Thanks very much for the question. I have a couple of points on this.
One issue we have all the time in the development of aboriginal law in Canada is that the courts have said there needs to be translation. The indigenous concepts of land, property holding and how you do things need to be translated into something cognizable—for a lawyer's term—in the common law. Until it is, it can't be recognized and implemented.
When we're talking about legal pluralism, that is a fundamental problem. It's a fundamental problem that these things don't have legitimacy unless they're understandable in the Canadian common law context.
It makes me think of Edward Said's famous book on orientalism and the “other”. The way the courts have worked around this is that they've looked at indigenous people and they've tried to translate them into something that non-indigenous people would understand and that fits. If we're going to move to better ways of recognizing indigenous rights, we need to accept that this is a problem. It can't be all through the eyes of the colonizers.
We need to start there and find a way forward that truly respects the fact that indigenous people on the land had, before colonizing nations showed up with their own laws, not just their own cultures and languages but their own laws over the land. Those laws themselves need to be respected.
I hope that goes to your question.