There is a lot to say here, but one question your comment raises is, why does the Canadian/American legal system have to acknowledge or accommodate a continually evolving aspect of historical culture? How much accommodation is fair to ask?
Many tribal practices of native peoples were and are incompatible with western legal systems. This is in part because the western legal system developed as an affirmative rejection of tribal law and customs. To take the example of England: Angles, Jutes, Saxons & Normans are all known to us; and the people are still here; but the scope of their tribal laws gradually narrowed as the framework of English law developed.
The notion of "equality before the law" gradually expanded individual rights and identity to a point where few of us recognise any tribal affiliation and led to uniquely open societies.
Many tribal practices of native peoples were and are incompatible with western legal systems. This is in part because the western legal system developed as an affirmative rejection of tribal law and customs. To take the example of England: Angles, Jutes, Saxons & Normans are all known to us; and the people are still here; but the scope of their tribal laws gradually narrowed as the framework of English law developed.
The notion of "equality before the law" gradually expanded individual rights and identity to a point where few of us recognise any tribal affiliation and led to uniquely open societies.