cfr-admin

Download a printable pdf file of the theme from this link.

Gathering Theme: First Gathering

Getting to Know You

Documents and Materials to bring (Facilitator’s checklist)
 Opening statement
 Seven Sacred Teachings of the Anishinaabe
 6 copies of the closing protocol
 Talking stick
 Smudging tobacco, etc., or invocation (If desired)
 Refreshments
 Kleenex
 Small pads of paper and pencils for participants (if necessary)
 Other items unique to your group
 Materials on the Theme of the meeting

Introducing the circle format

Our meetings are usually an hour and fifteen minutes, unless we agree to extend them. In that way those who wish to leave can do so without feeling they are disrupting anything. If others want to stay and discuss a bit longer, that is possible (as long as the facility does not have to be locked up). We ask you to be very conscious of your sharing time. We will be meeting many times, you will have many opportunities to share your thoughts and feelings.

There are five parts to a circle:

1. Opening statement (Facilitator reads)
2. The Seven Sacred Teachings (To be read aloud by one of the participants)
3. Presentation of a theme (12 to 15 minutes)
4. Passing the talking stick (45 to 50 minutes)
5. Closing protocol (To be read aloud by participants)

As we begin, there are some housekeeping things to discuss:

1. “In this first gathering we want to establish a climate of “mutual recognition and mutual respect” to use the words of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. No matter what your background and life experiences we want to respect you, by listening to you and by recognizing the value of you as a person and what you have to bring to our gathering. It is important that we agree on this respect for one another at the outset. When a participant has the talking stick it is important that we all listen and not interrupt.
2. Themes: Over the course of our gatherings we will tackle a number of issues. There are 21 themes we have identified. The first four weeks we will address the following themes:
   Week 1) Getting to know you
   Week 2) Misconceptions about Indigenous People
   Week 3) What is Reconciliation?
   Week 4) Intergenerational Trauma
3. As a group we will be able to choose the next themes we want to address. For example:
   The history and impact of residential schools.
   The meaning of land for Indigenous people.
   The sixties scoop and its ongoing reality.
   The justice system and Indigenous people.
   Métis Identity and Nationhood.
   The Pass System
4. We urge you to plan to attend all meetings. The rhythm of the circle is disrupted if people come and go. Sometimes it is unavoidable but we ask you to recognize the value of coming regularly.
5. We encourage you to go on the website (www.circlesforreconciliation.ca). It changes virtually every week.
6. If you decide the theme for the following week people can read it on the website before coming to the meeting if they wish. Also there are all kinds of resources on our website, including short and long videos.
7.  Does anyone need transportation either to come or to get home?
8. If we wish, we can take a private guided tour of the Exhibit on Treaties at the Manitoba Museum free of charge. The circles who have gone already have found it really interesting and educational. We will raise this possibility at a later meeting.

Today’s Theme: Getting to Know You

(facilitator reads)
We are calling this first session, a “getting to know you” session, where each of us can tell a bit about ourselves.
(Facilitators can google “Icebreakers for groups” and be free to choose the one best suited for their group. There are many choices.)

Here is the most common icebreaker for Getting to Know You:

“I suggest that we go around the group and in about 3-4 minutes each, share the following: a) Our name,  b) where are you from,  c) our cultural identity/background,  d) why we decided to take part in these gatherings, e) what we hope to bring to our life from these gatherings.  Let me begin…”

(The facilitator would begin by taking about 3 or 4 minutes (about 40 minutes in total) to share so that participants would have a sense of the expectations.)

Setting the tone
(Facilitator reads)
“I would like to ask you how you think we can set a “tone” for our discussions so that they are respectful of one another as persons and in our use of time. Are there any thoughts you have on setting a respectful tone? We don’t have to have rules as such, but it would be helpful if we agreed on how we will conduct ourselves.

For example:

1. It is very important that we all recognize that the feelings of an individual are neither right nor wrong. They are real and need to be respected.
2. In accordance with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, the four guiding principles for the new relationship are “mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing, and mutual responsibility.” (Interim Report, page 23)
3. We ask you to be conscious of your sharing time so that everyone has a chance to participate. Because we have a number of gatherings you will have ample opportunity to share your ideas and feelings.

Are there any other suggestions about setting the tone for our meetings?

Pass the talking stick
At this point we are going to pass the talking stick around the circle. You are free to pass if you wish. Think about 3 to 4 minutes for sharing. Remember that you have a number of meetings upcoming when you will also have time to share.

Closing Protocol
Each of our meetings will end with a closing protocol.

Five of the participants will now read one sentence from the Closing and all will join the 6th person in reading the last sentence of the closing.

Download a printable pdf file of the theme from this link.

GATHERING THEME

Call to Business

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES:
“AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BUSINESS HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.”

(This theme has a number of points. It is more effective if each of the participants reads a section as we go through the theme)

Facilitator 

The title of our theme is a phrase borrowed from “Indigenous Works,”1 a national non-profit agency headquartered in Saskatoon that is focused on Indigenous employment. The phrase is part of their report on a national study of businesses and their interest in partnerships with Indigenous companies. It seems like an appropriate description of what we wish to address today.

In our Circle, in the next few minutes we will do four things;

First, read Call to action # 92
Second; reflect on the key points of this call to action
Third: Ask, why should business care
Fourth; reflect on how to move forward

Then, with the use of a talking stick, we will share on how we might proceed or are already doing so.

First; let’s take a moment to read call to action # 92

Participant 1 reads:

Call to Action # 92

We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources. This would include, but not be limited to, the following:

Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.
Provide education for management and staff on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

Facilitator reads:

For those of you who perhaps have never read this before, let’s summarize this Call to Action:

It addresses a number of dimensions under what the commission calls a “Reconciliation framework for applying the United Nations Declaration.” It asks for:

• Meaningful consultations
• Respectful relationships
• Employment opportunities
• Informed consent before moving to economic development project
• Access to jobs, training and educational opportunities
• Benefits to aboriginal communities and not just to individuals
• Education of management and staff on the history of Aboriginal peoples

Participant 2 reads:

What is the level of Indigenous involvement now?

In 2016, Indigenous Works, the company we mentioned above, commissioned a national study of 500 large and medium sized businesses in Canada. The result reported that 85 percent of companies have no relationships with Indigenous people. Only 2% of corporations were committed partners.2 While the situation is slightly better on the prairies, Manitoba has the weakest engagement with Indigenous people of the three prairie provinces.

Nationally, the study found:

• Only half of the businesses wanted to do more business with Indigenous groups
• Less than half were prioritizing hiring Indigenous people
• Only a third of businesses considered investing in Indigenous communities as a priority

Why is this so? In the words of the companies themselves: about 20 reasons were given; for example:

“Never thought of it”,

“We need people with specific designations so that is our priority,”

“Not applicable to our business,”

“We would if they reached out to us,”

“Never occurred to us,” etc.

Five key factors were identified as to why businesses did not consider such engagement:

1. There are few indigenous people around our business, or if there are, we are unaware of them
2. Indifference; that is, we don’t’ discriminate, but we don’t reach out
3. There is limited value for us in being engaged
4. We don’t really know the situation of Indigenous people very well
5. It is costly to reach out, and we have limited capacity

Participant 3 reads:

Why should business care; the benefits

In October of 2017, Don Drummond, former senior economist with CIBC, now at McMaster University wrote that 52% of the future economic growth of Manitoba will depend upon Indigenous work force participation. So, independent of the moral responsibility one could raise, there are economic benefits for business. The Drummond report3 estimates that closing the gap would increase the size of the Canadian economy by $36.4 billion by 2031.

The research by Indigenous Works suggested some solutions.

Things that need to change:

1. Businesses want to be approached directly by Indigenous groups
2. Businesses need to see the employment and business potential
3. Businesses need more experience and knowledge on how to do this
4. Economic conditions and policies from government need to change

What supports do businesses need to change?

1. Guidance from Indigenous groups
2. Mentorship from experienced businesses
3. Direction from third parties and from government

On the government side, Drummond identifies several obstacles to be overcome;

1. Lack of predictability in funding
2. Currently there is greater focus on social service funding to the detriment of funding that addresses economic needs
3. Lack of high speed broadband in many Indigenous communities
   Need for greater Indigenous autonomy

Participant 4 reads:

So how can businesses proceed?

Let’s back up just a bit. Perry Bellegarde, National Grand Chief stated recently in the Globe and Mail: “Before you try to build anything, build a respectful relationship.” The TRC report – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission formed to redress the legacy of residential schools – stresses over and over that respectful relationships are the beginning of reconciliation. And the TRC argues this starts with knowing the Truth. The title of the final report of the TRC is called “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the future.” A business man commented; why worry about the past, let’s just move on to the future.” The TRC refutes that. If we don’t honor the truth of the past, we will never have reconciliation. If we don’t know the past we will never understand intergenerational trauma.

Participant 5 reads:

Another common sentiment about residential schools is the following: “They didn’t know back then what we know now. They didn’t realize it was wrong”(CBC Radio, 2017). However, Dr. Cindy Blackstock, member of the Gitksan First Nation challenges this position by sharing the story about Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce. Dr. Bryce was the chief medical officer for the department of Indian Affairs and the department of immigration. In 1904, he was asked to report on the health conditions of children within the Canadian Indian residential school system in Western Canada and the Northwest Territories. When he released the final report in 1907, Bryce exposed the inhuman and unsanitary conditions of residential schools. Bryce revealed: “It suffices for us to know … that of a total of 1,537 pupils reported upon, nearly 25 per cent are dead,” and “of one school with an absolutely accurate statement, 69 per cent of ex-pupils are dead, and that everywhere the almost invariable cause of death given is tuberculosis.” He continued, “We have created a situation so dangerous to health . . . that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse.”4

The report was eventually leaked and appeared on the front page of the newspaper that is now the Ottawa Citizen, making the report public knowledge. Despite Bryce’s damning report, none of the report’s recommendations were immediately implemented.

As Cindy Blackstock passionately states, Dr. Bryce’s publicized report “puts a red hot poker stick into this myth that people in the period didn’t know any better back then.”

So we need to first honour the truth.

Participant 6 reads:

Once that truth is acknowledged, then Murray Sinclair’s, Chair of the TRC, message is loud and clear; he says: “Don’t feel guilty about the past, don’t feel shame, they don’t do any good at all, do something about it.”

So let’s return to the role of business. Call to action 92 suggests that as relationships grow, meaningful consultations will grow. The reverse is also true. Honest consultations will lead to relationships. The first baby steps toward partnerships can begin. The most progressive companies are those that develop an internal business strategy as it relates to Indigenous peoples. They have a procurement strategy; an employment strategy. They have benefits sharing.

Participant 7 reads:

Call to Action 92 calls for informed Employment decisions; it calls on corporations to investigate where to find new talent, how to design training, and partnering to support employment of indigenous people; ensure cultural sensitivity, maintain an adoptive and innovative workforce. Companies don’t have to start from scratch. Here are just a few examples of opportunities in Winnipeg. The Manitoba Construction Sector Council trains Indigenous people for jobs. Build, Inc. offers a training program for those Indigenous youth facing barriers to employment. Opportunities for Employment (OFE) is another agency that both trains and seeks employment for people, including Indigenous people. Amik provides employment services. Clayton Sandy, who is key to our Circles for Reconciliation conducts all kinds of workshops on preparing Indigenous people for employment.

Participant 8 reads:

Once reconciliation is on a business radar, business development decisions and community development decisions can also begin to be considered. On the business development side, those interested can being to think about how reconciliation can influence where to open new locations, how to market their business, their procurement policies, mutual development of their business and Indigenous businesses to grow market share, diversify products and service, strengthen reputations

Participant 9 reads:

Companies that begin to think about reconciliation can reflect on community development decisions, specifically what groups or events to sponsor, how to minimize their impact on environment, how to strengthen communities where they operate, invest in education, combine intelligence and information, and identify other opportunities for involvement.

Facilitator reads:

I am now going to pass out a list of possible personal actions and corporate actions you might take (Pass out the “Get involved sheet. Facilitator should have a copy for everyone).

These are examples only.

We are going to go around the circle reading the actions.

Now we will use a talking stick, passed from one to another. Please speak only when you have the talking stick. Let me remind you that we have to be finished by ____ (time) so as you share, please be mindful of the time and remember we want everyone to have a chance to share.

References and resources

Download a printable pdf file of the theme from this link.

Gathering Theme

The Indian Act: Disempowering, Assimilatory and Exlusionary

Jeremy Patzer
University of Manitoba

Opening common to all gatherings

Presentation of the theme

The Indian Act has come to be known as the primary mechanism by which the federal government instituted a legal power for itself and its Indian agents over the lives, rights, and identities of First Nations peoples. The terms of the act apply only to those recognized as having Indian status—the legal recognition by the Crown that one is in fact an “Indian”—and the federal government does not, and has never, recognized Indian status for all people of First Nations descent within the boundaries of what is now Canada. The purview of the act also does not extend to Métis or Inuit peoples. This is largely due to a history of the federal government seeking to limit the liabilities flowing from its constitutional responsibility for Indigenous peoples. The very nature of the act as scrutineer and bestower of Indian status thus created the status/non-status divide, and is why we even have a concept of “non-status Indian” in the first place. Thus, the Indian Act is profoundly 1) disempowering, 2) assimilatory and 3) exclusionary.

The Indian Act was neither the sole nor the first legislation to envisage the paternalistic control and assimilation of First Nations. Both prior to and just after Confederation, instances of pre-Indian Act legislation were enacted that envisaged a “civilizational” process of assimilation that was meant to eventually remove all legal distinctions between Indians and the Crown’s Canadian subjects. In the shift from the pre-Confederation to post-Confederation legislation, the efforts at assimilation became more acute. Enfranchisement—the removal of Indian status—went from voluntary to involuntary, although it had been forcible from the beginning for wives and children of husbands who were enfranchised. It precluded First Nations women from the leadership and political life of their communities, and also provided for the automatic enfranchisement of women (and their children) when they married a man not recognized as an Indian. The post-Confederation act also enabled the government to impose its own style of band council in cases where it desired to remove the traditional governance structure of a First Nation. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), not only was the style of imposed governance structure assimilative, but so was its limited scale. In effect, there “was simply no provision for traditional groupings going beyond the individual band level. In fact, the goal of the measures was specifically to undermine nation-level governance systems and the broader nation-level associations of Indians more generally” (Italics added).

It was not until 1876, nine years after Confederation, that An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians was passed, modifying and consolidating much of the former legislation into Canada’s first incarnation of the Indian Act. Cora Voyageur encapsulates the act’s functions as “to define who was and was not an Indian, to civilize the Indian, and to manage the Indian people and their lands.” According to John Leslie, “it touched on all aspects of Indian reserve life.” It preserved the assimilatory and discriminatory provisions of its predecessors, even expanding on some of them.

The original Indian Act retained the federal government’s power to remove traditional Indigenous governance structures and added to the list of reasons for which the federal government could remove chiefs from band leadership. The federal government did exactly this to the Six Nations band within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in Ontario, purely because the band created anxiety within the Canadian government through their travels to London and Geneva, seeking recognition of their sovereignty. Duncan Campbell Scott, the deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs, secured approval from Cabinet to remove the confederacy council that governed Canada’s largest reserve. According to the account of John Borrows and Leonard Rotman:

Without prior notice to the chiefs, they were removed from office by an order-in-council on the morning of October 7, 1924. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized the wampum used to sanction council proceedings, and posted a proclamation on the doors of the council house announcing the date and procedures for an elected government on the Six Nations reserve. (A wampum is a ceremonial belt used as a gift, as currency, and for recording treaties and historical events).¹

The cleavage created within this First Nation by the government’s imposition of a second, competing governance structure has remained for generations.

The Indian Act also retained compulsory enfranchisement and extended it to individuals if they were to earn a university degree or become a doctor, lawyer or member of the clergy. It even aspired for the voluntary enfranchisement of entire bands through a process that planned for the surveying and subdivision of reserves. It was theoretically feasible, then, if history were to progress as the federal government had desired it, for all reserves to be subdivided into individual lots and, through the assimilatory processes of enfranchisement, the entirety of any given reserve to be eroded away into private lots held by owners with no Indian status.

By the end of the nineteenth century, as John Leslie notes, the lack of tangible results in assimilating Indigenous peoples encouraged officials to become even more interventionist:

In the view of government officials, a relatively effortless way of dealing with the apparent lack of progress was to revise the Indian Act to give more powers to local Indian agents and to heavily penalize Indian people for persisting in the old ways. For example, in the 1880s, Indian agents acquired additional powers as justices of the peace in order to prosecute Indians. In April 1884, the Indian Act was amended by section 3, which placed a ban on dances and traditional ceremonies. In 1894, section 11 gave the Minister of Indian Affairs the power to direct industrial or residential schools, and made school attendance compulsory, with strict truancy penalties.

The additions and amendments in this vein are too numerous to explore in their entirety, but the sheer number of them gives a sense of how the Indian Act has been used as a multifaceted instrument of control and assimilation for generations. In addition to the ban on certain dances, ceremonies, and the potlatch, a later amendment in 1914 required Western Indians to seek official permission before appearing in “Aboriginal costume.” The 1880s also saw the creation of the permit system for strictly controlling First Nations farming and an amendment in 1918 allowed the government to lease out uncultivated reserve land to non-Indigenous farmers. An amendment in 1930 prevented pool hall owners from admitting Indians, and there were various prohibitions related to the possession and supply of liquor and other intoxicants—with varying applicability on and off-reserve—from the 1880s through much of the twentieth century.

A 1927 amendment to the Indian Act brought a unique element, since governments were anxious that some First Nations might manage to bring claims for legal title over their own lands before the courts. Such anxieties were especially acute in British Columbia. Section 141 of the 1927 Indian Act therefore made it illegal to raise funds for the benefit of First Nations who sought to pursue claims against the Crown in court. (Relatedly, a 1906 amendment to the Criminal Code had “provided that it was an offence to incite or ‘stir up’ Indians to riotous or disorderly behaviour. Indeed, it was even an offence to incite them ‘to make any request or demand of government in a disorderly manner.’”)

It is essential to note the interwoven chronology of treaties and assimilatory legislation of the Indian Act. Canada began, in earnest, the honing of the law as a tool of assimilation prior to Confederation. This is prior to any of the Numbered Treaties signed from Ontario westward from 1871 to 1930. In fact, the Indian Act was used numerous times to contravene treaty promises. The government failed, of course, to spell out in direct terms the provisions of the Indian Act that contravened the treaty promises it was making. This is significant because, according to RCAP, First Nations were assured orally in the treaty negotiation process “that their way of life would not change unless they wished it to. They understood that their governing structures and authorities would continue undisturbed by the treaty relationship.”

The Indian Act of today is not the same as the one first consolidated in 1876, or even what existed in the first half of the twentieth century. Many of the most controversial amendments mentioned above were eventually removed from the act, and multiple legislative efforts since 1985 have begun a long and imperfect process of removing gender discriminatory provisions in the act that saw generations of Indigenous women and their children lose their status.

Enfranchisement and assimilation continue as a fundamental element of the current Indian Act, however, through a mechanism referred to as the second generation cut-off. This essentially means that if two generations in a row have children with non-status partners, then Indian status is not carried beyond that second generation. In addition, legal scholars John Borrows and Leonard Rotman still consider the act to be a major obstacle in maintaining Indigenous governmental diversity and autonomy, given that its “provisions narrowly define and heavily regulate their citizenship, land rights, succession rules, political organization, economic opportunities, fiscal management, educational patterns and attainment.”

Getting beyond or removing the Indian Act, however, is not as simple as it sounds. The paradox of the act is that it is also integral to securing the legal protection of reserve land for the common use and occupation of First Nations—and there remains very little Canadian territory that is set aside specifically for Indigenous groups. For First Nations, the only way out from under the Indian Act is through the negotiation of self-government agreements, a process that is itself subject to some staunch criticisms.

References

Borrows, John and Leonard Rotman. Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials & Commentary. 4th ed. Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2012.

Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Volume 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1996.

Foster, Hamar. “We Are Not O’Meara’s Children: Law, Lawyers, and the First Campaign for Aboriginal Title in British Columbia, 1908-28.” In Let Right Be Done: Aboriginal Title, the Calder Case, and the Future of Indigenous Rights, edited by Hamar Foster, Heather Raven, and Jeremy Webber, 61-84. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.

Leslie, John. “The Indian Act: An Historical Perspective.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 25, no. 2 (2002): 23-27.

Voyageur, Cora. “Female First Nations Chiefs and the Colonial Legacy in Canada.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 35, no. 3 (2011): 59-78.

Discussion, passing the talking stick

Closing common to all gatherings

Gathering Theme

Hope

Download a printable pdf file of the theme from this link.

Gathering Theme

Dispelling the Myths About Indigenous People (Manitoba Version)

The majority of this document comes from a publication “Indigenous Workforce Participation Initiative,” Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998, with updates from Statistics Canada, and from “Indigenous Strong, Manitoba Strong: Indigenous contributions to the Manitoba Economy” (2019).

Opening common to all gatherings

Presentation of the theme

Many misconceptions about Indigenous peoples in Canada are based on stereotyping and lack of information. These misconceptions have serious consequences and are often at the root of racism and discrimination that Indigenous peoples continue to experience today. For employers, ongoing misconceptions about Indigenous peoples can adversely impact the effectiveness of their Indigenous workforce participation initiatives.

Dispelling the misconceptions and myths is one step towards building relationships based on mutual respect and trust. Here are 10 common misconceptions about Indigenous peoples, along with factual information that will help to dispel them.

(When presenting this theme at a circle, it is often effective to have each of the participants who are willing, to read one of the myths. Be sure participants feel free to pass and not read a myth if they don’t feel comfortable.)

1. MYTH: All Indigenous peoples are the same.

The Facts:

• The Indigenous population is very diverse:
• It is composed of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples – each with a different history, culture and society.
• In Canada today there are 11 major language families with over 50 forms. Some Indigenous languages are as different as Spanish is from Japanese.
• British Columbia alone is home to 60% of Indigenous languages in Canada. In that Province there are 34 distinct languages involving 61 dialects. 
• Indigenous peoples live in many different parts of Canada -in geographically diverse locations such as urban centres, rural communities and remote locations. As of 2016, half of Status Indians live in urban areas.
• There are 63 Reserves in Manitoba, 207 in Ontario.
• Not all Indigenous people do pow wows, potlatches, smudges or sweats.
• Wampum belts were used as a guide by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to narrate their history while in the West coast, weaving performed the same function. 

2. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have always had the same rights as others in Canada.

The Facts:

• Only recently have Indigenous peoples begun to obtain the same rights as other people in Canada.
• In 1880, an amendment to the Indian Act provided for automatic loss of status of any Indian who earned a university degree
  or any Indian woman who married a non-Indian or an unregistered Indian. Loss of status was not officially repealed until 1985.
• In 1884, an amendment to the Indian Act instituted prison sentences for anyone participating in potlatch, or other traditional Indigenous ceremonies.
  
• Indigenous people were denied their right to organize politically.
  
• Amendments to the Indian Act in 1927 made it illegal for First Nations people or communities to hire lawyers or bring about land claims against the government without the government’s consent.
  
• Registered First Nations peoples only obtained the right to vote in 1960.
  
• The Nisga’a Treaty was only ratified in 2000. It is the first modern-day treaty in B.C. and it served as a model for many First nations seeking self-government and modern treaties in Canada.
  
• In 2016, The Supreme Court declared that Métis (and non-status Indians) must be considered “Indians” in the Constitution and thereby fall under federal jurisdiction. This did not include remedial action, but in conjunction with agreements with provincial governments, this opens the door for Métis rights and land claims.

3. MYTH: Indigenous peoples are responsible for their current situation.

The Facts – Many factors have contributed to the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada:

• Prior to European contact, Indigenous societies were strong and self-sufficient.
  
• While Indigenous peoples were never conquered, the process of colonization resulted in complete loss of control and dependency. For example:
  
• According to article 32 (1) of the Indian Act “a transaction of any kind whereby a band or a member thereof purported to sell, barter, exchange, give or otherwise dispose of cattle of cattle,,, grain,… or plants or their products from a reserve.. to a person other than a member of that band, is void unless the superintendent approves of the transaction in writing.”
  
• Policies of displacement and assimilation (e.g., residential schools and banning of potlatch) deprived Indigenous peoples of their traditional, social, economic and political powers.
  
• Indigenous peoples are now re-establishing control through a process of healing, negotiation and partnership.
  
• The Pass system, in place for over 60 years until its repeal in 1941, required written permission from the Indian agent for a person to leave a reserve, to fish, hunt, sell their crops, get married, etc. The pass indicated why they were allowed to be absent, for how long and whether or not they could carry a gun.

4. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have a lot of money.

The Facts:

• Indigenous individuals have lower incomes than others in Canada

• In 2010, the median income for Indigenous peoples was $20,000—compared to $27,600 median income for the rest of Canadians. While income disparity between Indigenous peoples and the rest of Canadians narrowed slightly in a decade, at this rate it would take 63 years for the gap to be erased.
• Although Indigenous incomes rise with increased education, even highly educated Indigenous people still face a considerable income gap relative to non-Indigenous people.

5. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have everything paid for; they don’t have to pay for their housing, education or medical expenses.

The Facts – Certain services are paid for. What these are, and who they are for, is defined by statute or agreement:

• Registered First Nations peoples have certain services paid for. These are part of the federal government’s as outlined in the Indian Act. Indigenous people did not ask for the Indian Act.
• When a registered First Nations person leaves the community, access to these rights are limited. And as the federal government cuts spending, items admissible under these statutory obligations also diminish.
• The national Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now called Indigenous and Northern Affairs, provides certain services to the Inuit through its Indian and Inuit programs. The department funds services for these communities that other Canadians receive from their provincial or municipal governments. These services include education, social services and community infrastructure.
• There is a strong link between education and income levels.
• Only in 2016 was the annual cap of 2% increase in on-reserve funding for education ended.
• Nobody gets a free education in Canada. We are not subsidizing free education for First Nations people as the myth says. Their schools actually receive far less tax money than schools for non-Indigenous children in Canada. In 2017, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the gap between on reserve schools and other schools in Canada is $665 million. That is even worse than in 2012, when the gap was $595 million. 
• Outside of the items defined by statute and agreement, Indigenous peoples pay their own expenses.

6. MYTH: Indigenous peoples do not pay taxes.

The Facts – Personal tax exemption occurs only in confined cases. Indigenous peoples pay significant amounts of tax every year:

• Inuit and Métis people always pay taxes.
• First Nations peoples without status, and registered First Nations peoples living off-reserve, pay taxes like the rest of the country.
• Registered First Nations peoples working off-reserve pay income tax, regardless of where they reside (even on-reserve).
• Administrative costs incurred by registered First Nations peoples claiming tax exemption for off-reserve purchases under $500 discourage requests for reimbursement. In these cases, most registered First Nations peoples opt to pay the sales tax.
• Registered First Nations peoples are sometimes exempted from paying personal taxes. Tax exemption is part of the federal government’s statutory obligation as outlined in the Indian Act.
• There are many taxes beyond personal income taxes: income taxes on corporations, and unincorporated businesses, federal and provincial sales taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on 2016 data, Indigenous people contributed over $230 million in taxes annually (57% federal and 43% provincial).

7. MYTH: Indigenous peoples cannot interface with, or adapt to, life in the mainstream.

The Facts – Indigenous peoples have extensive and effective relationships with the rest of Canadian society:

• Indigenous peoples attend, and graduate from, a wide range of colleges and universities.
• There are over 40,000 businesses owned and operated by Indigenous people in Canada. There are 706 in Manitoba.
• “Indigenous businesses are estimated to have spent $6 billion in 2016. This spending contributed $1.1 billion to Manitoba’s GDP” (p.31)Indigenous businesses form joint ventures (and other business arrangements) with non-Indigenous businesses.
  
• The Indigenous economy is the second largest component of the major industries in Manitoba
  •  Agriculture = 5.3%
  •  Indigenous =3.9%
  •  Manufacturing =2.7%
  •  Accommodations and food industry = 2.7%
  •  Mining, oil and gas = 2.0%
    
• The Indigenous component contributes $9.3 billion to the Manitoba economy annually
  
• Of all self-employed Indigenous people in Canada, women make up 37%, and even 51% of Indigenous small– and medium-sized enterprises are owned in whole or in part by Indigenous women.
  

8. MYTH: Indigenous peoples do not have a good work ethic; they have high rates of turnover and absenteeism. They are “lazy.”

The Facts –  ndigenous peoples are skilled, productive and reliable employees who are valued by their employers:

• Indigenous peoples participate extensively in work-oriented education and training programs.
• Indigenous peoples are valued as stable, reliable employees who contribute in many ways to corporate performance.
• Flexible work arrangements may be established to allow Indigenous peoples to pursue their traditional ways, the timing of which differs from statutory holidays.
• There are 71,440 First Nations people employed in Southern Manitoba, and 16,000 in the North.
• There are 92,800 Indigenous people in Winnipeg (2016 census). In the 2015 survey of homelessness in Winnipeg, there were about 1,400. Almost 800 were Indigenous. Where are the other 92,000 Indigenous people? Working, at home caring for their children, volunteering, etc. 

9. MYTH: There are no qualified Indigenous peoples to hire.

The Facts: Indigenous peoples have the education, skills and expertise required for jobs in all economic sectors:

• Almost one-half (48.4%) of Indigenous people had a postsecondary qualification in 2011, including 14.4% with a trades certificate, 20.6% with a college diploma, 3.5% with a university certificate or diploma below the bachelor level, and 9.8% with a university degree. (In comparison, almost two-thirds (64.7%) of the non-Indigenous population aged 25 to 64 had a postsecondary qualification in 2011).
• Indigenous peoples work in many occupations. First Nations peoples work in all parts of the Manitoba economy
  • 20% healthcare and social assistance
  • 13% education
  • 11% public administration
  • 10% construction
  • 10% retail trade
    
• A young and growing Indigenous population represents an opportunity for economic development in Canada, and even more so in Manitoba. The growing cadre of young Indigenous people represents a supply of new workers, entrepreneurs and professionals.
• Many services are available to help employers find qualified Indigenous employees.

10. MYTH: Hiring Indigenous peoples is a form of reverse discrimination.

The Facts: Hiring Indigenous peoples is part of a strategy to develop a representative workforce:

• A representative workforce strategy means that all groups are represented – those who are part of the majority population as well as those who are in minorities—reflecting the make-up of the country or of the population surrounding work areas.
• Measures to increase Indigenous workforce participation are not designed to favour one group over another. They are designed to increase access to employment vacancies and promote equitable opportunity for all groups.
• Provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as well as provincial and territorial statutes) permit employers to take special measures to achieve the equitable representation of Indigenous peoples and other groups in the workforce.
  

  ---

  References
  
  Our “Resources” section of our website provides a direct link to the full 2019 report on Indigenous contributions to the Manitoba Economy.

  The majority of this document comes from a publication “Indigenous Workforce Participation Initiative,” Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998, with updates from Statistics Canada, and from “Indigenous Strong, Manitoba Strong: Indigenous contributions to the Manitoba Economy” (2019).

  The publication is very consistent with other similar documents, such as the 2012 publication by TD Bank called “Debunking 10 myths surrounding Canada’s Indigenous population.”

Discussion, passing the talking stick

Closing common to all gatherings