Saskatoon Community, Evening/Youth, & PTA Board …€¦ · Outside the political elements that...

Report: *Note that transcriptions and more general impressions are provided on separate sheet

and files.

Saskatoon Community, Evening/Youth, & PTA Board Member

Dialogues on Aboriginal Identity, Citizenship, Nationhood, and

Federal Recognition.

Preamble:

Given the unique circumstance of my own situation, provided that it is an archetype of

many similar experiences that are shared amongst various individuals in Saskatchewan and

Canada generally, it has been a process of liberating dialogues which had at its core, the ideal of

healing and self-determination. Outside the political elements that tend to encapsulate much of

the discussions in broader frameworks, such as various forums associated with FSIN,

Assemblies of Chiefs, or the usual political stakeholders for whom they are considered to speak

and advocate for the broader Aboriginal demographic; the grassroots discussion of having

everyone from elders, youth, business leaders, academics, students, women, men, two-spirited,

regardless of their station or circumstance, were all able to convey their thoughts, ideas, and

impressions regarding how they see themselves as Aboriginal people. With their thoughts in

connection with how the government views them in policy, these dialogues outline how the

vision and inherent rights of Aboriginal people inform the discussion and our vision of the

future. Let me just preface this discussion by iterating my own sentiment regarding this

process. It has been amazing. While I will relay some of the criticisms of the groups, which I

Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com). Please register to remove this message.

http://www.novapdf.com

believe warrant further consideration and direction regarding this process, the overall

consensus of the surveys from Saskatoon to Fort Qu’Appelle, to Buffalo Narrows has been

unanimously positive. General thoughts have been that the sessions should have occurred in

greater number and duration. While it was imperative that we do the sessions, and convey the

information, of which many people were nascent towards, the broader implications and

elevated interests that came about as a result of the dialogues could not be avoided. Broadly

speaking, the general consensus arising from the Saskatoon dialogue sessions, and the others

around the province have tended to fall into the following:

Need for greater consultation for matters regarding Aboriginal legislation.

Further commitment to instill resources and knowledgeable people, either with or

outside the Friendship centers to better provide the types of workshops and

dialogues that these sessions allowed.

Greater awareness of Treaties, NAFC Exploratory Process, Rights, and the nature of

colonial oppression.

Divisions do more to hurt and divide than they do to honor and cherish

distinctiveness.

Greater representation at the federal, provincial, and local level.

These thoughts tend to reiterate the issues rose in the PowerPoint regarding the NAFC’s

follow-up to the McIvor decision.

Topic 1: Indigenous Identity and Nationhood.



The topic outlined above was generally phrased during the discussions as ‘how they see

themselves’ regardless of status. When I posed the question the array of responses conveyed a

broad spectrum of sentiments regarding how, as Aboriginal people, view themselves as human

beings, as a first people, as a group who exist on the social and economic margins of society.

The depth of responses allowed levity of admonition for how little the government has done for

Aboriginal people, and rights broadly speaking. One lady from the community session

reiterated the depth of just how this question of identity impacts one’s life:

“There is also experience of feeling a sense of being on the defense. You are

always on guard when you walk into somewhere because you don’t know what

will come at you. A certain amount of hostility that will come from time to time

because of who you are. There is no innocent space to be you. We are born in

the negative, just by virtue you are in a deficit in the Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal community. We have strong feelings to be responsible to break down

stereotypes. We feel we are always trying to teach others about being

Aboriginal. There’s a negative, there’s a positive and everyone’s in some

continuum across the board. Our identity is emotionally charged.” (1)(Saskatoon,

Community Session, Ramada)

The powerful message from the individual conveyed a range of meanings that doesn’t draw

itself into sharp distinctions what is and isn’t Aboriginal. In regards to the first question which

was phrased as:



1. a) What does it mean to you to identify as a person from your Nation? (E.g. Métis,

Inuit, Cree, Ojibway, Blackfoot, Mohawk, Dene, Tlingit, Haida, Maliseet, Mi’Kmaq etc.)

The problem of conveying the above question in the context of Saskatoon in which churn

migrations and a large swath of intermixed generations of Aboriginal people who only hold

imaginary ties to their identity as Aboriginals, was that it didn’t capture the depth of how

Aboriginal peoples see themselves and the astounding array of experiences that many

Aboriginal people had in regards to how the see themselves. Out of the consensus of the

Saskatoon sessions, it was understood that divisions even amongst Metis, Cree, Inuit, while

they are attempted to be utilized to honor the distinctiveness of each group end up causing a

lot of division and animosity in and amongst Aboriginal communities and society generally.

Many individuals in the group could not self-identify strongly with any one nation. Some were

of Metis, and Cree descent. Some individuals were adopted at a very young age, also due to

federal policies regarding Residential schools, and they don’t have the connections to any one

nation that seem to defy the intention of the question posed above. The questions tends to

incline the reader to believe that neat and tidy definitions of nations and how they fit into self-

identity are black and white, but rather the above sentiment (1) from the individual at the

community session conveyed the complexity and ambiguous nature of a question that aimed at

clear consensus among Aboriginal groups themselves. The responses clearly indicated that

Aboriginal people’s self-identity was something that goes beyond Cree, Metis, and even

territorial and geopolitical boundaries. There was an understanding, which stems partly from

what I see as the beliefs of these particular groups was that “we are all children of the creator”

and that status divisions, Cree, Ojibway, while they can provide immense solidarity and positive



self-identifiers, they can also be hugely devastating for people who do not fit into neat

categories, such as mixed, or two-spirited parents who raise children in the Cree way, but

practice Dakota teachings.

A particular quote that struck me which conveyed this sentiment came from a group of Cree

people, in which they stated “We’re all Cree, there was all Cree people in our group. Language

is important. Each individual is part of their nation, but its each individual person that makes

them who they are.”(2)(Saskatoon Community Session) There is a sentiment being conveyed

and reciprocated amongst the various groups was one of the political consensus being suited to

the individual. Seeing as the context of Aboriginal people can no longer be interpreted in the

same vein as 150 years ago, we cannot legislate in the same manner. The story of colonialism

and assimilation, and the steps taken by the federal government to

2. b) How does it affect your life?

The second part of the first question asked how those divisions and treatments manifest in

their lives, and it was during this series of questions that issues of abuse, racism, oppression,

colonization, and mistreatment by authorities were raised. Unanimously, across the board,

treatment of Aboriginal people, either by society, government, or the church has been

conceived in a negative, and that statement does not capture the levity of the sentiment

conveyed. It was a given that the crux of the issues stems from historical exclusion and systemic

poverty and policies designed and enacted to ensure the occlusion and oppression of Aboriginal

peoples. The responses from this aspect of the dialogues were overwhelmingly negative in



terms of how the government treats and abrogates Aboriginal issues. Given that the supreme

court of Canada denied Sharon McIvor’s case and she seeks International remedies speaks to

that core issue.

The spectrum of responses varied from positive to negative, but overwhelmingly

conveyed a negative overtone. “There is also experience of feeling a sense of being on the

defense. You are always on guard when you walk into somewhere because you don’t know

what will come at you….There is no innocent space to be yourselves.”(3)(Saskatoon Community

Session) The reality of the situation forces Aboriginal people, whether they see themselves as

Status, non-Status, Metis, Cree, or whatever light they choose to see themselves as, does

nothing to remedy the treatment accorded to Aboriginal people on a day to day basis. This

manifests in lost job opportunities, dealing with authorities, educational lack of progress, etc.

The notions of inferiority are prevalent and in the open regarding Aboriginal self-identity and

the treatment accorded to them regardless of their status in federal policy, communal status,

or interpersonal contexts.

In terms of Band memberships, there were some thoughts shared how status divisions

between who is and isn’t status reiterates two of NAFC’s key issues which arisen from the

McIvor decision: was that 1) Historic and traditional concepts of identity, citizenship and

membership are at odds with the definitions imposed under the Indian Act. (and, 2) Federally

imposed definitions have had a harmful effect on individuals, their concept of their own

identity, and their acceptance among their own people.



“The band codes have to get out of there. They have enough problems with the

outside world. He has been gone for 35 years from reserve, loss of connection. A

Lot of people don’t even feel like going home anymore. Does not know his chief.

No connection, no communications and there’s nothing to go back there for.”

(4)(Saskatoon Community Session)

The two issues mentioned above, correlate with the data provided by the responses listed

above and in particular to response (4). It connotes a sense that Indian act imposed codes and

criteria have had an egregiously negative impact on individuals and the relationships they hold

with the band. Therefore one recommendation that came from this aspect was the need to

redress and reconstitute new Band codes that are better responsive to the unique situation and

damaged legacy of Indian Act policies that have often come at odds with Aboriginal identities,

citizenship, and membership codes. This issue is further complicated by the commitments and

associations they make with their nationalities within the context of Canada, their First Nation

Band, their Nation (Cree, Metis, etc.), their association as Status or non-status, and global

citizenry as being an Indigenous person broadly speaking accords them particular

understandings that are often at odds or in line, or both, with those divisions.

“Having status gives us a sense of belonging, although it’s only just a part of you,

it makes up a small part of a bigger part of you. Being Cree is just a part of all

these different other aspects that make up identity. One group had 2 that

identified as being Métis and one that identified as being Cree. However most of

them can say that they have 7 different nationalities.”(5)



The above quote (5) relays the complexity offered by the range of responses. Navigating all

these boundaries and spaces, such as being a Metis man, but with Cree Blood, adopted by a

white family, who feels strong ties to Canada as a Nation, but is torn between the need to

choose and adopt a singular identity for the sake of incurring benefits has caused much

frustration.

“It’s hard to identify yourself because what you are taught is from teachings, it’s

not written. It’s not like we can go back and say this is what I am. It is passed on

through knowledge of elders, and who you are is what you learned from them

and what you teach yourself. Saying you’re something to satisfy the government

is one thing, but it denies yourself a lot of different things. Saying you’re

Aboriginal denies yourself the cultural distinctiveness, because Cree isn’t being

Métis.”(6)

So there is a tension between the need to identify, because we often impose those definitions

on others without realizing it. While this speaks to broader issues of colonization and systems

of stratification and hierarchy that exist in the world, the need to balance distinctiveness with

consensus has been a frustrating element of the dialogue sessions. Where do we draw the line

between who is and isn’t Aboriginal? How do we set out those criteria? The responses clearly

indicate that Aboriginal people themselves tend to broadly desire a human connection with

others, and to level out the need to “feel on the defense”, where one no longer feels the need

to overachieve, prove, or extoll their “indianess” to others in an attempt to at placating the

need for divisions in legislation or in society.



Being “Legitimate”

A lady stated that “it is like a dog trying to prove your pedigree”, and that statement was

reiterated amongst others. A lady mentioned to me during a private consult that her children

were the product of rape, and that due to INAC’s criteria that a father signature be provided for

the birth certificates, this delicate matter is problematized by the management and

administration of INAC’s policies which require a European, White framework for deciding

these matters. If she raised her children in the community, and if their parents and community

were ‘Indian’ in the sense that it was culturally distinct, in order to fit the international

definitions and standards, why aren’t they accorded the same status as her cousins, who do

have status, and garner the benefits? Who advocates for the large swath of Aboriginals whose

fathers were absent? Who speaks on behalf of children that are often the product of violent

and abusive unions? Who speaks to what constitutes Indians in their case, and if they fall

between the spaces, does any amount of legislation cater to their treatment as Aboriginal

people by society and various structures? For better or worse, whether or not they choose to

see themselves as Aboriginal people, they are accorded second class status in Canada.

Therefore, finding space for their acceptance was a natural Segway for the discussion. As we

began to discuss the nature of spiritual practices, and ceremonies as places where they can be

whomever they wish to without influence. Therefore, the power of ceremony, and culture in

this sense was a demonstrated piece of the puzzle which has positive benefits for allowing

people to get a sense of positive identity outside the typical stereotypes that many are often

living through.



“Not being accepted unless in ceremonies or doing other cultural activities. No

matter where you are off reserve or on reserve there are always people that will

be welcoming and not welcoming. A sense of direction when it comes to

spirituality and cultural practices. Because we are all from different areas- in

central Canada it’s more open to be identified as an Aboriginal person. Defining

you more broadly as just an Aboriginal or First Nations person gives people

flexibility to adopt other customs and traditions from other nations.”(7)

2. A) How do you identify with your nation?

“Relationship to our nations is feeling detached, it’s more like going back to the community for

funerals, burials and maybe to vote. It was like that for all 5 members of their group. There is

not a large sense of community involvement; personally she feels that way strongly. She

doesn’t want it that way but it is very hard to go to your community and connect with people

that you haven’t grown up with.”(8)

More and more, many Aboriginal people, especially in Saskatchewan, must turn away

from their communities in order to secure economic advancements. They must travel to bigger

centers for education, jobs, relationships, etc. Therefore, the context of how people relate to

their First Nations, or Bands, is further complicated by the migration from rural to urban

settings. Many felt that their connections to the Band was purely for elections, or funerals, and

that this limited engagement spoke to how the Indian Act and Bands have enacted particular

policies which ensured the gradual movement of Aboriginals off their reserves into other areas.



The problem inlaid with this situation is that if more and more are moving off reserve, they are

not doing so for education and procurement of better opportunities, despite that it may be the

intention. The reality is far removed from the intention, which is corroborated in the data, such

as the rates of employment and education of Aboriginal versus their non-Aboriginal

counterparts. The lack of connection between individuals and their reserves fosters a further

disconnect many have relayed in the dialogue, in that the lack of involvement by either their

Councils or Chiefs, and the subsequent lack of connection that many members feel is a result of

a choice between being ‘stuck’ on a reserve, or at least trying to make a go at it in the city. The

problem is further complicated by the lack of representation that many Aboriginals have in

urban centers where their current status creates problems for administering services. If there

are large swaths of Aboriginal children without status, it will create a further burden on service

delivery and other resources which can cause further problems if they are not adequately dealt

with.

2. b) Are you a member, a citizen or are there other terms that you would use?

This question posed some interesting answers, ranging from “second class”, to “ward”,

“citizen” but one quote captured the complexity of this question as well “One group preferred

“member of a nation” because “citizen” is more or less like a citizen across the country. We

have to be distinct when identifying ourselves. Not necessarily by territory either because we

are a nation within a nation. They also say dual citizenship for Canadian and American

Indians.”(9) The message by this individual showed how Aboriginal people situate themselves



amongst the Canadian fabric of nationalism, and that by demonstrating the ideal of “First

Nation”, or by another term “Rover”, it conveys how differing sentiments of nationality are

played against each other. For being First Nation conveys the inherent right of self-

determination, but also conveys the respect which should and ought to be accorded to First

Nation groups across the country. The term “Rover” was used by one individual when they

stated “A rover can move wherever he wants in sports. Right now one of the participants is

transitioning in deciding who he wants to be, because he can navigate through many different

identities. He also doesn’t like the idea of being defined.”(10) That particular individual was of

both Metis and Cree descent and as such, conveyed their frustration at the imperative to

“choose” which one he should be. As such the problem of choosing one side or the other

creates further tensions for individuals who feel strong ties to Canadian nationalism, but also

feels strongly about the inherent sovereignty of Aboriginal nations. The question tended to

convey general thoughts of inferiority and specialism. While it may have been a source of

strength to self-identify by utilizing certain terminology, such as First Nation, or Dual-Citizen,

the general impressions was that any terms still connote a sense of separate and distinct

identities but generally construed in a negative light.

3. What governance role does the Friendship Centre have in your community? Does it

serve your needs as a citizen of an Aboriginal Nation? If so, please describe:

“We don’t like this question. What is meant by governance roles? The friendship center is

about creating a space for community for the diverse Aboriginal population.”(11)



“The FC in Saskatoon is closed on holidays including Christmas and New Year’s when the

homeless don’t have a place to go. This is the time when it should especially should be open.

The location is bad; it should be on 20th street where most of our people are and is accessible to

the Aboriginals.”(12)

“Because the FC is short on funding, why couldn’t the tribal council split some of their money so

it can benefit the urban Aboriginal people. The tribal councils look after their own membership

but don’t do anything for the other urban Aboriginal people.”(13)

“We need to be prepared and have informed information. We need to be educated for the

people walking into the friendship centers. We need to have funds from the government to be

able to be educated with the Indian act. How many people really understand it? People are

going to be coming in wondering how to get status. Need to make a recommendation to re-

educate that process. People don’t know what’s going on.”(14)

“There is a difference between book learning and seeing things for yourself. Need a foundation

so you’re not directionless, wandering aimlessly questioning everything. Will remove a lot of

ignorance about why people have treaty rights from other people if there is a foundation. The

FC could offer presentations to schools, or wider disseminations on these topics.”(15)

There are a variety of responses regarding the governance role of the friendship centers. During

the evening session I changed the question around to “Where do you see the friendship centers

role in this?” This question tended to reiterate the sentiment given during the board session,



which was one of committing to education, and a wider dissemination of information regarding

the treaties, status, legal frameworks, etc., which by and large were fairly inaccessible to many

Aboriginal demographics. The very nature of legislation and policy makes it difficult to navigate

for many Aboriginal people who are already dealing with a range of issues, stemming from low

literacy rates, poverty, etc. The need to share this information with a broader audience and to

make it more palatable to people who don’t already have a higher education is vital to ensure

they see how they fit into federal policy. Therefore, the recommendation that came from this

was a greater role in disseminating and providing avenues for information and knowledge

regarding the treaties, Indian Act, and status provisions.

4. What role does the Friendship Centre play in your identity as an Aboriginal person?

“People may know they have rights, but don’t know what exactly that includes. As adults we

are slowly figuring this out, maybe this needs to be taught to children at younger ages. There is

a difference between book learning and seeing things for yourself. Need a foundation so you’re

not directionless, wandering aimlessly questioning everything.”(16)

“FC has always been a part of one ladies life. The FC was the one place where they could go to

relax, have a quiet space. There’s so much value to the FC. It gave her her first job and got her

going. The FC she’s from has evolved, and each FC has their strengths and provide diverse

services across Canada. It is a safe place to go and hang out.”(17)

The responses in this question didn’t garner a lot of weight. They were timid at best in

terms of how the friendship centers play into their identity. It should be noted that many



conveyed the impression that friendship centers were a mainly Metis organization, yet it claims

to be unbiased in terms of which groups they serve. While this was a common thread amongst

the discussions, people still were aware of the friendship centers open door policy. The main

comment that seemed to reflect the general impressions from all three groups was that the

Friendship center offered a safe space for Aboriginal people, and anyone for that matter to be

at home with themselves. In light of the responses from the first couple questions, the need for

a safe space cannot be underscored.

5. a) Do you identify with any of the following groups (circle all that apply):

Women Youth Elder Person with a Disability Two-Spirited Person

5. b) If so, how does this identity inform your Aboriginal identity?

“Have to be aware of further separating ourselves, causes divide and conquer. These are only a

few groups that are represented, does that mean these are certain groups that the FC will

advocate for?”(18)

“[we] didn’t like the way the questions are asked. It’s not a straight forward question. What are

they really after? It also feels like it’s a mask for something else. She also wanted to know

whether or not these questions will actually benefit our people and what is actually wanted out

of this question. Need to question the question itself.”(19)



“Have to be aware of further separating ourselves, causes divide and conquer. These are only a

few groups that are represented, does that mean these are certain groups that the FC will

advocate for?”(20)

“There are old people and there are elders. We have a lot of old people that are leading

unhealthy lives. If you are an elder you are there to provide your experience and knowledge to

those who need guidance.”(21)

“A lot of people in the listed groups have so much addictions and problems from the residential

schools, that being in any one of these groups creates more of a damaging effect, especially for

women. There was a time when woman were treated with the upmost respect from their

people. When all of this was imposed on our people, women were treated with disrespect. As

an Aboriginal woman, she feels they have struggled so much more to have to gain that respect

back.”(22)

There was a sense that this question caused some problems when asked in the context during

the dialogues. I omitted this question entirely as many conveyed the impression that it was

difficult to self identify into many of these categories as some felt they were old, but certainly

not accorded the title of Elder. It also omitted the category of “Men” and “Gay”, as the term

two-spirited, while its usage was to convey gay identities in Aboriginal groups, it failed at

capturing the self-identity that many felt weren’t represented in the question. The feeling of

needing to align with one or more groups conveyed the impression in the dialogue that it



perhaps was phrased in the wrong manner. One recommendation from this question was to

allow an open ended question to be posed such as “How does other aspects of your identity

affect your Aboriginal self-image?” By doing so, we open the door to allow responses to flow

more from their understanding versus the questionnaire. The question, while its intention was

to perhaps allow us to inform the discussion on how those other indicators of identity inform

Aboriginal identity, its context did more to foster suspicion and negativity.

It should be noted that during the sessions, the question of Aboriginal identity was the

focus of the discussions so while being male, female, gay, elderly, may affect how ones see’s

themselves, the question of being Aboriginal seemed to go above and beyond those notions.

We cannot choose to be Aboriginal, just as many cannot choose to be female, or male, or gay,

or old. These other identifiers, while they play into the context of how Aboriginal people are

treated in society and in policy, seemed to not affect how they see themselves as Aboriginal.

They already know it, and being male, or female, or gay, or elderly, seemed to not affect how

they see themselves as Aboriginals. Although, being male, or female AND Aboriginal certainly

accords people differential status and treatment in policy and at the interpersonal and social

levels. The following passage reiterates this sentiment:

“Women have been looked at as having lesser blood according the Bill C-3. We

should at least be equal, not lesser than. Being very honest, a woman says she

goes to ceremonies with Dakota people, and the way the women are treated

there is with the upmost respect because they are givers of life. [I am] afraid to

say anything because governments don’t look at things in the same way that



Aboriginal people do. The fear of saying anything is there; women are different

in a sense that we are life givers and our ancestors knew that.”(23)

Topic 2: Federal Recognition, Bill C-3, and Possible Further Legislative Reforms

*Note that Board Session couldn’t get around to this topic due to time constraints.

1. Do you think that it is important that you identify as an Indigenous person?

“Yes and no. Because we didn’t care for the term indigenous person, we would prefer to self-

identify as First Nation, Métis, Aboriginal, or whatever term is unique to your own personal

belief system. We don’t feel the need in necessarily naming yourself as an indigenous

person.”(24)

“Yes, it is important to identify and be recognized. We need to decolonize ourselves. There is

power in numbers, we like the term Indigenous people because it reflects the UN terminology.

We have an indigenous world view that is very similar across nations. We are part of a larger

Indigenous community, and to identify with that is important. We are part of a larger

Indigenous community. Should be defined by ourselves, who is asking the question.”(25)

“Absolutely- places like the ASC [Aboriginal student center] are possible because of people

identifying. Money will be put in to places that have numbers interested and reflect the number

of present people.”(26)

“Find strength and solidarity in being different, but also creates frustrations. Is hard to convey

those frustrations. Don’t want people to rest on that sole definition of being Aboriginal.”(27)



The general impressions from this question were that it is vital that we identify in order to

accord benefits and services, such as those from the Aboriginal Student Center, but those are

status provision free, and are dependent on self-identifying. There is the broad feeling of

consensus and solidarity when you self-identify as Aboriginal for it accords you a sense of

identity and understanding which comes with knowing who and what you are. The thoughts of

how other people tend to categorize and divide Aboriginal people according to status, and even

lesser status by provisions such as 6(2) further complicate the matter, especially if they not only

identify as being Aboriginal, but also White, Asian, Black, or other racial markers that concede a

sense of identity.

2. Who should be defining who are First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples?

“Don’t like to be defined as one thing when you are subsequently another. Have a lot of issues

with this question. This is a tough question.”(28)

“Non-Aboriginal people shouldn’t be defining who we are.”(29)

“First Nations, Inuit and Métis people should be making the definitions. We should be defining

ourselves, definitely not non-Aboriginal people. Need to belong to a nation; a nation belongs to

a land. Without it you do not have a nation. The current European practices and structures had

contributed to the fragmentation of the notion of the indigenous world view that we are all

related. Part of the fragmentation is due to the sexist policy, and elitism of people thinking you



don’t deserve status. Because of that, we have become prisoners of these labels so it is very

important that decolonization is worked towards.”(30)

The question raised some interesting and powerful responses which unanimously

agreed that Aboriginal people ought to and always should have defined who is and isn’t status.

The above statement in (30) demonstrated the stark and eloquent disposition that was relayed

amongst the discussion. The historical treatment of many Aboriginal groups in Canada and

abroad has contributed to and continues to neo-colonize Aboriginal groups by them ending

becoming slaves to the labels that are imposed upon them by Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian

frameworks.

It seems that the consensus amongst the group felt that further consolidation and

consultation is required between both the federal, provincial, and territorial agencies in order

to better reflect the needs and desires of those Aboriginal groups they serve. The confusion

between provincial and federal commitments further exacerbates the problem by the

confusion over whose responsibility it falls under. The Friendship center tends to be a last

resort for many Aboriginal groups and as such fosters a space for many to find solidarity in

people they share commonality with. The imposition of alien rules and criteria upon people

whom cannot navigate much less comprehend those arbitrary divisions creates a lot of

alienation for many do not know they are Status, but are Aboriginal but don’t believe in the

legitimacy of such a label for they believe in order to be a legitimate “Indian” they must have

status.



3. Do you believe that there should be recognition through federal legislation or policies that

define you as a First Nations person? (e.g., the Indian Act and its recent amendments under

Bill C-3)

“If there was nothing put into government, there would be nothing to protect our rights and

benefits. Unless it was implemented into some form of legislation that there would be nothing

to protect the definition of who we are in respect to benefits and government structures. We

decided that even though we make the definition, the federal government policies that impact

us needed to be in place to protect us.”(31)

While the thoughts from the groups conveyed the need for federal recognition, it was

overshadowed by a cynicism that considering past treatments, usually anything that is

legislated further complicates and often derogates from the needs and desires of Aboriginal

groups. So while there is a recognition that Federal policy must account for the unique

circumstances of Aboriginals as a first peoples, but also as a distinct demographic with their

own cultural coding in the modern context and they must account for that shift from

interpreting the treaties 150 years ago versus now. The

4. Do you believe that there should be recognition through federal legislation or policies (e.g.

section 35 Aboriginal rights recognition) that define you as Métis?

5. Do you believe that there should be recognition through federal legislation or policies (e.g.

a land claims agreement) that define you as Inuit?



The above three questions seemed to reiterate the sentiment that ‘we are all related’

and as such, divisions amongst Metis, First Nation, and Inuit, while necessary in order to honor

the distinctiveness of each, and in order to ensure that rights are not abrogated and historical

promises are kept. The broader question of self-determination which was informed as the heart

of the dialogue seemed to have a sweeping arc over the question of federal recognition. It

seems that it went above the distinctiveness of each Aboriginal group, and perhaps a broader

recognition in some form of those groups who tend to fall between the lines of formal

categorization. Such people are adopted children, are those whose situation caused a formality

to be overlooked, such as one lady whose children were not recognized as Status due to the

fact the father was not there are birth in order to sign off.

6. Given that gender equality has not been fully achieved under Bill C-31 and Bill C-3, do you

think any further reforms are needed to the Indian Act? Why or why not?

This question was a loaded question which conveyed the notion, just through the slides

themselves, that gender equity has not been achieved under the new provisions in the Indian

Act. As a result, many conveyed the impression that this question answered itself and

considering Canada’s platform as a promulgator of human rights, they ought to completely

reassess the current situation of Aboriginals in Canada. Which includes, but not limited to,

reconstituting the treaties, restore status to ALL women who lost, regardless of arbitrary

divisions in status in 6(1) and 6(2), double mother rules, second generation cut offs, and further

administrative constraints and logistical requirements; in order to ensure those who lost status,

their children get to retain and pass on status on par with their historical patrilineal



counterparts. Not only are further reforms needed to account for gender bias, but also to

account for the large tract of Aboriginal people without adequate representation and advocacy.

There are many who exist on the social and economic margins of society and don’t fall

into INAC’s umbrella or any other formal Aboriginal organization that can provide some

semblance of opportunity. However, given the security and benefits that are accorded to

status, and the data that corroborates future success based on educational advancement, the

need to level out the socio-economic situation between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal groups

cannot be underscored. There are many urban Aboriginals who utilize the friendship centers

services and as such view it as the only avenue where their identity is conceded. One individual

mentioned that it was like looking in a mirror, and not seeing your reflection. This powerful

message indicated the failure of our leaders to adequately frame Aboriginals within federal

policy and account for their situation in the commitment to resources and services.

1. How does the right to self-determination inform your vision of Indigenous nationhood,

citizenship and membership?

“Absolutely, the choice not always going to be there. They’re going to eventually say you can’t

do it anymore, just like getting the money from the residential schools. There is only a certain

amount of time to make this choice, and it makes it seem like forced determination. You need

to force yourself into these categories.”(32)

“We can determine who we are, but who is going to recognize it.”(33)



“Self-determination could unite indigenous people in a potentially powerful way. We believe

self-determination is integral in how we define all the things that make up our identity including

nationhood. Who’s a citizen and who’s a member.”(34)

“If you know who you are, if you know where you’re going, and you know where you come

from, that’s pretty much what it boils down to in his understanding. If he knows who he is, he

knows who he is. The table doesn’t have to tell him he’s a monster, or an Indian or a Cree guy.

He knows who he is.”(35)

This question raised a lot of issues relating the inherent right of self-determination, but

the right as it was constantly reiterated, was limited by the exercise of recognition by the

government. It seems that any law or policy is dependent on the particulars state commitment

to it, which also speaks to their agenda generally. It should be noted that Canada didn’t

immediately sign on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people because they knew it

would cause a reassessment of the dealings between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit across the

country, and only under pressure from various groups did they concede their interests.

The right to choose for oneself, regardless of outside influence is limited in the context

of Canadian nationalism, as many don’t believe in secession which is often how the right to self-

determination is interpreted. Many simply wish to have that right respected at the federal and

provincial level, but the exercise of that right is where the issue gets complex and warrants

much further discussion and consultation.

2. How can Indigenous peoples in Canada implement their own forms of citizenship?

a) In partnership with the federal government?



b) On their own?

“Scrap the senate; give the seats to Aboriginal people. (joke)If we do it on our own, we’re still

subject to handouts. If we do it in partnership with the federal government they will always

have the final say. So no matter what the buck stops with the government.”(36)

“The only way we can make changes is make seats for Aboriginal people, just like the way they

do in the territories. We have nobody talking for us.”(37)

“Do you gain pride from governmental recognition, or from what you were taught from your

parents. More pride is had by being told this is who you are, these are your people from your

parents and family. Getting your status back or having status is empowering.”(38)

In the discussions, the general impression was one of greater representation at the

federal level. There has to be a voice for policy changes, and part of that will ensure that many

more people who self-identify as Aboriginal can get some sort of recognition by the

government in order to have their identity conceded and recognized in some formal fashion.

One story from one man conveyed the complexity of citizenship where an individual was

wondering if he should be titled First Nations or Metis. Where a lady told him she would judge

him because he has already taken Métis money. This was apparently his only option, so should

he be damned if he did that? He feels he doesn’t need to be told by the government to be

proud. “I already know who I am, if I have kids they don’t know. Both definitions have a huge

part at play, and if you don’t have both then you’re not going to get the full potential of what it

means to be indigenous.”(39) It seems that there is an imperative to allow a space for

indigenous or Aboriginal groups to allow a broad acceptance of their unique station within the



fabric of Canadian pluralism and nationalism, balanced with the inherent right of self-

determination. Some comments made seem to convey a notion of needing to work alongside

the non-Aboriginal community as well, as partnerships, alliances, and strategic placements of

Aboriginal advocates at significant places of power will ensure that the needs and wishes of

various groups are heard, but balanced and respected amongst the non-Aboriginal community

as well.

“The government shouldn’t be in there without our input. What’s really sad is when the mighty

dollar rears its ugly head, we no matter who we are, are impacted negatively. And when we try

to make a decision around that, some bands have excluded certain people, and it was about

money. As long as the government holds money over our head, we’re always going too

burdened and not free of them, it’s the reality in which we live in. We have been taught very

well by many crooked people that had no integrity.”(39)

The issue, when considered at its most pragmatic level, seems always boil down to

resources. Who controls it, who administers it, and who reaps the benefits? Given that this land

was already occupied, and that many competing interests are at odds with Aboriginal interests

simply due to the fact it affects quarterly profits and bottom lines, it demonstrates the need for

economic procurement and advancement of Aboriginal groups. They must become self-

sustaining, economically sufficient. Part of that answer comes from education, and others come

from assigning resources that are traditionally under control of non-Aboriginal interests. As

such part of implementing citizenship on par with the government and by ourselves, must be

tempered by access to resources, and advancing the poverty line above an acceptable level.



The views around the discussion seemed to be assisted by this vision of self-determination, but

it was also given in light of the need to work along other groups for gaining competence in the

non-Aboriginal community, and providing adequate leadership and representation that goes

beyond Indian Act policies and political pacifying.

3. a) Looking forward to seven generations, what do we need to do as Aboriginal people

today to ensure that the future generations will have the opportunity to maintain their

distinct identities and have recognition as belonging to distinct Nations?

3. b) What roles do others have in fulfilling this vision (i.e. your Friendship Centre, your

Nation’s government, the government of Canada, etc.)?

This question was asked more informally, and once again, it was almost viewed as a

given amongst various individuals that education, culture, and safe spaces were the crux of

advancing our interests. This question in (a) also failed to capture the nuance of those who see

themselves as Canadian and Aboriginal, and how the two are sometimes at odds.

4. What future roles should your Friendship Centre; you’re Provincial and Territorial Friendship

Centre Association and the National Association of Friendship Centers play regarding

developments following this Exploratory Process, outcomes from other court cases and policy

developments to urban Aboriginal peoples?

“More public meetings and public input. This process should have been done a year ago, before

the bill was put through. We should be using the FC’s as a base, these guys don’t have the right



to go ahead and make changes without our consultation. They are infringing our rights; I never

gave them the go ahead to start making changes. We got numbers, and we should start using

them. It is embarrassing the number of people that are here to discuss such large issues. The

government shouldn’t be telling people who they are.”(40)

The views provided during the session demonstrated that the friendship centers must

take on a role of facilitator or provider of information and conduit to access that information in

a safe and competent manner. It underlies the need for providing resources to friendship

centers to train, hire, and provide such services and educational opportunities to allow other

Aboriginals to begin seeing themselves in policy and in society with more knowledge and

understanding about how and why they are the way they are. Many individuals stated that

much of what they learned was invaluable to their understandings of how they see themselves

in society, but also that much of the information that is out there is already convoluted by

stereotypes, bias, and a general impression that Native issues don’t warrant as big a platform as

other issues which take the political space up in our legislature. Hence the need for greater

representation and also better dissemination of information to various Aboriginal

constituencies in order to make people aware of the issues.

In closing, it seems that in order to advance the topic of status, citizenship, and identity,

greater consultation is required and that any changes must first be exercised through

indigenous authority before being another piece of policy that affects broad swaths of



Aboriginal people without their knowledge of its existence, much less how that policy affects

some and not others.



Date post:	29-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuminh
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

Saskatoon Community, Evening/Youth, & PTA Board …€¦ · Outside the political elements that...

Documents