Canadian Politics Today

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

You can read it yourself: Delgamuukw 1997. It was a landmark SCoC ruling saying that Aboriginal title had not been extinguished.

no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious! 

by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?

here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?