Student handbook on indigenous governance

Indigenous Governance: a student-made handbook

This handbook was made by students in an Introduction to First Nations Governance and Public Administration course at Yukon College during the Winter of 2017. The students were asked to pick a topic of their choice that related to the themes and content we addressed in the course. The handbook has a northern (Canada) and Indigenous focus. Students were asked to related their understanding of Indigenous governance to their own personal experiences.

Topics include:

Governance Historical Impacts on Indigenous Governance Identity The Indian Act Colonialism

Clan Governance Community Engagement Self-Government Assimilation Discrimination Status/Non-Status Constitutions The Medicine Wheel Self-Determination

What is Governance?

What is governance? It is how you conduct yourself, how you fit into a community, how you introduce your family. It identifies who you are, where you belong and how your group can benefit from your actions or input. For example: I am a First Nations woman, I am a grandmother, I am a mother and I am a teacher. My job is to teach my children and grandchildren about where they come from, which clan they belong to, and how they are recognized in the community.

This is a form of governance, it has rules, it has direction and it allows me to teach, and support my community’s traditional laws within the Southern Tutchone territory. It allows me to keep my values and share it freely as a First Nations woman.

Governance for me is the components of all my leaders, my Council, my Clan, my family and myself which is based on our shared values as First Nation people. Our structure as a Government drives the outcomes to decisions based on our relationships with everything.

Part of good governance is communication, and respect for one another, having compassion and generosity also help us as a Government move forward.

The Structure of Government is informed by values that are developed and implemented by the Citizenship.

When all citizens are not being heard, or do not have a voice in their government or belong to Clan, how do we change that to reflect the Values of the Government?

Governance: Resource/Power/Behavior: I imagine that Governance is like a Eco-system, with the Resource as a foundation (so I put it in the color of land to nourish the upper system); and Power is something in between like the trunk of the tree (so I put it in dark green to transport the nourishment to the top of the system); and Behavior on the top, which is the outcome of Resource and Power (so I put it into light green, also leaves color, to make the fruits look more beautiful); Lastly, two core values, like the fruits of the whole system, which is Freedom and Harmony----the values I personally cherish most (so I put them into more vivid colors in the graph). The values affect the structure of the Governance. Democratic society takes separation of powers as common practice, while dictatorship value something different.

My imagination is beyond this system. Are there any systems exist beyond a government? It is said that Bhutan is the most peaceful countries in the world with great economic freedom and least corruption. I am wondering what the Governance’s meaning to the people there.

Introduction: My focus is on the Indigenous People, and the key points from historical Indigenous governance that has impacted and molded, both the people and their authority, to what it has become today. More specifically, events circa. 1703 – 1984 in Canada. This topic is significant to understanding Indigenous governance because it literally followings the important moments from history that determined the future for the Indigenous, and gives light to the hardships that the Indigenous peoples went through and their determination that followed. I chose this topic specifically because I believe the general public does not know enough about it, because I, myself -from an Indigenous background- did not know even the basics of Indigenous governance, until I took a class revolved around it. My hope is that if anyone is in such a position as I was, this presentation will educate them on that unfortunate loss of knowledge.

Timeline: The Royal Proclamation (1763):

  



Recognition of Indians in Canada Assimilation of Indians Establishment of Treaties Proclamation states Aboriginal People reserved all lands not ceded by or purchased from them

Indian Act (1876):

   

Imposed government control over First Nations, their money and their land Legislated colonization Amendments - Assimilation Enfranchisement & Paternalism

White Paper (1969):

   

(Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy)

Abolish Indian status and Indian Act Convert reserve land to private property, that can be sold by the band or its members Transfer responsibility for Indian affairs/peoples from the federal government to the province , integrate these services into those provided to other Canadian citizens Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding land claims & gradually terminate existing treaties

Red Paper (1970):

   

Countered all proposals from the White Paper Indian Act should be reviewed, not repealed Eliminate the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, along with paternalistic form Aboriginal peoples and their organizations should have SOLE responsibility over determining their priorities and future

Calder Case (1973):

   

Assessed the sought declaration of Aboriginal title over land historically inhabited by the Nisga'a peoples of BC Majority of Supreme Court of Canada recognized title could exists, but ruled 3-3 against the Nisga'a The case was lost, but 'Aboriginal Title' was not settled, and the decision led to the Federal willingness to negotiate Indigenous Land Claims The courts ruling caused the Trudeau Government to back away from introduced idea n the White Paper

Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow (1973): 



Caused federal government to begin a negotiation process for a modern-day Treaty - the FIRST in Canada Layed the past and present state of the Yukon, and the road that lead to Together Today for Our

Children Tomorrow 

Recommended for a better future, including land and cash settlements.

Federal Land Claim Policy (1973):   

Comprehensive Claims Specific Claims Negotiations

Inuvialiut Final Agreement (1984): Agreement Created The Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and It's beneficiaries  Establishment transferred ownership of the land, and land selection, and water to the Inuvialuit. But Canada retains a “reserved” interest to allow continued use and eventual reclamation of the land  A Few Goals: - Preservation, within a changing society, of Inuvialuit culture, identity & values within changing northern society -Protect & preserve the environment, biological productivity and its wildlife 

Resources: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/21-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-indian-act-1.3533613 http://www.ictinc.ca/blog/21-things-you-may-not-have-known-about-the-indian-acthttps://applications.arts.ubc.ca/guest/artsav/index.php? force_video_view=true&cid=21&gid=130&vid=0_ujnzwp58&anon=true

http://mappingtheway.ca/sites/default/files/Trudeau_English.mp4 https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1373385502190/1373385561540

Who I am matters. I matter as I am.

My name is Ricky Mawunganidze I am Mashona, Shunguwasha, Soko Mukanya (Monkey clan). In our culture I draw my family (clan) identity from my father Samuel Mawunganidze (Soko Mukanya) and my mother Iris Mawunganidze (Chirwa – crocodile). It is my hope that through a discussion on First Nation identity I can challenge myself to explore my own relationship with colonial history and allow you to find your own understanding, whether you identify as indigenous or not. This section of the handbook aims to discuss indigenous identity and how it has impacted self-governance and the contributions of first nation individuals to the greater community.

The colonial history of Canada is characterised by a continuing shift in how indigenous peoples are identified, stereotyped and then forced to assimilate or be invisible. We start with this value of indigenous identity, the complicated question is what does it mean to be indigenous? The intent is simply to hear what comes to mind when people hear that question and to explore my own understanding of the idea. If you look at it, the idea itself of being indigenous is not only internal as in what one thinks of themselves but it is informed by friends, family, the media and institutions that manipulate our understanding of ourselves on a daily basis.

In discussing indigenous identity, Alfred and Corntassel note that indigenous peoples have a shared struggle to enjoy their unique heritages, be connected to the land and nature as well also share in that their very existence is an act of survival against the colonising states that are intent on eradicating them culturally, politically and physically1. If one takes a moment to consider the similarities that exist across the world in how the colonial state, to this day, describes indigenous peoples; not critical thinkers, waiting for handouts, bad parents, unable to support themselves, they destroy everything they touch, we saved them from themselves and so on. In Canada the very use of the words Indian or Aboriginal is an identity that was placed on the indigenous people, it speaks to the disregard of individual group identity and a disregard of how the oppressed self-identify.

The idea of identity in itself is complicated and yet so simple, this will be clearer as we proceed, the challenge is that colonial powers and those that benefit from it refuse to see the value in indigenous identity. The irony is that first nation culture as presented by Charlie and indeed Allen speaks to an endeavour to understand and honour the cultural identity of others in treaty making respectively 2; it has always been a mismatched relationship. As a result of this perception of superiority by settler peoples of Canada, Indigenous people have experienced a history of struggle with identity; a lot of the challenges come from the constant shifting of identities as imposed by the prevailing governments. Indigenousness is an identity constructed, shaped and lived in the politicized context of contemporary colonialism3.

Residential schools, assimilation policies, Indian Act, Enfranchisement and many other tools used by the prevailing governments to strip away Indigenous identity have impacted the ability of generations of people to self-actualise. Aboriginal people had a sense of connectedness with everything in their universe; other people, the plants, the animals, the rocks, the wa­ter, the stars, the moon, the sun and their accompanying spirits (Partridge, 2010 p42).4

The Indian Act Structures of governance should be considerate of the culture and values of the people they serve. An example of this is the relationship that indigenous peoples have with the land. In traditional governance practices this relationship was understood by all community members and in Han culture daole (our way) speaks to that relationship. Indeed the Indian Act reflected the cultural context and values of the time, however it is concerning that many remnants of the Act still persist today. The question then is why not do away with it as was proposed in 1969 through the White Paper? At the time and in response to the proposal Harold Cardinal explained; “We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isn’t. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation.”5 The Indian Act has certainly been amended on several occasions to correct some fundamental wrongs towards human rights of First Nation peoples. It is important to note that one of the key effects of the Indian Act that persists, similar to colonial efforts across the globe is the idea of how First Nation or in the current language Indian status is conferred. Blood quantum remains a standard for how belonging is defined and this is a question that has alienated many indigenous peoples that were taken away from their nations, often times leaving them in a cultural and social limbo.

I recently spoke to a young woman who I will call Anna, Anna is status First Nation, she was adopted as a child and has been raised by non-First Nation parents. In talking about identity Anna felt she could not identify as being First Nation because she did not grow up in the ways of her First Nation. However after some sharing and listening it became clear that she remembered and loved the traditional teachings she had learned, ceremonies she had been a part of. In the end identity is not an all or nothing decision it is something that can never be taken from us by standards set outside of ourselves.

Ideas of nationhood that insist on one way of being identified risk losing children like Anna, that so badly want to belong but just don’t fit the idea of being a “true Indian”. Leadership must always be looking for ways to offer a real and healing path to nationhood. After all, belonging is essential to every one of us.

Tombstone Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Traditional Territory

One of my most memorable words came from an elder who said, as a First Nation your one true calling is to become an elder, that is what you must aspire to. In this sense for indigenous peoples being an elder is the highest honour and is something we live our lives building ourselves up, so that we are the future elders.

There is great value placed on Elders as holders and teachers of traditional knowledge. Elders speak to the importance of the relationship with the land through stewardship and consideration, and also more directly speak to keeping traditional practices in governance.

“In many cases the programs are the problem – not the people administering them. If the idea behind a program is wrong then no amount of money or people can make it work. Solutions to Indian problems must be found within the framework of our culture. You cannot know someone else’s culture – you can only know your own”6 

Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow p. 16

In this way governance does not need to be a cookie cutter approach; governance has existed since clans and tribes existed in different ways. The only problem is that the only “viable” form of governance is a western approach. There are certainly many aspects of localised and shared traditional governance that remain relevant to indigenous groups today; we only have to take a moment to decolonise our minds and see the inherent value. In this way indigenous identity is deeply rooted in the inclusion of generations of knowledge in governance, the existence of elders councils as critical aspects of governance honours traditional ways of sharing knowledge and community building.

Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Elders

Decolonisation is a process for First Nations and all indigenous peoples, the same way that colonisation and cultural genocide took over a 100 years and counting to get to where we are today it makes sense that decolonisation and healing will take time. Elders share teachings on seven generations, this is the traditional wisdom that for so long has been considered to be outdated.

Governance is the structures or tools that lead, empower and protect the people, there can be good and bad governance. Good governance in any society is shown through political and social structures that are fair and empower the people. It is important that good governance is inclusive of the needs of all generations in the community, as these individuals contribute to the nation. If leadership is respectful and shares the values, culture, language, traditions that form the identity of the citizens it serves then First Nations are a step closer to true self-governance. There is no doubting the tenacity of the First Nations and all indigenous peoples across the world.

“You agreed to share. You said our rights would never be lost. You did not live up to the agreement.

You took most of our land, outlawed our religious beliefs and practices, destroyed much of our animal life and forest, restricted our movements, stopped us from using our languages, and tried to convince us that our music, dances, and art were barbaric.

Despite these overwhelming odds, we have survived the elements of conquest.” 7 Ojibway-Cree Nation of Treaty #9

Sources Alfred, Taiaiake and Corntassel, Jeff. Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism. Government and Opposition Ltd 2005. P Allen, Edward. Reflections on the 40th Anniversary of the Calder Decision. Northern Public Affairs, September 2013 Simpson, Lianne. Looking after Gdoo-naaganinaa: Precolonial Nishnaabeg Diplomatic and Treaty Relationships. Wicazo Sa Review, Volume 23, Number 2, Fall 2008, pp. 29-42 (Article). Pub­ lished by University of Minnesota Press.

Partridge, Cheryle. Residential Schools: The Intergenerational Impacts on Aboriginal Peoples. Na­ tive Social Work Journal. Vol. 7, 2010 pp.33-62 Cardinal, Harold. The Unjust Society. 2nd ed. Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre, 1999. 140. Ac­ cessed http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indianact.html#abolish The Yukon Indian People. Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow, A Statement of Grievances And An Approach to Settlement By The Yukon Indian People. The Yukon Native Brotherhood.

Whitehorse 1977 Ojibway-Cree Nation of Treaty #9. A Declaration of Nishnawbe-Aski (The People of The Land).

Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, Grand Council Treaty No. 9. Timmins, Ontario 1977. 2-3.

Accessed http://www.nan.on.ca/upload/documents/gs-declaration-of-nish-aski-july-6-1977.pdf

YUKON SELF GOVERNING FIRST NATIONS – FUNDING PROCESS There are 11 Self Governing First Nations in the Yukon Territory. Self-Governing First Nations are different

than Indian Act Bands: Self-Governing First Nations direct their own affairs and for the most part the Indian Act does not apply to them, their Citizens or to their Settlement Lands. Indian Act Bands, the First Nation reserve lands, monies, other resources and governance structures are managed by the Indian Act. I am a Citizen and employee of my Self Governing First Nation – I work in the implementation and negotiations of our Land Claims Agreements in our community. We have been Self Governing since 1995. I

chose this topic as there seems to be a lack of understanding of how Self-Governing First Nations are funded.

My goal with this presentation is that people who don’t work in these areas and aren’t familiar, get an understanding of how Self Governing First Nations are funded by Canada and what provincial or territorial governments responsibilities are.

I have prepared a flow chart on the next page – the blue arrows on the left state the document in which the obligation of funding a self-governing first nation is born from. The content on the right is an explanation summarized in order from the flow or hierarchy of the documents on how to get that work done, along with the expected result.

This link provides some good information on financial transfer agreements with Yukon Self Governing First Nations - http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1316214942825/1316215019710

For more information on the document in which Yukon Land Claims Agreements are based please go to this link - http://www.eco.gov.yk.ca/pdf/together_today_for_our_children_tomorrow.pdf

Assimilation and Discrimination is Alive Introduction:

During the FNGA 100 class, the class had many discussions, ideas and thoughts shared from information read and shared on First Nations identity and self-government in the Yukon and Canada. One thought that stands out is the scenario of citizenship or being status Indian according to the, “Indian Act section 6”. My topic question for this handbook: Is assimilation and discrimination still alive? Yes, if you are an Indian Act registered Indian status woman or if you are a reinstated registered Indian Status woman with children.

. In 1857, Prime Minister, John A, MacDonald introduced the Gradual Civilization Act, and it was aimed at the men of indigenous descent, that were age 21 or older and demonstrated their ability to speak, write or read English or French. They were the perfect candidate to become British subjects.

This was the tipping point of equality for Indigenous women and men, and the switch from maternal society to a paternal society. First Nations people had a clan structure, laws that directed First Nations behaviour, and every child knew who they were. With this change many women and children became displaced in their own indigenous societies.

With the introduction of the Indian Act in 1867, would be the beginning of removing the identity of Canada’s First Nations people rights to practice and be who they were. Where their rights would slowly be removed, and changes in how their society practiced their governance of existence, one they held since the beginning of time, went from an

In the later part of the 19th century, indigenous people saw the changes of children being placed in church run schools, loss of free movement, loss of free will to practice ceremony, and use of language. Canada appointed Department of Indian Affairs to oversee them as children, and wards of the government. But, all this did not happen until they were identified with a specific legal identity of whether they were registered Indians or non-status. This system took away the role of women and the clan system, and placed the men in role of Indian blood, who belong to a band, and any child of such a person or women married to such a man would be recognized as status Indian.

It was said that if a man divorced his wife, she would lose her status and place in the band. If

a non-status woman married a man with status, that she would gain Indian status and all its rights. If a status woman married a non-status or white man, she would automatically lose her status and all rights that came with it. Women would have to cut all ties with her Indigenous family, community and be recognized as enfranchised citizen.

For Indian men, they could surrender their Indian status to become full Canadian citizens, could get their education, could work for wages, and move off lands that were set aside for registered Indians in Canada. If a man surrendered his status, the whole family would also lose all their rights to being wards of Canada and women would also lose all right to pass on their Indian status to their children.

This system of inequality between Indian men and women would finally be revised in 1985 as C-31, where women would be granted the right to be reinstated, especially if they lost their Indian status because of marriage with a non-Indian man. I remember when this revision was introduced and the excitement of retaining our identity as Yukon Indian people. The feeling

mother had lost her status as a child, when my grandfather gave up his status to work for the White Pass Railway in Whitehorse. And my mother as a young lady, also married my nonIndian father, so I never had my Indian identity or status until I was a young adult. Which came about through marriage to a registered man, I was automatically registered with his First Nations and my children were also registered under his band.

With the revision of Indian Status, and the addition of C-31, known as section 6 of the Indian Act, does not always entitle a woman and her children the same rights as the males in her First Nations government. For example: you are put into one or the other code of 6(1) or 6(2).

This is where it can become unclear to someone who has been reinstated.

With this new subsection, it was designed for those who had their status reinstated and to their descendants: 6(2) states that a person is entitled to be reinstated if one of their parents (regardless of sex) were registered as a status Indian. With this new subsection of 6(1) and 6(2) is the ability to

pass on Indian status to her children.

For example: If 6(2) reinstated status Indian have children with a non-status person, their children are ineligible for Indian Status. This is called the second-generation cutoff.

Where as a person is 6(1) does not face the same penalty.

But if two 6(2) reinstated status Indians marry and have children, their children become 6(1) status Indians.

But, if a 6(1) and 6(2) marries, their children may not gain the same rights as Status Indians within the First Nations governments.

So, C-31 is just another mechanism to serve the same purpose, where as the government’s original plan of eventual removal of Indian Status, by deferring it a generation.

I would like to share my personal experience of stories of my sisters who have lived discrimination from their First Nations government in the past 30+ years.

Sister 1 has a child from an non-First Nation…Sister 1(reinstated Indian Status) where her daughter could not be registered under her reinstated status. It took her daughter 32 years to finally gain her status from Canada in 2012. Where as her children’s father is registered under BC, and therefore her First Nations government will not except them as status Indian members. She was told they should register in their father’s BC First Nations.

Sister 2 (reinstated Indian Status), had children from an registered Indian status man, and the First Nations accepted her sons as registered Indian status members, but would not accept her daughters. Sister 2 (reinstated Indian Status) and member of the same First Nations government as her daughter’s father. She had to fight for 22 years to have her daughters finally recognized as status Indians and have rights to be part of the First Nations government, and whereas they could vote and participate in decisions effecting future grandchildren.

Quote,“amendments to the Indian Act, current legislation ensure that status can only be passed along for a few generations, until it virtually disappears” (p 3, www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/is/index-

Conclusion: Is assimilation and discrimination still alive? Yes, if you are an registered status Indian or if you are a reinstated registered Indian woman with children. It is evident that all Yukon First Nations people will need to revisit the Indian Act section 6, and make policy or changes to their criteria of their membership, and make changes that will keep their membership or government strong, or lose all the things that their ancestors stood for and all that they fought so hard to sustain. The Indian Act, although not being used by self-governing First Nations still is a machine of assimilation. It is up to each Yukon First Nations government to pay attention and to include the, “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

article 8.1 and 8.2. a, b, c, d, and e (2006).� To review and insure that they do not continue the assimilation legislation of 1876 the Indian Act to destroy their culture and practice discrimination of their people.

Resources http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2006) http://firstnationcitizenship.afn.ca/uploads/A18_NWAC_Literature_Review_on_the_Bill_C31_Amendment.pdf http://fngovernance.org/ncfng_research/coates.pdf NCFNG | The Indian Act and The Future of Aboriginal Governance in Canada http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/

Video https://intercontinentalcry.org/women-bill-c-31/

Non-Status Indian

By Shara Layne

My family is Mi’kmaq from Newfoundland. My mother’s side has been Nonstatus for generations. My great grandmother was a First Nations women who lost her status when she married a white man. Her children and the future generations have been lost in our heritage and ancestry.

In 1867 the government passed the first of many legislations over Aboriginal peoples; the Indian Act. It incorporated enfranchisement, regulations and management of the Aboriginal people, land money and resources. Then in 1985 Bill C-31 was made to "eliminate" policies that took away First Nations status. It was an amendment that only focused on a few aspects of enfranchisement of Indigenous people. It did not cover later generations reclaiming status or help to amend the difficulties felt by people who were labeled as Incompetent by the Government.

Indian Act: Mentally incompetent Indians •

They label us in every way - from Non status to status to mentally incompetent Indian.

•

The government gets to determine if you are mentally competent enough to hold your land and your rights as an aboriginal.

•

The government can designate a person to look over the land or they even have the right to sell it or repossess it.

•

They already took and labeled so much why must the keep at it when it comes to a family and community matter not a federal or territorial matter.

Enfranchisement •

the most unfair trick or power the government showed over the First Nations people. Was used to wipe out a race of people; the Indian people. By signing your name on a piece of paper you become a White man.

This dos not just mean the man signing but his family, including his wife and children under the age of 21 and their future descendants.

•

If a First Nations women should fall in love and wish to marry a white man she will lose her status - her children will not obtain the First Nations status.

•

If one should want to qualify for northern allowance one most sign over their status. Along with if one should want to drink in public, hold a business license, hold title to a piece of land or to keep their children out of public schooling. You must sign over your status

•

All of these bribes. Cruel bribes masked in a veil of want and need. But it was all to cut down the numbers of First nation and to integrate them into the Canadian Whiteman culture. The cruelest part was the inability to regain status after signing it over.

Bill C-31 •

The three main principles that guided the amendments were: - the removal of discrimination - restoring status and membership rights - increasing control of Indian bands and their own affairs.

•

•

• •

The Bill made many changes to the Indian Act but the most important to the Non-status Indian are the prevention of anyone from gaining or losing status through marriage and to restore Indian status for those who lost it through discrimination of enfranchisement.

Under the category of Enfranchisement C-31 abolished the concept. Band membership is subject to band rules for bands that had assumed membership control or subject to the provisions of the Indian Act. So while it amended the dominate complaints it still isn't perfect.

Under the category of Enfranchisement C-31 abolished the concept. Band membership is subject to band rules for bands that had assumed membership control or subject to the provisions of the Indian Act.

Non-status Indian

A term which hurts a lot of Indian people. signing a piece of paper an Indian becomes a white man.

An unfair trick.

Used to wipe out a race, a set of values, the Indian people.

Found Poetry using words and phrases from the document Together today for our Children Tomorrow.

For our Children.

The land has always been home to us and this is where we intend to stay. Our people have many deep feelings about our land, and about the future of our children.

Our way of life, was handed down by the word of mouth. Our family was the centre of “the Indian way�. ~student poem