cfr-admin

Dr. Tricia Logan

GATHERING THEME

Treaties: Our Nation to Nation Partnerships

 Opening common to all gatherings.

Treaty making processes are sacred, legal and ceremonial events which involved many, but not all First Nations or Indigenous communities across Canada. Treaties in Canada were signed before Confederation (1867), after confederation and in the ‘modern’ era, including treaties signed since 1975. From a First Nations perspective, Treaty making involves sacred ceremonies and a tripartite deal between the First Nation, the colonial representative and the Creator. Treaties did not “surrender or cede land”, they are considered sacred agreements between Nations which covered more than just a “transfer” of territory. Histories of treaties in Canada are complex. They are living documents that continue today to influence legal struggles and decisions over rights as well as land.

Various First Nations communities and nations across Turtle Island (North America) and Canada had and have existing traditions and laws that govern land rights and what would be considered in European law as “human rights”. Ceremonies often include Wampum Belts, pipe ceremonies or an exchange of gifts. A Wampum Belt is typically made from round clam shells often formed into beads and woven with threads. The belt of Wampum is a symbol of peace and often signaled an invitation or start to a meeting between nations. Wampum can also represent an individual’s qualifications or influence. Treaties, agreements and oral histories are signified with use of Wampum in Canadian First Nations including the Haudenosaunee and Onondaga. Records of these laws and ceremonies still circulate and are used today in First Nations communities through oral histories and they date back to times of earliest contact with Europeans and before contact. Knowledge of these ceremonies and agreements are passed on through several generations.

It is important to remember that Indigenous nations view land differently than European traditions and philosophies. The European beliefs in private property and land ownership did not translate well into Indigenous languages or world views. Treaty making did not consider how First Nations and Indigenous peoples established their relationships to the land and how sacred that relationship was and is.

Indigenous groups throughout Turtle Island and Canada often entered into agreements over land, hunting or fishing and trade prior to the arrival of Europeans. After arrival of European colonizers and church missionaries between the 1500s and 1600s First Nations and European traders forged relationships for trade and ending early conflicts.

Royal Proclamation 1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III of England and “ownership” of North America was granted to Britain. The Royal Proclamation is still broadly considered an important document that represents the historic relationship between Indigenous peoples and Europeans in Canada. The Royal Proclamation states clearly that the title Indigenous people have to the land had always existed and continues to exist after the Proclamation. The proclamation is referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This provision dictates that nothing in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms diminishes Aboriginal peoples’ rights as expressed in the Royal Proclamation. This reference to the proclamation in the Constitution Act assures that its interpretation will remain an important part of any attempt to clarify Aboriginal rights in Canadian law. The foundation for establishing and negotiating treaties is often considered to be laid out in the Royal Proclamation.

Myth about Treaties:
It is a myth that all treaties look the same and all the First Nations that signed treaties are similar. The 11 “numbered treaties” (1870-1921) are often what we refer to when we consider that “we are all treaty people”, but there are treaties that pre-dated the numbered treaty era. Here are some of them.

1725-1779 Atlantic Peace and Friendship Treaties

Focused on settling peace and trade relationships, treaties were signed between the Maliseet, Mi’kmaq and other First Nations¹, and the British in territories covering Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the Gaspé region of Québec and Nova Scotia. There were no surrenders of land or rights made to the British by First Nations during the Atlantic treaty-making processes. The treaties were necessary because the Indigenous groups had been primarily aligned with France and French settlers. The transfer of territory to Britain lead to violence between 1725-1779, often directed to Indigenous groups in the region. They sought peace as well as hunting and fishing rights and safety in their territories. Peace and Friendship Treaties in the Maritime Povinces still provide context and a legal basis for Indigenous rights to land, hunting and fishing in the territory.

Manitoba Act (1870)

Métis in Manitoba and Western Canadian provinces often consider the agreements made with Canada in the creation of the Province of Manitoba as the first treaty signed with Indigenous peoples in the West. The creation of Manitoba in 1870 pre-dated the signing of Treaty #1in 1871. Métis citizens led by Louis Riel and a prominent Métis council (1870) fought to preserve Métis rights to education, language and land in the province of Manitoba. Métis were granted land through certificates called “scrip.” The Métis fought the government of Canada until 2013 for adequate compensation promised to them in the original Manitoba Act and the distribution of scrip. The scrip process was unlawfully administered and like land agreements across Canada, signed with Indigenous nations, the agreements were not addressed fairly to the Métis. Land was quite often sold to land surveyors for a fraction of the value or was simply taken from Métis using dishonest methods of land transfer.

Today, at public events, talks or sporting events when we acknowledge that we are on Treaty territory and where applicable, the Homeland of the Métis, we acknowledge these early agreements like the Manitoba Act and the creation of the Métis Settlements of Alberta (1935).

Numbered Treaties (1871-1921)

Treaties are not a fixed description of the promises made or the promises broken. They are relevant, living documents and no two treaties contain the same provisions or agreements. Treaties numbered 1 to 11 were signed between 1871 and 1921 and cover areas in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Northern British Columbia, portions of Northwest Territories and some of the Yukon Territory.

By 1871 First Nations and Métis economic, political and legal systems and structures were already facing a rapid decline and loss in Western Canada. After the devastating loss of buffalo and their existing economic systems after Confederation, many First Nations were provided few options to protect their lands, economies and communities during this period of colonization and Confederation. The first six treaties pre-date the introduction of the Indian Act and many First Nations in Treaty 1-6 territories consider the agreements in the Treaties to be the original terms of their agreements with Canada, before the Indian Act further constrained their rights and movements.

Agreements and promises in the numbered treaties included provisions for land ‘ownership’ and control over education on Reserves, agricultural equipment, hunting and fishing, treaty payments and certain goods for each Reserve. The unmet expectations and broken promises that followed the making of the treaties are notorious in Canadian history.

A prominent myth that still exists about residential schools, education and treaties relies on the promises that government made to build schools on Reserves. It is true that “treaties requested and promised education.” However, like many promises made by government in treaty relationships, what was promised and what was delivered as education did not meet agreements or expectations. The level of education, neglect, abuse, death and aggressive assimilation provided in residential schools was not agreed upon in treaties. Similarly, the treaty money each person receives in the amount of $5.00, is still collected and distributed but it is the original amount promised, never adjusted for rates of inflation.

Modern-Day Treaties (1975-present)

The Government of Canada currently recognizes 24 modern-era post-confederation treaties that are not included as the original post-1867 “numbered treaties”. These modern treaties are also referred to often as ‘comprehensive land claim agreements’. Based on land and resources that were not covered by the original numbered treaties, negotiations started in the early 1970s to provide access and protection to lands and rights not covered in any previous agreements. Many of these agreements included First Nations, Inuit as well as Métis peoples. Treaties, including the modern comprehensive claims are protected by the constitution. Modern claims and negotiations also sought and continue to seek an end to ambiguous language in original agreements and include provisions for allowing self-governance.

These comprehensive land claims agreements include areas in Quebec, Nunavut, the Yukon, Alberta, Labrador, and British Columba.² There are a number of still unsettled land claims.

Nation-to-Nation

Today, the numbered treaties and the modern treaties represent an important relationship between First Nations and the rest of Canada. It is agreed and understood that Treaties provide a foundation for a nation-to-nation partnership. The idea that “We are all Treaty People” stems from the recognition of this partnership and in part, acknowledges that Indigenous nations hold nationhood. Decades or even centuries would pass where First Nations, Métis and Inuit would fight and protest for their rights to be seen as ‘nations’. Acknowledging that we are “All Treaty People” and that there is a nation-to-nation partnership not only acknowledges the partnership but it supports Indigenous sovereignty and their right to stand alone as their own Nations.

Not all First Nations are party to treaties in Canada and, and in those cases, their lands fall outside of treaty areas. First Nations, Métis and Inuit are defined as “Aboriginal peoples” under Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982), but not all of these Aboriginal groups are included in Treaties with Canada.

Myth about Treaties:

All “Indians” or Indigenous peoples receive a free education or free houses as a result of treaties.

It is true that many treaties provide education and schools for First Nations peoples who fall under treaty. Many are still excluded though, those who are not party to treaties. Also, many First Nations pay taxes, and tuition to attend university.

In 2018 there are still First Nations communities in Canada that do not have adequate, “safe and comfy” schools for children. Rights to an education promised in many treaties still have not been met in all areas of Canada.³

Myth: Decolonization and treaty processes mean that newcomers or settlers need to “give their land back”

It is important to acknowledge the treaty relationship on the territory we are on today. That recognition fosters decolonization and recognizes that non-Indigenous settlers and newcomers benefit from living on the land shared with Indigenous peoples. Treaties describe the legal relationship and Indigenous peoples’ rights but none of these legal, historic and sacred agreements ask for anyone to “go back” or cede private property, or move away.

Myth: Treaties are historic documents

Treaties, while sometimes written over 100 or 200 years ago are very living partnerships and relevant documents today. Canadians are asked to learn about treaties and engage with Indigenous communities, embracing “We are all Treaty” people in an effort to better understand the partnership we have on shared land. Treaties represented promises made to Indigenous Nations and, to many people, represent promises that were simply not kept. It is important to remember that these are contemporary and historic documents that document the ways Canadians share the land today.

Our Calls to Action

After the end of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada and the 7-volume final report 94 Calls to Action were presented to Canada and to Canadians. There are several Calls to Action that refer to our Treaty agreements.

Call to Action #94

94. We call upon the Government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.ⁱ

Let me try to summarize some key points.

1. Treaties are the legal basis of many relationships with Indigenous people
2. They have not been honoured in many respects
3. Indigenous treaty makers understood they were sharing the land not giving it up.
4. Treaties deal with more than land; they also deal with Indigenous human rights
5. There are still treaties being made today
6. The role of Oral History in proving Aboriginal claims is recognized by the courts.
7. Many Aboriginal land claims are in fact resolved by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the courts.
8. Clarification of Indigenous rights is still based on the Royal proclamation of 1763, which is Referenced in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1972.
9. Indeed, we are all treaty people!

1^ The Abenaki, Penobscot and the Passamaquoddy

 

2^ James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975); Northeastern Quebec Agreement (1978); Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984); Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992); Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993); 11 Yukon First Nations Final Agreements (1993-2005); Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993); Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000); Tlicho Land Claims and Self Government Agreement (2003); Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2005); Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2008); Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement (2009); Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement (2010); and Maa-nulth Final Agreement (2011).^ (Source: ^Treaty Commission of Manitoba; http://www.trcm.ca/treaties/

 

3^ See: Shannen’s Dream [ https://fncaringsociety.com/shannens-dream ]

GATHERING THEME

Indigenous Communities: An Opportunity for Business Hiding in Plain Sight
 

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.

1) First; let’s take a moment to read call to action # 92 (before beginning the circle, identify four people in the circle who can each read a paragraph)

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:

1. Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
2. 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.
3.  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.

2) For those of you who have perhaps 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 projects,
• 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

3) What is level of 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

4) 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
   1. 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
      4. Need for greater Indigenous autonomy

5) 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 – 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

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.

 

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE ON RECONCILIATION

(As an Individual; as a corporation)

Actions you can take as individuals

1. Read the TRC’s 10 principles of reconciliation

2. Read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.

3. Read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

4. Sign a petition

5. Attend a meeting or event

6. Join a group such as Circles for Reconciliation

7. Contact a politician

8. Contact another government official

9. Write a newspaper

10. Form a group

11. Become a mentor

12. Make a donation

13. Talk to your supervisor/employer about taking action on reconciliation

14. Read a book about Indigenous history in Canada

• Three examples; Thomas King, “The Inconvenient Indian”
• Chelsea Vowel, “Indigenous Writes”
• Richard Wagamese, “Indian Horse”

15. Meet Me at the Bell Tower  (A meeting every Friday at 6.p.m. At the Bell Tower at 610 Selkirk. It is all about hope and positive development for youth in the North End.)

 

Actions you can take as a business

1. Host a Circle for Reconciliation

2. Have your Indigenous employees invite non-Indigenous employees to form a circle.

3. Contact the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba for a free speaker

4. Contact the Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce

5. Learn about Aboriginal Skills and Employment Strategy (ASET), federal government employment support for Indigenous people

6. Learn about the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC)

7. Reach out to an Elder or Indigenous leader for advice on how to proceed or contact

Circles for Reconciliation

8. Sponsor an Indigenous event

9. Host an Indigenous celebration or event

9. Promote the naming or renaming of sites to original Indigenous names

10. Contact a business that has had success creating a partnership

11. Contact “Indigenous Works” in Saskatoon

12. Contact “Working Warriors”

13. Invite an Indigenous person to sit on a board you are on

14. Other suggestions?

 

GATHERING THEME

After the Circles:Practicing Solidarity and Living Reconciliation

Mary Kate Dennis, Heather McRae and Maya Simpson

Some non-Indigenous Canadians may struggle with the facts and experiences revealed through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Indigenous people were subject to many forms of colonization and assimilationist policies, characterized as cultural genocide, with the central element of the establishment and operation of residential schools (TRC, 2015). Fortunately, there are Canadians who wish to honour the experiences of the Indigenous survivors of residential schools and are committed to building new relationships with Indigenous people that are based upon respect and reciprocity. In today’s circle, we will look at some ways non-Indigenous people can begin to understand their unique roles and responsibilities in the lifelong journey towards reconciliation.

 

Illustrative example of Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce

Commonly, when talking about residential schools, the following sentiment it is often shared: “They didn’t know back then what we know now. They didn’t realize it was wrong” (CBC Radio, 2017). However, Cindy Blackstock, member of the Gitksan First Nation and the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, challenges this position by sharing the story about Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce. He was a physician whose work helped document the mortality rate of Indigenous children in Canadian Indian residential schools.

In 1904, Dr. Peter Bryce, the chief medical officer for the Department of Indian Affairs and Department of Immigration, 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.”

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. And we really need to lift up people like Dr. Bryce, who spoke up and spoke out to save children’s lives at a time that was critical” (CBC Radio, 2017). On Dr. Bryce’s legacy, the First Nations Caring Society states, “The Story of Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce is an important part of our history and demonstrates to us the importance of speaking out for what is right and just, even when it is difficult to do so” (Wattam, 2016, p. 1).

 

Allyship Defined

Reconciliation must be grounded in the voices, experiences and aspirations of First Nations, Metis and Inuit people of Canada. Since the release of the TRC’s Final Report, many Indigenous peoples and their allies have started to talk about reconciliAction (Ubokudom, 2017). Truth-telling, empathy and listening are instrumental to reconciliation but without action, reconciliation will gradually lose meaning and become another token response to systemic injustice.

PeerNet BC states that allyship “begins when a person of privilege seeks to support a marginalized individual or group.” Allyship requires a commitment to unlearning and learning about privilege, power and oppression and involves a “life-long process of building relationships based on trust, consistency and accountability with marginalized individuals or group.”

Allyship is hard. Ally is a verb that requires action. Allyship is not an identity, nor is it a performance. Allyship is a practice. Allyship requires an ongoing commitment to working in solidarity with Indigenous peoples. Allies are not self-defined but are recognized and affirmed by Indigenous peoples. To practice solidarity, non-Indigenous people must be accountable and responsive to the voices, needs and political perspectives of Indigenous peoples (Walia, 2012). Allies must recognize how they have participated in and benefited from colonialism while working towards supporting Indigenous self-determination.

Responsibilities while practicing allyship:

• Actively acknowledge your privileges (race, economic class, sexuality, gender, ability, religion, etc.) and openly discuss them
• Listen more and speak less
• Work with integrity and direct communication
• Do your own research: Do not expect to be educated by Indigenous peoples
• Build your capacity to receive criticism
• Embrace the emotions that come out of allyship (discomfort, guilt, shame, etc.)
• Acknowledge that the needs of non-Indigenous allies are secondary to those of Indigenous people with whom you seek to work
• Do not expect awards or special recognition (PeerNetBC)

Pitfalls and Responsibilities for Allies

Two key pitfalls to avoid are taking leadership and self-identifying as an ally. From an anti-oppression perspective, meaningful support for Indigenous struggles cannot be directed by [non-Indigenous peoples] (Walia, 2012). The second principle of self-identifying as an ally highlights the importance of “building long-term relationships of accountability and never assuming or taking for granted the personal and political trust that [non-Indigenous peoples] may earn from Indigenous peoples over time” (Walia, 2012). This speaks to why an ally must be acclaimed or identified as an ally by Indigenous peoples.

Example of Allyship in Action

According to Gaa wii ji’i diyaang (2017), a collective of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples working towards reconciliation at the University of Manitoba, there are five key ways in which non-Indigenous people demonstrate their commitment to building new relationships with Indigenous peoples:

1. Awareness: are aware that social inequities exist and are rooted in social, economic, and historical contexts related to colonization
2. Recognition: recognize their own position within power relations and structures that uphold or disrupt inequity
3. Positionality: work to become fully grounded in their own cultural history and how it relates to colonialism
4. Accountability: are willing to engage in the difficult conversations around truth and reconciliation and recognize that their own mistakes and the mistakes of others are part of the learning process; they are, in fact, opportunities to grow
5. Embodied acts: practice their active listening skills, learn about past and present colonial structures and actions through self-reflection of allyship

Questions for Dialogue

For Indigenous participants:

1. Have you had past experiences of working with an ally?
2. In what ways did these people demonstrate allyship?
3. What traits does an ally need in order to work with Indigenous people?
4. What do you need from allies to work with them in solidarity?

For non-Indigenous participants:

1. What are some barriers for you to become an ally?
2. In what ways have you benefitted from colonization?
3. What skills and strategies have you used to challenge anti-Indigenous racism?
4. What are some specific ways that you can work towards being an ally to Indigenous people?

For all participants:

1. During our circle talk, we have used the term “non-Indigenous,” what is your definition of a non-Indigenous person? Does it include the term settler? Who is a settler?
2. How do Canadians go about righting the historic and ongoing legacy of harms related to Indigenous people?

References and Resources

Bryce, P. H. (1907). Report on the Indian schools of Manitoba and the North West Territories. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau. Retrieved from http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/bibliography/3024.html

https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Dr.%20Peter%20Henderson%20Bryce%20Information%20Sheet.pdf

CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning. (2017, June 2). Ottawa doctor who sounded alarm on residential schools remembered with exhibit. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/peter-bryce-exhibit-ottawa-church-residential-schools-1.4142766

Gehl, L. (n.d.). Ally Bill of Responsibilities. Retrieved January 18, 2017 from http://www.lynngehl.com/uploads/5/0/0/4/5004954/ally_bill_of_responsibilities_poster.pdf

Gaa wii ji’i diyaang (2017). Terms of Reference. University of Manitoba

Groundwork for Change website: http://www.groundworkforchange.org/

PeerNetBC (n.d). Allyship 101. Retrieved from http://www.peernetbc.com/

wordpress2017/wp-content/uploads/allyship101_printer-friendly.pdf

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Walia, H. (2012). Moving Beyond a Politics of Solidarity toward a Practice of Decolonization. Organize!: Building from the Local for Global Justice, 240.

Wattam, J. (July 2016). Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce: A Story of Courage. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Dr.%20Peter%20Henderson

%20Bryce%20Information%20Sheet.pdf

Ubokudom, D-A. (2017, November 15). UMSU encourages university to develop an Aboriginal language degree program. “ReconciliAction campaign to foster Truth and Reconciliation on campus”. The Manitoban. Retrieved from http://www.themanitoban.com/2017/11/umsu-encourages-university-develop-aboriginal-language-degree-program/32876/

van Dijk, T.A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87-118.

GATHERING THEME

The Sixties Scoop and the Child Welfare System

Tricia Logan

   Histories and legacies of the residential school system in Canada are intricately tied to the history of the ‘Sixties Scoop’ and the Child Welfare system that we know today.

   Cumulative failures of the residential school system influenced some changes in the late 1950s and 1960s. One major turning point occurred after changes to the Indian Act in 1951 when more power was transferred to the provinces to remove children from their families. Increasingly, children were still being taken from their homes, often without notice and apprehended by social workers inside the provincial child welfare systems. Thousands of Indigenous children were adopted out of their homes and ‘scooped’, in many cases without any prior notice to the parents or families. Children were often adopted out of the province and into the United States. There are continuing efforts today to reunite family members who were ‘scooped’ away into adoptive families. The ongoing impacts of forced separation from their parents and families are impacting individuals and extended families today.

   Many adoptive families and parents loved and cared for the children ‘scooped’ from their homes in the 1960s, 70s and 80s ‘Scoop’. There are also countless cases of children who were abused, exploited and discriminated against in their adoptive homes. While the treatment of children varied from family to family, the children are united in the shared impacts on their connections to culture, identity and languages. In addition, the Sixties Scoop and the present-day Child Welfare system for First Nations and Aboriginal children is a story of a deeply broken system. A system that is quite like the residential schools, notoriously under funded and it has a dangerously low level of support for children, workers and families. Presently, the number of children currently in foster care far exceeds the number of children who attended the residential schools at the height of the schools’ operation.

   In 2016, following a 10 year legal battle, the First Nations Caring Society won a case in front of Canada’s Human Rights tribunal. The tribunal found that the Child Welfare system for First Nations children living on Reserve is clearly discriminating against First Nations children in care and in its jurisdictional distribution of health care to First Nations communities. While the operation of the Child Welfare system has experienced changes since the 1960s, it remains a critical failure of upholding basic rights, support for health and for wellbeing of Indigenous children in Canada.

   Please see the First Nations Caring Society for additional resources and information on their advocacy work, on behalf of First Nations and Indigenous children in care.

https://fncaringsociety.com/

https://fncaringsociety.com/publications-and-resources

References

Blackstock, Cindy. 2007. ‘Residential schools: Did they really close or just morph into child welfare?’ Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 71-78.

Blackstock, Cindy. 2009. ‘Why Addressing the Over-Representation of First Nations Children in Care Requires New Theoretical Approaches Based on First Nations Ontology.’ Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, no. 3, vol. 6: 24-45.

Blackstock, Cindy, and Nico Trocmé. 2005. ‘Community based child welfare for Aboriginal children’. In Handbook for working with children and youth: Pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts, edited by Michael Ungar, 105-120. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Fournier, Suzanne and Ernie Crey. 1997. Stolen from Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.

Johnson, Patrick. 1983. Native Children and the Child Welfare System.Toronto: Lorimer.

Kimmelman, Edwin. 1985. No Quiet Place: Final Report to the Honourable Muriel Smith, Minister of Community Services/Review Committee on Indian and Métis Adoptions/Placements. Winnipeg: Manitoba Community Services.

Lavell-Harvard, D. M. and Lavell, J.C. (editors). 2006. Until Our Hearts Are On The Ground: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Toronto: Demeter Press.

Sinclair, Raven. 2007. ‘Identity Lost and Found: Lessons from the Sixties Scoop’. First Peoples Child & Family Review. 3.1, 65-82.

Timpson, J.B. 2010. Four Decades of Child Welfare Services to Native Indians in Ontario: A Contemporary Attempt to Understand the “Sixties Scoop” in Historical Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives, D.S.W. Dissertation. Wilfred Laurier University, Faculty of Social Work.

Trocmé, Nico, Knoke, Della and Blackstock, Cindy. 2004. ‘Pathways to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in Canada’s child welfare system’. Social Service Review, 78(4), 577-601.

Closing common to all gatherings

GATHERING THEME

Day Schools and Day Scholars

Tricia Logan

Opening common to all gatherings

The ‘Indian’ day schools in Canada are considered part of the entire system of residential school systems. The term ‘residential school’ often encompasses a number of different kinds of schools including: boarding, industrial, mission and day school, hostels, residences, TB sanatoriums and hospitals. While the legal definitions are often limiting, the full experience of the ‘residential school system’ includes a number of different kinds of schools operated by the federal government, provincial government(s) and various religious denominations. Day scholars also attended residential schools and had similar experiences but since they did not stay overnight they were also not eligible for compensation.

While majority of day schools were not ‘officially’ recognized in the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), the day school system was very much part of the whole system of residential schools. Most importantly, many former students and Survivors who attended day schools had very similar or identical kinds of day-to-day and long-term experiences as Survivors who attended boarding-style residential schools.

Smaller ‘mission’ or day schools were operated across Canada and typically co-administered by either Protestant or Catholic churches, the provincial/territorial governments or in some cases, the federal government. Student attendance at day schools would often rely on the location of the school, denomination of the school and often the identity of the home community or of the children and parents. Often, Métis children attended the day schools in large numbers since many considered that Métis were the ‘responsibility’ of provincial governments. Métis often slipped into a jurisdictional gap between government administrations and their school attendance was often defined by these gaps.

Students did not stay overnight at the day schools, many were able to go home at the end of the school day, but often the conditions at the school and treatment of the children, by clergy and teachers was similar or identical to that at the residential schools. In other day schools, many children were billeted into homes or stayed at a hostel or residence while they attended the day school. In many large boarding-style residential schools ‘day scholars’ would go home at the end of the day as well but still faced the same treatment, day-to-day as the rest of the students.

These experiences vary but they are often recognized in the broad experience of the ‘residential school experience’ in Canada. Of note though, is the legal battle many day school students and day scholars still carry on with, today. The 2005 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) does not ‘officially’ recognize the experience of a majority of day school attendees. So, while many students faced the same treatment as students who attended boarding-residential schools, the Settlement Agreement did not recognize their experiences and many carry on with legal battles, today. Schedule ‘E’ of the IRSSA lists the ‘officially’ recognized schools and in order for any former attendees of residential or day schools to apply for the Common Experience Payment (CEP) or the Independent Assessment Process (IAP), their school had to be listed on the ‘official’ list. If their school did not appear, they could apply for an appeal and potentially their school could be added to the list or they would be denied compensation under the IRSSA.

Currently, Survivors and former day school attendees are still fighting legal battles for abuses they endured at the day schools and for recognition of their experiences. In individual and class action suits, day school Survivors carry on with important work for recognition and to attain the same or similar support as all Survivors of the entire residential school system.

For more information on legal action and class action suits for day scholars, please see:

http://justicefordayscholars.com/

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation

 

Closing common to all gatherings

GATHERING THEME

Métis Experience at Residential Schools

Tricia Logan

Opening common to all gatherings

Métis children were included in the residential school system and system of ‘Indian’ day schools from the time that the schools first opened, until the closure of the last school in 1996. Along with First Nations and Inuit students, Métis attended the schools forcibly and in later years of the schools’ administration, also attended voluntarily. While many Métis Survivors share stories of similar school experiences to First Nations and Inuit students, there were often conditions around the admission of Métis students and their treatment by staff and fellow students that made their experiences quite distinct.

In the residential school era, Métis were not considered ‘Indians’ legally, under Canada’s Indian Act. They were considered the responsibility of the provincial governments and often education and health support for Métis fell into a jurisdictional gap between these levels of government. In large boarding-style residential schools, Métis were often considered ‘outsiders’ and their attendance at the schools depended on a number of different variables. At the end of the nineteenth century, Métis were cast as ‘rebellious’ and were often considered to be ‘the dispossessed’. For most of the first half of the twentieth century Métis were marginalized politically, economically and socially. Their treatment in Canadian society often mirrored their treatment in the schools and whether or not they would be taken to residential schools, mission schools, day schools, provincial schools or no schools at all.

Early in the administration of the boarding-style residential schools in Canada, the department of Indian Affairs circulated a document to schools about the ‘Admission of Halfbreeds’ into their schools. Métis or ‘Halfbreeds’ were to be considered in three classes, by the schools. Their class would determine whether or not they were to be admitted to schools. In the early years of the residential schools’ administration (1890-1920), correspondence from the Department of Indian Affairs would often cite the following ‘classes’ for Halfbreeds:

Halfbreeds may be grouped into three fairly well-defined classes.

1. Those who live, in varying degrees of conditions, the ordinary settled life of the country.

2. Those who live, in varying degrees, the Indian mode of life.

3. Those who – and they form the most unfortunate class in the community – are the illegitimate offspring of Indian women, and of whom white men are not the begetters.

Those of the first class make no claim upon the Government of the Dominion for

the education of their children; nor has any such claim as far as the knowledge of the undersigned goes been made on their behalf. The third class are entitled to participate in the benefits of the Indian schools; and in so far as the afore quoted … [w]hen Indian Treaties are made the illegitimate children … of Indian treaty women were excluded and payment of their annuity money for them on their behalf was refused. That policy appears to have been adopted to discourage illegitimate breeding. As to the second class of Halfbreed the undersigned at once admit that they present a difficult educational problem, but the very difficulty effects a strong reason against drawing a hard and fast line such as it drawn. This second class of Halfbreeds maybe divided into three groups:

1. Those who live apart from Indians but follow somewhat Indian mode of life

2. Those who live in the vicinity of Indian Reserves

3. [Those who] [l]ive on the Reserves

(PAM, RG10, vol. 6039, file 160-1, part 1)

Many Métis still attended outside of this class system for various reasons. Occasionally, skin colour would influence whether or not a student looked more or less ‘Indian’ to the administrators of the school. Additionally, many Métis families were Catholic families and they would be admitted into residential schools or day schools according to the denomination of the schools operating the school. Admission to schools often appeared to be ad-hoc, or later on, taken on a case-by-case basis.

Social, political and economic factors also influenced whether or not school officials, RCMP or clergy would take Métis children from a specific family or community to a residential school. Métis fell into a jurisdictional gap and lived hidden lives in many parts of Canada. Métis leader Malcolm Norris once said about the Métis and education:

I have always understood that it was against the law not to send the children to school, and Inspectors are maintained for that very purpose, but unfortunately our people have been discriminated against, and to such an extent, that even though they may pay taxes, no steps are taken by the authorities to see that their children are sent to school, apparently the Half-breed is not worth caring about. (TRC, 2016, p. 26)

Métis political resistance grew in the later half of the twentieth century and their campaigns advocated strongly for better education for Métis communities. They often cited these government and church failings between the systems that left Métis falling through the cracks.

Métis experiences at residential school

In a school system built originally as a ‘solution’ to the ‘Indian Problem’ and operated by Indian Affairs, Métis were outside of federal responsibility and had been socially and politically relegated to the margins of Canadian society. Whether century. Since they sometimes attended residential schools without official federal funding, they were not provided with food, access to washrooms or school uniforms like the rest of the students. In schools already notorious for their legacies of neglect and abuse, excluding students based on ‘class’ structure and government-constructed identities created added pressures on children at the schools. Whether

that move was literal or metaphorical, Métis existed in the margins of society and the road allowances ¹of non-Indigenous communities for several decades of the 20^th A brief addition to the seven volumes of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation of Canada is a history of Métis experiences at residential school. One of the stories included in the report, from a Métis student describes bullying by other students:

When attending the Pine Creek residential school in Manitoba, Raphael Ironstand, a boy of mixed descent who had been raised in a First Nations community, was bullied by Cree students. The Crees surrounded me, staring at me with hatred in their eyes, as again they called me ‘Monias,’ while telling me the school was for Indians only. I tried to tell them I was not a Monias, which I now knew meant white man, but a real Indian. That triggered their attack, in unison. I was kicked, punched, bitten, and my hair was pulled out by the roots. My clothes were also shredded, but the Crees suddenly disappeared, leaving me lying on the ground, bleeding and bruised. Although the sisters had showed little sympathy at the time, Ironstand had a very special memory of a nun who showed him kindness. I poured out my story to this understanding nun about my confused feelings, being a non-person with white skin, even though I was an Indian. At that she put her arm around me and assured me that I was a very important person to her, which immediately raised my self-esteem. It was the first time since I came to the school that anyone had touched me without punishing or beating me. As she ushered me out of the door, she stopped and gave me a hug, which made me feel warm all over. Such shows of affection were rare. Even if they developed close friendships, most students felt unloved. (TRC, 2016, p. 53)

Métis Survivors often described feeling bullied by fellow students, members of staff and their communities when they returned home from residential school. In some places, Métis were often cast as ‘worse off than Indians’ or because they were Halfbreeds, they were considered by others to be less than either one of their ‘halves’.

Inside Métis communities, the myths and stereotypes about the Métis damaged many, but also fuelled centuries of resistance and resurgence. Métis carried on with their political, legal and social structures, even hidden and often while they were being sternly discriminated against. Métis languages also came under threat during residential school eras and through ongoing colonialism in Canada. Métis languages and cultures have experienced resurgence and Métis often lead movements towards ongoing resistance and reconciliation in Canada. Métis, First Nations and Inuit across Canada survived these colonial structures and school systems. Their times in schools included struggles but they undoubtedly included strength, as well.

Métis were not officially included in the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and many feel left out in this contemporary era of apology, compensation and reconciliation. Many attended day schools and schools that were not included in the official settlement agreement. Métis communities still face barriers placed up by government definitions and imposed identities. Métis communities will face the barriers as they always have though, and continue to re-define, maintain their own identities and rely on the unquestionable strength of their communities.

For additional stories about Métis experiences, or for more information please see:

Canada’s Residential Schools: The Métis Experience, Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2016

http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Volume_3_M%C3%A9tis_English_Web.pdf

Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools, Larry Chartrand, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels, 2006

http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/metiseweb.pdf

References

Provincial Archives of Manitoba, (PAM, RG10, vol. 6039, file 160-1, part 1)

Barkwell, Lawrence J., Leah Dorian and D.R. Préfontaine. 1999. Resources for Métis researchers. Winnipeg and Saskatoon: Louis Riel Institute of the Manitoba Métis Federation and Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research.

Barkwell, Lawrence J., Leah Dorian and D.R. Préfontaine (eds.) 2001. Métis Legacy: A Métis Historiography and Annotated Bibliography. Winnipeg, MB: Pemmican Publications Inc.

Daniels, Judy D. 2003. Ancestral Pain: Métis Memories of Residential School Project. Edmonton, AB: Métis Nation of Alberta.

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2016. Canada’s Residential Schools: The Métis Experience. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.