Interesting.  In the Midland area, the Iroquois decimated and replaced the Huron. 
 Eventually, they were replaced by the Algonquin, who moved in from the North.  So what gives the Algonquin the right to argue that the land was unceded by them?  If land was acquired by conquest by one aboriginal group over another, isn't it a bit hypocritical for them to decry the fact that their land was in turn acquired by conquest by others?  How far back does one go to determine legitimacy of ownership, especially in communities in which the concept of ownership of land did not exist?