<p>While colonial imposition of the Canadian legal order has undermined Indigenous law, creating gaps and sometimes distortions, Indigenous peoples have taken up the challenge of rebuilding their laws, governance, and economies. Indigenous conceptions of land and property are central to this project.</p> <p><em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> identifies how contemporary Indigenous conceptions of property are rooted in and informed by their societally specific norms, meanings, and ethics. Through detailed analysis, the authors illustrate that unexamined and unresolved contradictions between the historic and the present have created powerful competing versions of Indigenous law, legal authorities, and practices that reverberate through Indigenous communities. They have identified the contradictions and conflicts within Indigenous communities about relationships to land and non-human life forms, about responsibilities to one another, about environmental decisions, and about wealth distribution. <em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> contributes to identifying the way that Indigenous discourses, processes, and institutions can empower the use of Indigenous law.</p> <p>The book explores different questions generated by these dynamics, including: Where is the public/private divide in Indigenous and Canadian law, and why should it matter? How do land and property shape local economies? Whose voices are heard in debates over property and why are certain voices missing? How does gender matter to the conceptualization of property and the Indigenous legal imagination? What is the role and promise of Indigenous law in negotiating new relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canada? In grappling with these questions, readers will join the authors in exploring the conditions under which Canadian and Indigenous legal orders can productively co-exist.</p>

<p>In this chapter, the authors question what role colonial history plays in the interpretation of modern or contemporary treaties when there is ambiguity. Using an account of funding negotiations with the Carcross/Tagish First Nation (CTFN) under the Yukon Self-Government Agreement the authors and that the specificity of contemporary treaties is not in and of itself able to rectify relations marked by colonialism. Instead, the role of courts in defining treaty terms and judging conformity remains essential to implementation. Consequently, those using law to make rights, right relations, or obligations certain under contemporary treaties eventually face the same questions as those under historic treaties: what interpretive tools will the courts use to determine the political rights and obligations of treaty parties?</p>

<p>[From Introduction]: "The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia was a watershed in Canadian jurisprudence. It recognized the Aboriginal title of the Tshilhqot’in First Nation on the basis of territorial usage and it ensured that the financial benefits of land and resources will flow to the Tsilhqot’in (rather than the Crown or third parties). The Court recognized that title holders enjoy all of the “incidents” normally associated with fee simple ownership, and limited the Crown’s interest in Indigenous lands to a residual form of title (with no beneficial interests). As a result, the Court has forwarded a conception of title that highlights the financial benefits of Aboriginal rights for Aboriginal peoples." </p>

<p>In this chapter, the authors question what role colonial history plays in the interpretation of modern or contemporary treaties when there is ambiguity. Using an account of funding negotiations with the Carcross/Tagish First Nation (CTFN) under the Yukon Self-Government Agreement the authors and that the specificity of contemporary treaties is not in and of itself able to rectify relations marked by colonialism. Instead, the role of courts in defining treaty terms and judging conformity remains essential to implementation. Consequently, those using law to make rights, right relations, or obligations certain under contemporary treaties eventually face the same questions as those under historic treaties: what interpretive tools will the courts use to determine the political rights and obligations of treaty parties?</p>

<p>While colonial imposition of the Canadian legal order has undermined Indigenous law, creating gaps and sometimes distortions, Indigenous peoples have taken up the challenge of rebuilding their laws, governance, and economies. Indigenous conceptions of land and property are central to this project.</p> <p><em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> identifies how contemporary Indigenous conceptions of property are rooted in and informed by their societally specific norms, meanings, and ethics. Through detailed analysis, the authors illustrate that unexamined and unresolved contradictions between the historic and the present have created powerful competing versions of Indigenous law, legal authorities, and practices that reverberate through Indigenous communities. They have identified the contradictions and conflicts within Indigenous communities about relationships to land and non-human life forms, about responsibilities to one another, about environmental decisions, and about wealth distribution. <em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> contributes to identifying the way that Indigenous discourses, processes, and institutions can empower the use of Indigenous law.</p> <p>The book explores different questions generated by these dynamics, including: Where is the public/private divide in Indigenous and Canadian law, and why should it matter? How do land and property shape local economies? Whose voices are heard in debates over property and why are certain voices missing? How does gender matter to the conceptualization of property and the Indigenous legal imagination? What is the role and promise of Indigenous law in negotiating new relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canada? In grappling with these questions, readers will join the authors in exploring the conditions under which Canadian and Indigenous legal orders can productively co-exist.</p>