acquired by treaty, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council described the nature of Indian title in these famous words: It was suggested in the course of the argument for the Dominion, that inasmuch as the proclamation recites that the territories thereby re- served for Indians had never “been ceded to or purchased by” t [...] The New Jurisprudence of Aboriginal Title which shew that the tenure of the Indians was a personal and usufruc- tuary right, dependent upon the good will of the Sovereign. [...] Major “sticks in the bundle” include the right to control the use of the property, including selling or giving it to others; to receive the benefit of the property; and to exclude others from using or enjoying it (Epstein, 2008: 20). [...] The New Jurisprudence of Aboriginal Title / 13 The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems.