Indigenizing Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory: Development of Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Water Framework

by Reneé Joy Goretsky

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Rural Studies

Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Reneé Goretsky, May, 2021

ABSTRACT

INDIGENIZING WATER GOVERNANCE WITHIN TREATY LANDS AND TERRITORY: DEVELOPMENT OF MISSISSAUGAS OF THE CREDIT FIRST NATION WATER FRAMEWORK

Reneé Goretsky Advisors: University of Guelph, 2021 Dr. Sheri Longboat Dr. Kim Anderson Professor John FitzGibbon

This research asked ‘how can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework’?’ in response to Canadian water governance injustices for Indigenous peoples. It applied this question to the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation’s (MCFN) need for developing a water framework to Indigenize water governance within its treaty lands and territory, as a partial resolution to its 2016 Water Claim (Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Traditional Lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit).

Through an emergent MCFN context-specific research methodology adapted from

Kovach’s Indigenous research framework, this research explored MCFN’s water values and how they related to MCFN’s Water Claim to develop a water framework; and it aimed to decolonize constructs of social justice and western water governance.

Using qualitative community-based participatory research methods, the key findings, underpinned by a literature-based conceptual framework, were: 1) MCFN’s water values were multi-faceted and interdependent within plural and intersecting Indigenous identities

shaped by historical and contemporary colonial influences and Indigenous resistances;

2) The meanings of MCFN’s Water Claim, correlating to their water values, were: Healing

Ourselves by reconnecting with our Anishinaabe culture; Protecting the water: having a say; and Sustaining Ourselves by reclaiming our inherent, Aboriginal title and treaty rights; 3) MCFN’s multi-dimensional Water Framework, based on the Water Claim meanings, centralizes Water is Life and embraces principles, objectives and suggested actions for MCFN’s implementation; 4) MCFN’s Water Framework as social justice for reconciliation related to MCFN’s agency in reclaiming and reconstituting its rights, culture and voice within respectful relationships and social transformations rather than Fraser’s model of economic (re)distribution, political representation and cultural recognition; and

5) MCFN’s Water Framework supports the reconceptualization of the resource-based

Canadian water governance to values of interconnectedness, respect, and responsibilities. This is how MCFN sees itself Indigenizing water governance within its treaty lands and territory; and contributing to the larger water governance Indigenizing movements.

The research was significant because it directly addressed a community need, expanded on Indigenous research methodologies, and decolonized western constructs to shift the power hierarchy between the colonizer and Indigenous peoples towards respectful relationships.

iv

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my husband, best friend and love of my life, Allen Goretsky.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I acknowledge Niibi as life, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation for welcoming me into their community and participating in this research, and the Water Committee for contributing and being involved in all aspects of this research. A special thank you goes to Darin Wybenga and Mark La Forme for steering the project forward. Also, thank you to Chief and Council for endorsing this research.

A huge thank you goes to my supervisor, Dr. Sheri Longboat and my PhD Advisory Committee members, Dr. Kim Anderson and Professor John FitzGibbon, who provided endless advice and guidance throughout my doctoral research; and Professor John FitzGibbon who provided funding for my research activities.

I thank my family who provided support and encouragement, especially my husband, Allen; and my sister, Lorna, who assisted me during challenging times.

I acknowledge the following funding support for my doctoral degree: The University of Guelph, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development and the South African National Research Foundation.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi List of Tables ...... x List of Figures ...... xi List of Images ...... xiii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... xiv List of Appendices ...... xv 1 Introduction ...... 1

Research Problem ...... 1 MCFN’s Research Need ...... 3 Research Question and Objectives ...... 7 Thesis Organization ...... 8 Notes on Terminology ...... 8

2 Literature Review ...... 10

Governance and Water ...... 10 Indigenous Identities ...... 20 Indigenous Peoples in Canada ...... 30 Canadian Water Governance and Indigenous Peoples ...... 34 Indigenous Peoples’ Responsibilities and Water Rights ...... 36 Social Justice ...... 43 Chapter Conclusions ...... 49 vii

3 The Research Collaboration and MCFN’s Context ...... 52

Establishing a Research Collaboration ...... 52 MCFN Today ...... 55 MCFN’s History Related to the Water Claim ...... 58 MCFN’s Historical and Contemporary Contexts in Relation to its Creation Story ...... 65 Chapter Conclusions ...... 68

4 Methodology, Framework and Methods ...... 70

Self-location ...... 70 Research Framework and Principles ...... 72 A MCFN Research Framework ...... 76

Co-engagement ...... 76 From a relational paradigm to a multiple-research paradigm approach ..... 77 From Indigenous values and ethics to community values and ethics ...... 81 From Indigenous cultural protocols to community protocols ...... 82 From gathering knowledge to a Community-Based Participatory Research ...... 84 Making meanings of knowledge gathered from Indigenous to multiple perspectives ...... 85

Research Methods ...... 88

Participants and selection ...... 88 Research phases, activities, and timeframes ...... 89 Knowledge gathering activities ...... 92

Analysis of Knowledge Gathered ...... 102

viii

Knowledge gathered from conversations, group discussions, youth group and LSK Elementary School students ...... 102 Knowledge gathered from the survey ...... 104 Interviews with conservation agencies ...... 104

Research Integrity: Robustness and Credibility...... 104 Research Ethics and Data Management ...... 106 Research Methods’ Limitations ...... 108

5 MCFN Water Values ...... 110

The Importance of Water to MCFN and Why ...... 110 Historical and Contemporary Contexts Shaping MCFN’s Identities and Water Values ...... 124

MCFN’s physical separation from water bodies ...... 126 MCFN’s cultural and spiritual disconnections from water ...... 128 Relating MCFN’s water values to identities embedded in historical and contemporary contexts ...... 131 MCFN’s water values for future generations ...... 132

Chapter Conclusions ...... 136

6 The Meaning of the Water Claim to MCFN ...... 138

The Meanings of the Water Claim ...... 138

Healing Ourselves ...... 143 Protecting the water ...... 145 Sustaining Ourselves ...... 149

ix

Relating the Meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN’s Multi-dimensional Water Values, and Plural and Intersectional Identities ...... 153 Chapter Conclusions ...... 158

7 MCFN’s Water Framework ...... 160

MCFN’s Water Framework ...... 161 MCFN’s Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory ...... 168 MCFN’s Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within a Social Justice Framework ...... 173 Canada’s Water Governance Authorities’ Reflections on the Water Claim .... 179 MCFN’s Reflections on Canadian Water Governance ...... 183 Chapter Conclusions ...... 186

8 Thesis Conclusions and Implications ...... 188

8.1 Main Findings: Summary and Conclusions ...... 189 8.2 Research Contributions ...... 194

8.2.1 Theoretical Contributions ...... 194 8.2.2. Methodological Contributions ...... 195 8.2.3. Empirical Contributions ...... 196

8.3. Research Strengths and Challenges ...... 198 8.4. Future Opportunities and Research Questions ...... 200 8.5. Self-reflection and closing ...... 203

References ...... 205 Appendices ...... 238

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Water governance definitions by Bakker (2003), Rogers and Hall (2003) and OECD (2015) ...... 15 Table 2.2: Connections between the three main Indigenous constructs to terms used by Benjamin (2017) and Frideres (2008)...... 28 Table 3.1: Treaties between MCFN and the Crown leading to MCFN’s land cessations...... 62 Table 4.1: Detailed summary of research phases, activities and timeframes...... 91 Table 4.2: Groups’ discussions and number of people attending each group...... 95 Table 6.1: Percentage of survey and key-informant responses by gender, age and on/off reserve locations to each of the Water Claim’s three topics...... 155 Table 7.1: MCFN's Water Framework actions arranged by objective...... 167

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: MCFN's treaty lands and territory...... 4 Figure 2.1: Western water governance as a system (adapted from Meadows, 2008 system’s thinking)...... 18 Figure 2.2: Fraser’s (2009) three-dimensional theory of justice expanded by Lukasiewicz and Baldwin (2014) conceptions of social justice...... 47 Figure 2.3: Linking the four conceptual framework tenets to the research objectives...... 51 Figure 3.1: Relief map of Ontario showing southern Ontario in relation to the Great Lakes...... 53 Figure 3.2: Map of First Nations communities in southern Ontario...... 54 Figure 3.3: Geographic location of the New Credit Reserve in relation to MCFN's treaty lands and territory...... 56 Figure 4.1: Research framework reflective of a research team being co-researchers. Adapted from Kovach (2009)...... 75 Figure 4.2: An emergent MCFN context-specific research framework. Adapted from Kovach (2009)...... 87 Figure 4.3: Research phases, activities and timeframes...... 90 Figure 4.4: Students at LSK Elementary School creating their artworks...... 98 Figure 5.1: Poster notes from all the adult group discussions, except Chief and Council, in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members. . 115 Figure 5.2: Youth group's artwork in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members...... 116 Figure 5.3: Artwork from LSK Elementary School students in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members...... 117 Figure 5.4: Summary of the five themes emerging from the key-informants, adult groups and youth related to the importance of water...... 118

xii

Figure 5.5: Percent of survey responses from MCFN adults on the importance of water to MCFN members...... 118 Figure 5.6: MCFN’s water values as they interconnect with each other...... 122 Figure 6.1: Framing the meanings of the Water Claim from the key-informants and group discussions...... 143 Figure 6.2: Example of an artwork by a LSK Elementary School student (Grade 8) on protecting the water...... 147 Figure 6.3: Artwork by MCFN youth group on protecting the water...... 148 Figure 6.4: The meanings of the Water Claim to the survey respondents...... 153 Figure 6.5: Relating Water Claim meanings to MCFN participants’ water values and Indigenous identities...... 154 Figure 6.6: MCFN participants’ connections to each of the three Water Claim topics by intersectional identities of gender, age and on/off reserve locations...... 156 Figure 7.1: MCFN's Water Framework principles based on the meanings of the Water Claim to Indigenize water within their treaty lands and territory...... 163 Figure 7.2: Percent of survey respondents indicating their support for the proposed MCFN Water Framework goals...... 164 Figure 7.3: MCFN's Water Framework objectives associated to the principles...... 166 Figure 7.4: A reconceptualization of western water governance based on MCFN’s Water Framework...... 171 Figure 7.5: MCFN survey participants responses to the Water Claim as a reconciliation process...... 174 Figure 7.6: The range of Conservation Authorities’ representatives understandings of their water management roles...... 180 Figure 8.1. Examples of specific future research questions for implementation research arising from this research...... 202

xiii

LIST OF IMAGES

Image 1: The pair of moccasins gifted to me by the Water Committee...... 198

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS DOCA Department of Consultation and Accommodation ILO International Labour Organization MCFN Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation MNCFN Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation OCAP Ownership, Control, Access and Possession OECD Organization for Economic Co-operations and Development RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission UN United Nations UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UoG University of Guelph

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Summary of institutional water governance arrangements in Canada .. 238 Appendix 2: MCFN’s Creation Story - Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin ...... 241 Appendix 3: University of Guelph Research Ethics Board Approval ...... 243 Appendix 4: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Key Informant Conversations ...... 245 Appendix 5: Schedule: One-on-One Key-Informant Conversations Schedule with MNCFN Adult members ...... 251 Appendix 6: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Adult Group Discussions ...... 253 Appendix 7: Group Discussion with MNCFN Adult members Guiding Probes ...... 259 Appendix 8: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form MNCFN Youth Group 260 Appendix 9: Group Activity Schedule with MNCFN Youth Group ...... 265 Appendix 10: Parental Information Letter: Class Lesson on Water at Lloyd S. King Elementary School ...... 266 Appendix 11: LSK Elementary School: Class Lesson Script (35 minutes)...... 268 Appendix 12: MNCFN Water Framework Survey ...... 270 Appendix 13: Information Letter and Consent Form: Interviews with Conservation Authorities...... 278 Appendix 14: Semi-structured Interview Schedule - With Canadian Water Management Authorities...... 282 Appendix 15: Research Team Agreement ...... 284

1 Introduction Research Problem Indigenous peoples1 in Canada assert their rights2 to self-determination through international i.e., the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007), and national i.e., section 35, part II of the Canadian Constitution Act (1982); section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982); the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP, 1996); and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Actions (2015a) efforts. Included in these rights, Indigenous peoples in Canada emphasize their rights to be responsible to protect and care for water, given the central role of water for Indigenous peoples (McGregor 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018a; Anderson et al., 2013; Longboat, 2015; Arsenault et al., 2018), as stated in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) 2003 Indigenous Peoples’ Kyoto Water Declaration and the Tlatokan Atlahuak Declaration in 2006, and local actions such as the First Nations’ Water Declaration by the Chiefs of Ontario (2008).

However Indigenous peoples in Canada are unable to protect and care for water because of three interrelated Canadian water governance injustices. These three injustices are: constrained self-determination (White et al., 2012; Norman and Bakker, 2015), imposed colonial frameworks (von der Porten and de Loë, 2013, 2014; Simms et al., 2016; Castleden et al. 2017; Arsenault et al. 2018; Daigle, 2018), and restricted legal notions of water rights (Borrows, 2017). The unresolved question is ‘how can Indigenous peoples implement their own ways of knowing3, being4 and doing5, i.e., Indigenize, in relation to

1 “Indigenous peoples is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants” (Government of Canada, 2017a, para 1). For legal and policy purposes, the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (section 35) recognizes three groups of Indigenous peoples, termed “Aboriginal peoples: Indians (referred to as First Nations), Métis and Inuit” (clause 2). 2 Inclusive of inherent (Aboriginal rights), Aboriginal title and treaty rights (Craft, 2013). 3 How do we learn our ontologies i.e., to be (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003)? 4 ‘How do we live and exist in our ontologies?’ which is driven by our ways of knowing (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003). 5 How do enact our ways of knowing and being (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003)? 1

water in meaningful ways (McGregor, 2014) in dominant western governance systems which regard water as a resource or commodity (Bradford et al., 2016; Castleden et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2018; Wilson and Inkster, 2018)?

The transformation of dominant western water governance, where Indigenous responsibilities to water would be considered mainstream pathways, is challenged by embedded “power and knowledge hierarchies” (Arsenault et al., 2018, p. 14). Disengaging these hierarchies requires a social justice approach to dismantle dominant water governance (Franco et al., 2013; Zwarteveen and Boelens, 20146; Jackson, 2016). Social justice is seen as distributive justice (Doorn, 2013; Neal et al., 20147; Bakker et al., 2018), cultural recognition (Joy et al., 2014; Patrick et al., 2014; Perreault, 2014; Bradford et al., 2016), and political representation (Tisdell, 2003; Bakker, 2007; Perreault, 2014; Bakker et al., 2018).

The overarching research question that guides this thesis is: ‘How can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework?’ It directly responds to the unresolved issue on how Indigenous peoples can Indigenize water governance in meaningful ways. It adopts Fraser’s (2009) three-pronged approach to social justice as economic redistribution, cultural recognition and political representation because of its multi-lens framework. However, the intention is to apply a decolonizing lens (see p. 29) to deconstruct western literature8 on social justice. Fraser’s (2009) approach has been applied in very few water governance studies, mainly within the Australian context (Jackson and Barber, 2013; Lukasiewicz and Baldwin, 2014; Jackson, 2016), and none in Canada were found that adopted this multi-lens social justice approach.

6 They use the term water justice as an alternative to social justice. 7 Neal et al. (2014) also refer to procedural and interactive justice as part of distributive justice. 8 McGregor (2018a) maintains that Indigenous peoples must develop alternative frameworks to justice that reflect Indigenous principles and practices.

2

This thesis explores the overarching research question in the context of a First Nations community, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN). MCFN is officially regarded by Canada as an Indian Band, Number 120 (Government of Canada, 2013c). Since 1848 when relocating to the New Credit Reserve (see p. 63), it adopted the name of the Mississaugas of the New Credit (MNCFN). Today it has reverted to its original name of the Mississaugas of the Credit9 (Water Committee, personal communication, November 2018). MCFN identified a research need of ‘Developing a MCFN Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance on Treaty Lands and Territory’, as a partial resolution10 to its ‘Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Traditional Lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit’11 (herein referred to as the Water Claim).

MCFN’s Research Need MCFN is asserting its unextinguished Aboriginal title to all water, beds of water, and floodplains which contain approximately four (4) million acres of land (MCFN, n.d.-a) within its treaty lands and territory in southern Ontario, shown in Figure 1.1. A list of relevant treaties is also shown in the map legend, these are later discussed in chapter 3.

The Water Claim is supported by a study by Holmes and Associates (2015), who examined 11 “pre-Confederation Upper Canada land cessions (dating from 1781 to 1820) to which MCFN were signatories” (p. 3). The study’s purpose was “to determine whether

9 Hence you will see both the use of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation in this thesis. MNCFN is mainly used if cited. 10 The doctoral student was asked by MCFN legal counsel to use the words ‘partial resolution’. The Water Framework was regarded as a partial resolution to the Water Claim because MCFN’s legal counsel, Kim Fullerton, indicated that it will be used in their negotiations with Canadian governments to resolve the Water Claim, however, it was not the only resolution that they will be exploring with Canada (personal communication, November 2017). The Chief, at a Water Committee meeting in October 2018, confirmed that the Water Framework will directly support his negotiations on the Water Claim with Canadian governments (personal communication, October 2018). 11 To view the Title Claim see http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/land-and-water-claims/title-claim-to-water- within-traditional-lands-of-mncfn/

3

any waters were specifically included or excluded from those cessions to assist MCFN with the documentation of treaty rights with respect to water resources” (Holmes and Associates, 2015, p. 3). The study concluded that MCFN retains Aboriginal title to the waters within its treaty land and territory because there is no mention of water in any of the treaties (Mississaugas Treaty at Niagara, Treaties #’s 3,8,13,14,19 and 22) between MCFN and the Crown but for #23 (Holmes and Associates, 2015). MCFN alleges that # 23 is nonetheless invalid (MCFN, n.d,-a) because of differences in interpretations and understandings between MCFN’s ancestors and the Crown (Holmes and Associates, 2015, see p. 61). MCFN is therefore declaring that water within its treaty lands and territory has never been lawfully surrendered to the Crown by MCFN or its ancestors (MCFN, n.d.-a).

Figure 1.1: MCFN's treaty lands and territory, Source: MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation, 2015.

Subsequent to the Holmes and Associates (2015) findings, in September 2016, MCFN filed the Water Claim as a Special Claim to assert its Indigenous rights, and not as a wrongdoing against them (typical of a Specific Claim) or unfinished treaty-making process

4

(the basis of a Comprehensive Land Claim)12. Kim Fullerton, MCFN’s legal counsel commented that MCFN had written proof from the Crown that waters within its territory and treaty lands were never ceded to the Crown: They have written evidence that demonstrates that water within their territory was

discussed with representatives of the British Crown and that their ancestors were

told that the Crown was not interested in their water, only their land. Their

ancestors understood and were led to believe, by the British, that the treaties dealt

only with their land. (personal communication, May 2017)

The separation between land and water in this Water Claim, although incongruent with MCFN’s ancestors’ beliefs, is MCFN’s way to emphasize that their ancestors would not have knowingly and conceivably surrendered something that was not theirs to give (MNCFN, n.d.). Craft (2014a) emphasizes that the language in the treaties must be understood within the context of the cultural intent. Simpson (2011) as part of her reconnection with her Indigenous ancestors regards all of creation as interconnected and Indigenous peoples have unique and reciprocal relationships with water. “Water is the lifeblood of the land” (Walkem, 2007, p. 311) and “water nourishes and purifies Mother Earth” (Benton-Banai, 2010, p. 2). Indigenous peoples have a deep spiritual relationship

12 It is listed as a Special Claim on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) which according to The Westway Law Group (2018) is a “process by which Métis and non-status First Nations can submit claims to the Government of Canada relating to their Indigenous rights, including rights to self- determination or to title” (para. 5). First Nations usually submit Specific Claims or Comprehensive Land Claims. However, Specific Claims “deal with past wrongs against First Nations. These claims (made by First Nations against the Government of Canada) relate to the administration of land and other First Nations assets and to the fulfilment of historic treaties and other agreements” (Government of Canada, 2020a, section 3). Comprehensive Claims or modern treaties “deal with the unfinished business of treaty-making in Canada. These claims generally arise in areas of Canada where Aboriginal land rights have not been dealt with by treaty or through other legal means. In these areas, forward-looking agreements (also called ‘modern treaties’) are negotiated between the Aboriginal group, Canada and the province or territory” (Government of Canada, 2015a, para.1).

5

with water as life and specifically Indigenous women see it as their responsibility to protect the water (Cave and McKay, 2016).

Through the Water Claim, MCFN expects the Government of Canada to engage with them as a First Nations and uphold its 2011 Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult with Aboriginal Peoples “where it contemplates decisions or actions that may adversely impact either asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights” (Holmes and Associates, 2015, p. 3). Examples of engagements for the consultation and accommodation processes include “discussion groups and formal dialogue, sharing knowledge and seeking input on activities such as policy, legislation, program development, or renewal” (Government of Canada, 2011, p. 61). The Water Claim however goes beyond the Crown’s obligation to consult and accommodate because MCFN is claiming ‘ownership13’ of water including the waterbeds, floodplains and resources in water within MCFN treaty lands and territory (MCFN, n.d.- a).

In response to the Water Claim, a MCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (herein referred to as the Water Committee) was constituted by Chief and Council. It was mandated to consult and engage with MCFN members14 about the Water Claim and its envisaged outcomes (personal communication, Water Committee, April 2017). Given the Water Committee’s mandate, and the academic research interest to contribute to knowledge on Indigenizing water governance, a mutually beneficial research project emerged: Development of Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory. The project’s mandate was to create a MCFN Water Framework, as a partial resolution to MCFN’s Water Claim,

13 The meaning of ownership was explored through this research. 14 MCFN was aware that the Canadian government may require them to show that their members had been consulted on the Water Claim because this was part of the current requirements by the Government of Canada for the Aboriginal Title Claims process (Kim Fullerton, personal communication, November 2018). 6

that was representative of members’ values, worldviews, needs and aspirations. The development of the Water Framework was therefore primarily bounded to engagement with the MCFN community to relate community perspectives on how members value water, what the Water Claim means to them and what would they want to see from the Water Claim.

Excluded from this doctoral study were the procedural aspects of the Water Claim which were outside of the Water Committee’s mandate. Also excluded were the legal, economic, political and environmental parameters of Canadian water governance within MCFN’s treaty lands and territory, to contain the research focus to be feasible within the timeframe of a doctoral degree. An exception was made for consultations with local water authorities on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory, as a start, to explore opportunities for implementing the Water Framework.

Research Question and Objectives This research addresses the question: How can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework? Five primary research objectives guided this community- engaged research: 1. To identify MCFN water values and to explore their relationships to historical and contemporary contexts shaping them; 2. To identify the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN members and to relate these meanings to MCFN members’ water values as shaped by historical and contemporary contexts; 3. To develop a conceptual MCFN Water Framework based on the meanings of the Water Claim, and to explore possible opportunities, barriers, and challenges for the Water Framework’s implementation; 4. To examine western constructs of social justice and to deconstruct social justice from MCFN ways of knowing, being and doing; and

7

5. To deconstruct the concept of western water governance based on MCFN’s Water Framework and to relate how MCFN’s Water Framework contributes to Indigenizing water governance within their treaty lands and territory.

Thesis Organization The thesis is structured into eight chapters including this introductory chapter. Chapter 2 provides a literature review to develop a conceptual framework that guided answering the research. Chapter 3 explains the MCFN research collaboration and MCFN’s context for the research study. Chapter 4 discusses the researcher positionality of the doctoral student, explains the emergent research methodology based on context, and describes the multiple research methods employed. Chapter 5 reports on MCFN’s water values and their relationships to historical and contemporary contexts shaping them. Chapter 6 explains the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN members and relates these meanings to MCFN members’ water values as shaped by historical and contemporary contexts. Chapter 7 presents the MCFN Water Framework; relates how MCFN’s Water Framework supports a deconstruction of western water governance to Indigenize water governance within their treaty lands and territory; decolonizes western framings of social justice from MCFN’s agency; and analysis potential opportunities, barriers and challenges for implementing MCFN’ Water Framework. Chapter 8 summarizes the conclusions; presents the main research contributions; and deliberates on the research strengths and challenges, future research opportunities, and self-reflections in the research.

Notes on Terminology ‘Aboriginal’ is mainly used in response to Canadian law, policies and structures. Deconstruct is used to refer to decolonizing western knowledge (Simpson, 2004). Derrida (1976) coined the term in the context of the relationship between text and meaning. In applying the term to the relationship between justice and law, Turner (2016) says it is about interrogating the relationship between the concept and meaning and formulating alternatives to the dominant meaning in a system of difference.

8

Indigenous, Indigenous peoples, and peoples who are Indigenous in Canada are interchangeably used to be inclusive of Indigenous identities as: socio-political entities, socio-relational, and collectives for social-political-economic movements. Indigenous community or communities are used to signify the idea of ‘group belonging’. The concept of community itself is recognized as a social construct which is co-created between personal and community identities (Wiesenfeld, 1996). Indigenize is used to mean from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing15. MCFN is used to be inclusive of MCFN Band members.

15 The definition and use of the term Indigenize are further discussed under section 2.2. 9

2 Literature Review This chapter includes a review of six key literature areas, as related to concepts in the overarching research question ‘How can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework?’ and within the context of Canada where the research was undertaken. These key areas include: 1) governance and water; 2) Indigenous identities; 3) Indigenous peoples in Canada; 4) Canadian water governance and Indigenous peoples in Canada; 5) Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights; and 6) social justice. Through this review, a conceptual framework is developed that was used to guide answering the overall research question in the context of developing a MCFN Water Framework.

Governance and Water First Nations’ governance in Canada follows multiple models, either as separate or mixed forms of: traditional systems with hereditary Chiefs responsible to their territories and/or elected Chief and Council to oversee their reserve lands (Lightfoot, 2019). As such, Indigenous peoples are operating in imposed and adapted governance systems that may not be their own through colonial structures and processes (Watts, 2018). The elected Chief and Band Council system operating under the Indian Act (1876)16, adopts an Eurocentric electoral process, which forces First Nations to elect their own government structures but which are accountable to the Canadian federal government (Indian Act, 1876, clauses 61 and 62). First Nations can also opt for self-governance which is practiced under the Canadian system:

16 The Indian Act (1876), a constitutional document, pertains to First Nation rights inclusive of status, bands, reserve lands, and enfranchisement. It is a brutally paternalistic and oppressive piece of legislation to control and eliminate First Nations (RCAP, 1996). The controls of this Act apply to First Nations political, social and cultural practices and these controls although amended over time e.g., the 1951 revisions to reduce federal authority, expropriation power, and prohibition of cultural practices; and Bill C-31 in 1985 to remove the gender bias, remain intrusive (RCAP, 1996). Even though this Act is a highly controversial and abusive legislation, First Nations resist its abolishment because 1) it is a symbol of Canada’s embarrassment and 2) it is indicative that First Nations have distinctive rights (RCAP, 1996).

10

First Nations can make their own laws and policies and have decision-making

power in a broad range of matters. This includes matters internal to their

communities and integral to their cultures and traditions. Under self-government,

First Nations move out from under the Indian Act and chart their own course toward

a brighter future. (Government of Canada, 2020b, para. 12)

First Nations interpret self-governance though as an “inherent right, pre-existing in Aboriginal occupation and government of the land prior to European settlement” (Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, 2015a, para. 4). Self-governance as an inherent Indigenous governance system is practiced on a spectrum from the old ways (traditional system) to adapting to modern ways (Von der Porten, 2012). Ladner (2003) explains that in: Indigenous thought, governance is the way in which peoples live best together

[and]/or how peoples have structured their society in relationship to the natural

world. It is an expression of how they see themselves fitting in that world as a part

of the circle of life, not as superior beings who claim dominion over other species

and other humans. (p. 125)

Traditional governance systems, in First Nations, are based on a clan system to order intra and inter-social relations (McGuire, 2008; Craft, 2017a). According to Watts (2013) society is inclusive of all of creation including non-human beings who are considered to be important members. Humans in society therefore organized themselves according to their relationships with these important non-human beings which form the basis of the clan system (Watts, 2013).

11

The clan system is an egalitarian political organization and restorative justice system (McGuire, 2008). It is Indigenous constitutional order (Ladner, 2006) bestowed by the Creator (Gibbons, 2006; McGuire, 2008). For First Nations, from Anishinaabe understandings, “nindoodem (clan) identities” (Bohaker, 2010, p. 11) provide social and family ties, and each clan has different physical responsibilities17 and are given separate spiritual gifts18 from the Creator (McGuire, 2008).

The clan system responds to the realities and needs of a peoples’ territory (Ladner, 2006); and operate through relationships that are respectful, consensual and inclusive to all (Ladner, 2006; Watts, 2018). This Indigenous system is embedded in “natural laws” (p. 71) based on relationships and interconnectedness for the co-existence between all of creation for a sustained future (McGregor, 2015). Natural laws derived from creation stories are grounded in “stewardship principles of acknowledgement, accomplishment, accountability and approbation” (Borrows, 2010, p. 79). Natural laws should govern our behaviour towards water (McGregor, 2015) within reciprocal (Kimmerer, 2013) and co- existence relationships (Borrows, 1997a). Simpson (2011) relates this as mino- bimaadiziwin (see p. 65 for further discussion) for living the good life which Craft (2015; 2017a) connects with our collective well-being.

Arsenault et al. (2018), drawing from multiple contexts, describe this relationship as water relations in terms of the spiritual and cultural identities and connections to water which emphasize “interdependency, reciprocity, respectful conduct, and the aliveness of water”

17 The crane and loon clans play the balancing leadership roles; the fish clan, in the best interest of the people, has the dispute resolution role; the bear clan has peacekeeping and healing roles; the martin clan are the defenders and warriors; the bird clan maintains spirituality; and the deer clan instills calmness and peace (McGuire, 2008). 18 In Ojibway teachings, the gifts that we have are our “five basic human senses, intuition; and seeing into the future” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

12

(p. 2). McGregor (2015) explains that for Anishinaabe, and especially for women water is about “notions of love, mutual respect and responsibility towards water” (p. 71). Daigle (2018), a Cree scholar, similarly articulates that our relationship to water (nipi in Cree) is our kin and we have a responsibility to care for water according to our Indigenous laws. Anderson et al. (2013) provide further insights into the centrality of water in the lives of Indigenous women. They relay through conversations with Indigenous women that water gives life, water is life and spirit, and water is healing and in return through a reciprocal relationship we have a responsibility to water and to be thankful to water for being and giving life (Anderson et al., 2013). Similarly, McGregor (2014) relates that for Anishinaabe peoples “water is life in that water is life itself” (p. 501). As an Indigenous scholar, person, woman, and in all her identities, she expresses that: Indigenous peoples have responsibilities and obligations to protect water. These

responsibilities extend to all of Creation, the spirit world, the ancestors and those

yet to come; and all must be considered when contemplating actions that will affect

water. Such considerations are an essential part of behaving ethically with respect

to water. (McGregor, 2014, p. 501)

Longboat (2015) re-emphasizes this ethical and reciprocal relationship by reporting that Anishinaabe knowledge of water management: …tells us that water security or the delicate balance between sustainable use and

resource protection is ultimately achieved when water institutions that structure our

relationship with nature are designed to support the security of water for Mother

Earth. If we respect Mother Earth to fulfill her role, in turn her natural character will

provide secure water for all of creation. (p. 12)

13

McGregor (2015) and Anderson et al. (2013) stress that Indigenous women understand their role in caring for our water which is a shared responsibility we have to ourselves now as much as to our future generations. They understand that if they cannot care for our waters, that they will not have physical, social, cultural, and spiritual sustainability (Anderson et al., 2013). These responsibilities are also adeptly transcribed by Hallenbeck (2017) in stories by Dorothy Christian in which she voices her water ethics morals: When I think about ethics, for me it’s a right relationship with the water. For me to

be in right relationship with the water is to be sure that I am taking care of it, as it

will take care of me” (Water Ethics, minute 1:04). Engaging in participatory water

ethics is about visiting where the water we drink comes from, understanding its

flow, and acknowledging how it has been cared for. (p. 316)

These relationships are what guide Indigenous principles for the care, protection, and respect of water according to natural laws done through ceremony, song, and prayer (Arsenault et al., 2018). McGregor (2014) says that it is more than just “knowing but actually doing, being and acting responsibly towards water” (p 495) and all of creation must act respectfully and ethically towards each other (McGregor, 2009).

Yazzie and Baldy (2018), from an Indigenous feminism lens, call for radical relationality, which advocates for resistance and struggles against ongoing colonialism that violates Indigenous peoples’ relationships to the land and water for mino-bimaadiziwin. Radical relationality is intersectional between critical consciousness19 as presented by Smith (2012) to discard colonial ways and embrace relational Indigenous ontologies; and participation in liberation movements against hegemonic structures (Yazzie and Baldy,

19 i.e., decolonization “must occur in our own minds” (Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird, 2005, p. 2; Dei and Jaimungal, 2018). 14

2018). Hence radical relationality is intersectionally healing and liberating (Yazzie and Baldy, 2018).

In contrast to Indigenous water relations, colonial governance from western perspectives espouses authority (United Nations Development Program, 1997)20 in participatory and collaborative systems (Hania, 2013)21. They are entrenched in the protection of private property and individual rights (Craft, 2015; 2017a). Ladner (2003) maintains that western governance is founded on ideologies of superior human beings who claimed dominion over the earth and the right to rule other forms of creation. This line of western governance thinking is adopted in the context of water governance definitions (Table 2.1.).

Table 2.1: Water governance definitions by Bakker (2003), Rogers and Hall (2003) and OECD (2015) Source Water governance definitions Bakker (2003) “The range of political, organizational and administrative processes through which communities articulate their interests, their input is absorbed, decisions are made and implemented, and decision makers are held accountable in the development and management of water resources and delivery of water services” (p. 4). Rogers and Hall “The range of political, social, economic and administrative systems (2003) that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society” (p. 7). 2015 “Water governance encompasses political, institutional, and Organization for administrative rules, practices, and processes (formal and informal) Economic Co- through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders operations and can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, Development and decision-makers are held accountable in the management of (OECD) water resources and the delivery of water services” (p. 5).

20 “The exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels...it comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences” (The United Nation’s Development Program, 1997, p. 12). 21 Hania (2013), drawing from the work of Lobel, describes governance as “A socially constructed participatory activity that relies upon the collaborative and deliberative engagement of state and non-state actors with a responsive, dynamic and iterative policy-making process. It moves away from a prescriptive, command and control regulatory regime” (p. 184). 15

Three components emerge from these definitions: 1) water governance is an interacting system of the institutional, political, economic, social, and administrative rules and participatory and collaborative processes and practices; 2) Human beings make accountable decisions over water; and 3) Water is regarded as a resource for human use (adapted from Bakker, 2003; Rogers and Hall, 2003; OECD, 2015). These latter two components are where western and traditional Indigenous governance thoughts diverge.

In expanding on water governance as an interacting system, systems thinking from western perspectives is readily accepted “for studying complexity, dynamics and adaptation in various areas of society” and it emerged in the early 1900s as criticisms of the reductionist approach22 (Van der Heijden, 2020, para. 19). The renowned systems- thinking approach of Meadows (2008), drawn from multiple-disciplines and thinkers, describes a system as “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. Hence a system consists of elements, interconnectedness and a function or purpose” (Meadow, 2008, p. 11). The elements, both tangibles and intangibles, constitute the stocks i.e., “the present memory of the history of changing flows within the system” (Meadow, 2008, p. 18). The flows are the interconnected relationships that “allow one part of the system to respond to what is happening in another part” (Meadow, 2008, p. 13). A feedback loop is “formed when changes in a stock affect the flows into or out of that same stock” (Meadow, 2008, p. 28) whilst a reinforcing feedback loop “enhances whatever direction of change is imposed on it” (Meadow, 2008, p. 31).

Meadow’s systems thinking approach can be adopted to water governance to understand how the water governance components interconnect and interact. For this thesis, it is suggested that in western systems, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, the stocks in the system

22 “Reductionism is applied to understanding system complexity by reducing parts and then reconstructing them to lead to new insights (Hantula, 2018). 16

are represented by the institutions23 (i.e., laws, policies, rules, structures), the economic systems, political authority, societal interests and environmental parameters; 2) the flows in the system are the processes and practices, as well as the values and ideologies represented as stakeholder interests. Together these interconnected stocks and flows shape the decisions about water as a resource i.e., the purpose of the system (adapted from Bakker’s, 2003; Rogers and Hall, 2003; OECD, 2015 water governance definitions). Feedback and reinforcement loops, although part of the system, are dependent on the context and nature of the system. An example of a feedback loop is the policy process through development, practice, evaluation and refinement. An example of reinforcement loop is when values of economic efficiency are to the detriment of the environment.

Western systems are assumed to be working in balance if the decisions align to their purpose (Meadows, 2008).

23 Hassenforder and Barone (2018) define institutions “as normative and cognitive frames, formal or informal, which concern actors when they are engaged in collective action” (p. 1). They describe “normative frames as the rules, norms and procedures” whilst “cognitive frames include identity, culture, representations and beliefs” (Hassenforder and Barone, 2018, p. 7). They claim that these frames are self- perpetuated through “social and political, self-maintained and routinized, mechanisms” (Hassenforder and Barone, 2018, p. 7).

17

Figure 2.1: Western water governance as a system (adapted from Meadows, 2008 system’s thinking). The eight outer segments represent the stocks in the system. The white shape in the middle is superimposed on the outer segments to illustrate the interacting flows which are centered around the system’s purpose including accountability. Feedback and reinforcement loops are placed in the lower right corner because of their context specificity.

The purpose of framing western water governance as a system in this thesis was to understand that the system operates as a whole and that we need to strategically understand what would drive change. This is in line with Foster-Fishman et al. (2007), who state that for change, we must target the parts of the system that can transform the system as a whole. Meadows (2008) asserts that a system may respond considerably towards the desired state if the change intervention occurs at the interconnection (i.e., flows) between stocks, or if the function or purpose of the system is inherently altered by the system actors. Therefore, to Indigenize western water governance, the change intervention has to occur at the flows which, in this system as per Figure 2.1, are values,

18

ideologies, processes, and practices. The intervention could also involve system actors altering the system’s purpose.

Brisbois and de Loë, (2016) argue that stakeholder interests drive the purpose of western water governance and that stakeholders’ interests in water governance are controlled by inclusion and exclusion based on power dynamics. Perreault, (2014) claims that the role of power and rights is political; and Mitchell (2003) asserts that “rights are at once a means of organizing power, a means of contesting power, and a means of adjudicating power, and these three roles are frequently in conflict” (p. 22). These competing power claims are embedded in varying values (Roncoli et al., 2016). Hence, it is argued in this thesis, that values are the underlying drivers of both power and rights. As shown in Figure 2.1. values are identified as flows in the system and as affirmed by Meadows (2008); effective change interventions should focus on the flows in the system. Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) characterize values as: 1) internalized beliefs; 2) desirable goals; 3) guiding principles rather than specifics; 4) shaping choices; and 5) setting priorities.

Values in western water governance regard water as a resource (Bradford et al., 2016; Castleden et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2018; Wilson and Inkster, 2018) ranging from water as an economic good underpinned by individualism within neoliberalism/liberal capitalism to water as a public good24 (Perreault, 2014) from a rights-based collective ideology (Le Grand, 2003).

In conclusion, it is important to understand that water governance is driven by values which represents the first conceptual tenet. Water governance is shaped by competing values of water as a resource in western governance (Bradford et al., 2016; Castleden et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2018; Wilson and Inkster, 2018) and values of

24 which is defined by White (2015) as both “non-rival and non-excludable” (para. 17). 19

“interdependency, reciprocity, respectful conduct, and the aliveness of water” (Arsenault et al., 2018, p. 2) within natural laws in traditional Indigenous water governance (McGregor, 2015). Indigenous peoples are operating in imposed and adapted systems (Watts, 2018). In the next sections, questions are unpacked around ‘Who are Indigenous peoples and who are Indigenous peoples in Canada’? Both questions are necessary questions to explore because values relate to both personal and social identities (Hitlin, 2003).

Indigenous Identities The term ‘Indigenous’ remains complex and multi-faceted (Goodall, 2008; Trigger and Dalley, 2010). Two separate yet independently overlapping constructions by Benjamin (2017) and Frideres (2008) succinctly synthesize three multi-facets of ‘Indigenous’. Benjamin (2017) constructs the term as: 1) Indigenous peoples; 2) Indigeny and 3) Indigenism. Indigenous peoples refer to socio-political entities embedded in ethnicity and linked to genealogy (Benjamin, 2017); Indigeny is used as social-relational identities (Benjamin, 2017 and also see Garcia, 2008; Trigger and Dalley, 2010; Postero, 2013); and Indigenism is used when Indigenous peoples are resisting external structural forces for autonomy (Benjamin, 2017 and also see Quijano, 2000; Garcia, 2008; Andolina, 2012; and Jones, 2012). Frideres’ (2008) theorizations on Indigenous suggests three general theories of nested identity formation. First, Frideres (2008), drawing from discourses on conscious liberation struggles for cultural restoration and sovereignty (Fanon, 1963), suggests that Indigenous identity is psychiatric/psychoanalytical, producing a self- affirming culture in resistance to domination by colonial forces. Second, Frideres (2008), drawing from the works of Clifford Geertz on primordialism25, suggests that Indigenous identity is constructed through social bonding26 from sharing commonalities e.g., space,

25 Geertz (2001) defines primordialism as blood connection as well as been born into and following a particular culture inclusive of religion, language and social practices. 26 Hirshi’s (1969) social control theory in the context of delinquency characterizes social bonding as attachment to others, commitment to conform, involvement in conventional activities, and belief in social norms. 20

culture, ancestors. Third, Frideres (2008), drawing from the works of Goffman (1959) on the personality-interaction-society continuum, Yancey et al., (1976) on emergent ethnicity as social interactions; and Gans (1991) on symbolic ethnicity, relates that Indigenous identity is constructed from symbolic interaction. Social bonding such as social interactions and communication making identity formation constructed in space and time i.e., context (Frideres, 2008). In symbolic interaction, individual identity is related to the larger group i.e., it is “actively shaped and reshaped” (Frideres, 2008, p. 316) and it is not a property of individuals but of social relationships and institutional structures.

Benjamin’s (2017) and Frideres’ (2008) independent constructions can be said to overlap as follows. First, Benjamin’s (2017) construct on Indigenism and Frideres’ (2008) construct on Indigenous as psychiatric/psychoanalytical both position Indigenous as resistance to colonial dominant forces for Indigenous self-determination. Second, both Benjamin’s construct of Indigenous peoples as a socio-political entity and Frideres’ (2008) reflections that Indigenous identity is formed through social bonding from sharing commonalities, are positioned within Indigenous peoples as physical entities. Third, Benjamin’s (2017) term of Indigeny relating to socio-cultural identities and Frideres’ (2008) suggestion that Indigenous identity is formed through symbolic interaction in relation to the larger group, overlap because they both recognize that Indigenous identity is social relational embedded in culture.

The Indigenous constructs by Benjamin (2017) and Frideres (2008) are now discussed in detail using the terms proposed by Benjamin (2017), Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism, because these terms phonetically include/relate to Indigenous. A description of Indigenous peoples as a socio-political entity is provided, and next criticisms on this view are presented which led to the emergence of Indigeny and Indigenism constructs as social-relational identities and resistance movements against structural forces respectively. This is important because it will show how Indigenous constructs have co-

21

evolved in relation to Indigenous peoples’ strives for cultural recognition and struggles against marginalization.

The United Nations (U.N.), define and bound Indigenous peoples in terms of a socio- political entity: Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of

relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural,

economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant

societies in which they live. Despite their cultural differences, Indigenous peoples

from around the world share common problems related to the protection of their

rights as distinct peoples. (U.N., n.d.-a, para. 1)

Indigenous peoples have sought recognition of their identities, way of life and their

right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources for years, yet throughout

history, their rights have always been violated. Indigenous peoples today, are

arguably among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of people in the

world. The international community now recognizes that special measures are

required to protect their rights and maintain their distinct cultures and way of life.

(U.N., n.d.-a, para. 2)

Four aspects emerge from the U.N.’s definition of Indigenous peoples: 1) peoples with genealogical descent to prior occupancy peoples; 2) peoples who practice preserved and intact customs and traditions of their ancestors; 3) peoples reduced to subserviency or

22

unequal power relations by people with different worldviews; and 4) peoples embedded in controlling external structures other than their own.

The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) defines Indigenous peoples in a way that alludes to Indigenous as a way of living or/and genealogy: (a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic

conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and

whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or

by special laws or regulations;

(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account

of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a

geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or

colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective

of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and

political institutions. (Article 1, para 1)

Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental

criterion or determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention

apply. (Article 1, para 2)

The World Bank (2020) expands on the U.N.’s and ILO’s definitions of Indigenous peoples by including: Indigenous Peoples are distinct social and cultural groups that share collective

ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from

23

which they have been displaced. The land and natural resources on which they

depend are inextricably linked to their identities, cultures, livelihoods, as well as

their physical and spiritual well-being. (World Bank, 2020, para. 1)

The U.N., ILO and World Bank definitions or attempts to characterize Indigenous peoples are much debated in academic and political spaces. The notion of prior occupancy is criticized in terms of diaspora which contests claims of firstness and identity rootedness (Béteille, 1998; Clifford, 2007; Schein, 2007). However, Karlsson (2001) maintains that prior occupancy should not be to taken too literally and Stavenhagen (1994) claims that what is more important is that Indigenous peoples should be seen as "the descendants of the peoples that occupied a given territory when it was invaded, conquered or colonized by a foreign power or population" (p. 15).

Ingold (2000) asserts that genealogical descent is derived from anthropological and colonial value systems which according to Canessa (2008) is embedded in racialism. The question is whether people who share bloodlines will also have a shared identity and descent (Canessa, 2008). A shared descent is inherited in different ways through shared lived experiences, ways of life, traditions and beliefs, and “political positions in terms of historical injustice” (Canessa, 2008, p. 355). Furthermore, the concept of ethnic homogeneity is unrealistic given historical and contemporary migration and mixing (Karlsson, 2001).

With the U.N.’s position on Indigenous peoples’ entitlements, Mamdani (2001) says that it now converts ethnicity into a political identity. Indigenous becomes an issue of rights albeit within a political system designed by the colonial/settler (Mamdani, 2001). This is where Indigenous becomes a response to external structural forces, or Indigenism as defined by Benjamin (2017). So, what does Indigenism and rights entail? Jones (2012)

24

argues, using Taylor et al.’s (1994) paper on the Politics of Recognition as a point of departure, that Indigenism is about group identities and not individualism. He calls it a “politics of difference” whereby “an individual’s identity is maintained by protecting the group’s culture” (Jones, 2012, p. 626). He advocates for a “human rights discourse which recognizes Indigenous peoples who also identify themselves by reference to identities pre-dating historical encroachment by other groups, and the ensuing histories that have challenged their cultural survival and self-determination as distinct people” (Jones, 2012, p. 626). Jones (2012) goes further and claims that Indigenism movements are lobbying for political, economic and social rights in their quest for cultural recognition and justice within contemporary locations given that notions of preserved premodern cultures are archaic. De la Cadena and Starn (2007, p. 11) argue that “Indigenous identities are a process – a matter of becoming, not a fixed state of being’’. Nothing is static, traditions are dynamic in relation to their past and future (Mamdani, 2001) thus making Indigenous identifies relational and emergent in response to an ever-evolving world (Postero, 2013).

Quijano (2000) and Jones (2012) maintain that post-colonial systems continue to reproduce social differences for Indigenous peoples in terms of the political-economy. Escobar (2008) contends that alternatives to the dominant discourses of modernity especially economic approaches such as neoliberalism must be recognized. Andolina (2012) maintains that Indigenous movements can only flourish if systems transform away from orthodox neoliberalism towards systems of social neoliberalism. Corntassel and Bryce (2012) call for moving away from a rights-based discourse towards cultural responsibilities. Sen (1999) on the other hand promotes building social capital and he maintains that economic growth is not the defining end of development but rather capabilities27 which he says resonate better with non-Western cultures and perceptions of development.

27 “power to do something” and “to be responsible and accountable for the things emanating from this power” (Sen, 2009, p. 19). 25

Both Escobar (2008) and Dei and Jaimungal (2018) call for a decolonization that fosters transformative change. Dei and Jaimungal (2018) reinforce that hegemonic practices need to be dismantled and that colonial supremacy needs to be resisted. Indigenous identity must be a process where Indigenous peoples “define their own collective agenda for a new future” and it seeks an anti-colonial lens for emancipatory action-orientated engagements against imperialism (Dei and Jaimungal, 2018, p. 1).

Coulthard (2014) in support of the Indigenous peoples’ calls for a resurgence (i.e., social- relational identity, termed Indigeny by Benjamin, 2017), positions Indigenous political- economies within relationships to the land. Sylvain (2002) says that forced disenfranchisement from the land, political-economy forces as well as assimilation may have blurred Indigenous peoples’ relationship to the land. Indigenous political-economies could be achieved through Indigenous peoples reconnecting with land-based knowledge and sustainable practices for eventual economic self-sufficiency and independence within systems of traditional governance (Coulthard, 2014). This will require Indigenous peoples and allies to dismantle current institutional, political, economic and social blockages in the colonial system through ongoing activism and simultaneously construct alternative pathways indicative of Indigenous economies (Coulthard, 2014).

Lewallen (2003) argues for a cultural relationship where Indigenous worldviews of holism and collectivism versus western values of appropriation and individualism are what make ‘Indigeny’ (Lewallen, 2003). Dei and Jaimungal (2018) explain that land is “social, physical, and cultural, as well as spiritual” (p. 5). In these relationships, Indigeny defines a sense of identity manifested from Earth’s teachings (Dei and Jaimungal, 2018). Simpson (2014) relates that Indigeny is relational and based on principles of “reciprocity, humility, honesty and respect with all of creation” (p. 10) including “landforms, elements, plants, animals, spirits, sounds, thoughts, feelings, energies and all of the emergent systems, ecologies and networks that connect these elements” (p. 15). In addition,

26

Indigeny stresses “community building, appreciation, sharing, and social responsibility” (Dei and Jaimungal, 2018, p. 2).

Being able to live their own ways of knowing, being and doing represent the core struggles of Indigeny (Canessa, 2008). Indigenous peoples are continually embedded in controlling external structures other than their own which is attributed to the neocolonial state’s ongoing sovereign perception of itself in relation to Indigeny (Canessa, 2008). Karlsson (2001) working in India states that “self-determination is the driving force and goal of most contemporary Indigenous peoples’ movements” (p. 16). There is a distinction though between self-determination and self-governance - the former being advocated for by the U.N. Gordon (2007) explains that self-governance is “existent within and under the sovereignty28 of a larger political body” whereas self-determination “exists on par with the sovereignty29 of other political bodies” (p. 4). Wilson (2014) criticizes the role of present state sovereignty for Indigenous peoples stating that it perpetuates colonial relations and it impedes the recognition of Indigeny alternatives.

So, what makes a ‘self-determining people a nation’? Karlsson (2001) argues that it is if “a sufficient number of people regard themselves as a people-nation and in some ways, act according to that idea” (p. 34). The core here, he says, is the “collective selves” within “pluri-ethnic, multinational, or federative political structure” (Karlsson, 2001, p. 35). Castells (1997) within an information-age context and Appadurai (1996) on transnational anthropology advocate for a post-nationalist world or as Hannerz (1996) puts it - perhaps an imagined community. Bauman (1998) maintains though that despite increasing globalization, emphasis is placed more on the territorial principle which necessitates rather than diminishes the role of people nations. Arguably, this makes Indigenous peoples’ claims for nationhood even more relevant.

28 Sovereignty is used here to mean supreme power (Merriam-Webster dictionary) i.e., Crown sovereignty 29 Sovereignty is used here to mean controlling influence and autonomy (Merriam-Webster dictionary) i.e., Indigenous sovereignty 27

These above multi-lens debates have led to the push for self-identification of Indigenous as adopted by Article 33 in UNDRIP (2007). Burger (1990) indicates that this criterion is self-advocated by Indigenous peoples who “claim the right to define what is meant by Indigenous, and to be recognized as such by others” (pp. 16-17). Garcia (2008) points out that there are “many ways of knowing and practicing Indigeny” (p. 224) encountered on a daily basis. Perhaps, according to Kingsbury (1998) the best way forward is to adopt a constructivist approach to allow for flexibility. Indigenous pitched within the ambit of international criteria should be interpreted through “the dynamic processes of negotiation, politics, legal analysis, institutional decision making and social interactions” (Kingsbury, 1998, p. 457) to construct context specific meanings.

In conclusion, what is important to note is that the three constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism although distinct from each other as summarized in Table 2.2., interact and should be viewed as dynamic in space, time and the social (Postero, 2013). Hence, the call for peoples to self-identify as Indigenous (Burger, 1990; Kingsbury, 1998; Garcia, 2008; Postero, 2013).

Table 2.2: Connections between the three main Indigenous constructs to terms used by Benjamin (2017) and Frideres (2008). Indigenous Constructs Term used by Term used by Benjamin (2017) Frideres (2008) Socio-political entities: genealogy linked to prior Indigenous Primordialism occupancy, cultural distinctiveness derived from peoples their ancestors including relationships with the land, and peoples who have been and remain forcefully colonized (U.N. (n.d.-a), ILO (1989), World Bank, 2020). Social-relational identities: principles of Indigeny Symbolic reciprocity with all of creation (Simpson, 2014) interaction and collectivism (Lewallen, 2003, Dei and Jaimungal, 2018, p 2). Mobilizations for self-determination against Indigenism Psychiatric/Psy colonial hegemonies of political, economic and choanalytical social institutional forces (Escobar, 2008; Dei and Jaimungal, 2018)

28

Indigenizing is used in this thesis to mean from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (see footnotes 3, 4 and 5, p. 1). In this thesis, from here on, it is used to be inclusive of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism identities and the terms will be used where applicable. The term Indigenize has been applied to “recognize the validity of Indigenous worldviews, knowledge and perspectives as equal to other views”, and to identify opportunities for Indigenous peoples to express their own ways of “knowing and doing” (Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, 2017, para. 7). Arrows (2019) expands on this definition by saying that to Indigenize promotes Indigenous sovereignty by bringing forth Indigenous worldview. From another perspective, Hogan and McCracken (2016) describe Indigenization as the “integration of Indigenous cultures, heritage, and knowledge” (para. 4). The term decolonize has also been used as a way to advocate for Indigenous peoples to express their own ways of knowing and doing (Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 2012; Tuck and Yang, 2012; Datta, 2018; McGregor, 2018b). Rice (2016) refers to it as the “revalorization, recognition, and re-establishment of Indigenous cultures, traditions, and values within the institutions, rules, and arrangements that govern society” (p. 223). From an anti-colonial lens, decolonization is viewed as “open defiance, an outright opposition, and a clear declaration of an ‘against’ stance toward colonization” (Dei and Jaimungal, 2018, p. 2). It is about transforming the dominant institutional arrangements that govern society (Dei and Jaimungal, 2018). Hence, the key difference between Indigenize and decolonize is that decolonize is mainly used to signify the struggles against how Canada’s colonial history disempowered Indigenous peoples, and how it continues to repress Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty (Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, 2017). Decolonization calls for Indigenizing the processes that perpetuate colonial structures (Simpson, 2017; McGregor, 2018b) which Yazzie and Baldy (2018) say starts with conscientization but needs dynamic and radical struggles. Hill (2012) criticizes calls to always Indigenize when used in ways to inform and educate non-Indigenous peoples on Indigenous ways, which she claims are futile if we do not first decolonize the systems. Gaudry and Lorenz’s (2018) three-part conceptual model to Indigenization, based on their study in the higher education sector with Indigenous academics, attempts to address this criticism by Hill (2012). Their model calls for 1) decolonial Indigenization requiring the dismantling of current colonial dominant systems for new systems which equally respect

29

Indigenous and colonial systems; 2) Indigenous inclusion where Indigenous peoples are specifically targeted to be included in the current colonial systems; and 3) reconciliation Indigenization where both Indigenous and colonial systems can be negotiated for a common ground (Gaudry and Lorenz, 2018). This research purposefully adopted the word Indigenize in the overarching research question to emphasize Indigenous sovereignty. It acknowledged though that decolonization and Indigenization are reinforcingly intertwined, and that decolonization is needed for Indigenization to proliferate. Hence either of these terms are used in this thesis, where applicable.

It is critical that we understand the constructs of Indigenous in relation to identity especially given that values relate to identity (Hitlin, 2003) and that water governance is driven by values (tenet 1 of the conceptual framework, section 2.1.). Indigenous peoples in Canada are now discussed.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada Indigenous peoples in Canada are the fastest growing population in Canada (by 42.5% from 2006-2016) with 1.67 million self-identifying as Indigenous of which 44% is youth under the age of 25 (Government of Canada, 2017a). Although the Canadian government groups peoples who are Indigenous in Canada into three distinct socio-political groups, First Nations, Inuit and Métis (Canadian Constitution Act, section 35, 2), Indigenous peoples in Canada continue to advocate for their differences. Frideres (2008), and Dyck and White (2013) locate these differences as plural identities within interweaving historical, social, political, economic, and cultural contexts. Coates (1999) claims that First Nations identity is personal at the individual level, embedded in genealogy and/or cultural acceptance at the band level and for unity and solidarity at the national and international levels. His claims align to the three constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism as summarized in Table 2.2.

30

Watts (2013) understands Indigenous identity from an Anishinaabe (a First Nations) perspective as being shaped in place and time. For her, Indigeny is embedded in unification and a relationship with all of creation through place-thought cosmologies (Watts, 2013, see chapter 4, p. 78). Frideres’ (2008) theorizing on symbolic and primordial, termed Indigeny/Indigenous, claims that symbolic identity is now emerging to a greater extent in peoples who are Indigenous in Canada due to past assimilative and disenfranchisement colonial intentions as well as contemporary urbanization. As an example, Christensen (2012), in her five-year study in Canadian North, contends that Indigeny homelessness transcends the literal (in the material sense) to the spiritual. Historical and contemporary colonial effects “displace people from their land disrupting a sense of belonging and connection to place and detachment from family, the land and independence” (Frideres, 2008, p. 822). A-spatial Indigeny in the form of symbolic expressions is more reflected under these circumstances including in urban-based peoples who are Indigenous in Canada (Frideres, 2008). It helps to alleviate Indigeny homelessness through cultural-rooted expressions (Frideres, 2008).

Many peoples who are Indigenous in Canada also traverse and maneuver through time between the three worlds of Indigeny symbolism, Indigenous primordialism and the dominant Canadian culture (Frideres, 2008). Peoples who are Indigenous in Canada may also not necessarily see themselves as Canadian (Gordon, 2007). Manzano-Munguía (2011) illustrates through an analysis of Aboriginal-related policies that despite aggressive historical legislation30 and interventions31 to assimilate peoples who are Indigenous in Canada as per colonial values, both pre-and post-confederation, the persistence and survival of Indigenous identities prevail.

30 These legislations included the 1763 Royal Proclamation, the Indian Act, Treaties including the Robinson and Douglas Treaties, The Numbered Treaties, and the ongoing Modern Treaties since 1975 (Government of Canada, 2020c) – see chapter 3. 31 i.e., the “residential school system and the reserve system” (Manzano-Munguía, 2011, p. 404). 31

Borrows (2003), through the lenses as related to Indigenism, relates that the Indian Act’s (1876)32 assimilative intentions were incongruent with “Indian ancient teachings and traditions” (p. 259). Through stories told by his grandparents, he knew that ‘Indians’ had not passively accepted the colonial structures and that they used their agency to actively resist these impositions (Borrows, 2003). However dominant colonial laws and bureaucracy impeded their efforts, forcing Indigenous peoples to adhere to colonial legislation such as the Indian Act for their treaty rights to be recognized (Borrows, 2003). Coulthard (2014) explains that despite this, Indigenous peoples have continued to resist “oppressive policies and practices” (p. 4). Of note, three significant activist events occurred in the 1960s and 1970: 1) The strong opposition to Canada’s 1969 White Paper which further attempted to assimilate and deal with the Indian Problem; 2) The recognition of Aboriginal title through the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to uphold the Calder case; and 3) Anti-energy development across Northern Canada protests (Coulthard, 2014). These events fueled and mobilized Indigenism and continued calls for Indigenous self-determination and rights (Coulthard, 2014).

Indigenous peoples in Canada remain to be consulted rather than drivers in Canadian Aboriginal policy design and implementation (Borrows, 2003). Herein though lies the very tension in Canada because Indigenous peoples in Canada continue to unite through Indigenism and claiming rights to self-determination as confirmed in the UNDRIP. Indigenous peoples in Canada are claiming nationhoods (Gordon, 2007). Yet Indigenous claims for nationhoods continue to be undermined by the Canadian government (Brock, 1991; Alcantara and Spicer, 2016). This is evident in Canada’s ongoing paternalistic

32 The Indian Act (1876) identifies who is a registered Indian (i.e., status Indian) and who does not qualify as a registered Indian i.e., a non-status Indian (Sections 6 and 7). Peach (2012) says that there is “uncertainty about the constitutionality of distinctions between Aboriginal peoples made by non-Aboriginal governments” (p. 104).

32

approach to Indigenous peoples’ inherent right of self-government33 in 1995 and more recently the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Alberta’s Mikisew Cree First Nation lawsuit filed in 2013 in favour of Canada34 (Bronskill, 2018). These policies and practices contradict Canada’s 10 principles35 to guide “renewed nation-to-nation, government-to- government, and Inuit-Crown Indigenous relationships” (Government of Canada, 2018a, p. 3) as Canada’s ongoing commitments to reconciliation which are entrenched in section 35 of the Canadian constitution, RCAP and the TRC’s Calls to Actions (Government of Canada, 2018a). McGregor (2014) asserts that contemporary colonialism continues to undermine Indigenous self-determination and the struggle continues for them to live their “relationships, responsibilities and obligations to creation to ensure a sustainable future” (p. 496).

In conclusion, it is argued as the second conceptual tenet that Indigenous peoples’ identities in Canada are plural, dynamic and interwoven within self-identifying constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism (see Table 2.2., p. 28).

33 In response to section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, the federal government launched the Inherent Right to Self-Government Policy in 1995 which is intended to provide a vehicle for ‘Aboriginal peoples’ to achieve self-government arrangements suited to their specific contexts (Government of Canada, 2020b). 34 This court ruling decision allows governments drafting legislation to be released from their duty to consult when drafting legislation even if the legislation impinges on the treaty rights of Indigenous peoples (Bronskill, 2018). 35 These principles, in summary, relate to “1. Indigenous people’s inherent right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government; 2. reconciliation as institutionally entrenched; 3. mutually respectful partnerships based on honouring the Crown; 4. embedding Indigenous self-government within Canada’s evolving political and governance systems; 5. agreements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown as reconciliation efforts; 6. free, prior and informed consent by Indigenous peoples on actions that affect them; 7. promoting mutually beneficial economic and resource development partnership; 8. dealing with infringement of section 35’s Indigenous peoples’ rights 9. Ongoing reconciliation within evolving Indigenous-Crown relationship; and 10. acknowledging, affirming and implementing the cultural and context uniqueness and specificity within First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit” (Government of Canada, 2018a, pp. 5-17). 33

Canadian Water Governance and Indigenous Peoples Canada, confederated in 1867 (Government of Canada, 2015b, para. 28), presently consists of 10 provinces and three territories (Government of Canada, 2017b) with a total population of 37.5 million people in 2019 (Statistics Canada, 2020, Table: 17-10-0005- 01). Canada’s political-economy ranges across provinces and territories from strong neoliberalism to social-markets which are embedded in historical legacies since the 1970s (Evans and Smith, 2015). It is very much embedded in ethics of individualism, rights, property, and ownership (Christie, 2012). The protection of the environment in its own right, is not constitutionally recognized or provided for (Boyd, 2013). It is important to recognize that water governance in Canada is housed within these institutional ethics and settings.

At present, water in Canada is considered a public good (Barlow, 2012). However, growing water challenges have urged sectoral interests, mainly the private sector, to lobby for water to increasingly become a commodity (D’Souza, 2017). Although water is still not a commodity in Canada36, a small number of municipal governments have started to experiment on their water services becoming privatized primarily through public-private partnerships (Bertels and Vredenburg, 2004, Shapiro, 2018) for economic efficiency and delivery effectiveness despite threats to social welfare (Bertels and Vredenburg, 2004). Anti-water privatization activists, like Maude Barlow, argue that “Canada’s freshwater heritage is a commons, a public trust, a public service and a human right, and that it should not be allowed to become a market-based commodity” (Barlow, 2012, p. 3). With Canada as a federation, water is managed through models ranging from jurisdictional responsibilities for federal, provincial and municipal governments to shared responsibilities between them (Government of Canada, 2016) and in “some cases the territories37 and Aboriginal governments under self-government agreements”

36 It could be argued that water bottling (Jaffee and Newman, 2012) and the trading of water licenses in Alberta (Christensen and Lintner, 2007) indirectly renders water as a commodity. 37 through the Devolution Transfer Agreements (Government of Canada, 2013a, b). 34

(Government of Canada, 2016, para. 1). As a result, water governance institutional arrangements in Canada have been described as fragmented which makes it more challenging to manage water (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008, Bakker and Cook, 2011). A summary of institutional water governance arrangements in Canada is provided in Appendix 1.

Nowlan and Bakker (2010) make the case that Canadian governments have realized that sole and shared water governance jurisdictions between the federal and provincial/territories governments and delegated responsibilities to the municipalities are inadequate to address wicked38 and complex water management issues. These issues and increasing expectations for public participation in decision making have led to collaborative water governance (Nowlan and Bakker, 2010)39. Ansell and Gash (2007) state though that not all collaborative governance actions are successful in achieving effective water governance because they are embedded in context and rely on relationship building. Context includes the “nature of prior engagements (adversarial or co-operative), motivations for participation, power dynamics, and the value ethics and culture of the collaborative effort” (Ansell and Gash, 2007, p. 543). Relationship building includes “in-person engagements, trust, commitment and shared understandings” (Ansell and Gash, 2007, p. 543). As an example in Canada, Brisbois and de Loë (2016) show using a cross-study empirical analysis, that power imbalances between state and non- state actors negatively impacted on the intended collaborative outcomes of social and environmental benefits. The reality is that despite strides made towards collaborative water governance in Canada, significant challenges remain inclusive of fragmentation, limited resources, ineffective change management, and conflicting values (Simms and de Loë, 2010).

38 Rittel and Weber (1973) define wicked problems as open-ended problems which in themselves change through implementation. 39 In theory, collaborative water governance encompasses 1. state and non-state (both public and private) actors; 2. collectively engaging in forums; 3. for decision-making that are based on consensus processes; and 4. rescaling the decisions, but not exclusively to a watershed scale (Ansell and Gash, 2007, and Nowlan and Bakker, 2010). 35

In summary, Canada’s democratic political, neoliberal to social-market political- economies, and individualistic social systems create a water ethics of human rights. Water is regarded as a public-good resource to be managed. Water governance in Canada is, in theory, multi-tiered with mixed models of differentiated and shared responsibilities. It has a tendency towards collaborative governance which is not always conducive and effective in managing wicked and complex water management issues. It is within this context that Indigenous peoples in Canada must find their space and place. It is within this context that Indigenous water relations must contend and that Indigenous peoples’ rights to water are viewed within the Canadian system.

Indigenous Peoples’ Responsibilities and Water Rights Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island continue to fulfill their inherent responsibilities to water, mainly outside of formal water governance, and have long histories of activism for the protection of water (McGregor, 2012). These include both resistance movements against colonial systems and resurgence of Indigenous ways. Examples of resistance movements across Turtle Island are: Indigenous activism against the construction of pipelines e.g., the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline and Energy Transfer Partner’s Dakota Access Pipeline (Hinzo, 2018); the Winnemem, Maidu, and Pit River tribes in California resisting state and federal water projects including dams and developments for energy generation (Middleton-Manning et al., 2018); and the Heiltsuk First Nation and other Indigenous communities in British Columbia successes in protecting the fish against commercial fishery (Todd, 2018). Examples of resurgence on Indigenous ways across Turtle Island are: The Honour Water project, as part of a wider action, enables Indigenous women across the world to lead their responsibilities to water by remotely sharing water songs and teachings (LaPensée et al., 2018); California Indians reimagining human relationships to reconnect to land and waters (Sepulveda, 2018); the Mushkegowuk Cree nation in northern Ontario reclaiming their life-ways through community paddles on regional waterways (Daigle, 2018); the Mother Earth Water Walks around the Great Lakes led by the late Grandmother Josephine Mandamin since 2003 to conduct water ceremony and raise collective consciousness to heal the water; a Women’s Water

36

Commission established in 2007 by the Anishinaabe Nation in Ontario; and a Water Declaration by the Chiefs of Ontario in 2008 (McGregor, 2014).

The rights-based discourse to water is affirmed by the 1982 Canadian Constitutional Act (Section 35, part II) and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which recognize and uphold existing 1) Aboriginal rights (Brock, 1991). Aboriginal rights are inclusive of both Aboriginal inherent rights which are those “rights bestowed upon them by the Creator who placed them on Turtle Island and provided them with instruction on how to live” (Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, 2015b, para. 1), and Aboriginal title rights rooted in prior occupation of lands (Craft, 2013); and 2) treaty rights. Indigenous peoples’ treaty rights are interpreted through the understanding that “treaties recognized that Aboriginal people lived off the land and its waters” (Phare, 2009, p. 9).

First Nations affirm their inherent rights to water in the Assembly of First Nations National Water Declaration (n.d.-a) and the Water Declaration of the Anishinaabek, Mushkegowuk and Onkwehonwe in Ontario (Chiefs of Ontario, 2008). From a Canadian judicial understanding inherent rights are commonly referred to as the “freestanding rights to manage and control activities that occur within First Nations territories” (Phare, 2009, p. 12). For inherent rights to be recognized by the Canadian Crown, Indigenous peoples have to “define specific rather than general rights and to illustrate that the specific right was an integral activity to your distinctive culture pre-colonial contact (Phare, 2009, p. 12). The definition of Aboriginal rights was not clear until the Supreme Court of Canada (1996) in R. v. Van der Peet defined Aboriginal rights as “collective rights deriving their existence from the common law's recognition of [the] prior social organization" of aboriginal peoples” (para 41) that is subject to the “integral to the distinctive culture test” (para. 46). What is meant by ‘integral to the distinctive culture’ remains a challenge especially with regards to water given its centrality in Indigeny (Walkem, 2007).

37

Aboriginal title rights to water are usually located within the right to control or use the water because water is regarded as a public good (Phare, 2009). Aboriginal title is based on long-term and exclusive use and occupancy of the property pre-sovereignty; and is based on unsurrendered Aboriginal property. In 1997, in response to the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia decision, the “Supreme Court recognized that Aboriginal title to land includes a right to exclusive use and occupation that encompasses natural resources” (McNeil, 2001, p. 328). The right to and use of natural resources were not subjected to the Van der Peet’s ‘integral to the distinctive culture’ test (McNeil, 2001). Phare (2009) proposed that as a result of the Delgamuukw case, Aboriginal title could include the water- related rights in terms of controlling access to use water; regulating use; managing consumptive use of water; protecting water quality including pollution) and quantity; overseeing the use of Indigenous knowledge in water management; protecting Indigenous cultural sites, spiritual, cultural practices (including to hunt, fish and navigate waters), and recreational activities with respect to water; controlling water diversion; and generating and controlling economic benefits from water.

Further progress on clarifying Aboriginal title was made in 2014, when the Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of the Tsilhqot’in Nation in the Aboriginal Title Claim, Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada, 2014). The court ruled that the province has “breached its duty to consult when it made land use planning decisions and issued forestry licenses over the lands where Aboriginal title was claimed by the Tsilhqot’in First Nation” (Abouchar et al., 2014, p. 1). This decision sets a precedent for natural resource management in Canada by sending a strong message that Aboriginal title must be upheld and respected in decision making (Abouchar et al., 2014).

According to Phare (2009), treaty rights are embedded in three principles: 1) Aboriginal peoples had the right to live off their lands and the resources and that alternatives would be provided for their ongoing sustenance; 2) Indigenous peoples have rights to water unless it is “proved that they knowingly intended to relinquish their rights or that the Crown

38

expressed clear and plain intent to extinguish rights” (p. 10) ; and 3) Indigenous peoples’ rights to “govern (control, manage and use) the land and water was not ceded but that the ceded rights only refer to the land and waters themselves” (p. 10).

Today, Aboriginal treaty water rights are usually located within land claim agreements (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008) and Craft (2014a) argues that “cultural, social and linguistic perspectives” are important for understanding treaties (p. 15). In Craft’s (2014b) interpretations, her Anishinaabe ancestors understood treaties in terms of sharing the land and resources with the newcomers in a relationship of being responsible to the land and living mino-bimaadiziwin (i.e., the good life) as Indigenous law. On the other hand, the Crown understood treaties in terms of ownership and surrender which are used by Canadian courts today to resolve Aboriginal treaty rights (Craft, 2011; 2014a, b). Craft (2014a) maintains that the ancestors regarded treaties as sacred living agreements and we cannot neglect to equally apply Indigenous law when interpreting treaties for resolutions.

Despite Indigenous peoples’ actions in enacting their Indigenous laws through their responsibilities to water and having water rights, water safety and quality issues especially on First Nations reserves are increasingly becoming a concern in Canada (White et al., 2012). These include drinking water safety (see Lui, 2015, White et al., 2012), the duration of drinking water advisories especially on First Nations reserves40 (Longboat, 2012); and the health of Indigenous communities due to poor water quality

40 “Potable drinking water supply and wastewater management are shared between First Nations’ band councils and the federal departments of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada, including an advisory role to INAC by Environment and Climate Change Canada” (Government of Canada, 2020d, para. 25). Water management is the responsibility of the governments of Yukon and the Northwest territories through the Devolution Transfer Agreements in 2003 (Government of Canada, 2013a,b) and 2014 (Government of Canada, 2013b) respectively. The federal government remains to oversee water management in Nunavut until a devolution agreement is formalized in line with the 2008 Lands and Resources Devolution Negotiation Protocol and the 2019 agreement-in-principle (Government of Canada, 2019). 39

(Arquette et al., 2002 and Mascarenhas, 2007). Lukawiecki (2017)41 as well as Castleden et al. (2017), report that the Canadian government continues to apply predominantly, financial, technical and scientific fixes to drinking water safety despite cries for more holistic approaches. White et al. (2012) likewise made this case by maintaining that ongoing vulnerabilities to poor water quality on Aboriginal lands are not only a result of adjacent economic activities but also the removal and relocation of Aboriginal peoples to degraded lands by European settlers, and an erosion of traditional practices due to colonial interferences.

Murdocca (2010) voices that these water issues are but mere symptoms of the colonial systems and structures in which they are embedded. The government of Canada continues to perpetuate the colonial system through its response to water issues on Indigenous lands and peoples i.e., “through legal and perceived moral frames of compensation, humanitarianism, and responsibility” (Murdocca, 2010, p. 388). This is despite Indigenous peoples’ calls and desires to assert their rights as voiced in UNDRIP (White et al., 2012); UNESCO’s 2003 Indigenous Peoples’ Kyoto Water Declaration42 and the Tlatokan Atlahuak Declaration in 200643 (McGregor, 2012). These international movements assist peoples who are Indigenous in Canada to advocate for Indigenous water rights and relations, and to mobilize actions (McGregor, 2014).

41 This report calls for an enabling institutional environment whereby “federal capital investment processes are simplified; a collaborative drinking water governance framework for First Nations is developed; adequate infrastructure support is provided; equal decision-making power between First Nations and the federal government is recognized; and transparent processes are implemented” (Lukawiecki, 2017, pp. 7- 9). 42 In this declaration the inherent and spiritual relationship between Indigeny and water is clearly articulated which reaffirms “Indigenous relationship to Mother Earth and responsibilities to future generations….”; it “recognizes, honors and respects water as sacred that sustains all life”; and it “asserts the role of indigenous peoples as caretakers with rights and responsibilities….to follow and implement traditional knowledge and traditional laws and to exercise their right of Self-determination to preserve water, and to preserve life” (UNESCO, 2003, p. 1). 43 This declaration states “for all Indigenous peoples of the world, water is the source of material, cultural and spiritual life” (Item 1). 40

Moreover, there are legal regulatory triggers through the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (section 35) and the Impact Assessment Act (2019) which require Indigenous peoples to be consulted on matters that may impact known or asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. Canada’s duty to consult and accommodate is mandated through its 2011 Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult. Although good in intention it has varying levels of application (Boutilier, 2017).

There are examples where Indigenous principles for water protection water have been incorporated into water governance e.g., the 2012 Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as well as the Ontario Government’s Great Lakes Strategy (McGregor, 2014). Norman (2014) indicates that Indigenous peoples are explicitly included in transboundary water boards which can be viewed as a move towards a post- colonial era. However, transboundary agreements between Canada and USA are still bi- national rather than multinational and Indigenous peoples are considered as stakeholders to be consulted and not sovereign nations (Norman and Bakker, 2015). White et al. (2012) also show that despite rejection of the process for addressing safe drinking water in First Nations reserves, the federal government passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (Bill S-11) and later a revised version Bill S-8 was enacted in 2013. The Chiefs of Ontario rejected these Bills on multiple grounds based on inadequate consultation which infringed on their treaty rights as well as the Government of Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult (White et al., 2012). The Chiefs of Ontario claimed that engagement often precedes formal consultation hence the Bill was imposed on First Nations (White et al., 2012). von der Porten and de Loë, 2013, 2014; Simms et al., 2016 contend that despite Indigenous peoples’ strides made with regards to nationhood and self-governance in British Columbia, the consultation and shared decision-making water governance practices remained housed within colonial frameworks and limited effort was made to meaningful engage Indigenous laws and knowledges. Similarly, Arsenault et al. (2018) maintain that both federal and provincial official water governance documents do not

41

address Indigenous water relations. Instead, they remain entrenched within Canada’s water governance regimes to which Indigenous peoples must comply (Arsenault et al., 2018).

Simms et al., 2016 ask: Can, and how can Canada move towards a water governance approach that is collaborative which involves Indigenous peoples as central to the decision-making processes? As argued before (see p. 35) collaborative processes are shaped by context and relationships which could be conducive or unfavourable to collaboration (Ansell and Gash, 2007). Moreover, Indigenous knowledge has often been extracted and analyzed within western science and not interpreted from Indigenous lenses (McGregor, 2004). So how can we move towards an approach where constitutionally recognized Indigenous peoples’ water rights and their inherent responsibilities to water (as supported through international declarations) are driving and leading water governance? This question aligns to McGregor’s (2014) thinking where she says that water issues will not only continue in First Nations reserves but also globally unless Indigenous water relations to water are respected and upheld. Approaches where Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and relations to water are leading will lead to Indigenous peoples being “self-determining nations rather than one of many collaborative stakeholders or participants” (von der Porten et al., 2015, p. 134) and one which is transformed into a truly meaningful system (von der Porten and de Loë, 2014).

In conclusion, it is argued as the third conceptual tenet that a power-laden Canadian water governance dominates Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights. This leads into the next section which makes the case for transforming western water governance within a social justice framework.

42

Social Justice The report on ‘What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation (2015b) states: Without truth, justice, and healing, there can be no genuine reconciliation.

Reconciliation is not about ‘closing a sad chapter of Canada’s past,’ but about

opening new healing pathways of reconciliation that are forged in truth and justice.

(p. 117)

Following this TRC report, Finegan (2018) calls for ways forward where reconciliation should be “appropriate, restorative, Indigenous-centered, and community-designed forms of justice” (p. 4). Specifically related to Indigenous environmental justice, McGregor et al. (2020) state that Indigenous conceptions of justice must be grounded in “Indigenous philosophies, ontologies, and epistemologies” (p. 35) for decolonization. Simpson’s (2004), paper on anticolonial strategies for the recovery of traditional knowledge systems stresses that decolonization requires a deconstruction of the colonial and its relationships.

Before deconstruction can occur, there is a need to understand what is being deconstructed. As advocated in chapter 1, a social justice approach is needed to dismantle dominant water governance (Franco et al., 2013; Zwarteveen and Boelens,

2014; Jackson, 2016). Hence, in this thesis context, we need to understand western constructs of social justice.

Social justice is not merely an extension of justice, but it addresses society as a whole rather than from an individual justice perspective (Burke, 2011). Burke (2011) describes justice as law and its requirements to live according to societal norms, not to inflict harm on each other, and to bestow each person their rightful belongings. Individuals who

43

contravene these laws are “viewed as responsible for their actions, and therefore it is believed that they deserve to be punished” (Burke, 2011, p. 10).

Burke (2011) says that since the mid-20th century, scholars were hesitant to define universal rights from wrongs and instead they shifted the traditional concept of justice towards a more socially-orientated position i.e., social justice. In 1971, Rawls shifted the focus away from the individual’s action towards “the basic structure of society” and he claimed that “justice demands equality of power in society” (Rawls, 1971, p. 3). He counter argued the moral-defining philosophies of justice and claimed, as a social ideal, justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971). He claimed that the core purpose of justice as fairness was to shift the justice paradigm from the individual and utility criteria to the social and what we recognize as reasonable (Rawls, 1971).

Sen (2009) criticizes Rawls for his justice as fairness theory which he claims espouses ideal behaviour of equality and just institutions. Instead, he advocates for a focus on the actual behaviour of people which is pivotal for justice (Sen, 2009). He highlights this difference as the “dichotomy between an arrangement-focused view of justice, and a realization-focused understanding of justice” (Sen, 2009, p. 10). Sen (2009), in adopting a transnational perspective claims that the question of justice begets plurality, competing values and choice “not only of the things we do but also in the freedoms that we actually have to choose between different kinds of lives” (p. 18).

Fraser (2009) synthesizes the various principles emerging from different philosophies and theories of social justice. She postulates a three-dimensional theory of justice to answer the question of the ‘what and who of social justice?’ (Fraser, 2009). Her three independent yet interwoven spheres, partially drawing from her previous theorizations, consist of the economic dimension of (re) distribution, the cultural dimension of recognition, and the political dimension of representation (Fraser, 2009).

44

For the economic dimension of social justice, Fraser (1995) drew from egalitarian theories including theory of capitalist exploitation (Marx and Engel, 1967), John Rawls’ (1971) account of justice as fairness in the distribution of primary goods, Sen’s (2009) view that justice requires ensuring that people have equal capabilities to function, and Ronald Dworkin’s (1981) view that it requires equality of resources. She recognized that these theorists have different viewpoints but to her the pivotal and overriding issue was that socio-economic injustice requires a commitment to egalitarianism (Fraser, 1995). Woodburn (1982) defines egalitarianism as a “social organization of asserted near-equals given that equality is not neutral” (p. 431).

Her second dimension of social justice draws from critical theorists and is in response to rising identity and difference claims in a post-colonial society (Fraser, 1995). Calls for recognition of identity and self-determination by the marginalized and excluded render social justice or injustice as cultural or symbolic (Fraser, 1995). Premdas (2016) claims that “all systems of justice articulate values of distribution that are peculiar to a society” (p. 450). Cultural social justice is therefore only achieved once recognition is given to cultural diversity and recognition of cultural plurality (Markle, 2004; Joy et al., 2014; Patrick et al., 2014; Perreault, 2014).

Both economic and cultural justices are embedded within social “processes and practices that systematically disadvantage some groups of people vis-à-vis others” (p. 72) which is referred to as the redistribution-recognition dilemma (Fraser, 1995). To Fraser “cultural norms that are unfairly biased against some are institutionalized in the state and the economy; meanwhile, economic disadvantage impedes equal participation in the making of culture, in public spheres and in everyday life” (Fraser, 1995, p. 72). Furthermore, redistribution calls for equality and non-specificity whereas recognition begets specificity (Fraser, 1995). This dilemma brings forth a third dimension of social justice, that is of “parity of participation” (Fraser, 2009, p. 16) which facilitates ‘whose voices are heard’. Termed ‘representation’ Fraser (2009) claims that in addition to redistribution and

45

recognition justice can only be achieved if full participation is obtained through enabling economic (i.e., if people have the resources to participate) and institutional structures (i.e., decolonizing institutionalized obstacles in social interaction).

This third dimension is political in nature although it is acknowledged that all three spheres are inherently political in that they are entrenched in power contestations (Fraser, 2009). Nonetheless, Fraser (2009) maintains that representation is about inclusion and exclusion for “just distribution and reciprocal recognition” (p. 17). ‘Who counts’ is seen both in terms of boundaries of social belonging; and the decision-rules and procedures that shape power relations (Fraser, 2009).

Lukasiewicz and Baldwin (2014) in adopting Fraser’s (2009) construct of social justice in a water governance context expand on the principles in terms of 1) “Distributive Justice Principles: Equity, Equality, Need, Efficiency and Self-interest; 2) Procedural Justice Principles: Representativeness, Level of Power, Transparency, Accuracy, Consistency, Neutrality, Correctability of Errors, Ethics, Timelines, Accountability and Accessibility; and 3) Interactive Justice Principles: Trust, Respect, Recognition of stakeholders social standing, Truthfulness and Propriety” (p. 3, Figure 1). This overlap is presented in Figure 2.2.

46

Figure 2.2: Fraser’s (2009) three-dimensional theory of justice (redistribution, representation, recognition) expanded by Lukasiewicz and Baldwin (2014) conceptions of social justice (distributive, procedural, interactive justices).

The principles of social justice for Indigenous peoples have been applied within environmental, including water, management (Bowie, 2013) although the term may not have necessarily been used or defined. Its contexts of use advocate for 1) transformative collaborative efforts (O’Flaherty et al., 2008; Berkes 2009; Jones et al., 2010; Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc, 2015; Rice, 2016; Berry et al., 2018); 2) as resistance movements to colonial powers and structures (Castleden et al., 2009; Hanrahan et al., 2016; Hanrahan, 2017; Berry et al., 2018); and 3) a hybrid model of collaboration and resistance (Hanrahan, 2017). Rice’s (2016) analysis of the Nunavut Indigenous co- governance model shows that Indigenous peoples’ authority and agency can be obtained by adopting and adapting the colonial system from within for transformative change. Similarly, Latta (2018) asks if multi-level governance, “where Indigenous government is another layer in state institutions” (p. 14), may be a path towards self-determination and nation-to-nation relationships for Indigenous peoples in Canada? On the other hand, Berry et al. (2018) report that Indigenous water values in Brazil were only recognized through political opposition to state regimes. Hanrahan (2017) relates how the Mi’kmaq Rights Initiative spearheaded by the Mi’kmaq Chiefs of Nova Scotia dually and strategically work within and outside of Canada’s colonial systems for self-determination.

47

Within these three non-exclusive models, Indigenous peoples use their agency for social justice.

Human agency from a western philosophical perspective signifies the individualistic (Kuchinke 2013) and socialistic (Ratner, 2000) qualities of human beings (individuals or groups) to make choices, act independently according to these choices and to pursue interests that are self-determined (Helm, 2012; Kuchinke, 2013;). Bandura’s (2001) model of emergent interactive agency subscribes to the idea that human minds are generative, creative, proactive, and reflective, and not just reactive. Intentionality, forethought, self- (social) reactiveness, self (social)-reflectiveness are core features of human agency at different levels (Bandura, 2001). Departing from this mind-set, one can ask, what makes agency a lived experience which allows for plurality and embeddedness? Is it about free and rational persons (Rawls, 1971), the freedom to choose and enjoying this freedom in line with Sen’s (2009) concept of capability (see p. 25), self-determination (Markle, 2004; Fraser, 2009), and/or actions and a willingness to take risks of foreseeable value (Gheaus, 2013)? From an Indigenous place-thought cosmology (see chapter 4, p. 78), all of creation has agency because to be “animate goes beyond being alive or acting, it is to be full of thought, desire, contemplation and will” and ‘non-humans’ express these forms of consciousness with all of creation (Watts, 2013, p. 23). Horn Miller (2013) also relates that for the Kahnawà:ke community (Mohawk of the Haudenosaunee Nation) agency is not for individualistic gain but for holistic community interests. She maintains that colonization has and continues to erode communal value systems in many Indigenous communities especially where the Band Council system is adopted as a manifestation of ongoing colonial influences (Horn Miller, 2013). These principles revert to the meaning of water relations, in which water is life and water as life; and the reciprocal responsibility we have to care for the water (Anderson et al., 2013; Longboat, 2015; McGregor, 2015; Arsenault et al., 2018).

48

McGregor et al. (2020) emphasize that Indigenous justice must be centralized for “Indigenous-determined futures” (p. 37). They ask the question: “How do Indigenous peoples themselves envision their future in the face of ongoing injustice and lack of vision around the called-for transformation”? (McGregor et al., 2020, p. 37).

In conclusion, it is argued as the fourth conceptual tenet that to Indigenize water governance requires agency within a social justice framework but that western constructs of social justice need to be deconstructed from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.

Chapter Conclusions In reviewing the literature on 1) governance and water; 2) Indigenous identities; 3) Indigenous peoples in Canada; 4) Canadian water governance and Indigenous peoples in Canada; 5) Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights; and 6) social justice, four key conceptual tenets and their significance for the research emerged as follows:  Tenet 1: Water governance is a system driven by stakeholder values, indicates that before water governance can be Indigenized within a social justice framework there is a need to identify and understand the context-specific values of the water governance.  Tenet 2: Indigenous peoples’ identities in Canada are plural, dynamic and interwoven within self-identifying constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism, signifies a need to understand context-specific Indigenous identities to explain what is meant by Indigenizing (i.e., from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing) and to relate how these identities shape water values.  Tenet 3: Canadian water governance dominates Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights, beckons the need to dismantle Canadian water governance by developing alternative Indigenous water governance approaches within context.

49

 Tenet 4: Indigenizing water governance requires agency within a social justice framework, advocates that Indigenous peoples need to assert their water rights and responsibilities, recognition and representation within context. Through their agency they need to deconstruct, from their own ways of knowing, being and doing, western concepts of social justice.

These four tenets present the conceptual underpinnings for the research design, analysis and interpretations. They are used as a guide to answer the overall research question: ‘How can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework?’ within the context of developing a MCFN Water Framework in support of their Water Claim as discussed in chapter 1 (see p. 3). Specifically, these tenets link to the research objectives as indicated in Figure 2.3.

50

Figure 2.3: Linking the four conceptual framework tenets to the research objectives.

51

3 The Research Collaboration and MCFN’s Context This chapter explains the research collaboration with MCFN and provides context for the research study as it relates to MCFN.

Establishing a Research Collaboration The decision to engage with First Nations communities in southern Ontario was based on three reasons. Foremost, First Nations were selected where a previous relationship existed. Dr. Longboat, a faculty member at the University of Guelph (UoG) and supervisor of this doctoral thesis, had relationships with First Nations communities in southern Ontario and access to communities was an important factor for consideration. Second, southern Ontario was selected because of its geographical location in bordering the Great Lakes Basin (Figure 3.1) which comprises about nearly one-fifth of the worlds freshwater supply (Hildebrand et al., 2002).

Water governance of the Great Lakes is complex and fragmented (Clamen and Macfarlane, 2015; Jetoo et al., 2015), and as explained previously (see p. 41), although Indigenous peoples are explicitly included in transboundary water issues (Norman, 2014) they are considered stakeholders to be consulted rather than sovereign nations (Norman and Bakker, 2015). This was seen as an ideal location to investigate concepts around Indigenization of water governance. Third, the location within 250km from Guelph was selected so that that the community could be visited frequently to develop and maintain strong relationships which was also a critical factor. From the basis of these three factors, 13 potential First Nations communities were identified (Figure 3.2). Websites of these 13 First Nations were examined for evident water security issues. Based on these findings, six First Nations communities were identified as possible research partners.

52

Figure 3.1: Relief map of Ontario showing southern Ontario in relation to the Great Lakes. Source: Adopted from Natural Resources Canada, 2002. https://ftp.maps.canada.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/raster/atlas_6_ed/reference/bilingual/ont_relief_new.p df

53

Figure 3.2: Map of First Nations communities in southern Ontario. Source: Adopted from Ontario, 2011, https://files.ontario.ca/pictures/firstnations_map.jpg

Initially, a watershed-based approach for this research was considered for engaging with First Nations but it was excluded because it would dilute research depth and context specificity of First Nations communities. It was decided with the PhD Advisory Committee that three communities would be the maximum number to feasibly engage in a meaningful way. Identified were MCFN, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, and Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Each community was approached through an identified contact person via email. The research was explained and their potential interest in engaging in collaborative research was sought. Two communities, MCFN and Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, responded with positive interest and further discussions were held via telephone. After further consideration, a decision was made to focus on one First Nations community. It was believed that in doing so, the project would generate a deeper and richer understanding of one community.

54

A research collaboration was pursued with MCFN because they communicated that they were engaged in a current, active, and political water governance claim (see p. 3) which aligned well with UoG’s researchers’ interests in social justice and water governance. Through six joint brainstorming meetings between April and November 2017 the collaborative research project on the ‘Development of Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory’ emerged. This project was seen to be mutually beneficial in that it addressed the Water Committee’s mandate (see p. 6) while contributing to academic interests of deconstructing western concepts of water governance and social justice from Indigenous lenses. The project proposal was approved by Chief and Council in October 2017. This proposal included details on 1) background and research approach, research goals, research objectives, guiding research questions, research methodology and methods, informed consent, confidentiality, privacy and conflict of Interests, knowledge ownership, usage and management, logo usage, a high-level project plan, and a list of forms and schedules to be used.

MCFN Today MCFN is part of the Anishinaabe Nation44 (MNCFN, n.d.). The word ‘Anishinaabe’, from a colonial lens means ‘first man’ (Gibson, 2006). From an Ojibway45 lens by Benton-Banai (2010. p. 3) it means “ANI (from whence) - NISHINA (lowered) - ABE (the male of the species). It is interpreted that man (the origin of the Anishinaabe people) was the last form of life created from the four sacred elements of Mother Earth, as a woman (Benton- Banai, 2010).

44 The Anishinaabe Nation is a collective name for groups of Indigenous peoples who live in the United States of America and Canada (Sawe, 2017). 45 The Ojibway is a part of the larger Anishinaabe Nation (Bishop, 2008). 55

MCFN is an “Ojibwa Nation, in the Algonquian language family” (Heritage Mississauga, 2018, para. 1). There are three possible interpretations of the name ‘Mississauga’ (MNCFN, n.d.). It can refer to 1) “the Eagle Clan of the Ojibway Nation”; 2) “the mouth of the Mississagi River” which was their traditional fishing ground; and 3) departing from an “Ojibway word meaning - people living at the mouths of many rivers” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 3).

MCFN’s treaty lands and territory (see Figure 1.1, p. 4) consist of approximately four million acres in southern Ontario (MCFN, n.d.-a). However today, MCFN’s jurisdiction is restricted to the New Credit Reserve in southern Ontario (Figure 3.3.) which is formally known as New Credit (Part) 40A (Statistics Canada, 2017). It is 20 km2 in size and is located near Hagersville (Haldimand County) adjacent to the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve (Statistics Canada, 2017). Its geographical co-ordinates are: Latitude: 42.999 and Longitude: -80.097 (Government of Canada, 2013c).

Figure 3.3: Geographic location of the New Credit Reserve in relation to MCFN's treaty lands and territory. Source (left map): Statistics Canada, 2016. New Credit (Part) 40A; https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/search-recherche/results- resultats.cfm?Lang=E&TABID=1&G=1&Geo1=&Code1=&Geo2=&Code2=&type=0&SearchText=Ne w+Credit&SearchType=Begins&wb-srch-place=search# (accessed April 4, 2020); Source (right map): MCFN, 2015; http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/treaty-lands-and-territory/

56

As of 2018, the MCFN’s band membership number was approximately 2500 (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018). Demographic data on the full band membership were unavailable. A total of 740 residents lived on-reserve of which 695 people were of Indigenous identity and 680 were registered as a treaty Indian i.e., status. (Statistics Canada, 2018). About 315 were children and the average age was 32 years (Statistics Canada, 2018). A total of 485 residents identified as First Nations only, 155 residents identified as mixed Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and 30 residents identified as mixed Indigenous ancestry (Statistics Canada, 2018). First Nations ancestry included Algonquin (10), Blackfoot (15), Cayuga (50), Cree (10), Iroquois (70), Mohawk (265), Ojibway (555), and Oneida (45) (Statistics Canada, 2018). A total of 685 residents regarded English as their first official language, and only 10-15 residents spoke Ojibway as their mother tongue and 75 residents had knowledge of Ojibway (Statistics Canada, 2018). No data on gender or further age breakdown were available for on-reserve residents.

In 2016, 192 private dwellings existed on the New Credit Reserve (Statistics Canada, 2018). The reserve’s infrastructure facilities include “The New Credit United Church (previously the Methodist church); a strip mall; a school; a modern community center; a daycare; a social services building; a library; an administrative building and a scattering of band-owned small businesses” (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018, p. 6).

MCFN currently operates under the Indian Act46 and is governed by a Chief and Council, (MCFN, n.d.-b) which is elected every two years as per the Indian Act. There are seven council portfolios of “1) inclusive prosperity, economic growth and job creation; 2) nation well-being and wellness; 3) environment and sustainability, stewardship for land, air, water and natural resources; 4) education and awareness; 5) cultural awareness, communications and outreach; 6) infrastructure and community development; and 7)

46 MCFN is advocating for its own MCFN-specific and self-determining election law/code outside of the Indian Act (MCFN, n.d.-c). 57

inclusive leadership and governance” (MCFN, n.d.-b, para. 12). Chief and Council are supported by 10 Band Administration Departments related to housing, public works47, education, consultation and accommodation, media and communications, social and health services, sustainable economic development, childcare, and land memberships and research (MCFN, n.d.-d).

MCFN’s History Related to the Water Claim Before European contact (pre-1600) and up to the late 1600s, MCFNs ancestors occupied the area “inland from the north shore of Lake Huron, just to the west of Manitoulin Island and east of Sault Ste. Marie” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 3). This is known as the Mississaugi River Location (Wybenga, n.d.) and the first written record found to confirm their occupancy was by the French Jesuits in 1640 (MNCFN, n.d.). Here the Mississaugas are identified as the Oumisagai (MNCFN, n.d.). While living along the north shore of Lake Huron, MCFN’s ancestors followed a life involving “mobility and recurring shifts of resource harvesting” (p. 4) life in harmony with the natural cycles and laws of the earth (MNCFN, n.d.). This included hunting, fishing, harvesting, horticulture and limited agriculture ((MNCFN, n.d.).

Post-European contact in the 1600s resulted in Indigenous peoples in North America co- operating with France or England as the two rival European colonial Nations (MNCFN, n.d.). Anishinaabe Nations in the Upper Great Lakes region allied with the French whilst the Five Nations Iroquois Confederacy living south of Lake Ontario sided with the English (MNCFN, n.d.). These Nations engaged in warfare from early to the mid-1600s (MacLeod, 1992) often in response to the competing fur trade (MNCFN, n.d.). Circa 1680 - after the Five Nations Iroquois destroyed the Huron, Neutral and Petun villages and occupied and

47 MCFN has a lagoon system for waste-water management but no secondary treatment systems, and obtains its water supply from municipal water lines for most dwellings although some members still retain their water tank systems (Craig King, personal communication, 7 March 2018). 58

used most of southern Ontario as hunting grounds - the Anishinaabe in this region formed a political and military alliance as a defense against the Five Nations Iroquois (MNCFN, n.d.). This was known as the Three Fires Confederacy who through successive defense48 efforts forced the Five Nations Iroquois to retreat south of Lake Ontario into their original territory (MNCFN, n.d.). The Mississaugas, as Ojibway, were pivotal to these efforts which dates their ascendency in southern Ontario in the 1700s (Wybenga, n.d.). This is confirmed by Osborne and Ripmeester (1997) who report that “from 1700 to 1783 the Mississaugas were the most powerful nation occupying the region north of Lake Ontario” (p. 259). After negotiating a peace treaty with the Mohawk Nation, they travelled to Lake Simcoe where a main group continued east to the Bay of Quinté (MNCFN, n.d.). A second group travelled south and finally settled in an area between Toronto and Lake Erie (MNCFN, n.d.). The territory (Figure 1.1, p. 4) of this group in “south-western Ontario throughout the 1700s and into the 1800s extended from the mouth of the Rouge River to its source, then westerly along the dividing ridge between Lake Huron and Ontario to the head waters of the Thames, moving south to Long Point on Lake Erie, and then down to Lake Erie, Niagara River, and Lake Ontario to the place of the beginning” (MNCFN, n.d., p 10). Here they followed similar lifestyles and cycles to those which they lived on the north shore of Lake Huron (MNCFN, n.d.).

Throughout the 1700s, the French established fur trade posts in southern Ontario and by the mid-1700s a post was established in Fort Rouille located in present-day Toronto

48 “The Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi Nations formed the Confederacy of the Three Fires of peoples for cultural and political purposes. Each Nation had their role in that Confederacy. The Ojibway were the providers, the Odawa were the warriors, and the Potawatomi were the firekeepers. Although wars would prevail, this international relation was a peaceful co-existence”. (Union of Ontario Indians, 2020, paras. 5- 6, https://www.anishinabek.ca/who-we-are-and-what-we-do). “By the mid 1700s, the Council of Three Fires became the core of the Great Lakes Confederacy. The Hurons, Algonquins, Nipissing, Sauks, Foxes, and others joined the Great Lakes Confederacy, and after the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, which marked the formal beginning of the peaceful relations with Great Britain, this powerful body provided the British with important allies in times of war and a balance to the Iroquois Confederacy to the south and east” (Union of Ontario Indians, 2020, paras. 7-8).

59

(MNCFN, n.d.). The Mississaugas living in this area were active participants in the fur trade (MNCFN, n.d.). A practice emerged in which the colonial fur traders extended credit to the Mississaugas living near a certain river (MNCFN, n.d.). Consequently, this “river became known as the Credit River and by association, these Mississaugas became known to Europeans as the Mississaugas of the Credit” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 9). By the end of the 18th century, it was evident that ongoing colonial influences, despite efforts to resist, negatively constrained the Mississaugas of the Credit’s ability to sustain themselves from the land and waters (MNCFN, n.d.).

With the continuous expansion of colonial settlement in the Toronto area in the 1800s forced the Mississaugas of the Credit, in 1829, to seek exclusive rights to its salmon fishery on the Credit River (MNCFN, n.d.). These rights were confirmed through an Act of Parliament (with the government of Upper Canada) and reconfirmed in 1835 (MNCFN, n.d.). Despite these interventions though, the Mississaugas of the Credit fathomed that its survival on the Credit River remained in jeopardy (MNCFN, n.d.).

Eberts (2013) highlights that these colonial influences were the start of Imperialism, which are still practiced by Canada today. These influences are characterized by inherent unequal powers; and physical, social, cultural and political displacements of Indigenous peoples from their traditional territories, knowledge, values, and systems. Treaty-making, the Royal Proclamation in 176349 and the Indian Act in 1876 (see footnote 13, p. 10) were considered to be “legislated dispossessions” by the Crown (Eberts, 2013, p. 128) in two ways: assimilation and/or extinction of Indigenous peoples; and extinguishing Indigenous peoples’ rights and their self-determination (Eberts, 2013). The use of treaties as land

49 Borrows (1997b) explains that this proclamation was consensually entered into by the Crown (King George III) and First Nations in 1763, with competing and different understandings e.g., on First Nations sovereignty. Although the Royal Proclamation upholds Aboriginal title rights it also contradictorily and manipulatively moved towards the cessation of land by treaty to claim power, control and authority over the lands that First Nations occupied (Borrows, 1997b). 60

cessations for Indigenous peoples in Upper Canada between 1763 and 1812, resulted in the Crown securing “all the land along the Great Lakes and other boundary waters in southern Ontario” (Eberts, 2013, p. 131). From 1815 to 1827, further treaties enabled the Crown to acquire the “remaining arable land in southern Ontario” (Eberts, 2013, p. 131). It is important to emphasize that, according to MCFN, its ancestors had different understanding of these treaties compared to the colonial governments (MNCFN, n.d.). MCFN is therefore claiming that validity of the early land surrenders by its ancestors are invalid (MNCFN, n.d.). MCFN uphold that its ancestors would not have knowingly and conceivably surrender something that was not theirs to give (MNCFN, n.d.).

Yet it was within this treaty-making period that the Crown began purchasing large tracts of land from the Mississaugas of the Credit for the incoming Loyalists starting in 1781 and ending in 1820 (Heritage Mississauga, 2018). Table 3.1. provides a summary of these treaties which are described in detail by Holmes and Associates (2015) as the basis for MCFN’s Water Claim (see chapter 1).

The colonials’ strategies to remove the ‘Indian problem’ through land cessations (Eberts, 2013) and resource appropriation by the colonials (Osborne and Ripmeester, 1997) required MCFN to seek and adapt to alternative and/or sustainable pathways. These included “trade with the colonials for food and manufactured goods” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 10); adoption of the Methodist faith and integration into a resource-based economy or the overt rejection and resistance of European value systems with a centering towards traditional Anishinaabe ways (Osborne and Ripmeester, 1997).

61

Table 3.1: Treaties between MCFN and the Crown leading to MCFN’s land cessations. Treaty Treaty details and significance Name Mississaugas In 1781 the Crown purchased land “four miles wide along the west bank of the Treaty at Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie” from the Mississaugas of the Niagara Credit (MCFN, n.d.-e) (1781) Between the “In 1784 the Crown annexed three million acres of land between Lakes Huron, Lakes Ontario and Erie from the Mississaugas of the Credit for £1180 of trade goods. Treaty, No. 3 About 550,000 acres were granted to the Six Nations (for supporting the British (1792) during the American Revolutionary War) in the Haldimand Proclamation of October 25, 1784, and the remainder was allocated to the incoming Loyalists. Due to different understandings of geographical boundaries of the Between the Lakes Purchase, a confirming document was signed in 1792” (MCFN, n.d.-f, paras. 1-3). Brant Tract In recognition of Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant’s contributions to the British during Treaty, No 8 the American Revolutionary War, the British Crown purchased additional land (1797) from the Mississaugas of the Credit (a tract of land containing 3450 acres i.e., present day Burlington in Ontario for £100) in 1797 (MCFN, n.d.-g). Toronto The “Toronto Purchase in 1787 and the Gunshot Treaty in 1788 dealt with the Purchase Mississaugas of the Credit lands north of Lake Ontario” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 12) Treaty, No were controversial because the boundaries were not clearly delineated and 13 (1805) agreed upon (MNCFN, n.d.). The 1787/8 Toronto Purchase was renegotiated by the British government in 1805 (MNCFN, n.d.). As a result, the Mississaugas of the Credit retained some of its territory: “one mile adjacent to both sides of the Credit River; adjacent land on both sides of the Twelve and Sixteen Mile Creeks; and the interior of the ‘Mississauga Tract’ north of Eglinton Avenue” (Heritage Mississauga, 2018, para 3). This retention (Heritage Mississauga, 2018), as well as its petitions to secure exclusive rights to key fisheries in ‘land surrender’ agreements (MNCFN, n.d.) enabled them to retain some of its traditional ways of living (Heritage Mississauga, 2018). In fact, the text of the 1805 Toronto Purchase “defined specific, exclusive rights to fisheries for the Mississaugas of the Credit in the Twelve Mile Creek, the Sixteen Mile Creek, the Etobicoke River, and the Credit River” (MNCFN, n.d., p. 12). MCFN lodged claims against the Government of Canada for Treaties No 8 and 13 which were settled in 2010, for a sum of $145 million (MCFN, n.d.-h, paras. 1-3). Head of the Soon after the Toronto Purchase agreement was settled, the Mississaugas of Lake Treaty, the Credit were asked to cede its remaining lands west of the Toronto Purchase No 14 (1806) lands (MCFN, n.d.-i). Ajetance In 1818, the Crown acquired the remaining land of the Mississaugas tract Treaty, No through Treaty 19 (Heritage Mississauga, 2018). 19 (1818) Treaty 22 The Crown, despite resistance from the Mississaugas of the Credit, annexed the (1820) remaining lands adjacent to the Credit River, and the Sixteen and Twelve Mile Treaty 23 Creeks for the operation of mills (MCFN, n.d.-j). (1820)

62

In 1848, one and half centuries after entering into a peace treaty with the Mohawks of the Five Nations Iroquois (MNCFN, n.d.), the Mississaugas of the Credit accepted a land offer from the Six Nations to rebuild its village in the southwest corner of the Six Nations Reserve (MNCFN, n.d.). Their decision to relocate to this tract of land was shaped by several factors: 1) the tract being within its traditional territory and being relatively close to the Credit River; 2) the land was more arable compared to other options; 3) its proximity to the Six Nations given familial integration over the years; and 4) the influence of Peter Jones (MNCFN, n.d.). Peter Jones, a missionary and an elected Chief of the New Credit Band in 1829, had a profound influence in shaping MCFN’s history towards colonial ways in two ways. First, he established a mission station on the Credit River in 1826 and in 1848 he led the Mississaugas of the Credit to the New Credit Reserve50 (MNCFN, n.d.). Second, for his perceived contributions as a missionary and advocate for the Mississaugas of the Credit, and the broader Indigenous peoples in Canada he was elected as a Chief of the New Credit Band (MNCFN, n.d.). Wyatt (2009) argues, based on his analysis of Peter Jones writings, that Peter Jones who was of mixed European and Anishinaabe descent and who was also known by this Ojibwe name ‘Kahkewaquonaby’, had knowingly and intentionally adopted the Christian-based Methodist faith practice. Peter Jones, in his roles as an advocate and then Chief, during his visits to the Crown land between 1831 and 1845: “advocated for the Mississaugas of the New Credit lands claims, raised funding for Methodist missionary projects; and promoted the founding of residential schools51 in Upper Canada” (Wyatt, 2009, p. 158). Peter Jones died in 1856 (Wyatt, 2009).

50 Although they were referred to the Mississaugas of the New Credit when they moved to the New Credit Reserve its name was never legally changed. 51 In Prime Minister Harper’s offer of full apology on behalf of Canadians for the Indian Residential Schools system on 11 June 2008, Ottawa, Ontario, he said that “The treatment of children in Indian Residential Schools is a sad chapter in our history. For more than a century, Indian Residential Schools separated over 150,000 Aboriginal children from their families and communities. In the 1870's, the federal government, partly in order to meet its obligation to educate Aboriginal children, began to play a role in the development and administration of these schools. Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, ‘to kill the Indian in the child’. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation 63

For MCFN, its post 1848 move to New Credit under Peter Jones, was met with the confederation of Canada’s authority claims over ‘Indians and Lands reserved for Indians’ which was relegated to the Canadian government by section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Eberts, 2013, p 132). According to the Indian Act (1876): reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands

for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty

or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for

which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of

the band. (section 18(1))

The Mississaugas of the Credit’s land tract was formally confirmed as a reserve in 1903, which remains to this day (MNCFN, n.d.). Since 1848, MCFN began to rebuild its agrarian livelihoods; and revived its community systems and structures (e.g., the church built in 1852 and a Council House in 1882) despite numerous physical and political obstacles (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018). By the late 1880s, its population number was just over 250 band members, the highest in over 50 years (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018). In the 1900s they shifted from small-scale farming to “trades in the nearby urban centres of Brantford and Hamilton or occupations in the mining sector specifically the quarry and gypsum mines of Hagersville” which were located just outside of its reserve (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018, p. 5). In the late 1900s education opportunities enabled many band members to find lucrative employment off-reserve (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018).

was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country” (Government of Canada, 2010, para. 1).

64

MCFN’s Historical and Contemporary Contexts in Relation to its Creation Story It is important to position MCFN’s contemporary and historical contexts within MCFN’s creation story because as Simpson (2011) says, there is no one way of being Anishinaabe and being Anishinaabe is personal and stems from their creation story. Each person’s life is reflected within their understood creation story. There are many different creation stories told by various Anishinaabe Elders and each one is valid in themselves (Simpson, 2011).

The Anishinaabe creation story told by MCFN, Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin (Appendix 2), is reflected in a mural at the Lloyd S King (LSK) Elementary School Library on MCFN’s reserve. This mural was researched, designed and created by Cote et al., (2002) and published by Gibson (2006). A brief summary of Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin provides a spiritual and historical account of MCFN leading to their contemporary placing in the world today.

Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin begins with the seven fires52 of creation which tell us that everything is interconnected as intricate systems (Gibson, 2006). This principle forms the guiding and fundamental basis of Anishinaabe law in which we have to respect all of creation because of our interconnectedness (Cathie Jamieson, personal communication, November 2018). This principle informs the seven Anishinaabe teachings (also referred to as fires) reflected in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin. The teachings are 1) that the Creator, in the moon, will protect us; 2) we must maintain balance in ourselves and everything we do; 3) help each other and learn together; 4) struggle, sacrifice and reflect within ourselves for resurgence and transformation; 5) follow the natural cycles; 6) live in peace; and 7) not disturb the natural cycles of life (Gibson, 2006). This is the good life, mino-bimaadiziwin, (Simpson, 2011, Kindle location 95). The Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin prophecies tell us of times

52 Here ‘fires’ allude to stages of Creation. 65

when the western world will interfere with mino-bimaadiziwin i.e., MCFN’s migration from east to west, coming of the colonists, the loss of land, altered and oppressive relations, and MCFN’s relocation to the current land base. The prophecies in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin however indicate a time when the Anishinaabe nation will resurge to reclaim their rights, responsibilities and natural ways. These prophecies of interferences with mino- bimaadiziwin and MCFN’s ultimate resurgence are summarized by the Seven Fires53 Prophecy: Ojibwe elders tell of seven major prophets that visited the Anishinaabe long ago

with predictions of the future. The time shown in each prediction is known as a fire.

The first prophet told that the Anishinaabe would follow the sacred Megis shell in

the time of the first fire. The second prophet told of a time when the Anishinaabe

would live by a huge body of water. The third prophet told of a time that the

Anishinaabe families must move west to a land where food grows on water. The

fourth fire is a time when light skinned people would come. They may wear the

face of brotherhood but beware of the face of death. The fifth prophet told of a time

of great struggle and of a promise of joy and salvation. In time, the struggle did

happen as Nations lost their land and their freedom. The sixth prophet described

a time when the Anishinaabe would realise that the promise of salvation was false.

This prophecy also came true when our children were taken away from their

teachings and placed in strange schools. To protect the ceremonies, sacred

bundles were buried. One day a boy will have a dream that will show him where to

find the Hidden messages. The seventh prophet told about the coming of a new

people. These people would retrace their path and pick up the teachings left along

53 Here Fire is used as a prediction. 66

the way. If these new people stay strong, the sacred fire will be lit again. (Gibson,

2006, centre insert)

The vision of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation is one where people

are thriving and are living a joyful celebration of their culture and heritage. The

youth are on top of the world as they receive love and guidance from the adults

and elders. The people will be living in harmony with all of creation. (Gibson, 2006,

centre insert)

According to an Anishinaabe Elder, Edna Manitowabi, this resurgence is vital for our healing. She says that we must reconnect to Mother Earth’s sacred teachings for our healing and as an Elder it is her duty to pass on these teachings: We need to pass on the teachings of the sacredness of the water that sustains us,

the air that we breathe, and the fire within us, so that our next generation of women

have an understanding of what is happening to them during this powerful transition.

Through these teachings they will then come to understand the Earth as their

Mother. Through these teachings, they will then come to understand the Earth as

themselves. They will understand her seasons, her moods and her cycles. They

will understand that she is the Mother to all of Creation. They will understand that

she takes care of herself. They will see that she is beautiful, sacred and that she

was created first. They will know that she holds a special place in our hearts

because she is our Mother. They will understand that our people connect to this

land as their Mother. We need to help our young people maintain this relationship

and these teachings, because that connection is the umbilical bond to all of

67

Creation. When our young women understand this, they will understand their own

seasons, cycles and moods. They will understand that they are sacred and

beautiful. They will understand that they must take care of themselves, and that

they are the mothers to generations yet to be born. We do this for our young

women so they will be guided by our Mother’s wisdom and so they will model

themselves after this Earth. So, they might grow up to be good and kind

compassionate Anishinaabekwewag. So, they might know how to look after their

children and their grandchildren. So that together, we might be a strong nation

again. That is my dream. That is why I keep working. We do this work because we

love our children. This is my purpose in life as a Grandmother and a Great

Grandmother. This is my purpose in life as a Kobaade. (Simpson, 2011, Kindle

location 515)

For MCFN today, this resurgence is seen in terms of its resilience and it claims that: we are no strangers to change and are adept at transitioning ourselves to meet the

challenges of the times. As we make our way through the 21st century there is little

doubt that we will be required to transition ourselves again and there is little doubt

that we will be able to meet the challenge. (Wybenga and Dalton, 2018, p. 6)

Chapter Conclusions Today, MCFN is shaped by its colonial history and in part acceptance of colonial ways. Consequently, not all its members may subscribe to principles of social-relational Indigeny and its resurgence i.e., Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin’s underlying principle, teachings and prophecies. Understandings of how MCFN’s history created divergent MCFN 68

identities emerged throughout the research interactions with the MCFN community rather than being evident upfront. This is perhaps indicative of community-based research. Nonetheless, an understanding MCFN’s historical and contemporary contexts in relation to its creation story was of utmost relevance for the co-development of an appropriate MCFN research framework for co-engaged community action-research (see chapter 4), and appropriate meaning making of the research to develop a MCFN Water Framework (see chapters 5-7).

69

4 Methodology, Framework and Methods This chapter begins with researcher positionality of the doctoral student. Next the research methodology is explained through an emergent research process, followed by a detailed description of the research methods. Last, the research analyses; integrity; ethics and data management; and methods limitations are presented.

Self-location Wilson (2001) says that doing Indigenous research is not just about being accountable in terms of “validity, reliability or making value judgements” but it is about asking “How am I fulfilling my role in the relationship?” (p. 177). For this purpose, the doctoral student in respecting the principles of Indigenous research, self-located herself in the research relationship as follows: I am African, born and bred. I am a mixed blood person, so-called coloured in

South Africa. African blood runs through my veins. My mother talked about our

ancestry in terms of its European origin and briefly mentioned our Indigenous

heritage. I think that I am Xhosa, but I am not sure. From my paternal side, we

assumed that we are descendants of the French-Huguenot because of our

surname. We heard about our connections to people from St. Helena Bay bringing

in Indian blood. But never was I connected to my Indigenous ancestors. That was

the intention of the apartheid government – to brainwash the so-called coloured

people into thinking that they were not Black, not part of being Indigenous. I could

say: So what, I have Indigenous blood, and ask: Does that make me Indigenous?

In my belief, I am Indigenous not because Xhosa blood runs through my veins but

because I know that I am part of this universe because it allows me to BE. Hence,

70

I chose to live by respecting all of creation in all its forms - including the life of

water.

By being coloured or I prefer black, I have experienced marginalization and

injustice. And I ask: what right does someone else have to deny me the respect to

BE just like all other creation? It is with these values and experiences that I entered

and continued with this research as the doctoral student on the research team.

(Reneé Goretsky)

This positionality, i.e., with anti-oppression and relational lenses, shaped how the doctoral student approached the research, and analysed and interpreted the findings. However, the research team also comprised of MCFN Water Committee members: Darin Wybenga (Chair, Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator, Department of Consultation and Accommodation; Kim Fullerton (Legal Counsel); Cathie Jamieson (Band Councilor); Fawn Sault (Consultation Manager, Department of Consultation and Accommodation); Margaret Sault (Director, Department of Lands, Research & Membership); and Caron Smith (Environmental and Regulatory Officer, DOCA). Dr Sheri Longboat, who is a Haudenosaunee Mohawk from Six Nations of the Grand River, was the doctoral student’s supervisor and represented UoG, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development. Their positionalities although not described here, further shaped how the research was approached and how the knowledge was interpreted. These are explained in section 4.3.

71

Research Framework and Principles The research draws from Kovach’s (2009) research framework which aligns to a qualitative research design developed to accommodate the cultural epistemology54 of the Nêhiyaw Kiskêyihtamowin First Nation. Kovach’s framework is explained in terms of: a) relational epistemology (p. 47); b) decolonizing aims towards “praxis and social justice” (p. 47) for Indigenous peoples, and embedded within tribal ethics; c) “researcher preparation” (p. 49) of self-locating one-self, ongoing reflection and experiential learning; d) “research preparations” (p. 51) involving who, what, how and when following Indigenous protocols; e) gathering knowledge; and f) making meaning of the knowledge gathered using culturally appropriate and acceptable ways.

In selecting an appropriate qualitative Indigenous research methodology, the works of 1) Dion’s (2009) Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal Peoples' Experiences and Perspectives; 2) Kovach’s (2009) Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts; and 3) Chilisa’s (2012) Indigenous Research Methodologies were considered55. They all espoused principles of Indigenous research which according to Drawson et al.’s (2017) systematic review of Indigenous research methods can be summarized into four primary principles: 1. Research must be done in collaboration with Indigenous peoples by building relationships and partnerships (Drawson et al., 2017). Indigenous peoples are seeking mutual respect and are meaningfully contributing to research processes from their own worldviews as part of their struggle for self-determination (Debassige, 2010).

54 “the nature of knowledge and truth” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 21). 55 In this consideration, works where the focus was solely on research methods and not on methodologies were excluded. Also excluded were works where the focus was knowledge area/discipline specific for broader applicability. 72

2. Research must be done with Indigenous peoples as equal participants (Drawson et al., 2017). The research must be completely and explicitly reciprocal in knowledge, decision making and benefits (Debassige, 2010, Le and Gobert, 2015, Riddell et al., 2017). 3. Researchers must prioritize Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in the research process (Drawson et al., 2017). Brant-Castellano (2000) describes different types of Indigenous knowledges processes inclusive of “teachings, empirical observation and revelations” (p. 23). Lavallée (2009) says that all these forms of Indigenous knowledges must be respected as such and incorporated into the research. 4. Research must be developed, organized, conducted and interpreted within context (Drawson et al., 2017). King 2015, and Riddell et al., 2017 both emphasize that research always occurs within historical and socio-cultural contexts and is only meaningful if interpreted from these perspectives.

These principles underlie the guidelines set out in the document by The First Nations Information Governance Centre on Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP™): The Path to First Nations Information Governance (2014): Ownership, control, access, and possession means that 1) First Nations control

data collection processes in their communities; 2) First Nations own, protect and

control how their information is used; and 3) Access to First Nations data is

important and First Nations determine, under appropriate mandates and protocols,

how access to external researchers is facilitated and respected. (The First Nations

Information Governance Centre, 2014, p. 1)

Kovach’s (2009) framework was suggested by UoG researchers to the Water Committee over Dion’s (2009) work because Dion’s braiding histories project suggested an

73

ethnographic56 approach. An ethnographic approach, although appropriate for Indigenous research, requires in-depth fieldwork and continuous participant engagement over a time period in their natural environment (Jones and Smith, 2017). This was not the intent of this cross-sectional research. Kovach’s (2009) framework was also selected over Chilisa’s (2012) methodology because it was developed within the Canadian context and was specific to First Nations.

The research team supported the adoption of Kovach’s (2009) framework as a departure point for a MCFN context-specific research framework. In doing this, the research team started by adapting Kovach’s (2009) framework to be more reflective of research team members being co-researchers through co-engagement. Hence the language used in the adapted research framework was altered from an outside-in to one that reflected the involvement of the MCFN Water Committee (Figure 4.1).

The adapted framework centered co-engagement at the core, and it involved five cyclical interacting and reflexive principles of: a) relational paradigm; b) Indigenous values and ethics; c) Indigenous cultural protocols; d) gathering knowledge; and e) making meanings of knowledge gathered from Indigenous perspectives (Figure 4.1.).

56 “With its origins in anthropology, ethnography is the study of social interactions, behaviours and perceptions that occur within groups, organisations and communities” (Reeves et al., 2013, p. e 1365). 74

Figure 4.1: Research framework reflective of a research team being co-researchers. Adapted from Kovach (2009). See p. 72.

It differed from Kovach’s (2009) original framework in four ways. First, the relational epistemology was modified to relational paradigm because the broader term paradigm reflects the shared and accepted yet open-ended beliefs that research practitioners use to engage and resolve problems in their field (Kuhn, 1970). Second, the “decolonizing aims towards tribal ethics” (Kovach, 2009, p. 47) were replaced with ‘Indigenous values and ethics’ because MCFN was not decolonizing its own practices. Third, “researcher preparations” (Kovach, 2009, p. 49) were removed and incorporated into the co- engagement process. The doctoral student on the research team acknowledged upfront that she was the outsider and her lack of knowledge, understanding and experience should be part of the co-engagement process where she was learning, growing and transforming as the research unfolded. Last, “research preparations” (Kovach, 2009, p. 51) were replaced with ‘Indigenous cultural protocols’ because the MCFN Water Committee was steering its own protocols.

75

It was recognized that although this framework would guide the research, the research methodology itself was an emergent co-engaged learning process. This is indicative of wicked research problems (Rittel and Weber, 1973, see footnote 38, p. 35). Consequently, space was provided for research methodology reflexivity i.e., to recognize that the research process and outcomes are interrelated through the researchers’ subjective involvements and interpretations (Finlay, 1998).

A MCFN Research Framework The research team, that included UoG researchers and the MCFN Water Committee, discussed and grappled with interpreting conceptual expressions of co-engagement; relational paradigm; Indigenous values and ethics; Indigenous cultural protocols; and Indigenous meaning making because of different meanings and understandings associated with being Indigenous. A shared understanding of Kovach’s (2009) adapted research framework within the context of MCFN only emerged over time as the research proceeded. Throughout this time, the research team’s discussions around these conceptualizations further shaped Kovach’s (2009) adapted research framework (Figure 4.1) to be MCFN context-specific (Figure 4.2, see p. 87). What follows below, is a description of the emergence of this MCFN-context specific framework through an interactive and reflexive process. Each framework component is described in terms of how it was interpreted, and then how it differs to Anishinaabe understandings from the literature including why, and where applicable. The manifestation of the MCFN context- specific research framework could hence only be described in its entirety at the end of the research.

Co-engagement In this research the term co-engagement was used to convey collaborative values of mutual benefit and equal participation. The research (as mentioned in Chapter 1, p. 3) was in direct response to a MCFN need. All research team members and research participants were equally situated. 76

MCFN members were placed in the centre of this research as the knowledge holders and the producers for social change. The doctoral student was the facilitator and conduit for this research. Throughout this research, there was co-engagement between the research team members, and with the broader MCFN members.

The MCFN Water Committee initially met bi-weekly from May to December 2017 and then monthly from January to October 2018. For all meetings that the doctoral student attended, draft documents for input, discussion and revision as needed were prepared by the UoG researchers. The research was discussed with MCFN members at two open community meetings held in November 2017 and 2018, which saw approximately 20 and 30 members attend respectively. The research proposal and final Water Framework were approved by MCFN’s Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Committee before being endorsed by MCFN’s Chief and Council.

From a relational paradigm to a multiple-research paradigm approach This research team adopted a multiple qualitative research paradigm approach which allowed it to respect a relational research paradigm, enable plural understandings to emerge through the constructivism paradigm, and hear the voices of the marginalized to transform dominant Canadian water governance through an action inquiry paradigm.

A multiple-research paradigm differs from a mixed-methods paradigm which is described by Johnson et al. (2007) as the: type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements

of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and

quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the

purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. (p. 123)

77

Three research paradigms were adopted in an effort to accommodate heterogeneity in the research team.

First, a relational research paradigm is advocated by many scholars such as Wilson (2001); Borrows (2003); Hart (2010); McGregor (2018a) when doing Indigenous research. The MCFN Water Committee members however had different levels of understanding, accepting and practicing a relational research paradigm. For this reason, the research team although respecting this paradigm did not assume that all MCFN members were departing from an internalized relational paradigm. Hence this paradigm was allowed to emerge from the participants through the research process.

Watts (2013) explains that Indigenous relational ways of knowing, being and doing (which she refers to as cosmology57 and not a paradigm with ‘ontology58 and epistemology’) are embedded in place-thought processes that cannot be situated into abstraction. In Anishinaabe culture, Watts (2013) relates place-thought to the Anishinaabe creation story of the Seven Fires of Creation as told by Simpson, 2011. She specifically connects it the Fifth and Sixth Fires. “In the Fifth Fire, Gizhe-Mnidoo (the Creator) placed his/her thoughts into seeds. In the Sixth Fire, Gizhe-Mnidoo created First Woman (Earth), a place where these seeds could root and grow” (Watts, 2013, p. 21). In this understanding, it connects the “female, animal, spirit, mineral and plant worlds” (Watts, 2013, p. 21) as being one, equal and interrelated in contrast to the western world where humans are dominant and seen as superior (Watts, 2013). Place-thought is expressed as a unison, functioning and beating as one. There was, is and never will be a separation because it cannot separate (Watts, 2013). It is based on the premise that “land is alive and thinking and that humans and non-humans derive agency through the extensions of these thoughts” (Watts, 2013,

57 She uses cosmology because she embeds this relationship within the creation story. 58 Ontology is the “essential characteristics of what it means to exist” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 20). 78

p. 21). With the dominance and imposition of colonial thought embedded in positivism59 hence dualism60 in post-contact Indigenous peoples’ societies, place-thought was eroded and weakened but not obliterated (Watts, 2013). For MCFN members, colonial Christian- based faith through the influences of Peter Jones (see p. 63) shaped the beliefs, knowledge, practices and acceptance of place-thought cosmologies (see Chapter 3, p. 48). Watts (2013) says though that we are now in a mode of resurgence to reclaim our connections to the non-human world. We as humans are dependent on Earth and all of creations should function in balance, association and with respect to each other (Watts, 2013).

Second, in response to different acceptance levels of place-thought cosmologies, this research also adopted a constructivist paradigm to allow for social pluralism.

According to Patton (2015) the worldview of constructivists is that: we as humans have developed the ability to interpret and construct reality - the

world of human perception is not real in an absolute sense but is made up and

shaped by cultural and linguistic constructs. Things do not and cannot have

essence because they are defined interpersonally and intersubjectively by people

interacting in a network of relationships. Reality is socially constructed. Truth is

59 According to Comte in Mill (1965), positivism embodies two main tenets 1. Phenomenalism -“that facts are the bedrock of science; that they are based on pure observation, and that the connections between them - without benefit of abstract entities such as accrued in metaphysics constitute scientific laws” (Heidtman et al., 2000, p 11); and 2. Universal laws - “a social universe is amenable to the development of abstract laws that can be tested through the careful collection of data; these abstract laws will denote the basic and generic properties of the social universe and they will specify their "natural relations"; and such laws will not be overly concerned with causality, or functions” (Heidtman et al., 2000, p. 11). 60 According to Descartes in Capra (1983), dualism follows that the “mind and matter were separate and fundamentally different. Thus, he concluded that there is nothing included in the concept of body that belongs to the mind and nothing in that of the mind that belongs to the body” (p. 59). 79

constructed. Phenomena are context based and cannot be generalised. (chap 3,

p. 55)

Kanselaar (2002) states that constructivism is both cognitive i.e., from an individualistic perspective following the thinking of Piaget; and it is also social-cultural following the thinking of Vygotsky. Kanselaar (2002), in explaining Piaget, says that cognitive constructivism is where the human mind proceeds through adaptation (i.e., thoughts are assimilated and accommodated into the mind) and organization (thoughts are developed into complex and integrated ways to produce the adult mind).

Leeds-Hurwitz (2009) defines social-cultural constructivism as: the processes by which people jointly construct their understandings of the world.

Advocates assume that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather

than separately within each individual or in the world of things, making social

interaction the loom upon which the social fabric is woven. (p. 893)

The ontology of cognitive constructivism is idealism i.e., “what is real is in the minds of the individual” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 243) and relativism i.e., “local and specific constructed and co-constructed findings” for social constructivism (Guba and Lincoln, 2005, p.195). Their epistemology is “subjectivism i.e., created findings” (Guba and Lincoln, 2005, p. 195). They are both pluralist in nature in that there are multiple, often conflicting constructions and all are meaningful (Schwandt, 1994). Social constructivism although relational, differs from a place-thought cosmology in that social constructivism remains embedded in the human mind.

80

Third, this research in advocating for social justice adopted an action inquiry paradigm (which includes both Action Research and Participatory Action Research) which like critical theory61 is focused on social change (Tripp, 2005). However, action inquiry takes a step further by including participants in knowledge making thereby shifting the boundaries of knowledge production (Tripp, 2005). The ontology of action inquiry is participative reality i.e., subjective-objective reality co-created by mind and given cosmos (Guba and Lincoln, 2005, p. 195); and its epistemology is pragmatism62 (Oquist, 1978).

Given the adoption of a multiple-research paradigm approach, the ‘relational paradigm’ component in Figure 4.1 was replaced with ‘multiple research paradigms’ in Figure 4.2. to accommodate different beliefs in the research team.

From Indigenous values and ethics to community values and ethics Within MCFN members, knowledge, understanding and acceptance of being Anishinaabe varied and there was no one set of values and ethics. The Water Committee agreed though that for this research, it would be guided but not limited by the Seven Grandfathers’ teachings. These Anishinaabe teachings also seen as life principles included: “Humility, Honesty, Respect, Courage, Kindness, Truth and Love” (Lavallée, 2008, p. 69). These

61 Critical Theory according to Horkheimer (1972) is defined as both in terms of 1. emancipatory acts from slavery for human beings and 2. Transforming dominant systems that marginalise human beings in all its forms i.e., against injustices through feasible solutions. Its ontology is materialism i.e., “phenomena and problems not in terms of absolute ideas and predetermined societal development, but in terms of resource distribution, social struggles, power, resource control” (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2008, p. 114). Its epistemology is dialectical realism i.e., dialectical meaning subjective, “complex dynamic thinking” and “realism an analysis of real possibilities and a dialectic of pessimism and optimism” (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2008, p 114). In all critical approaches it is believed that social struggles (which have the potential to rise from the inside of systems) should radically transform oppressive structures to produce a socially-just system for the oppressed or exploited (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2008). 62 Pragmatism according to Oquist, 1978 (p. 152) is “science that consists of action guided by instrumental idea. The justification of knowledge is judged by the consequences of an operation. If action fulfils the predictions of the directive idea, maximizes the appropriate values, and resolves the problematic situation that gave rise to the research in the first place, then it is justified as knowledge. The only goal of knowledge is the solution of problematic situations”. Basically it subscribes to the question “What are the practical consequences and useful applications of what we can learn about this issue or problem?” (Patton, 2015, Chap 3, p. 105). 81

principles are not contradictory to what Simpson (2011) relays as Anishinaabe values and ethics which are entrenched in mino-bimaadiziwin, the good life. Simpson (2011) explains that living the good life is a lifelong way of living and there is no one way of living the good life. The foundation of living the good life is “good relationships as individuals, as families, as communities, as nations” (Kindle location 1715) and between all of creation (Simpson, 2011). Language and culture unify these diverse relationships and Anishinaabe peoples need to know this diversity to resist ongoing colonial assimilation and/or influence. ‘Indigenous values and ethics’ in Figure 4.1. were replaced with ‘Community members values and ethics’ in Figure 4.2 to reflect MCFN’s specific context.

The research ethics were also guided by the 2018 Canadian Tri‐Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples in Canada (Government of Canada, 2018b). The research ethics was first approved by the MCFN Water Committee and then the UoG Research Ethics Board (REB# 17-10-043), see Appendix 3.

Ethical considerations included informed and voluntary consent for participants over the age of 12, maintenance of confidentiality and privacy where feasible and required, research participant benefits, reduced risks for the research participant, rights of the research participant to withdraw if feasible, clear articulations of the analyses, use and dissemination of knowledge gathered, community ownership and management of knowledge gathered. All principles were discussed and revised by the MCFN Water committee, where appropriate to ensure that they aligned to the protocols and language used and understood by MCFN members.

From Indigenous cultural protocols to community protocols Within the Water Committee, there were different cultural perspectives ranging from traditional Anishinaabe cultures to more influenced Euro-Western cultures. Hence, the

82

Water Committee members had different understandings on what ‘cultural protocols’ would be followed. After in-depth discussions the research team agreed to incorporate two cultural protocols in the research.

First, water would be present during the research activities and it would be acknowledged as life. Simpson (2011) refers to Anishinaabe cultural protocols as the “original instructions passed down from the Ancestors” (kindle location 1807-08). She talks about dreams revealing ceremonies, through song and dancing; the “Little Boy water drum” (kindle location 489-90); and fasting. However, the research team agreed that Anishinaabe water ceremonies would not be performed which was considered to be ‘neutral’ yet respectful to water. The doctoral student was also aware, that water ceremonies are spiritual and should be performed by those chosen to do so by the Ancestors (Simpson, 2011). It would therefore be inappropriate for her, as non- Anishinaabe but more importantly as a non-practitioner, to perform water ceremonies. It was not the Water Committee’s expectation, though, that the doctoral student would be conducting water ceremonies.

Second, the research team agreed that all adult research participants would be offered a gift63 of harvested traditional tobacco but it was up to the participant to accept the gift or not. In relating the use of tobacco ties as a research methodology, Wilson and Restoule (2010) explain that tobacco is of prime essence for traditional Indigenous peoples in North America and “it is used as an offering for everything” (p. 35). The sacredness of traditional tobacco is often expressed through the creation and creator stories and it is used to connect with the spirit world (Wilson and Restoule, 2010). Simpson (2011) relays that for traditional Anishinaabe, the giving of tobacco is a reciprocal relationship. For research purposes, Indigenous knowledge is derived through the teachings of tobacco and

63 Tobacco as a gift was not offered as an incentive in this research. 83

recreating this sacred space in research provides an acceptance of Indigenous ways (Wilson and Restoule, 2010). Often, the acceptance of tobacco as a gift by an Anishinaabe person can be construed as consent to participate in the research (Wilson and Restoule, 2010). For this research, acceptance or refusal of tobacco ties was not automatically interpreted as agreement or not to participate in the research process. This was because the offering and receiving of tobacco as an Anishinaabe protocol was not practiced by all MCFN members. For activities with minors, the gift of tobacco was offered to the water.

Hence ‘Indigenous cultural protocols’ in Figure 4.1. were changed to ‘community protocols’ in Figure 4.2.

From gathering knowledge to a Community-Based Participatory Research The research team adopted the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach as recommended by Drawson et al. (2017), through their systematic review of 64 relevant articles, because it epitomizes “collaboration, research equality and community control” (p. 8). CBPR departs from Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Action Research (AR)64 but it places the decision-making within the community (Drawson et al., 2017). The researcher does not prioritize her/his own academic interests or identified social problem but acts as a conduit for the research identified by the community (Drawson et al., 2017). Further, rather than involving the community co-researchers through a learning and empowering process, all researchers and participants are regarded as equal knowledge holders and sharers throughout the research process (Drawson et al., 2017).

64 PAR and AR, under the general ambit of the western Action Inquiry paradigm (Tripp, 2005) aim to improve situations of humans through a systematic knowledge production process of action (Reason and Bradbury, 2008). PAR overlaps with AR but PAR is an emergent process rather than planned (Greenwood et al., 1993).

84

In this research, the MCFN Water Committee was the decision-making body and was seen to be self-determining for social change. Hence ‘gathering knowledge’ in Figure 4.1. was changed to be more specific as ‘community-based participatory research’ in Figure 4.2.

Making meanings of knowledge gathered from Indigenous to multiple perspectives Kovach (2009) claims that the research epistemology underlies the interpretative lens through which researchers make meaning of their research. Given that a multiple research paradigm approach was adopted, the lenses of place-thought cosmology, constructivism and action inquiry for social change were used to make meanings of the knowledge gathered as described in chapters 5-7. The meaning making process of the knowledge gathered through different western and Indigenous paradigms was not conceptualized to be necessarily intersecting except for the western paradigms which are congruent. Making meaning of the knowledge gathered from an Indigenous relational paradigm was used to provide an alternative cosmology allowing the research team to interpret the knowledge through different lenses.

Specifically, this research employed the thematic analysis methodology to analyze the qualitative knowledge shared. As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006), and Evans (2017), thematic analysis provides understandings of the research participants’ worldviews and opinions based on their lived experiences within context which was the purpose of this community-engaged research.

Although thematic analysis is meant to identify patterns within the data collected (Braun and Clarke, 2006), all knowledge shared in this research was included as themes whether it was one individual’s idea or shared ideas from more than one person. This approach is justified in that the frequency of ideas is not indicative of the significance of ideas (Braun

85

and Clarke, 2006). Outliers cannot be ignored because they may be manifestations of heterogeneity within your population (Bazeley, 2009). Conformity theories e.g., normative social influence (Asch, 1956), social influence (Asch, 1956), and social norms (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955) dictate that as humans we are socialized in our thinking towards norms (Kahneman and Miller, 1986). Often it is the outliers in a community who will offer voices of dissent, difference and creativity. However, these outliers are usually marginalized and their voices remain unheard (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). This was not the intent of this research and in living this intent, all Indigenous knowledge shared was considered as “reliable and valid forms of authored research (Riddell et al., 2017). This approach is strongly supported by The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres (2012) which calls for: …a collaborative process of research, education, and action that recognizes

plurality of knowledge, which is generated by and inherent in many places, spaces,

and people. All forms of knowledge are valid. All voices, even those deeply

marginalized, colonized, and silenced, have the power to articulate, to express, to

declare, and to tell “the story”. All knowledge leads to action and transformations.

All knowledge and all the resulting action give people power and competence to

define their own world. (p. 7)

For these reasons, quantitative analysis was not included for the thematic analysis.

‘Making meaning of knowledge gathered from Indigenous perspectives’ Figure 4.1. was replaced with ‘Making meaning of knowledge gathered from multiple perspectives’ in Figure 4.2.

86

In summary, a MCFN context-specific research framework adapted from Figure 4.1. (see p. 75) to Figure 4.2. is indicative of plural MCFN ways of knowing, being and doing which are embedded in its historical and contemporary context as illustrated in chapter 3.

Figure 4.2: An emergent MCFN context-specific research framework. Adapted from Kovach (2009).

In departing from these methodology principles, the specific methods employed for gathering knowledge are now described.

87

Research Methods Participants and selection At the onset of the research project, the MCFN Water Committee wanted to engage all interested MCFN members across all demographics and locations in this research so they agreed to: 1) 20 semi-structured face-to-face conversations with MCFN adult key-informants. Open story-telling was not the preferred way because the research was guided by questions. Participants were, however, provided with the option for story-telling should that be their preferred communication mode. 2) six group discussions with MCFN adults. It was agreed that sharing circles would not be used. Rather, the Water Committee agreed that the concept and process of focus group discussions were more appropriate and currently conventional within the community. Sharing circles and focus groups are similar however sharing circles provide the space for participants to holistically convey “emotional, mental, spiritual and physical aspects” in relation to the topic as part of the knowledge sharing in the research process (Lavallée, 2009, p. 29; and Nabigon et al., 1999). 3) eight artwork activity sessions with MCFN youth group and Lloyd S. King (LSK) Elementary School students. For this, we adapted the photovoice technique but replacing photography with artwork. Sutton-Brown (2014) describes photovoice as an “ethnographic technique that uses visual images (usually photographs), its associated meanings for social action and change” (p. 169). 4) one MCFN semi-structured survey with adults. Initially the Water Committee was planning to conduct a survey as the only knowledge gathering activity. However, there was concern that the response rate to a survey may be too low and there was no prior community consultation on the Water Claim to inform a survey. We decided to employ a semi-structured survey using preliminary conversation and group discussion findings. 5) two MCFN community meetings for input and feedback at the beginning and end of the research.

88

In anticipation that the Water Claim would be upheld by Canada, the Water Committee agreed that it would be beneficial to initiate preliminary discussions, as a starting point, with relevant Conservation Authorities. Seven Conservation Authorities were identified for semi-structured interviews. The purpose of these interviews was to ascertain Conservation Authorities views on the MCFN Water Claim and draft Water Framework. The reason why Conservation Authorities were selected was because the Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 (amended 2017) mandates Conservation Authorities to “provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals” (Part V, Item 20 (1). MCFN acknowledges that all three levels of government as well as other stakeholders inclusive of industry etc., will have to be engaged as the next stage in this project i.e., to advocate and position the MCFN Water Framework to Indigenize water governance within treaty lands and territory. The MCFN Water Committee will lead this objective as part of its ongoing discussions with Canada’s federal government and possibly with the government of Ontario and other Indigenous peoples sharing the treaty lands and territory.

These methods subscribed to MCFN community norms and are commonly used as non- experimental qualitative research tools in CBPR (Hacker, 2013). Hammarberg et al., 2016 suggest that qualitative methods are not meant to be used as “factual data required to answer the research question” (p. 498). Instead Hammarberg et al., (2016) suggest that qualitative methods are employed “to answer the research question in terms of participants experiences, beliefs, opinions, meanings and perspectives” which are context specific (p. 499).

Research phases, activities, and timeframes The CBPR approach with the community was divided into four phases with activities occurring over the period April 2017 to November 2018. Figure 4.3. provides a high-level graphic presentation of the four phases which are summarized in Table 4.1.

89

Figure 4.3: Research phases, activities and timeframes.

90

Table 4.1: Detailed summary of research phases, activities and timeframes. Phase 1 – Project Development and Phase 2 – Knowledge Gathering Design (conversations, group discussions April to November 2017 and artwork activities) December 2017 to April 2018

Six joint meetings were held with the Knowledge gathering occurred and Water Committee to develop the research progress was discussed with the Water proposal and protocols for the research Committee in January and April 2018. with MCFN adults which were endorsed Research ethics approval was obtained by Chief and Council and the PhD from UoG for the MCFN artwork activities Advisory Committee in September / with minors in February/March 2018. October 2017. In October 2017, research Throughout Phase 2, the knowledge ethics was obtained from UoG for the gathered was transcribed, checked for MCFN adult research which was initiated integrity, and analysed which were in November 2017. Relationships with the discussed and approved by the PhD Water Committee members were Advisory Committee in May 2018. developed during Phase 1. In November 2017, the research team presented the proposed research to MCFN members for input and discussion. Phase 3 – Knowledge Gathering Phase 4 – MCFN Water Framework (survey and interviews with Development Conservation Authorities) September to November 2018 May to August 2018

The research team developed the survey Further data analyses were conducted in May 2018, based on emergent themes from September-October 2018 to include from Phase 2’s preliminary analysis. the survey data and CA interviews. Based Research ethics approval for the survey on this research analyses, a draft MCFN and CA interviews was obtained from Water Framework was developed by the UoG in early June 2018 and the survey research team in September-November was distributed from mid June until mid 2018, and the PhD Advisory Committee’s August 2018. At the same time, six and MCFN members’ inputs were interviews with CAs were conducted. In obtained at the end of November 2018 for late July 2018 the research team further refinement. The final framework discussed the rationale and process for was endorsed by Chief and Council in the development of MCFN Water early 2019 for MCFN’s implementation. Framework.

91

Knowledge gathering activities The knowledge gathering activities with MCFN members sought views on their water values, Water Claim and the development of the Water Framework. The gathered knowledge fed directly into the research objectives on 1) identifying MCFN water values, 2) identifying the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN members, and 3) developing a conceptual MCFN Water Framework which informed research objectives 4 and 5 i.e., the deconstruction of social justice and water governance constructs from MCFN’s ways of knowing, being and doing as inferred by the doctoral student.

Each activity, except for the Chief and Council meeting, started by acknowledging water as life and the research participants were offered a gift of tobacco or tobacco was offered to water in the case of the youth activities. Thereafter, the research project and researcher were introduced (the doctoral student self-located herself in the research). Participants were given an opportunity to read through and complete the Informed Consent document, where applicable.

4.4.3.1 Semi-structured face-to-face conversations with key-informants The research team acknowledged heterogeneity within the MCFN community across demographic factors such as gender, age, lifestyle and belief systems hence they formed the basis of the key-informant participant inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were: 1) adult MCFN members across age ranges i.e., young adults, middle-aged adults and elders; 2) persons who were knowledgeable on the topic of water; 3) gender representivity; 4) occupational/lifestyle backgrounds representivity (economic, cultural, environmental, social focus); and 5) worldviews representivity. An exclusion criterion was MCFN non-members. In purposive, non-probabilistic sampling often theoretical saturation is used which is reached after about 12 interviews (Guest et al., 2006), although Kuzel

92

(1992)65 suggests 12-20 interviews to account for heterogeneity. In this research, conversations were conducted with 20 key-informants which were sufficient to account for diversity.

Key informants were identified, based on the inclusion criteria, by the Water Committee. The doctoral student was not part of this process except for two suggestions made by key informants. In these two cases, the doctoral student passed these names to the Water Committee Chair to confirm eligibility as per the inclusion criteria and to obtain approval. The Water Committee contacted members to ascertain their willingness to participate in conversations. Once they agreed, they were contacted by the doctoral student to arrange the logistics. At that time, they were provided the information letter and informed consent form (Appendix 4), and the conversation schedule (Appendix 5).

In opening the conversations, participants were asked to either respond to the probes or to tell his/her story. The specific probes explored with key-informants were: 1. How important is water to you and why?; 2. What does the Water Claim mean to you?; 3. What does ownership of water within your Treaty Lands and Territory mean to you?; 4. How are MCFN’s water values and rights centrally included (i.e. Indigenized) in water decision-making processes (termed water governance)?; 5. How do you think that MCFN’s water values and rights can be centrally included (i.e. Indigenized) in water decision-making processes (termed water governance)?; and 6. What you want to see in the Water Framework?

65 Although Kuzel (1992) cites Lincoln and Guba (1985); McCracken (1988); Marshall and Rossman (1989); and Patton (1990) as sources of this information, none of them confirmed these numbers except McCracken (1988) who refers to eight as a sufficient sample size. 93

The conversation either proceeded with an interactive discussion or engaging in storytelling. Notes were taken and conversations were audio recorded with the participants’ permissions. Interviews ranged between 20 and 90 minutes depending on the discussion or story.

4.4.3.2 Group discussions with MCFN adults In wanting to open the research to all MCFN members, the participant inclusion criteria for the group discussions were all MCFN adults who showed an interest in participating in the research, including Chief and Council members. An exclusion criterion was MCFN non-members, although flexibility was allowed to accommodate familial ties not accommodated through band membership. This emerged, at one group meeting, where some participants were Six Nations and not MCFN band members, but they associated and identified themselves with MCFN through familial ties.

Recruitment for the adult group discussions was done 1) as part of existing MCFN group activities and 2) as stand-alone meetings. As part of existing MCFN group activities the Women’s, Men’s and Elders’ Groups, and a Chief and Council meeting were targeted. Invitations to contact persons for each target group were sent by the Department of Consultation and Accommodation and Water Committee members. Once the target groups’ contact persons agreed to host a group discussion as part of their existing activities, they were contacted by the doctoral student to determine the appropriate procedures to follow in preparation for the discussion. For each group, the information letter and informed consent form (Appendix 6) and the group discussion schedule (Appendix 7) were sent to the groups’ contact persons for distribution to the group. For the stand-alone meetings i.e., a MCFN administration group the invitations were managed by MCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation. For the Aboriginal Health Centre in Hamilton as a stand-alone meeting, open invitations were

94

sent via its Facebook page and posters on its notice boards. A total of 27 MCFN members participated in the adult group discussion (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Groups’ discussions and number of people attending each group. Groups’ discussions Number of people attending each group* MCFN Women’s group 10 MCFN Men’s group 3 MCFN Elders Group 7 MCFN Band Chief and Council 8 MCFN Band administrative 5 staff Aboriginal Health Centre in 0 Hamilton *Note: some people participated in more than one group discussion/research activity, but each individual was only counted once.

Participants were given an opportunity to read through and complete the informed consent document. Except for the Elders groups discussion, the four main probes were introduced as follows: 1. How important is water to you and why?; 2. What does the Water Claim mean to you?; 3. What does ownership of water within your treaty lands and territory mean to you?; and 4. What you want to see in the Water Framework?

All participants were asked to write responses (one per sticky note but as many as he/she liked) to each of the four probes. They were given 10 -15 minutes for this. The purpose was to allow participants to reflect on the probes especially if this was their first introduction to MCFN’s Water Claim and the research project. Thereafter the sticky notes were collected and as a group the responses were arranged into themes for each probe on poster boards. At the end, the themes were reviewed to identify missing/additional ones.

95

A similar process was followed for the Elder’s group except that the individual writing of responses on sticky notes was replaced with the brainstorming of ideas/thoughts/responses as a group. The doctoral student made sticky notes during brainstorming session.

These group discussions ranged between 60 and 90 minutes.

For the Chief and Council group discussion, each member was offered a gift of tobacco before the meeting commenced because it was limited to 30 minutes. Only two of the four probes were posed: 1. What does the Water Claim mean to you?; and 2. What you want to see in the Water Framework? A general table discussion was held facilitated by the meeting Chair and the doctoral student recorded the main points raised.

4.4.3.3 Artwork activity sessions with MCFN youth group and LSK Elementary School students For MCFN youth, the participant inclusion criterion was MCFN members between the ages of 12-18 years attending the weekly MCFN Youth Group meetings and the exclusion criterion was MCFN members over the age of 18 or younger than 12. The research activity formed part of an existing scheduled meeting, so the recruitment took the form of an information letter (Appendix 8) and not an invitation. MCFN youth could decide if they wanted to participate in the research activity by attending the meeting. Only three MCFN members participated in the youth group activity.

Participants were given an opportunity to read through and complete Appendix 8. Two main probes were introduced: 96

1. Why is water important to you?; and 2. What would you do to care for/protect water for now and in the future?

Participants were asked to create artwork as a group or individually by drawing, writing, and/or creating a collage in response to the two probes. They were provided with poster boards, artwork materials and supplies; and were given 30-45 minutes to complete this task. Thereafter the ideas/thoughts that surfaced from the artworks in response to each probe were discussed and captured on poster boards grouped into themes.

As another approach to include the youth voice, the LSK Elementary School participated in this knowledge gathering activity through MCFN protocols i.e., approval was obtained from the Director of Education and then the School Principal who assisted in the activity’s conceptualization. Based on the Director and Principal’s active involvement, it was agreed that the students need not be invited to participate in this activity because it would form part of their class-lesson curriculum. However, a parental information letter was distributed via the school’s administration office to the parents (Appendix 10). The participant inclusion criterion was students from Grades K to 8 who were in attendance at LSK Elementary School on the day of the research activity. MCFN students not attending LSK Elementary School were excluded.

This activity was conducted in one-school day, 7 classes of 35 minutes each with a total of 136 persons during their music lesson. The schedule is included in Appendix 11.

Two main probes, displayed on poster boards, were explained to the students as follows: 1. Why water is important to you; and 2. Protecting and caring for water.

97

Participants (see Figure 4.4) were asked to create individual artwork by drawing and/or writing in response to the two questions. Each student was provided with an art sheet pre-printed with the two probes, and some artwork materials and supplies for this purpose. The students were given 10 minutes for this. Thereafter they discussed as a group the ideas/thoughts that emerged from the artworks in response to each question which were captured on flipchart paper grouped into themes. Students could keep their artwork and remaining supplies after the class lessons. The artworks were photographed before they were returned to the students.

Figure 4.4: Students at LSK Elementary School creating their artworks (Photo taken on April 5, 2018 by Renee Goretsky). Consent provided by the LSK Elementary School as per Appendix 10.

4.4.3.4 MCFN semi-structured survey with adults The purpose of the survey was to obtain larger input from MCFN members. Survey participants were asked to rate their agreement with the preliminary findings from the key- informant conversations and group discussions on:  The importance of water to you;  The meaning of the Water Claim to you; and  The goals of the Water Framework.

They were also provided with an opportunity to add their own input.

The participant inclusion criterion was all interested MCFN adult band members. Exclusion criteria were: 1) MCFN non-band members, 2) MCFN band members under 98

the age of 18, and 3) MCFN members who already participated in the research as key informants or group participants. The semi-structured survey was designed both as a paper-based and e-survey (via Qualtrics).

The paper-based survey (Appendix 12) was distributed on the MCFN reserve at community meetings, and placed at the library, MCFN administration offices, Department of Consultation and Accommodation, and Social and Health Services offices. Return boxes were also placed at these offices. Surveys with self-addressed and prepaid stamp envelopes were also sent to MCFN members with their regular newsletter. The e-survey66 was distributed via MCFN’s email distribution list, website page, and MCFN’s Facebook page by MCFN’s Communications Department. The deadline of 31 July 2018 was extended to 15 August 2018 due to the low response level. By the extended deadline date, 30 surveys responses were submitted. The research team decided to provide an incentive (CAD 500 cash gift card draw entry) for the survey to encourage more off- reserve MCFN members to participate in the research project. This presented a challenge because incentives were not provided to the MCFN members who participated in the key- informant conversations and adult group discussions and they were excluded from the survey because their views were already recorded.

To be fair and inclusive, key informants’ names were entered into the draw provided they agreed. For the draw purposes, survey respondents were asked to provide their names and contact details. The names of the key informants and adult group discussion participants were already known. The names of research participants (marked with confidential where required i.e., for those who declined for their names to be made public in the informed consent form) who consented to the draw entry were placed into a box.

66 the same content as Appendix 12. 99

The Chair of the Water Committee drew the name of the winner at a community dinner in September 2018 and the name of the winner was only publicized if the person provided prior consent to his/her name being made public.

4.4.3.5 Semi-structured interviews with identified Conservation Authorities The interviews with the Conservation Authorities sought to explore possible opportunities, barriers and challenges for the Water Framework’s implementation within the Conservation Authorities mandates and operational approaches (Research Objective 3).

The participant inclusion criterion was those Conservation Authorities whose watersheds are within the boundaries of MCFN’s treaty lands and territory. These included Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation, Hamilton Conservation Agency, Long Point Conservation Agency, Grand River Conservation Agency, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Agency, and Toronto and Region Conservation Agency. Conservation Authorities with watersheds outside of MCFN’s treaty lands and territories area were excluded. Requests for interviews, with the information letter and informed consent letter (Appendix 13), and the interview schedule (Appendix 14) were sent to relevant67 senior managers. Four Conservation Authorities representatives agreed to in-person interviews, two Conservation Authorities representatives responded to the interview probes via email and one Conservation Authorities representative declined to participate. At the in-person interviews, the research project and researcher (the doctoral student self-located herself in the research) were introduced. Participants were given an opportunity to read through and complete the Informed Consent document, and they were provided with a summary

67 This non-specific word was intentionally used to protect the identity of the interviewees especially where consent was not granted to share his/her name. Providing the specific management focus in the CA would be an indirect identifier. 100

of the draft Water Framework findings available at that time as a partial resolution to the Water Claim. The probes were sequentially discussed as follows: 1. What are the water governance principles/frameworks within your organization’s jurisdiction on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory?; 2. What are the water governance structures within your organization’s jurisdiction on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory?; 3. How does your organization currently consult with and accommodate First Nations?; and 4. What do you see as foreseeable challenge areas and transformation opportunities with regards to MCFN’s Water Claim?

Written and audio recordings were made of these discussions with the participants’ permission. Interviews ranged between 30 and 90 minutes depending on the discussion level.

4.4.3.6 MCFN community meetings for input and feedback Two MCFN community meetings, held in November 2017 and 2018, were organized by MCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation. About 20 to 30 people attended each meeting respectively. The meetings started with formal presentations on the Water Claim by MCFN’s legal councillor, Kim Fullerton, and on the Water Framework research project by the UoG doctoral student (an introduction in 2017 and a summary of the findings in 2018) followed by a Q & A session and ending with a community dinner. All research participants were invited, via email, to the November 2018 feedback meeting.

101

Analysis of Knowledge Gathered The knowledge gathered was transcribed and analysed by the doctoral student and presented to the Water Committee and PhD Advisory Committee for discussion as explained below. The units of analyses for the knowledge gathered were the MCFN Band participants and Conservation Authority representatives.

Knowledge gathered from conversations, group discussions, youth group and LSK Elementary School students All audio recordings from the key informants were verbally transcribed verbatim using Dragon Professional Individual by Nuance© into MS Word documents. Manual corrections were made for accuracy. Written notes/poster notes from the adult group discussions and youth artwork activities were transcribed into MS Word documents. These MS Word documents were imported into NVivo version 11 (and later updated to version 12) as cases68 . Each case’s references69 were coded into nodes70.

Evans (2017) explains that when using semi-structured interviews, your research questions should guide your thematic analyses and interpretation because themes should respond to your overarching research focus. Bazeley (2009) concurs that “a priori categories or themes” (p. 9) can be used in data analysis (deductive), provided that they are reflected in the data and that researchers examine the data for differences and relationships through inductive analysis. This approach is also supported by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) who claim that a hybrid deductive-inductive coding approach is needed to balance philosophical framings and empirical evidence.

68 Unit of gathered knowledge i.e., individual key informants (20 individuals in this unit), group discussions (five groups in this unit), school children (7 classes in this unit), youth group (1 group in this unit) and Conservation Authorities (6 representatives in this unit). 69 Comments made by a unit. 70 The themes, ideas, concepts, experiences, opinions that emerged from the knowledge shared. 102

Following Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006); Bazeley’s (2009); and Evans (2017) reasoning, initial deductive coding was structured into five broad areas for each case as per the five overarching probes (derived from research objectives aligned to the conceptual framework, see Figure 2.3, p. 51, except for research objective 5 on decolonising social justice which was extrapolated from the knowledge gathered) in the activities’ schedules viz: 1. The importance of water; 2. The meaning of the Water Claim; 3. The meaning of water ownership; 4. How should the water framework look/What should go into it? (The probe on “What can you do to protect water?” for the school and youth group activities was slotted into this broad node; and 5. Central inclusion of MCFN’s water values and rights and current water governance.

A second level of inductive coding within each of the five broad areas was undertaken by creating sub-nodes (ideas) from the references within each broad area by case to look for differences. In this way, different sub-nodes were built based on empirical knowledge shared. A third coding step merged similar sub-nodes into nodes (themes) by case for meaning making; and merged sub-nodes by case to remove duplication. A fourth coding step, either merged nodes across cases for the creation of super nodes (topics) where there was congruency or created stand-alone topics where there was divergence. A reference was coded more than once if relevant to more than one sub-node or node. The preliminary data analysis was presented to the Water Committee for discussion at a meeting in May 2018.

103

Knowledge gathered from the survey Online survey responses were automatically recorded in Qualtrics and survey responses completed in hardcopy were inputted into Qualtrics by the doctoral student. Not completed online survey responses (i.e., questionnaire generated but no data were captured, N = 6) were discarded. Partially completed online survey responses (i.e., some data captured) were included in the final survey analysis, where N = 24. Data were processed and analysed quantitatively by Qualtrics in percentages. Qualitative knowledge gathered in the form of additional comments by MCFN members were coded in Excel for additional, new or modified themes. The preliminary analysis was presented to the Water Committee for discussion at a meeting in September 2018.

Interviews with conservation agencies Written notes were transcribed into MS Word documents then imported into NVivo version 12 as cases. Each case was initially coded into four broad nodes as follows: 1. Water governance frameworks within their jurisdiction; 2. Water governance structures within their organisation; 3. Accommodating First Nations in water governance; and 4. Responding to MCFN’s Water Claim. Further coding was conducted within each broad node based on respondents’ answers to develop themes. The preliminary analysis was presented to the Water Committee for discussion at a meeting in September 2018.

Research Integrity: Robustness and Credibility Leininger (1994) maintains that qualitative research methods are not intended to provide for data reliability and validity for replication, but they are rather used to provide for research integrity in terms of trustworthiness. Hammarberg et al., 2016 refer to this as

104

procedural robustness, and credibility i.e., the findings being a true reflection of the knowledge gathered.

In this research procedural robustness was ensured through developing and following written research protocols and schedules which were approved through UoG’s REB process and by the Water Committee (see Appendices 4-14). Flexibility was allowed, if required by the specific context.

Research credibility was ensured in different and multiple ways. Adult MCFN key- informants were re-contacted to review and approve their typed transcripts for clarity and accuracy. The Conservation Authorities participants were not asked to review their responses post interview because 1) two interviews were via email and 2) the other four respondents indicated that they were very busy. However, throughout the in-person interviews, understandings of their responses were summarized and communicated, or questions asked for clarity. For the adult group discussions, youth group and LSK school students, poster boards were created with their responses and themes/ideas were agreed at the knowledge gathering activity which were used verbatim in the research analyses. In addition, the draft Water Framework was presented based on the research findings to the MCFN community for further input at a meeting in November 2018. Many adult research participants attended this meeting and agreed with the research findings.

As mentioned under section 4.3.1., co-engagement drove this research. The research protocols and processes were developed by the research team. The data analysis and preliminary data analysis across all the knowledge gathering activities, although initially conducted by the doctoral student, were discussed with the Water Committee at every stage to ensure that appropriate and meaningful interpretations were made of the findings. 105

Research Ethics and Data Management To ensure that all adult participants were able to understand and respond to the activity schedules, the research team designed them to be simple and as plain as possible. The school staff (principal and teachers) and the youth group facilitator assisted in co- designing the minors’ group activities with the doctoral student to the level of their comprehension. Different approaches inclusive of verbal explanations, writing and drawings were used to accommodate for a range of different literacy levels.

For participants over the age of 12, informed consent inclusive of confidentiality; and the use of individual stories and direct quotes were sought at the first engagement process through different modes inclusive of signing a hard copy form, providing verbal consent (if asking someone to sign a form was inappropriate), and assumed consent by completing an electronic survey. For participants under the age of 12, the research activity was incorporated into the school curriculum as a class lesson and hence informed consent for their participation in the activity was not required by the parents. Consent to take photos was provided by the school principal and consent to use the taken photos of the students in publications followed the school’s approval process. This was communicated to the parents in the information letter (see Appendix 10).

The consent process for participants over the age of 12 was ongoing throughout the research by encouraging participants to ask questions throughout the research and allowing them to withdraw up to a certain point in the research process. The information letter and informed consent forms are attached as Appendices 4,6,8,10, 13). In addition, the research team members were required to sign a research team agreement (Appendix 15). This required members to inform the team of all possible conflicts of interest in a timely manner so that they could be appropriately managed. Team members

106

were also required not to use their position for the benefit of themselves and their family or any other beneficiary of the research.

According, to the guidelines set out in OCAP (2014), MCFN owned the collective knowledge shared by the community. All collective intellectual property resided with MCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation (DOCA) which was responsible for knowledge storage, usage and management. The research team agreed that a sole property clause would be included in all documents71 which limited citation, use or reproduction of the information contained therein, and which was permissible only with the written consent of MCFN. UoG researchers were given permission by DOCA to use the research to produce academic outputs including this thesis. The research team also agreed that academic publication co-authorship would be considered over sole authorship if feasible, and that MCFN members’ contributions were to be acknowledged in all publications. These principles align to the concept of “Self-Voicing which affirms that communities must be fully recognized as authors and knowledge holders” (Riddle et al., 2017, p 7). The use of the MCFN logo was obtained through the community approval process.

No translation was required because all MCFN members were able to communicate in English. Two key-informants related their stories in Ojibway during the conversations and they translated them into English as part of the conversation i.e., they would say something in Ojibway and then immediately relate it in English.

71 academic publications that have been endorsed by the Water Committee or MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation were excluded. 107

Research Methods’ Limitations The term ‘research methods limitations’ is used as those aspects that the research team could not control or intentionally controlled in the research design which influenced the findings described in chapters 5 to 7. Other broader research challenges, outside of the researchers’ control are discussed in Chapter 8. The word ‘control’ is cautiously applied because it implies a power hierarchy in the research and all research team members and research participants were equally situated. Four research methods’ limitations were identified as follows. 1. Except for the key-informant conversations and artwork activities with the LSK school students, the number of MCFN members who participated in the research was based on MCFN members’ interests in participating and not on a pre-determined expectation. For this reason, only a limited number of off-reserve MCFN member participated despite proactive efforts e.g., contacting the Friendship centres in Hamilton and Niagara for group discussions; the Water Committee identifying key- informants off reserve; and the e-survey distributed to all MCFN members on MCFN’s distribution lists. This limitation has important implications for the unit of analysis which is the MCFN Band. For this research, it would not be appropriate to claim that the findings are indicative of all MCFN Band members. This was acceptable given that quantitative data validity methods were not considered to be suitable for this research (see p. 104). 2. This research approach was specific to MCFN’s context; hence the research findings and conclusions are not transferable to another context nor can they be used for generalizations. 3. The doctoral student, who was the facilitator and conduit for this research, remained mindful, yet an outsider. Her interactions in conducting the knowledge gathering activities; own assessments in coding the knowledge gathered; and analysis72,

72 Usually, data coding is undertaken by multiple researchers to account for divergent perspectives (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006) however for doctoral degree purposes, the doctoral student was the only researcher. 108

although presented to the Water Committee, the PhD Advisory Committee and the MCFN community for credibility were embedded in her own inherent and explicit biases as voiced in her research self-location on p. 70. 4. Academic research interests, although of relevance, were not the sole drivers of this research. The research guides were co-developed with the Water Committee and the primary aim was to ensure that the research probes and questions were comprehendible to the community. This was a research strength but at the same time academic research interests in deconstructing social justice and to some extent, Indigenizing water governance had to be extrapolated. Simple questions were used to probe and, in this way, key themes in relation to academic interests were gained.

109

5 MCFN Water Values This chapter addresses the first research objective which was to identify MCFN water values and to explore their relationships to historical and contemporary contexts shaping them as discussed in chapter 3. It ends with the MCFN’s visions for water for future generations. It draws on the knowledge gathered from the key-informant conversations with adults, interactive activities with elementary school students and youth, adult focus groups and the survey.

The Importance of Water to MCFN and Why The knowledge gathered from all the different methods revealed that water was very important to MCFN participants for multiple reasons. The central topic that emerged across all knowledge gathering activities was that ‘water is life’. However, the meaning of ‘water is life’ varied among individuals and groups.

Six themes emerged from the key-informant conversations in response to the importance of water. These themes were related to cultural, use, spiritual, health, environmental, and economic water values. The emergence of these six themes are supported by selected key-informant quotes.

Key-informants’ cultural water values pertained to their ancestors’ ways of living with and by the water to provide for their sustenance (food) and well-being: Our great grand fathers, they lived by the water, they fished in water and grew their

food- wild rice, in the water. Now, we have no water to grow wild rice. So, we can’t

redeem our way of life. (Mark Sault)

110

…as a community we have that disconnect because we do not have access to the

water. In this role (work), is to reconnect us to water. To give us back paddling, the

canoes... I feel really strong about the benefits of water for healing ourselves

personally and healing us as a community and returning us to our culture. I think

that it is vital, and I think it is part of our struggle as New Credit because we do not

have accessibility to water. (Andrea Dalton King)

For the use water value, key-informants identified the importance of water in terms of its recreational, food production, drinking, cooking, cleaning and gardening uses: I am a hunter myself, so I utilize the water for fishing. I fish out of Lake Ontario and

Lake Erie. Predominantly we travel down to Toronto like annually. I will be there

all of next month. Just for recreation and sports and stuff like that. I do recreational

fishing. (Craig King)

First and foremost, nobody would be alive without water. I think every living thing,

both human animals and plants we would cease to exist if there wasn't water. (Jai

King Green)

I garden a little bit and I use the water in that way, and if I farm… animals use water

too. Yes, water is there to use. I am not a recreational user of water... I swim a little

bit, but I don't from outside of the pool. So yes, water is for living, gardening,

agricultural uses. (Anonymous)

111

Key-informants identified with the spiritual water values in terms of water being alive and a spirit; and water through ceremonies and prays, cleansing us spiritually and emotionally: It is important to me because … what came to me spiritually was to start doing the

water ceremonies in 1995... about 25 years ago. So, I started doing water

ceremonies just like once a month and to bring this to women about our

responsibilities...in a spiritual way. I started to do the teachings and then songs.

So, to me water is everything. (Anonymous)

It has spirit, it has energy, it has movement. There is so much to water that is

beyond our physical self. There so much more to the physical sense of water. (Jai

King Green)

To me, another important factor would be with regards to the ceremonies of the

water, we are learning our ceremonies, we are learning our language that is within

those ceremonies so that we can talk with water. Because it is a spirit so that it will

want to survive, and it will want to keep the stories. It will continue to clean itself

and do the natural order that it should be. (Anonymous)

Key-informants also indicated that water was important for our present physical health and well-being and damaging water has significant detrimental implications not only for the continued existence of future generations but also their physical health:

112

Our bodies are made up of water. It keeps us hydrated to stay healthy. It is a basic

need for our physical bodies” and “We need water for our well being. It sustains

the health of communities. (Pat Mandy)

… water is life, before we come here, we grow in water in our mom’s belly. So just

thinking how important is if we don’t have water. Our water sources are running

out or are being polluted. If we are running out of our natural resources, what does

that mean to our future generations or future, if we are going to carry babies ...

where are you going to get that natural water? What is that going to mean for

developing babies, and health problems. That is what I was touching on earlier on,

about water being life… That is what our bodies are made up of so if we don’t have

access to the water in the future. (Anonymous)

The environmental water values related to water being important for sustaining animals and plants: …but also for the life within the water itself. The fish and wildlife. The habitats of

water are very important in itself and are important to the sustenance of

communities. (Mark Sault)

Last, key-informants indicated that water has an economic value for MCFN in terms of MCFN community benefiting financially from current for-profit water uses and from potential community-owned water-based businesses:

113

It's again going back to water as a commodity. Well, there is no getting around it

today. Water is a commodity so why have we not being in a position to reap the

benefits of the commercialization of that commodity? Because in the claim, we are

claiming Aboriginal title to the waters. First, which means ownership and why are

people making money off, of something that we own. And we are not benefiting.

(Mark La Forme)

I can definitely see the benefits, some financial benefits. Because we can reinvest,

the programs that we are offering now can be enhanced if we have more dollars.

Because if we don't, we have to apply for grants and access funds to actually have

meaningful and active programs. If we had a funding source that could actually be

self-funding. I feel though, it is a double-edged sword, because this cannot be

about personal gain. So why do we want economic development, is it for

individuals to have their own sustainability or looking for sustainability for the

community... And I think that we need to be community focused. (Andrea King

Dalton)

Through the adult group discussions, MCFN members viewed water as a subsistence resource for living, cooking, drinking, cleaning, and for providing energy and food. Water was also seen as cultural and spiritual, and it was important for environmental sustainability and economic growth. The emergence of these five themes are supported by examples of the poster notes included in Figure 5.1.

114

Figure 5.1: Poster notes from all the adult group discussions, except Chief and Council, in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members. Group discussions held over the period January to March 2018 at New Credit Reserve.

The youth group and elementary school students related to water for our health i.e., mainly for our survival; as a resource for subsistence use purposes (cooking, cleaning, drinking, gardening, growing food, providing energy) and for recreation; and for environmental sustainability in terms of keeping animals and plants alive, for rain and to

115

cleanse earth. Only the youth group associated with the spiritual relationship to water for ceremonies and self-growth. Figure 5.2. and Figure 5.3. show the emergence of the four themes i.e., health, use, environmental and spiritual values as supported by the youth’s artwork activities.

Figure 5.2: Youth group's artwork in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members. Artwork created on March 20, 2018 at New Credit Reserve.

116

Figure 5.3: Artwork from LSK Elementary School students in relation to the importance of water to MCFN members. Artwork created on April 5, 2018 at New Credit Reserve.

Based on the three knowledge gathering activities with key informants; adult groups; and youth, five broad water values (themes) emerged: 1) its use value for everyday living; 2) cultural connections to water e.g., fishing, hunting and canoeing; 3) spiritual relations to water; 4) environmental sustainability; and 5) economic value (Figure 5.4).

117

Figure 5.4: Summary of the five themes emerging from the key-informants, adult groups and youth related to the importance of water.

The survey respondents rated all five themes as being important (Figure 5.5.). Ninety- six percent considered water to be most important for use and environmental sustainability; followed by economic benefits (71%), spiritual meaning (67%) and cultural connections (58%).

It has spiritual meaning to me. I see water as 67 spirit and water has life

It is part of our culture, I use it for canoeing, 58 fishing, hunting etc

It has economic benefits e.g. energy, industrial 71 and food productions

96 It keeps plants, animals and humans alive

I use it e.g. to drink, to cook, to clean, for 96 recreation and gardening

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % of Survey Respondents (N= 24)

Important In between Unimportant I don't know/Not applicable

Figure 5.5: Percent of survey responses from MCFN adults on the importance of water to MCFN members. N = 24. 118

These water value themes were not always seen as being separate. Elder Garry Sault explained how water interconnects73 everything through the water cycle and how water sustains earth and all its beings: ... water is the blood of our mother earth. And it flows all over us. And it interacts

with the air. When the sun hits it, it starts to evaporate, and it goes into a different

shape. And when it comes down, it comes down as rain that turns back into the

water. So, it goes through a cycle that helps to get rid of some of the heavier

particles that were inside and that would have been harmful. It puts it into the trees

and the trees transform it into oxygen. So, the oxygen then feeds our bodies. We

rely on all the trees. It's like the lungs of southern Ontario. And it can do that

because of the water that comes down. But the trees don't get the water that they

need, and they can't put out the oxygen that we need to breath. So, it is imperative

that they start to recognize that cycle of life is all connected, and that water is one

of the main ways that connection flows in between all living creatures. And we

depend upon that. There is no way that we cannot say that if we don't have water

for the cows, we will have no milk. If we don't have water to wash our dishes the

bacteria will kill us. So, when you ask me about the importance of water, it is all

connected. (Garry Sault)

73 the theme of interconnectedness was coded from the key-informant conversations as a separate theme under water values. 119

Garry Sault further emphasized that this interconnection extends to our spiritual self, in that water teaches us to reflect on and be mindful of our relationships to all of creation on earth: So, it is like in a lot of our stories... water is a teacher. It teaches us that when you

look inside of the water you see your reflection and when you see your reflection,

then it helps you to look inside of yourself. To see how you are towards the things

on the earth because everything is connected. So, water does that. (Garry Sault)

The healing nature of water from a cultural and spiritual lens was also seen to connect to water values across its health, use, and environmental values: ...for when babies are sick, people are sick. I have held workshops every year,

community workshops on the importance of water. From the point of view of a

pregnant mom, from the gardener, from the people who work with trees, from the

environmental... and stories of healing that has happened about water. And ways

to work with the healing of water, I am involved in all kinds of stuff. (Anonymous)

To close off the findings on the importance of water to MCFN, a key-informant expressed that our (all of humanity) wellness is dependent on the interconnectedness of water i.e., the natural cycle. If we reconnect and live according to this natural harmony, we will achieve wellness: … that is the part of water where we are unhealthy because we don’t even have

water. We go, we have to travel to water… we go to those ceremonies, we go to

that water. The natural cycle is part of our wellness and it is part of all human

wellness, whether they know it or not. If we build everything around the natural 120

cycle, we are connected in that way, then there will be wellness. The energies of

the world will be reconnected to it, instead of opposing it ... causing harm. Instead

of getting spirit from alcohol or drugs... if we could reconnect to the natural flow

and spirit of the world... It is a big part of our water ceremonies and our people

knew that, not just our people but a lot of people who are connected spiritually to

nature. They knew that they lived that way. (Anonymous)

To make meaning of the findings on interconnectedness, Figure 5.6., shows that four of the five MCFN water values of use, environmental, cultural, and spiritual are separate yet interconnected. This interconnectedness was mainly seen in terms of a) linking water for the health of all of creation’s survival (human use values and environmental values); b) linking water to healing through our cultural and spiritual values on water; c) linking the healing nature of water across its use, health and environmental values; and d) our holistic well-being at the intersectional balance of these four water values. Economic values were excluded from the interconnectedness because they were mainly interpreted from a western perspective i.e., financial benefits and resource extraction.

121

Figure 5.6: MCFN’s water values as they interconnect with each other.

The findings of this study on MCFN participants’ water values were not unique. MCFN’s subsistence use, environmental sustainability, and economic values of water are widely accepted. The U.N. (n.d.-b) claims that: Water is essential for life. No living being on planet Earth can survive without it. It

is a prerequisite for human health and well-being as well as for the preservation of

the environment. Beyond meeting basic human needs, water supply and sanitation

services, as well as water as a resource, are critical to sustainable development74.

(paras. 1-2)

74 Mitchell (2020) and Simpson (2011) explain that Indigenous understandings are not synonymous with sustainable development principles i.e., “Development that meets the needs of the present without 122

The spiritual and cultural connections to water have also been described by many scholars (see McGregor 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018a; Anderson et al., 2013; Joy et al., 2014; Patrick et al., 2014; Perreault, 2014; Wilson, 2014, Longboat, 2015; Craft, 2017a; Daigle, 2018; Arsenault et al., 2018; Wilson and Inkster, 2018).

Specific to MCFN, Baird et al. (2015) conducted research on the perceptions of water quality in three First Nations (Six Nations of the Grand River, Oneida Nations of the Thames, and MCFN) communities through document analysis and a survey. Through their document analysis they found that, for Anishinaabe (which they equated with MCFN) water was one of the elements that connects the circle of life and therefore had a strong cultural meaning. In their survey, they asked residents living on the New Credit reserve to rate the importance of water for cultural purposes (Baird et al., 2015). They found that from 101 responses (58% women), which were statistically analyzed, that the cultural importance was “equally not important and important, resulting in a mean neutral response” (Baird et al., 2015, p. 237). They further report that: 1) there was a split in the respondents perceptions on how water was a source of community conflict (what this meant by community conflict was not explained in detail) with females indicating this to a greater extent than males; 2) respondents (24%) considered federal government to have more responsibility for water governance as opposed to individual citizens and the community; but that 3) respondents over 60 years and females indicated that individual citizens should have greater responsibility for water issues (note though that the terminology switched here from governance to issues); and 4) respondents between the ages of 18-39 felt less connected to New Credit yet females felt strongly connected to

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, Chap 2, 1). From Indigenous lenses sustainability means to “repair, strengthen and adhere to natural laws to enable the flourishing of future generations of multiple life forms” (Mitchell, 2020, p. 911).

123

New Credit (Baird et al., 2015). The interpretation of these findings was integrated across all their three case studies and was not specific to MCFN. It was done through extrapolation based on the literature rather than meaning within context and Baird et al. (2015) recognize this limitation and call for context-specific studies. However, of relevance in their interpretation for this doctoral research, was that MCFN’s level of cultural importance was found to be lower than the other two First Nations that they researched (Baird et al., 2015). They attributed this to the physical separation from an immediate water resource (Baird et al., 2015). They claimed that this outcome is consistent with studies by Blackstock (2001) and Castleden et al. (2009) that have shown that First Nations spirituality and cultural connections are largely dependent on their ability to physically interact with land and water resources.

Taking these claims by Blackstock (2001) and Castleden et al. (2009) into account and to further make meaning of the knowledge shared during this research, the question is: How have MCFN’s historical and contemporary contexts shaped their water values? This question is analyzed and interpreted in response to the knowledge gathered primarily from the key-informant conversations (and partially from the focus groups) where and when MCFN members were willing to share knowledge.

Historical and Contemporary Contexts Shaping MCFN’s Identities and Water Values In presenting these results, it is shown how history has shaped and constructed MCFN’s participants’ contemporary identities and water values.

Carolyn King, a former MCFN Chief, clearly summed this relationship between their history, and MCFN’s identities and water values today in her quotes below. She

124

emphasized two aspects in relation to MCFN’s history due to colonial influences. First, MCFN has been physically separated from water: Individually, we need water to live. Water is life. It is part of humankind. As a First

Nations, we have been away from water for a long time hence our relationship with

water is not part of our life. From a traditional sense, it has not been part of our life,

but we are getting there now. (Carolyn King)

Second, MCFN has been disconnected from their Anishinaabe spiritual relations to water: It is written in documents that we didn’t give up our water. My upbringing was not

with water in the traditional sense. We only have a few creeks here. I remember

playing in water, a farm pond, as a child. In that way water was part of our life. We

were born and raised as Christian, and water was regarded as sacred by taking

communion. But that is another context. But now, we are looking to get our ways

back, so I have started to relate to water. But due to colonialism, we as First

Nations have been separated from water, yet our name means water. In 1847 we

moved here from Credit. That was our way of living, on the Credit River. Then we

moved to New Credit. As Mississauga People we didn’t know our history. (Carolyn

King)

MCFN’s physically separation from water bodies and MCFN’s Anishinaabe spiritual disconnection to water are now discussed.

125

MCFN’s physical separation from water bodies MCFN was physically separated from water bodies when they relocated from the Credit River to the New Credit Reserve in 1848 (see chap 3 p. 63 for further details). As a result, MCFN is the only First Nations who does not have a major water body on their reserve as relayed below: I think to me, it goes to our name, the Mississauga People... it means water people

and we are starting to realize that we are probably the only First Nations who is

not situated around water. But that is not by choice, I always tell that to people.

(Anonymous)

This leads to the question of ‘What does this mean for MCFN’s water values’? In locating and tracing the importance of water for key-informants in terms of the past and present, it was clear that water bodies and their resources were more integral to their ancestors’ existence than they were today. Quotes by two key-informants illustrate this point: 1) “For our great grandfathers, it was probably more important to them because they used it for transportation, fishing and hunting. It was used for feeding people” (Pat Mandy); and 2). “When I was growing up, for my grand-parents water bottles were not a staple. They had a well and used spring-fed water. They fished but they stayed local...they fished in the local streams, springs and the Grand River” (Carla Campbell). MCFN participants indicated that their physical disconnection from water limited their ability to continue the practices of their ancestor’s cultural relationships with water which has impacted on their current water values: Our role on earth is not recognizable from what it was before. We look at it from

the Anishinaabe People, we are fishermen. Basically, that is what we do - fish.

Now we can't. We lost that part of our culture and our identity to the waters, to the

streams that we once owned. Because it is not available to us now. (Garry Sault)

126

We have lost that connect to water. So, you are right, the kids don't know that water

is important and why it is important. And why we are disconnected from it is

because we do not have it. (Andrea Dalton King)

Although, MCFN has the right to access water and its resources (as affirmed in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, 1982 and reaffirmed again in the 1997 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Supreme Court ruling, McNeil, 2001) often this is not the reality. Caroyln King relayed a story about being stopped by a Conservation Authority when fishing in the Great Lakes despite her inherent rights, treaty and Aboriginal title rights to fish and hunt because authorities are not properly trained.

Andrea Dalton King explained that according to her experiences she needs ‘permission75’ to access the Grand River to teach people how to canoe: So, it is about access. Even to get to the Grand, you need to get permissions to be

there. We don't just have the freedom to just go. We don't need permits, but for me

to go and teach through the program… to teach people how to canoe, I need to be

able to access water. So, I need permission to access the water. So now we are

third party. There are a lot of good people who have access to water, who have

75 Unfortunately, this required permission to access the water was not further explained. Access to the Grand River does require permission if launching pads are located on privately-owned land. Access to launching pads within conservation parks requires permission to enter through the payment of entrance fees but there are municipal launching pads that do not require payments (Grand River Conservation Authority, n.d.).

127

programs going that are willing to open that up for us. But still, we have to pay a

fee for their service. That is, we have to pay them to allow us on the water or to

use their canoes or to teach us. (Andrea Dalton King)

MCFN’s cultural and spiritual disconnections from water MCFN’s cultural and spiritual disconnect from water was explained through two lenses. First, in terms of colonial assimilation and missionization which have resulted in MCFN as Anishinaabe People not knowing what it means to be Anishinaabe: They need to be revitalizing those teachings and putting it back in the people. They

got to reverse what the missionization and assimilation did, they have to reverse.

I say, we cannot make an informed decision if we don't have our teaching. You

can’t stand up there and call yourself Anishinaabe and say we are doing this as

Anishinaabe People, when you don't even know what Anishinaabe is. (Nancy

Rowe)

Second, some members maintain that they lost their culture by choices they made by being in the world. This is illustrated in the quote below: With the change, we lost our traditional system- our culture and language. I will

say that we were influenced but not assimilated. As Indigenous peoples we made

choices. I think that we are different because we realised that we are - ‘I would say

not pro-development’- practical people. We need to survive in this world and under

the Indian Act forced upon us. Would we have been different if we didn’t have all

these limitations? I don’t think so, not in terms of how we developed. I don’t think 128

that we would be different too had we not been influenced. We are practical people.

(Carolyn King)

Desiree Webb, in responding to the question on the importance of water to your ancestors versus today explained that MCFN members made choices in the world which shaped their identities: I would say for my grandparents. It was probably because they came from more

of a cultural background per se. And with my parents, not so much... it wasn't

pushed on them. That is when everything started to go... ‘you go your way, or you

can continue to do this’. Teachings didn't necessarily get lost. People went out in

the world to define themselves. That is when commodity comes in and everything

starts to play a big role. So, I would just say is, as they got older, they lost it, but

when they're still around it, they are reminded of it every day, of the importance of

it. And that is when it hits them. (Desiree Webb)

The important point to note is that assimilation, missionization, and relocation whether by choice or force, shaped MCFN’s ideologies and their spiritual and cultural connections to water. This assertion is supported by Cave and McKay (2016) who note that disenfranchised strategies by Canada eroded “Indigenous women’s roles and responsibilities to water” (p 65). In Chapter 3, p. 63, the central role that Peter Jones played in MCFN’s historical locations both physically, and culturally and spiritually is explained. Some MCFN members are in the process of revival as part of the larger Indigenous peoples’ resurgence (see discussion on p. 36) to reclaim their connections to place-thought cosmologies as called for by Watts (2013). These MCFN members

129

asserted that they were now in the era of ‘reconnection to water’ and water relations were being lived.

Kaytee Lee Dalton powerfully linked the relationship between reconnecting with water and reclaiming her culture for her to heal from the injustices of colonialism: One of the important things that I really believe, it has been ingrained in me, that

our community, as native people, we really can't heal from the past until we have

reconnected with our culture. And we cannot reconnect with our culture until we

are able to reconnect with the water. That is kind of the one missing puzzle piece.

So, I think that will make a profound difference as a community. (Kaytee Lee

Dalton)

To end off these findings, it was suggested that MCFN must first educate themselves on their own Anishinaabe ways of knowing, being and doing, as part of the larger resurgence movements, before making decisions on the water: ...I am saying to decide on it, that we have to be educated. To decide on the

decisions... to make the decisions. Otherwise, any reference to traditional,

Anishinaabe and all that needs to be taken out. Because it is being humoured and

it is being used. All decisions regarding/on water must come from Anishinaabe

teachings... and we need to revitalize them. We need to be taught. This is the

reverse of missionization and assimilation. For the last 20 odd some years I have

chased elders across this this country on my dollar okay to get those teachings. I

brought back, it is in me, I brought back home for my family. It's only been within

130

the last couple years where I've stood up and asked to share with community and

they are going through Anishnaabeg protocols. Our way of doing things. ...mothers

who are well-versed in Anishinaabe way, or well-versed in water. (Nancy Rowe)

Relating MCFN’s water values to identities embedded in historical and contemporary contexts MCFN participants’ interconnected water values of use, cultural connections, spiritual relations, environmental sustainability, as well as water economic values were related to their present-day identities as shaped by past and present contexts.

Not all and only some MCFN participants identified themselves as being part of the larger Anishinaabe nation: Nancy Rowe emphasized that: “…the Mississaugas of the New Credit are not a First Nation. The First Nation is a larger body of people, the Anishinaabe”. Similarly, Andrea King Dalton explained that MCFN is part of the larger Anishinaabe nation however she recognized the subgroupings of peoples within this nation: “… we are Anishinaabe, Ojibwe, Mississaugas People, we were always on the Credit River, we are water people”.

In addition, another member distinguished between a MCFN identity and the New Credit Band identity: “I am a Mississauga of the Credit but I live here on New Credit so there is a difference” (Garry Sault).

These two findings of Anishinaabe and MCFN identities or lack thereof versus New Credit identities were important to understand MCFN’s water values. As per the second

131

conceptual tenet in chapter 2, p. 49, it is argued that there is no one collective of being Indigenous. Indigenous peoples’ identities in Canada are plural, dynamic and interwoven within self-identifying constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism (see Table 2.2., p. 28) and these identities shape water values. In MCFN’s participants’ context where they were reconnecting, due to colonial practices, with their Anishinaabe identity and culture i.e., Indigeny as a social relational identity, water has spirit and there was a strong need and desire to live the Anishinaabe in terms of water relations as called for by Watts (2013). Other MCFN participants saw themselves as a social-political entity, an Indigenous band under the Indian Act, and water was regarded as sustaining life for its environmental and use values. For MCFN participants who were responding to external structural forces i.e., Indigenism, the political value of water was an economic means to sustain themselves into the future. The multi-faceted and interdependent water values of MCFN participants correlated with plural Indigenous identities that have been shaped; and will remain to be shaped and dynamic in time and space for future generations.

MCFN’s water values for future generations MCFN’s participants regarded their Indigeny cultural and spiritual water values, and Indigenous peoples’ environmental and use water values as important for their responsibilities to future generations i.e., seven generations into the future.

The elementary school students and youth group clearly voiced the need to protect and conserve water in response to ‘What would you do to care for/protect water - now and in the future?’. However, only the youth group related to water as spirit and Carla Campbell explained that “We teach our kids to conserve water, it is in our school curriculum. But we can do more”.

132

Key-informants, in response to the research schedule probe on ‘How do you want your grand and great grand-children (seven generations into the future) to think about and see water?’, indicated that they want future generations to have 1) clean, available and accessible water for future generations; and 2) to know and live their Anishinaabe culture.

Two selected quotes from key-informants clearly illustrate the sentiments related to clean, available and accessible water: “I want my grandchildren to have water. Accessible and clean water. Not to waste water. How do we see water being wasted? e.g., these great big pools. Water is also being polluted” (Anonymous); and “For the future generations, they should have access and availability and cleanliness” (Craig King).

Currently, MCFN is connected to a municipal water source hence clean and accessible water is not a major cause of concern. However, this was not always the case and Jai King Green commented that she was privileged to have clean, available and accessible water compared to her grand parents: …The thing is that they didn't have access to clean water… But access to clean

water, drinkable water, tap water, potable water was different for them because

they had to go out to the well and bring back water. The relationship is different

than my relationship to water in terms of access and availability. Back then they

couldn't just turn on the tap in their house. I can. So, having to work for water myself

is different but for them, they had to work for it. So, I think that goes back to what I

was saying earlier, I am very privileged in comparison to my grandfather and my

grandmother. (Jai King Green)

133

Some respondents indicated that polluted water was not a problem for their ancestors but certainly became a problem with time: Back in those days, it wouldn't have been something that stepped to the forefront

in their minds because there wasn't as much pollution. And they couldn't conceive

of there ever coming a time when they wouldn't have fresh clean water.

Preindustrial... I don't know how far back you are thinking, my grandparents would

certainly not want to see the water polluted, but they may not have seen it as such

a big problem. (Anonymous)

I remember as a child, we were always told... Don't drink out of that stream. When

I was 12 years old and I went to Manitoulin Island, where my aunt lives up there,

and she said .... XXX you want to go to out to the dock and get us a pail of water.

I said sure. I come back with a bucket of water and I ask, ‘what is this water for?’

and she says it's our drinking water XXX, no big deal. I said are you telling me that

we drink right out of the Lake Manitowaning and she said Yes, we always have.

And I don't know if she knew any better. She is a trained nurse and we never got

sick off it. That was a different mentality up there, maybe it was still clean enough

to do that. I don't know if it is now but that's something that is always stuck in my

mind. Down here, that went away a lot earlier. (Anonymous)

Selected quotes from key-informants who wanted future generations to know and live their Anishinaabe culture are:

134

I think for my great-grandchildren. I want them to know the importance of water.

That it has spirit, that it has energy and movement. Not just my grandchildren and

my communities and my families. (Jai King Green)

And certainly, when it comes to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren

...absolutely, I want them to have, to respect water, and embrace water for what it

is. Being a giver of life. Something that should be respected and held sacred. To

not only Indigenous peoples but to all people on earth. There is not at awful lot of

fresh water on earth, so we better treat it respectfully and do our best to maintain

the water while we still have the chance… (Mark LaForme)

Garry Sault related that as an Elder it is his responsibility, through songs and language, to ensure that the spiritual teachings of the water are not lost to the youth, even if they resist, so that balance can be retained for future generations: They are losing it because the respect wasn't there, and I think because it is a new

thing to them. They are starting to utilize it, but sometimes when you look at young

people they don't always want to be like their parents. They want to be something

else. They want to make their own life. But the teachings of water can't escape

them because everything is connected. Because of me, they will look at their

connection to the earth, to the water. The language binds that connection. So, it

has to be maintained. If it is maintained in that respect for everything in Creation

will never be lost. Because the words are in our songs... I give thanks to the Creator

for that life. So, so when you call to that water ... it is life. It is like in our songs, it 135

calls for balance. So, if we do not balance things in a good way, then there will be

nothing for the future generations to come. (Garry Sault)

Carolyn King related her vision for future generations in terms of them making choices based on them knowing and understanding their Anishinaabe history and ontology: The story of our mural. Our history and creation story are illustrated in the school

mural. We live in this modern world, but we have to know our history.

Understanding what that is and going out into this modern world and making

choices. (Carolyn King)

Based on these finding, it was clear that present-day MCFN wants to protect the water for the physical, spiritual and cultural well-being of future generations.

Chapter Conclusions For MCFN water is life, defined in various ways in terms of its use value for everyday living; cultural connections to water (e.g., fishing, hunting and canoeing); spiritual relations to water; environmental value; and economic value. These values were not mutually exclusive but were rather interdependent because water interconnects everything.

MCFN’s historical and contemporary colonial influences of relocation, assimilation and missionization shaped participants water values through their plural Indigenous identities. Some MCFN members were in the process of revival to reclaim what Watts (2013) calls reconnections to place-thought cosmologies as part of the larger Indigenous resurgence.

136

For these MCFN members, Indigeny76 identity related to cultural and spiritual water values and they advocated that MCFN must first reconnect with this identity before making decisions on the water. MCFN’s identity as Indigenous peoples i.e., a socio- political group regarded water for its environmental and use values. MCFN’s identity as Indigenous to strategically respond to political and economic external structural forces was positioned within Indigenism and this identity related to economic water values. MCFN participants unanimously agreed that water must be protected for seven generations into the future. Future generations must have not only clean, available and accessible water but must also be culturally and spiritually connected to water as Anishinaabe; and it is now the responsibility of present-day MCFN members to ensure this.

Tenet 1 in the conceptual framework maintains that water governance is a system driven by values and ideologies. Before water governance can be Indigenized to achieve social justice for Indigenous peoples there is a need to identify and understand the context- specific values and ideologies of water governance. In this study, water governance is viewed from the lenses of MCFN and the question now is: How do MCFN’s plural water values rooted in multiple identities define the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN participants?

76 i.e., social-cultural 137

6 The Meaning of the Water Claim to MCFN This chapter addresses the second research objective which was to identify the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN members and to relate these meanings to MCFN members’ water values as shaped by historical and contemporary contexts. It draws on the knowledge gathered from the key-informant conversations with adults, interactive activities with elementary school students and youth, adult focus groups and the survey.

The Meanings of the Water Claim

The central theme that emerged by MCFN participants on the meaning of the Water Claim was that water was their responsibility, they need to respect water, care for the water and be stewards of the water. This sentiment is captured in the quotes: “Primary, is our responsibility to water. That people understand the importance of water and why it is important to us as New Credit” (Pat Mandy); and “… we are stewards not only over the land but also our water. And we have responsibilities” (Anonymous). Similar views were conveyed by Elders in a study by Wilson and Inkster (2018) with four Yukon Nations. These Elders expressed that respecting water had different social-context meanings which included not hurting water e.g., through pollution, extractive use; caring for the water; and being responsible to the water through a mutual and reciprocal relationship (Wilson and Inkster. 2018).

This central theme was moreover emphasized by MCFN participants when interpreting their Aboriginal title, inherent and treaty rights in response to the research question on ‘What does water ownership mean to you’? There was unanimous agreement by the key- informants and group discussion participants that we don’t own the water because you cannot own the water. Rather than owning the water, it was felt that we were stewards and keepers of the water and that we are responsible to the water:

138

Water ownership is a concept that I can’t understand. We don’t own the water; it

is our responsibility. Even 100 years ago they didn’t make decisions about the

water. It is about stewardship. So, it is not my water but my responsibility.

Ownership is embedded in capitalism and we can’t change it, but we need to try.

(Eric Sault)

I don't like the word ownership either, because as Anishinaabe People we don't

own anything. We are stewards of it and keepers. It is for everyone to use. That is

a hard issue, to say that we own the water, we own the land around it. We never

felt that way. (Andrea Dalton King)

Water owns us. Even thinking about our creation story, and even in the Bible, God

or the Creator used the water to purify the earth…so at any time with these floods,

these storms and these hurricanes I don’t say that we can own the water. We are

less than water. (Anonymous)

As a separate issue, some MCFN members voiced concerns that the Water Claim was still housed within a colonial framework. It was not MCFN’s Aboriginal and treaty right to lodge this claim because MCFN was not a nation but a colonial structure operating within the federal guidelines: I know that they are forming the Mississauga Nation and that is great but there is

no such thing as the Mississauga Nation. The Anishinaabe Nation is the Nation….

This is a reservation it is not a First Nations but were acting as though and

139

everybody knows it is an implanted colonial structure and the duty to consult is

falling on that structure. So, we are not consulting outside of the federal

structure…. So, the whole thing is very…. because people don't know, I think we

are not being afforded free, prior and informed consent… (Nancy Rowe)

It is got to go beyond New Credit; it is got to be with the rest of the Anishinaabe.

We have connections. We can’t just be looking after ourselves and for money. We

go after a claim and say what you owe us for all these years making money from

hydro. We have to talk to the other native people. That is part of our agreement

and accepted that any legal suit by a native, has got to be paid out of money made

by natives. They have to pay it, not hydro. Ontario Hydro ain’t going pay New Credit

all the money that they made all those years. They are making the native people

pay for it. That’s just not right…. If you look at our migration story, we all are one.

We moved and we separated into different geographical locations. But we are all

one. With this water too, we all carry parts of the teachings. (Anonymous)

Not to ignore the participants who voiced their dissent of MCFN’s Water Claim, Andrea King Dalton, concurred that the Water Claim should ideally be made by the Anishinaabe nation. She explained that as a way forward all Anishinaabe bands should take the lead with respect to their identified yet shared traditional territories: Somebody has to take the leadership role. And we have established our Traditional

Territory as Mississaugas of the Credit. And we talk about Anishinaabe People

compared to Haudenosaunee People where their Traditional Territory was below 140

the lakes. So, when we look at where the Mississaugas of the New Credit are in

relation to the other Anishinaabe People, we know where we are, we were in this

corridor. So, we are only talking about access to our main corridor, right down to

Lake Erie. When we are talking about that water, yes, then somebody has to take

a lead in it. We have already established our Traditional Territory, so it makes

sense for us to be stewards of that water. I feel, as Anishinaabe, that the other

Anishinaabe bands, they should be the stewards to their Traditional Territory. And

we will have that shared relationship if we want to go there, it is a back-and-forth

just like it was. We would be fluid. We were a very fluid society, as Anishinaabe,

and we shared. (Andrea Dalton King)

When probing further into what MCFN members wanted to see from the Water Claim, the responses were multi-faceted. During the key-informant conversations, MCFN members identified nine themes in relation to the meaning of the Water Claim. These were that MCFN 1) has to protect the water; 2) could reclaim their cultural connections as stewards of the water; 3) needs to have access to water; 4) needs to have a say in water governance; 5) would have their treaty rights upheld; 6) would have recognition 7) could benefit economically; 8) sustain themselves now and into the future; and 9) could have political leverage when engaging with governments of Canada.

The adult group discussion participants identified six themes similar to the key-informants. These were 1) having a say in water governance; 2) protecting the water for future generations; 3) benefiting economically from the use of water 4) reconnecting to water as

141

part of their culture; 5) ensuring that their inherent and Aboriginal title rights are upheld; and 6) having access to water.

Three overall topics emerged from the key-informant and group discussion participants’ meanings of the Water Claim. As a reminder, inductive coding was undertaken to develop nodes (themes) within cases (e.g., interviews, group discussions) and super nodes (topics) across cases where there was congruency and/or divergence (see p. 102 for further information).

These topics (Figure 6.1.), were Topic 1: Healing Ourselves by reconnecting with our culture including have access to water bodies, and recognition including through treaty and Aboriginal title rights; Topic 2: Protecting the water by having a say, and through political leverage; and Topic 3: Sustaining Ourselves through economic benefits, political leverage, access to water, and reclaiming our treaty and Aboriginal title rights. Each topic is explored below.

142

Figure 6.1: Framing the meanings of the Water Claim from the key-informants and group discussions.

Healing Ourselves The first emergent topic related to ‘Healing Ourselves’ for recognising and reconnecting with being Anishinaabe - their relationship to water and living their culture according to natural laws which have been eroded due to colonial influences: To me, it means getting back that relationship to water and that we can influence

protection of water. People do this through the water walks. It is about reclaiming

all that we have lost - our history, our language. It is all connected. As I said, we

are different in how we raise our kids, develop land or not. But this is not a money

claim. It is a jurisdiction claim to protect water. Recognising that we have an

important role to play. It is about bringing water into our lives. It is about moving

from ‘Afraid to be an Indian’ to being ‘Proud to be an Indian’. (Carolyn King)

143

Yes, it is because of the disconnect from our culture. That is part of that, but the strongest reconnecting with our culture, in my opinion, is the value of water. And so not having that. But it is part of our healing, and when we have ceremonies, water is a really big part of our ceremonies. The sharing of water, allowing especially as women our tears to flow which is very therapeutic and very healing.

Getting rid of that dirty water in our systems and knowing that we need to replenish it with clean water. And even just to be able to go to the water and be in water, to be floating in the water, to have freedom... it is very peaceful to sit by water. Since we don't have access to it, we have to drive a far distance to go and connect with water. (Andrea Dalton King)

I want to see more of our traditional practices within the water framework... continuously and not just words. I want it in the practice of it. To uphold it, and then that spiritual component will be in there and it will bind it. It binds it, and it is just not words. Just like when I said we need to say a prayer or sing a song to the water” and “I started doing water ceremonies just like once a month and to bring this to women about our responsibilities...in a spiritual way. I started to do the teachings and then songs. So, to me water is everything. Even today, we are talking to the trees and that is part of the water. And I want my kids to know. They know the importance of water. They know the ceremonies about water. Is not just a moon ceremony, it is about the water... the connection to the moon, sky, the people. Water is first and foremost acknowledged in everything that we do. It is

144

life. It is about life. So, the word Niibi talks about life. We look at water as we are

supposed to look at ourselves. (Anonymous)

In summary, to MCFN ‘Healing Ourselves’ in relation to the Water Claim was intertwined within recognising themselves as Anishinaabe and reconnecting with being Anishinaabe through revitalising, rediscovering, and reclaiming their cultural and spiritual relations to water. There was no one way of healing and different people would enter this journey along different points.

Protecting the water The second emergent topic was ‘Protecting the water’. This topic strongly incorporated the theme of ‘having a say’ in terms of regulating water policies, processes and decisions to protect the water. i.e., a say in water governance: I want us to have input into everything. For example, reduction of pollution, land

development and so on. Ideally, we should have equal voice. I am not sure about

veto rights. Canada will be resistant to that and we will have backlash. I am

socialized into modern paradigms and I see it as being Nation to Nation. But do

we have the resources for a representative voice? Do we have the infrastructure

and capacity in terms of knowledge and number of people? (Eric Sault)

I want us to have control of and have a say in industrial developments. I mean,

industrial uses of water are important. I recognize that they can't be abused. They

can't be turned into a corporate thing; they can't make a huge profit. I would hate

to see the day come when we don't have any rights to water as humans because 145

some corporate entity has somehow convinced people that it is something that

they need to pay for. If you don't have it, you don't get a drink. That is ridiculous

and I don't think that it is a stretch that it could go that way someday if we are not

careful. Having a say, having them required to consult us over the water. It is

about taking care of the water for everyone. (Anonymous)

MCFN participants couched protecting the water within environmental protection: The only thing that comes to my mind is the ability to stop and force them to give

it up. We basically want to stop something that is really horrible. We want to be

able to work with others, and groups... We wouldn't be the only ones because we

are natives. Other groups, environmental groups that are certainly behind

protecting the water. Because it is about protecting the water. I don't know much

about frameworks, what should be all laid out. But there has to be a way that we

can put the brakes on something that is detrimental to the environment and not

just have the court or somebody, saying, well industry wins out. (Anonymous)

MCFN participants also positioned protecting the water within holistic and inherent responsibilities to water: “Maybe we have to give MNR [Ministry of Natural Resources] over to the native people (laugh). The laws of the water to be handed over to the native people. Or have the principles that govern based on natural laws that come from our creation story” (Anonymous).

146

Irrespective of the purpose for protecting the water, what was clear, as relayed at the Chief and Council discussion session, was that MCFN must write their own regulations and processes based on their own standards to protect watersheds in treaty lands and territory. The primary school students and youth group, through interactive art activities, similarly advocated for laws and environmental control to keep our water clean. Their concerns were that the water was being polluted and that it needs to be protected (Figure 6.2. and Figure 6.3.).

Figure 6.2: Example of an artwork by a LSK Elementary School student (Grade 8) on protecting the water. Artwork created on April 5, 2018 at New Credit Reserve.

147

Figure 6.3: Artwork by MCFN youth group on protecting the water. Artwork created on March 20, 2018 at New Credit Reserve.

In summary, MCFN wanted to protect and conserve the water because water is and has life. They wanted clean and safe water for seven generations to come. To do this they recognised that they needed to have a say and authority in the decision-making processes about the water and ensure that water is managed according to their laws and ways of life.

Garry Sault compellingly articulated that we don’t own the water, but we have a responsibility to protect the water for future generations just as our ancestors have 148

protected the water for us. If the only way that we can protect the water is through the use of the word ‘ownership’ then it is our responsibility to own the water to protect it: Well, it is like a community thing... How can you own anything? It doesn't belong

to you. It belongs to the children yet unborn. But if we don't take the initiative to

protect the waters, the way that the ancestors left the responsibility to us, then we

are falling away from the things and the responsibilities that were given to us. So,

if that is the only way that they will leave the waters alone then we have to take full

ownership and the responsibilities that come with it to ensure that we have water.

(Garry Sault)

Sustaining Ourselves The third topic of ‘Sustaining Ourselves’, emerged in response to MCFN reclaiming their treaty and Aboriginal title rights. Mark LaForme poignantly explained that pragmatism required MCFN to adapt and respond to today’s world in order to sustain themselves for survival through economic benefits: We have to use those waters to sustain ourselves. We are no longer able to do

that because of encroachment. So how then do we take our sustenance from the

land and the water. For generations ago, and we translate that into a modern

context, we don't have access to those things that sustained us in the past. The

salmon in the Credit River or hunting deer around Toronto or where-ever it was.

There has just been too much developments and too much encroachment for us

to continue to rely on the land, for our sustainability. So, there has to be a modern

alternative. Allowing us to use that land in whatever way it is going to be used to

continually sustain ourselves. But that means that if it can only come through 149

economic and business development opportunities...then so be it. But we still have

to sustain ourselves.

For MCFN, the Water Claim for ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ was also explained in terms of positioning themselves politically through advocacy and influence for their self- determination. MCFN is claiming ownership of the water as a leverage to ensure that their voices are heard when they may or are being impacted; and to ensure that water is respected for sustainability: It means so many things, how do I articulate that? Well, first of all, the water claim

means that, as far as I am concerned, we are still the rightful owners of the water,

if you are going to look at it as if it can be owned. We never felt that we can own

the water and we have no concept of ownership. Not the land, it was there to share

for everybody, well and that is true for water. But, given how the governments

operate we have been forced to put forward and submit our claim for ownership of

the water because all of our treaties are silent on the waters with the exception of

one. So, in our opinion, we never did give up our rightful ownership of the waters

and we have documentation from the British Crown saying in as much. So, from

that perspective, yes, I do believe that we could maintain ownership of the water.

That does not necessarily put us on equal footing with the government, but it

definitely gives us an advantage when it comes to negotiations and discussions of

our Aboriginal treaties' rights. The water claim to me means that I can use it as a

leverage, particularly when I am dealing with proponents when doing

developments. They have to remember that anything done to the water has a

150

potential impact on the Mississaugas of New Credit so they have to be consulting

with us to ensure (I keep saying ownership, but I prefer the word stewardship over

the waters) that where we feel we have fundamental responsibility, that the waters

are dealt with respectfully and are maintained sufficiently so that they can continue

to sustain life. Again, not only Indigenous but globally. So, in that sense I see the

water claim as giving us some leverage when it comes to negotiating with the

Crown, whether it be the provincial or the federal governments. (Mark LaForme)

‘Sustaining Ourselves’ was further constructed in terms of cultural and social meanings and it was emphasized, if not implored by participants that economic development should not be considered a priority over cultural values and social community development. In addition, it was suggested that any economic gains must be channelled to community developments and not for individual/personal gain: “If people are going to be financially gaining, not necessarily something coming back to the band, e.g., Coca-Cola donating to shelters, schools and hospitals etc., that is a social responsibility. Stuff that will be used by all” (Craig King).

Physical access to water, as a treaty and Aboriginal title right, was also identified by MCFN for sustaining themselves culturally and spiritually. Specifically, MCFN participants felt that through the Water Claim they should be provided with unhindered physical access to water for cultural and spiritual purposes e.g., ceremonies: “I wouldn’t be participating if I didn’t think it would lead us to water because that is the part of water where we are unhealthy because we don’t even have water. We go, we have to travel to water... we go to those ceremonies, we go to that water” (Anonymous).

151

Last, Andrea King Dalton went further and suggested that access to water for cultural and spiritual reasons could also have economic benefits for the community. In her optimistic thinking she strategically foresaw potential synergistic opportunities between unhindered access and water-based community businesses: Even if you think about what kind of businesses that individuals could have, if we

had access to water. We don't even have anybody in our First Nations who has an

out-tripping business for education… again, it is about accessibility. I would love

to have a personal business, where I am teaching canoeing, and kayaking and

reconnecting kids to water. But then, I don't have access to water. (Andrea King

Dalton)

In summary, ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ for MCFN was about reclaiming their treaty and Aboriginal rights so that they cannot only survive in our contemporary world i.e., economic benefits and political leverage, but it was also about their right to have unhindered access and to use the water for their cultural and spiritual well being.

The survey respondents identified with the three topics of the Water Claim in terms of reclaiming our rights (i.e., Topic 3: Sustaining Ourselves); having a say (i.e., Topic 2: Protecting the water); and reconnecting with our culture (i.e., Topic 1: Healing Ourselves). Figure 6.4. shows that 83% (20) of participants agreed that the Water Claim was about reclaiming their rights; 54% (13) agreed that it was about Having a say; and 33% (8) agreed that it was about rediscovery and reconnecting with their culture. The ‘Other’ category of 5% consisted of comments to affirm the three identified Water Claim meanings.

152

Reclaiming our Treaty, Inherent and 20 Aboriginal Title Rights

Regulating-having a say, voice and 13 decision-making authority

Rediscovering and Reconnecting with 8 our culture

Other 2

- 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Survey Respondents (N=24)

Figure 6.4: The meanings of the Water Claim to the survey respondents (N=24).

Relating the Meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN’s Multi- dimensional Water Values, and Plural and Intersectional Identities The three separate yet interrelated topics of the Water Claim i.e., 1. ‘Healing Ourselves’, 2. ‘Protecting the water: Having a Say’, and 3. ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ relate to MCFN’s plural water values embedded in their multifaceted and intersecting identities.

Summarised in Figure 6.5., ‘Healing Ourselves’ strongly related to the cultural and spiritual connections to water as embedded in social-relational identities of Indigeny77: ‘Protecting the water by having a say’ connected to environmental and use water values in terms of ‘having a say’ as a socio-political Indigenous peoples78 entity (MCFN) as well

77 In Table 2.2. Indigeny refers to social-relational identities: principles of reciprocity with all of creation (Simpson, 2014) and collectivism (Lewallen, 2003, Dei and Jaimungal, 2018, p 2). 78 In Table 2.2. Indigenous peoples refer to socio-political entities: genealogy linked to prior occupancy, cultural distinctiveness derived from their ancestors including relationships with the land, and peoples who have been and remain forcefully colonized (UN (n.d), ILO (1989), World Bank (2020). 153

for spiritual and cultural water values in terms of having a say for Indigeny. ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ within water values of use and political-economic leverages were located within identities of Indigenous peoples and Indigenism79 respectively.

Figure 6.5: Relating Water Claim meanings to MCFN participants’ water values and Indigenous identities.

These three Water Claim topics were not mutually exclusive and MCFN participants (based on survey and key-informant responses, the group discussion responses were excluded because they were collectively recorded) identified with one or more of these topics. First, MCFN participants by demographic identifies of gender, age and on/off reserve locations had varying levels of connection to each of the Water Claim’s topics (Table 6.1).

79 In Table 2.2. Indigenism refers to mobilisations for self-determination against colonial hegemonies of political, economic and social institutional forces (Escobar, 2008; Dei and Jaimungal, 2018). 154

Table 6.1: Percentage of survey and key-informant responses by gender, age and on/off reserve locations to each of the Water Claim’s three topics. Demographics N Topic 1: Healing Topic 2: Protecting Topic 3: Ourselves: the water: having a Sustaining Ourselves Reconnecting with say our culture Female 30 63 63 63 Male 14 14 64 64

18-35 7 86 71 43 >35<55 18 39 72 83 >55 19 42 53 58

On reserve 32 47 69 66 Off reserve 12 50 50 67

Of note in Table 6.1. were: 1) females participants related to a greater extent to ‘Healing Ourselves” compared to men (63% versus 14%); 2) Younger participants (ages 18-35 years) related to a greater extent to ‘Healing Ourselves’ and ‘Protecting the water: having say’ whilst middle aged (>35<55 years) and older (>55 years) participants related to a greater extent to ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ and ‘Protecting the water: having a say’ than ‘Healing Ourselves’; and 3) on-reserve participants related more (69%) to ‘Protecting the water: having a say’ than off-reserve participants (50%).

Second, Figure 6.6., shows that MCFN participants connected, at varying levels, with all three Water Claim topics by intersectional identities80 of age; gender and residential location. An exception was male participants between the ages of >35 and <55 years. On reserve participants in this grouping connected to ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ and ‘Protecting the water: having a say’; whilst off-reserve participants in this grouping only connected to

80 Crenshaw (1989) first coined the term intersectionality to describe the interactivity between race and gender identities of black woman. This concept was subsequently expanded to include the interfaces between all social identities especially between privileged and subjugated identities (Gopaldas, 2013).

155

‘Sustaining Ourselves’. During the key-informant conversations, all males in this age group who lived on reserve indicated that they value water because they use it, and that water needs to be protected. One key-informant indicated that he was mindful, but not grounded in the spiritual relationship to water.

> 55, female, off reserve 50 50 50 > 55, female, on reserve 73 55 45 >55, male, off reserve > 55, male, on reserve 40 60 40 >35-55, female, off… 75 100 75 >35-55, female, on… 67 50 67 >35-55, male, off reserve 100 >35-55, male, on reserve 100 100 18-35,female, off reserve 67 33 67 18-35, female, on reserve 25 100 100 18-35, male, off reserve 18-35, male, on reserve

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 % Responses for each Water Claim Topic Sustaining Ourselves Protecting the water: having a say Healing Ourselves

Figure 6.6: MCFN participants’ connections to each of the three Water Claim topics by intersectional identities of gender, age and on/off reserve locations.

The importance of water to females was evident from these study findings which align with the central role that water plays in the lives of Indigenous women (Anderson et al., 2013; McGregor, 2014, 2015; and Cave and McKay, 2016). Young and middle-aged adult females (>18 to <55 years) specifically connected to water as ‘Healing Ourselves’ which was explained by Garry Sault (personal communication, December 2018) that: “women are water and men are fire”. However, as advocated by Jai King Green, water is the 156

responsibility of everyone; and that men and women have complementary roles in maintaining the balance emphasizing the importance of two-spirited peoples: And for women especially, we are so connected to the water, we are. I think

sometimes we don't even realize how connected we are. I think... That is one of

the things that I was taught, the roles and responsibilities as man and woman and

two-spirited people. Men have a connection to the fire and women have a

connection to water. It is interchangeable for sure. I think two-spirited people play

a very, very clear role in being interchangeable between fire and water.” But “Water

isn't just a woman's responsibility. Because we all need water to survive. We are

made of 88% of water. It is not like men survive on drinking fire. So, it is the

responsibility of everybody.

For on-reserve respondents ‘Protecting the water: having a say’ was important because of their connection to the land and environment: It is about us going back to protecting the water and back to the environment.

People don’t understand, we can’t drink oil or money. They are destroying the

lakes because of pollution. (Mark Sault)

Although not directly explicit from this research study nor postulated in the literature, these research findings (i.e., varying levels of overlapping Water Claim meanings by demographic identities of age, gender and residential location and their intersections) may be a reflection of Anishinaabe prophecies. MCFN members only recently reconnected with their Anishinaabe culture:

157

Our community only really got back our culture about 23 years ago within the

community. So, I didn't really grow up with it. My mom, either. Neither did my

grandfather. So, my mom has worked really hard and my grandfather who passed

away a few years worked really hard as well, to teach us as much as they knew.

My Anishinaabe culture that I love. (Kaytee Lee Dalton)

The Seven Fires Prophecy in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin (see chapter 3, p. 65) relate the attempts by colonial settlers to destroy the Anishinaabe nation but they also show that through resurgence the Anishinaabe nation will regain their ways and teachings through the water drum, clan systems, peace pipe, sacred water ceremonies and ultimately as Youth on Top of the World (Gibson, 2006). Given that young adults females in this research (Figure 6.6.) strongly connected with the ‘Healing Ourselves topic’ was indicative of this resurgence. However only the youth and not the school students (see chapter 5, p. 116) could connect to the spiritual relationship with water, and Nancy Rowe, a key-informant, advocated that “MCFN must educate themselves on being Anishinaabe” if the youth is ultimately to be ‘on top of the world’ as reflected in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin.

Chapter Conclusions Overall, there was general agreement between MCFN members who participated in this research, that their Water Claim was about their responsibility to water within topics of ‘Healing Ourselves’ by reconnecting with their Anishinaabe culture; ‘Protecting the water: having a say’; and ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ in terms of their inherent, Aboriginal title and treaty rights. These topics related to MCFN’s water values and their plural Indigenous identities. These topics were also not mutually exclusive within MCFN participants but were intertwined within intersecting and plural demographic identities of age, gender and residential location. The importance of these research findings i.e., the centrality of 158

MCFN’s responsibility to water, plural Water Claims themes and their correlations to demographic identities (Table 6.1) and by intersecting demographic identities (Figure 6.6) in addition to their plural Indigenous identities (Figure 6.5) illustrated that the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN were embroiled in layered and textured complexity. This complexity was embedded within MCFN’s historical and contemporary contexts as reflected in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin’s prophecies. As such the resolutions to the Water Claim including a Water Framework as discussed in the next chapter must be multi- dimensional.

159

7 MCFN’s Water Framework This chapter is divided into two main sections. First, it integrates the research findings on the importance of water (Chapter 5) and the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN (Chapter 6) to present the MCFN Water Framework. Second, it answers the overarching research question ‘How can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework’? This section relates how MCFN’s Water Framework’s core value and principles contribute to deconstructing western concepts of water governance. It then explains how MCFN’s participants related to social justice and why. Fraser’s (2009) social justice concept is then deconstructed as it relates to MCFN’s agency illustrated through the Water Framework. It further begins to explore potential opportunities, barriers and challenges for implementing MCFN’s Water Framework by analysing the responses from a select group of Canada’s water governance representatives (local conservation authorities) on MCFN’s Water Claim in general and specifically MCFN’s Water Framework as a partial resolution to this Water Claim. Last, it highlights MCFN’s participants reflections on the way forward to working within Canadian water governance.

To circle back to the focus of the research collaboration (see section 1.2 for full details), in summary, MCFN filed an ‘Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Traditional Lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit’81 i.e., the Water Claim in September 2016 (MCFN, n.d.-a). Through this Water Claim MCFN is asserting its unextinguished Aboriginal title to all water, beds of water, and floodplains which contains approximately four (4) million acres of land (MCFN, n.d.-a) within its treaty lands and territory in southern Ontario. In response to this Water Claim, a MCFN Water Committee was mandated to consult and engage with MCFN members about the Water Claim and their envisaged outcomes (personal communication, Water Committee, April 2017). The Water Committee’s

81 To view the Title Claim see http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MNC-Aboriginal-Title- Report.pdf. 160

mandate together with the academic research interest of UoG researchers on Indigenizing water governance resulted in a project focused on creating a MCFN Water Framework, as a partial resolution to MCFN’s Water Claim, that was representative of members’ values, worldviews, needs and aspirations. This project was titled the ‘Development of Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory’.

MCFN’s Water Framework The research team developed the Water Framework over the period from September to November 2018 (see Figure 4.3.) through a joint and reflexive process. The research team agreed that the research findings were not applicable for developing water laws and regulations82 but were more appropriate for developing a Water Framework of change and actions. A Framework for Action/Framework of Change aligns to Rothman’s revised models of community development of “1. locality development; 2. social planning policy; and 3. social action” (Rothman, 1996, p. 72). It is based on a ‘Theory of Change’ as suggested by Weiss (1995) for effective evaluation of community initiatives. Theory of Change describes and illustrates how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context; it starts with what is and what should be in the long-term; it fills gaps and identifies success conditions; it is focused on outcomes (and not outputs) based for achieving the long-term goal; and it facilitates evaluation of progress towards the achievement of longer-term goals (Centre for Theory of Change website, 2019). Often, the Theory of Change is applied through a logic model83, however after drafting a preliminary logic model based on actions, inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts, the

82 e.g., such as Yinke Dene in BC who developed the ‘Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Surface Water Management Policy’ (Yinke Dene, 2016a) and the ‘Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Guide to Surface Water Quality Standards’ (Yinke Dene, 2016b) to support policy implementation – on their Territory. 83 McLaughlin and Jordon (1999) explain a logic model as “the logical linkages among program resources; activities; outputs; customers reached; and short, intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Once this model of expected performance is produced critical measurement areas can be identified” (p. 65). 161

research team agreed that this was premature and that a higher-level framework for action and change was required. This led the research team to formulate the Water Framework in terms of principles, objectives and suggested implementation actions in relation to the framework’s purpose and intended use.

The Water Framework’s principles (Figure 7.1.) were based on the research findings from the importance of water and the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN, and included the following: Our core relationships with water i.e., respecting and caring for water as life, being

responsible to water and being stewards for the water form the basis of three

fundamental principles:

1) Healing Ourselves as a nation by rediscovering and reconnecting with our

cultural and spiritual relations to water;

2) Protecting the water by asserting our voice and authority in regulating water

decisions, policies and processes; and

3) Sustaining Ourselves (and seven generations into the future) by reclaiming our

treaty and Aboriginal title water rights. (Draft MCFN Water Framework: A

Framework for Water Governance on MCFN Treaty Lands and Territory,

unpublished, p. 6)

162

Figure 7.1: MCFN's Water Framework principles based on the meanings of the Water Claim to Indigenize water within their treaty lands and territory.

The Water Framework’s objectives were based on coded themes from the key-informant conversations and adult group discussions responses to the question on ‘What do you want to see in the Water Framework?’ More than 80% (N = 24) of the survey respondents related to these objectives (Figure 7.2).

163

Goal 10 96 Goal 9 92 Goal 8 88 Goal 7 79 Agree Goal 6 79 Disagree Goal 5 83 Neither agree nor disagree Goal 4 96 Don't know/Not applicable Goal 3 96 Left Blank Goal 2 92 Goal 1 96

0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Survey Respondents

Legend: Goal 1: For us to have unhindered (free, easy and rightful) access to water bodies on our treaty lands and territory Goal 2: For all people to meaningfully acknowledge and recognize water and our water values on our treaty lands and territory Goal 3: For us to strategically advocate, lobby and position our treaty and inherent rights to water Goal 4: For us to be directly, actively and seriously consulted and accommodated on all activities relating to water on our treaty lands and territory Goal 5: For all people to be actively and respectfully involved in the protection, conservation and remediation of the water Goal 6: For us to vibrantly live and have knowledge about our responsibilities to the water based on our Anishinaabe teachings Goal 7: For us to revive and integrate Anishinaabe teachings and traditions in our community Goal 8: For us to benefit economically so that we can sustain ourselves into the future Goal 9: To have sufficient and appropriate resources (e.g. people and funding) and structures (e.g. committees, task teams) in place to manage, implement and evaluate the Water Framework Goal 10: To have appropriate and ongoing education, awareness and communication activities about the Water Framework Figure 7.2: Percent of survey respondents indicating their support for the proposed MCFN Water Framework goals. Note: Goals 9 and 10 were merged in the final Water Framework.

164

A total of nine separate but interlinked objectives were identified for the Water Framework. Five objectives were in support of the principle on ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ in relation to access to water; educating people on MCFN’s water values; reclaiming MCFN’s rights and responsibilities to water through advocacy and lobbying; MCFN being consulted and accommodated regarding waters on their treaty lands and territory; and for MCFN to benefit economically. An objective in support of the principle on ‘Protecting the water’ evolved around encouraging people to conserve and protect the water actively and respectfully. Two objectives in support of the principle on ‘Healing Ourselves’ focused on reviving the Anishinaabe ways in the community and to live their responsibilities to water based on these Anishinaabe ways. The last objective related to the framework management in terms of appropriate resources, structures, education, and communication and awareness. Figure 7.3. illustrates the association between the Water Framework’s principles and objectives.

The Water Framework’s actions were based on coded themes from the key-informant conversations and adult group discussions responses to the question on ‘What do you want to see in the Water Framework?’ The Water Framework’s actions presented in Table 7.1 are arranged by objective.

165

Figure 7.3: MCFN's Water Framework objectives associated to the principles.

166

Table 7.1: MCFN's Water Framework actions arranged by objective. Water Framework’s Objective Suggested action(s) To have unhindered (free, easy and Obtain/exercise rights i.e., a blanket exemption to use rightful) access to water bodies water for recreational, cultural and spiritual practices; Develop processes for these rights; Educate people about these rights. To educate people to meaningfully Develop and implement an awareness and education acknowledge and recognize water campaign strategy; Erect acknowledgement and and our water values recognition plaques for the respect of water at all major and minor water bodies. To strategically advocate, lobby Advocate for water having rights in the Canadian and position our rights and constitution; Develop processes for members to be responsibilities to water protected and heard during lobbying actions; Provide funds for members to participate in lobbying actions. To be directly, actively and Provide informed, prior and free consent on activities seriously consulted and affecting our waters; Participate in relevant decision accommodated on all activities making; Develop clear processes and standards of relating to water practice for Consultation and Accommodation; Facilitate and contribute to collaborative actions. To benefit economically so that we Develop ways to obtain compensation from for-profit can sustain ourselves into the companies for their water use; Reinvest economic benefits future into social and environmental programs; Create opportunities for band members to develop water-related businesses. To encourage all people to be Halt undesirable actions; Monitor and evaluate current actively and respectfully involved water governance; Advocate for the allocation of capacity in water protection, conservation to enforce current conservation efforts; Rebuild water and remediation governance based on our ways and (re) educate society. To revive and integrate our Practice Anishinaabe teachings and traditions in the Anishinaabe teachings and community; Organize community events; Support traditions in our community programs to reconnect the children and youth to the water; Conduct ceremonies with the water. To vibrantly live and have Educate ourselves on our Anishinaabe teachings; Educate knowledge about our MCFN members that this claim is not about ceding our responsibilities to the water based water rights for money; Educate ourselves on traditional on our Anishinaabe teachings governance. To have appropriate resources, Constitute structures to oversee and implement the water structures, education, awareness framework; Appoint qualified and committed people to and communications for Water manage actions, Source and allocate sufficient resources Framework management for implementation; Develop and implement appropriate, inclusive and ongoing education, awareness raising and communication channels.

167

The Water Framework’s purpose and intended use as presented to the MCFN community at the end of November 2018 and endorsed by Chief and Council were: This framework is based on our foundational beliefs and provides principles for

transformative and strategic engagements as part of the Water Claim and other

broader applications. The intention is to expand on these principles to develop and

implement programs for community action and development. The long-term goal

of this framework is that it will contribute to reconciliation and our self-

determination. (Draft MCFN Water Framework: A Framework for Water

Governance on MCFN Treaty Lands and Territory, 2018, p 6)

Suggestions around implementation of the Water Framework’s objectives and suggested actions (Table 7.1) are offered in Chapter 8 as part of considerations for future research.

MCFN Water Framework principles are aligned with McGregor’s (2014) findings based on knowledge shared by Elders who advocate for “Indigenous peoples’ rights to be decision-makers in protecting the water on a nation-to-nation basis, and meaningful and respectful recognition of Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities to water within current water governance based on an ethic of responsibility” (p 501).

MCFN’s Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory In Chapter 2, Literature Review, Tenet 1 of the conceptual framework (see p. 49) contends that water governance is a system driven by values which indicates that before water governance can be Indigenized within a social justice framework, there is a need 168

to identify and understand the context-specific values of water governance. It is also argued in Tenet 2 as per the conceptual framework (see p. 49) that Indigenous peoples’ identities in Canada are plural, dynamic and interwoven within self-identifying constructs of Indigenous peoples, Indigeny and Indigenism. This signifies a need to understand context-specific Indigenous identities to explain what is meant by Indigenizing (i.e., from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing) and to relate how these identities shape water values. MCFN’s Water Framework, presented as principles, objectives, and suggested actions in support of the framework’s purpose and intended use, responds to both Tenets 1 and 2 in that it is based on MCFN participants’ water values embedded in their plural yet intersectional identities (see p. 155).

It is further argued in the conceptual framework, Tenet 3 (see p. 49), that Canadian water governance dominates Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights, which beckons the need to dismantle Canadian water governance by developing alternative Indigenous water governance approaches within context. MCFN’s Water Framework contributed to such a reconceptualization of water governance within their treaty lands and territory. Two questions emerged: 1) How can this Water Framework be applied to transform dominant resource-based water governance within MCFN’s treaty lands and territory? and 2) What does MCFN’s Water Framework mean for water governance within their treaty lands and territory?

In answering the first question on transforming Canadian water governance on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory, water governance was conceptualized as a system (see chapter 2, section 2.1. and Figure 2.1.). It was argued that to transform a system, strategic change interventions are required at the interconnections i.e., flows and/or system’s purpose (Meadow’s, 2008). In Canadian water governance, stakeholder interests represented through values as flows in the system drive this system (Tenet 3). Hence a

169

reconceptualization of Canadian water governance towards an Indigenous water governance approach based on MCFN’s Water Framework departs from:  Being responsible to water, caring for water, respecting water, and being stewards of the water - and not making decisions about water;  Following natural laws to heal ourselves - and not authoritative, and human-centred institutions;  Moving towards systems of collectivism for sustaining ourselves - and not perpetuating individual, rights-based socio-political-economic systems; and  Protecting water for being life - instead of continuing to regard water as a resource.

By applying this thinking, based on MCFN’s Water Framework principles and circling back to the question on ‘How can we Indigenize water governance’?, a reconceptualization of water governance within MCFN’s treaty lands and territory should:  Centralize water is life (the system’s purpose); and  Embed values of interconnectedness, respect, and responsibilities to the water (as flows in the system).

In turn, these values will shape our practices and processes (as flows in the system) and why water is important to us. The system’s purpose and flows will shape how our socio- political-economic-ecological systems and institutional arrangements (system’s stocks) are transformed.

A water governance approach departing from such a purpose and values, will lead our decisions to Water for seven generations into the future. This reconceptualization, as a deconstruction of western water governance concepts, is depicted in Figure 7.4.

170

Figure 7.4: A reconceptualization of western water governance based on MCFN’s Water Framework. Water is life is the central inner blue circle (the system’s purpose). The values represented by the second inner circle and practices and processes in the second outer circle flow throughout the system; and the flows are represented by black arrows. The importance of water (use, environmental, economic, spiritual, and cultural importance) is represented by the second outer circle; and the water laws, policies, rules, structures, society, economy, and political authority (stocks in the system) are represented by the outer circle. This aligned system steers our decisions to water for seven generations into the future which are represented by the outside parenthesis.

Calls for centralizing ‘Water is Life’ in water governance is similarly espoused by Wilson and Inkster (2018) who promote legal pluralism to transform dominant western governance systems’ institutions, processes and values through decentering human agency and recentering the spirituality of water. Their case study with Elders in four Yukon First Nations shows that although water was acknowledged for providing for human’s physical needs, it was moreover seen as a living spirit to be treated as sacred and with respect (Wilson and Inkster, 2018). Craft’s (2017b) worldview likewise is that Indigenous laws of relationships between humans and the natural world based on responsibilities rather than rights must be central in water governance. Chapter 2, section 2.1. (see p. 12) strongly emphasizes this centrality of Indigenous spiritual connectedness to water

171

i.e., water relations as expressed by Anderson et al., 2013; McGregor, 2014, 2015; Longboat, 2015; Hallenbeck, 2017; Arsenault et al., 2018; Daigle, 2018.

McGregor (2014) too urges for alternatives to the dominant Canadian water governance, which prevent Indigenous peoples from living their responsibilities to water through mino- bimaadiziwin. Yazzie and Baldy (2018) further advocate for radical relationality which they explain in terms of resistance and struggles against ongoing colonialism that violates Indigenous peoples’ relationships to the land and water for mino-bimaadiziwin. Chapter 2, section 2.5. (see p. 36) details examples of existing and larger Indigenous peoples’ movements to reclaim their responsibilities to water.

MCFN’s Water Framework, centralizing ‘Water is Life’ supported Indigenous alternatives to dominant Canadian water governance. However, it only partially followed the larger Indigeny84 resurgence movements to Indigenize water governance in Canada because it was built on plural and interdependent water values of cultural, spiritual, use, environmental, and economic importance. Yet despite these plural constructs of water values, embedded in multiple and intersectional identities shaped by historical and contemporary colonial contexts, MCFN member participants, intrinsically understood that they had a responsibility to the water. This context specific MCFN Water Framework, which supports a reconceptualization of western water governance within MCFN’s treaty lands and territory is a formidable example of how Indigenous peoples in Canada inherently know that they are connected to the land and waters; and are continuing to reclaim their own ways of knowing, being and doing. This is despite Canada’s attempts to destroy MCFN as Indigenous peoples through colonialism (see discussion on p. 60).

84 i.e., social-cultural identity 172

In returning to the question on ‘what does MCFN’s Water Framework mean for water governance within treaty lands and territory?’, as supporting Indigenous alternatives in a reconceptualization of Canadian water governance. If Canada truly wants to reconcile with Indigenous peoples as entrenched in: 1) section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, 2) RCAP, and 3) the TRC’s Calls to Actions, then upholding Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing as reflected in MCFN’s Water Framework is a positive way forward. This will require the consideration of the Water Framework’s nine objectives and suggested actions which broadly include: 1) MCFN having access to water bodies; 2) educating both MCFN members and Canadian society on Anishinaabe water relations; 3) political leveraging; 4) advocating socio-economic community development; 5) protecting the environment; and 6) Water Framework implementation (see Table 7.1).

MCFN’s Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within a Social Justice Framework In Tenet 4 of the conceptual framework (see chapter 2, p. 50) it is claimed that Indigenizing water governance through agency within a social justice framework, requires that Indigenous peoples need to self-assert their water rights and responsibilities, recognition and representation within context.

MCFN participants could not directly identify with the construct of social justice. However, 15% of the key informants (N=20) associated the Water Claim with reconciliation without any prompt. In response to the survey question on: How much do you agree that the Water Claim is about reconciliation?, 42% of the survey respondents (N = 24) agreed that the Water Claim was about reconciliation, 37% of the survey respondents indicated that

173

they neither agreed or disagreed, 13% indicated they did not know but no survey respondent disagreed that the Water Claim was about reconciliation (Figure 7.5.).

8%

12%

42%

38%

Agree In Between Don't know No answer

Figure 7.5: MCFN survey participants responses to the Water Claim as a reconciliation process (N=24).

Mark La Forme stated that reconciliation is an ongoing process which is complex with unknown meanings in terms of MCFN’s Water Claim: This Water Claim is not going to be resolved. It has to be implemented and

negotiated between us and the government in a way that allows for continual

reconciliation processes to occur. Whatever that means at the end of the day. Who

really knows what reconciliation is?

At the end of the research (November 2018), the MCFN Water Committee, MCFN members who attended the community meeting in November 2018, and Chief and Council affirmed though that the Water Framework was a way to “contribute to reconciliation and our self-determination” (Draft MCFN Water Framework: A Framework for Water Governance on MCFN Treaty Lands and Territory, unpublished, p 6).

174

The next section briefly discusses the construct of reconciliation and how it relates to social justice before deconstructing social justice, from MCFN’s lenses.

The concept of reconciliation is widely and commonly used in Canada today within the discourse of Indigenous peoples and Canada’s colonialism (Wyile, 2017). It is strongly reflected in Canada’s commitment to renewed nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples which espouses the spirit of “UNDRIP and the TRC’s Call to Actions” (Government of Canada, 2018a, para. 5).

In the TRC’s Principles’ Report (TRC, 2015b) reconciliation is defined as an: ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships. A critical

part of this process involves repairing damaged trust by making apologies,

providing individual and collective reparations, and following through with concrete

actions that demonstrate real societal change. Establishing respectful

relationships also requires the revitalization of Indigenous law and legal traditions.

It is important that all Canadians understand how traditional First Nations, Inuit,

and Métis approaches to resolving conflict. (p. 121)

From this definition, it is clear that reconciliation is: an ongoing process; about respectful relationships; and about societal change including upholding Indigenous laws and legal traditions. Craft (2017b) strongly supports this definition and argues that reconciliation must be grounded within Indigenous orders, principles, teachings, and practices stemming from respectful relationships with all of creation to live the good life.

175

The term remains contentious though within the academy and is used to mean different things within different contexts (Wyile, 2017). Constructs of reconciliation through different lenses locate reconciliation as: addressing the impacts of historical justice (Little and Maddison, 2017); healing processes (Borton and Paul 2015); ongoing struggles of the marginalized (Corntassel, 2009; Verdeja, 2017); educating those who continue to benefit from oppressive systemic structures (Eisenberg, 2018; Koggel, 2018); engaging transformation processes (de Costa, 2017); and renewal of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Corntassel, 2009; Craft 2017b). MCFN’s Water Framework principles, objectives and community-suggested actions aligned to the multiple meanings of reconciliation. ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ and ‘Protecting the water’ emerged in terms of dismantling oppressive structures which perpetuate settler colonialism today (Corntassel, 2009; de Costa, 2017; Little and Maddison, 2017; Verdeja, 2017; Eisenberg, 2018; Koggel, 2018) whilst ‘Healing Ourselves’ pertained to restorative justice (Borton and Paul 2015) which is about healing within (Corntassel, 2009), and about healing outwards (Koggel, 2018).

There are three mainstream reconciliation theories that provide understandings on how these reconciliation constructs can be achieved. These theories are 1) Communitarianism based on restorative justice practices (Verdeja, 2017) allowing for healing processes (Borton and Paul 2015); 2) Agonistic contestations providing the space for contentious engagements, and for differences to surface for discussions and negotiations within a critical theory paradigm (Little and Maddison, 2017; Verdeja, 2017); and 3) The centrality of mutual respect acknowledging and recognizing that multiple and varied value systems exist and that each one is valid and has a right to be lived (Verdeja, 2017). Daigle (2016) adds that the concept of ‘mutual recognition’, which she says continues to be based on assimilative practices in Canada, will only be lived if Indigenous self-determination is recognized.

176

Verdeja (2017) in drawing from the three reconciliation theories considers mutual respect and recognition to be inclusive of 1). “critical reflection” of past injustices and their ongoing manifestations in contemporary social and institutional arrangements premised on democratic principles of equality 2). “Collective symbolic and material recognition” for rectifying the past through socio-economic and cultural restitution and 3). “Political participation” giving agency, self-determination and power to Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes (Verdeja, 2017, pp. 232-237). This approach to reconciliation as mutual respect by Verdeja (2017), is reflective of Fraser’s (2009) concept of social justice as economic redistribution, cultural recognition, and political representation.

However, as indicated previously, Simpson (2004) and McGregor et al. (2020) advocate for decolonizing western constructs of justice and reconciliation from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. Tenet 4, in the conceptual framework, posits that Indigenizing water governance requires agency within a social justice framework, where Indigenous peoples are asserting their water rights and responsibilities from their own ways of knowing, being and doing.

In using MCFN’s Water Framework as a basis, Fraser’s (2009) western construct was deconstructed. MCFN’s Water Framework illustrates MCFN’s agency in the form of intentionality and forethought as per Bandura’s (2001) agency perspective. Intentions are “plans of action” (p. 3) and forethought is formulating direction and goals as desired outcomes (Bandura, 2001). MCFN’s Water Framework captures MCFN’s choices and independent actions for their self-determination (also see definition of agency on p. 48). It is recognised here that Indigenous conceptions of agency differ to human agency in that all of creation has agency in Indigenous place-thought cosmology (see Watts, 2013; p. 48 for more details). However, MCFN’s participants’ agency was shaped by their plural and intersecting identities, as illustrated in chapters 5 and 6. MCFN’s participants’ agency

177

was perceived, from Indigenous place-thought cosmologies and from human agency perspective.

This analysis of MCFN’s agency perspectives offers a lens on Fraser’s (2009) three-prong approach to social justice as embedded within a dominant-subjugated relationship. MCFN’s Water Framework is saying that ‘through this Water Claim we are’:  Not asking to be given rights through redistribution but rather reclaiming our Indigenous rights to sustain ourselves;  Not asking for Canada to recognise our culture but by rediscovering and reconnecting with our culture we will live our Anishinaabe culture as justice for healing ourselves; and  Not asking to be represented in decision making but rather asserting our voices and authority in regulating water decisions to protect the water.

In summary, MCFN’s Water Framework was not about [economic] (re)distribution but about reclaiming their inherent, Aboriginal title and treaty rights to ‘sustain’ themselves. Furthermore, social justice was also not merely being politically represented but about MCFN ‘having a say’ to assert their voices and authority in regulating water decisions, policies and processes. Last, social justice was more than cultural recognition but rather MCFN reclaiming their Anishinaabe ways of knowing, being and doing.

These principles of MCFN’s Water Framework i.e., reclaiming rights, asserting authority in water governance, and reclaiming the Anishinaabe way of life, and not Fraser’s (2009) constructions of social justice, perceivably represented what Indigenizing water governance within a social justice framework meant to MCFN with respect to their Water Claim. This is what social justice as reconciliation meant to MCFN.

178

MCFN’s perceived understandings of reconciliation based on their Water Framework aligned to the TRC’s definition of respectful relationships and societal change (TRC, 2015b). However, MCFN fist needed to heal within i.e., educate themselves on being Anishinaabe before being able to heal outward to uphold Indigenous laws and legal traditions.

Canada’s Water Governance Authorities’ Reflections on the Water Claim This section analysis and reports on the responses from local Conservation Authorities who were asked to explain their 1) water governance principles and structures within their organization’s jurisdiction; 2) organization’s current consultations and accommodations with First Nations; and 3) foreseeable challenge areas and transformation opportunities with regards to MCFN’s Water Claim. At the in-person interviews, participants were presented with the draft research findings for MCFN’s Water Framework as a partial resolution to the Water Claim.

Chapter 4 explained that all Conservation Authorities are mandated by the Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 (amended 2017) to “provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals” (Part V, Item 20 (1). In achieving this mandate, Conservation Authorities research participants communicated different understandings of their roles. One Conservation Authority representative mainly saw its Conservation Authority role in terms of managing the review process of development applications, and floodwater and stormwater management. A representative from another Conservation Authority, considered its Conservation Authority’s role to be inclusive of stewardship, policy planning, promoting recreational use and playing an advisory and commenting role. The

179

range of roles as communicated by the participants and the occurrence of roles across Conservation Authorities (N = 5) are depicted in Figure 7.6.

Advisory and commenting Monitoring Policy planning Source water protection Water quality Recreational use Revenue Strategic and watershed plans Restoration Stewardship

WaterManagement Roles Flood and storm-water management Land ownership Regulations Review applications for development

- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of Consevation Authorities

Figure 7.6: The range of Conservation Authorities’ representatives’ understandings of their water management roles (y-axis) and the occurrence of each role across Conservation Authorities, within their mandates as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 (amended 2017). N = 5, one representative did not comment on its Conservation Agency’s roles.

Conservation Authority participants also communicated that they operated their governance structures in different ways. A few Conservation Authorities operated from Strategic, Business and Watershed Plans whereas others, although acknowledged as important, were still in the process of developing these plans mainly due to resource constraints. While they all operated under a governing ‘Board’ according to the Conservation Authorities Act (1990), the models for their constitutions varied in terms of membership and representation. Boards either consisted entirely of constituent municipalities or a combination of constituent municipalities and citizens. However, there was agreement that no formal mechanism existed for Indigenous peoples’ representation on Conservation Authority Boards. One Conservation Authority representative suggested that the Ontario Province could direct the Conservation Authorities to appoint an 180

Indigenous representative to their Boards. However, this suggestion was acknowledged by this representative to be neither possible nor applicable because the Ontario Province had no 1) voice or 2) representation on these Conservation Authority Boards since the 1990s due to their withdrawal of their financial support to Conservation Authorities.

In terms of First Nations inclusion in current water governance, some Conservation Authorities representatives viewed all Indigenous peoples as one entity. This meant that Indigenous peoples’ plurality was not recognized, or Indigenous peoples were not acknowledged as self-determining Nations. There were a few exceptions where the Conservation Authorities were working with the individual First Nations communities. As examples, The Credit Valley Conservation Authority was working with MCFN on the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project which aimed to restore habitat in the south- eastern of Mississauga in Lake Ontario as well as on the Credit Valley Trail Project. The Grand River Conservation Authority has a 20-year notification agreement in place with MCFN and Six Nations, has worked with both MCFN and Six Nations in the development of the 2014 Grand River Watershed Water Management Plan, and has MCFN and Six Nations representation of their Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee. The other Conservation Authorities had no engagement with First Nations however the representatives communicated openness to exploring opportunities provided that the what and how were clearly devised. In other words, clear terms of reference and operational approaches for working together. Moreover, certain Conservation Authorities, although receptive to First Nations inclusion in water governance, commented (N = 4) that inclusion must operate within Ontario governance rules.

181

All Conservation Authorities representatives indicated that, prior to this interview, they were aware of MCFN’s Water Claim85 however they were unsure of its meaning and the implications for them. When asked to comment at this interview on the MCFN’s Water Framework as a partial resolution to MCFN’s Water Claim, Conservation Authorities representatives regarded the ‘Protecting the water’ aspect as complementary to their mandates; and were keen to build and strengthen partnerships with MCFN once the Water Claim was legally recognized. Their key concern was the implications of MCFN’s ‘water ownership’ if understood as a western concept, but they supported MCFN instilling responsibility and respect to water.

The Conservation Authority representatives identified both social challenges (e.g., changing societal behaviour and perceptions) and institutional challenges (e.g., developing doable and collaborative processes, standards of practice), to upholding and implementing a legally recognised MCFN Water Claim. They indicated that a directive from the Ontario Province may facilitate MCFN representation on their Boards but ultimately, any successes would be achieved through relationship building. As a start, where there are no partnerships, MCFN and the Conservation Authorities should engage to develop small and practicable collaborative projects.

In summary, there were opportunities for the implementation of MCFN’s Water Framework through existing collaborations with the Credit Valley and Grand River Conservation Authorities and potentially new partnerships. The challenges were to find workable modalities of engagement and mind-set shifts. A significant barrier was that Conservation Authorities were not obligated and, in some cases, not open to respond to

85 They had received a copy of the Water Claim from MCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation. 182

MCFN’s Water Framework until their Water Claim was legally upheld, which could be a lengthy process.

MCFN’s Reflections on Canadian Water Governance From MCFN’s key-informants and group discussion participants’ perspective, working within Canadian water governance was seen to be fraught with challenges, and polar. When these participants were asked ‘How do you think that MCFN’s water values and rights can be centrally included (i.e., Indigenized) in water decision-making processes (termed water governance)?’, their responses ranged from ‘we have to collaborate with Canada’ through to ‘we need veto rights’ to ‘perhaps we have to have veto rights so that we can collaborate’.

MCFN participants’ responses in support of collaborating with Canada were contextualized in terms of we are a diverse, yet one human race and we have to live together as one: I'm not a fatalist. I always think that there is hope. And when I look at hope, I look

at it this way. When you look at the Indian corn. The Indian corn has all of the

colors of the races of people on the earth. If we can’t start to grow together like on

the Indian corn, there will be no humanity. Because we have to pray, and prayer

is one of the main things that is going to save us. I look at it that way. Because it's

one of our prophecies. (Garry Sault)

On the other hand, MCFN participants felt that MCFN’s rights to live their responsibilities to water were blocked by the dominant Canadian water governance. MCFN needed to

183

have rights to veto, as resistance movements, for them to be responsible to the water based on their own values: … international law even domestic law through duty to consult says we have a

right to veto. They should be using it, they should say…we have the water, leave

it alone because my great-great grandchild needs that water. Reneé: How do we

do it in the current system where it is so dominated by the Canadian system? We

can’t do it in the current system. We got to get it outside of the current system.

(Nancy Rowe)

I think it has to be veto, because collaborative decision-making hasn't got us

anywhere. It takes forever to get somewhere, and it is based on their values. They

don't see us as an equal. Even our justice system, it doesn't matter how long. They

still see us as inhumane and non-distinct. (Anonymous)

Given the current realities of MCFN not having a say in water governance, some participants suggested that it should be a phased approach starting with MCFN having veto rights with an eventual evolution towards collaboration with Canada: Perhaps we need to start off with veto rights so that we can ‘tighten the reins’ and

as we go along, we can move towards co-management. We must use the Duty to

Consult to ensure that our principles are upheld. (Pat Mandy)

As described above, in exercising their inherent, constitutionally protected, and internationally recognized rights, MCFN participants suggested both 1) transformative 184

collaboration and 2) resistance movements to colonial powers and structures. This approach follows the hybridization model as suggested by Hanrahan (2017, see chapter 2, p. 47).

Indigenous peoples have long considered treaties to be based on principles of relationships and co- existence (Chiefs of Ontario, 2008). Whyte (2013) advocates for a social learning approach which promotes mutually respectful knowledge-sharing collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The goal to working together should be a commitment to building relationships; achieving harmony; and respecting differences (Bowie, 2013). This view was supported by the late Grandmother/Elder Josephine Mandamin who maintained that Indigenous knowledge is equal to western science and a balance is required to respect both: Traditional Knowledge is a way of life for the Anishinabek peoples and is handed

down to us from our ancestors. Our knowledge is being misused, abused and

misunderstood. Science does not respect traditional knowledge. We need to come

together as one. Scientists need to sit down with us and to understand where we

come from. We have intricate knowledge of medicine, animals, and flow.

Anishinabek peoples live in the environment, know the elements, and know how

to take care of ourselves. Many scientists have come to terms that traditional

knowledge is as important as science and there needs to be a balance between

science and traditional knowledge. We have to work together towards balance.

(Anishinabek Ontario Resource Management Council, 2009, p. 13)

185

While Indigenous peoples may be cautiously willing to share knowledge within the spirit of true partnerships and respect through collaboration (McGregor, 2014), Canadian water governance will first require decolonizing processes (Bowie, 2013). Dei and Jaimungal (2018) assert that this decolonization will involve deconstructions of “mind, body, spirit and soul” (p. 1) before transformations will occur. Until such a time, Indigenous peoples, including MCFN as evidenced by their Water Claim, will continue to resist colonial powers and structures.

Chapter Conclusions MCFN’s Water Framework, using a Theory of Change/for Action conceptual underpinning, centralizes ‘Water is Life’ and provides supporting principles, objectives and some initial suggested actions for transformative and strategic engagements as part of their Water Claim. This Framework provides core values and principles to support a deconstruction of western water governance for a reconceptualization towards an Indigenized water governance. Such a reconceptualization of water governance is established on water values of interconnectedness, respect, care, responsibilities and stewardship/keepers. All the system’s parts of water governance i.e., laws, policies, rules, structures, society, economy and political authority; and the processes and practices in water governance will be shaped by these values. Such a reconceptualization of water governance will steer decisions to water for seven generations into the future because we, as all of creation, will holistically relate to water to sustain ourselves, to heal ourselves and to protect water as life. This is how MCFN sees itself Indigenizing water governance on its treaty lands and territory should their Water Claim be upheld by the Canadian government as part of the reconciliation process. MCFN’s Water Framework partially follows larger Indigeny resurgence movements despite their plural constructs of water values as shaped by colonialism, indicating their intrinsic connection to the water.

186

Through MCFN’s Water Framework, MCFN illustrated their agency (both human-centric and relational) for social justice. Indigenizing water governance within a social justice framework, was about MCFN reclaiming rights, asserting authority in water governance, and reclaiming the Anishinaabe way of life, and not Fraser’s (2009) dominant-subjugated approach of economic redistribution, political representation, and cultural recognition. This is what social justice as reconciliation meant to MCFN.

This deconstruction of social justice built on respectful relationships aligns to the TRC’s reconciliation definition. For social transformation, MCFN first needed to heal within as an Anishinaabe community before being able to heal outward to uphold Indigenous laws and legal traditions.

As a starting point, there were opportunities for implementing elements of MCFN’s Water Framework through building new and strengthening existing local relationships and collaborations with the Conservation Authorities who are mandated to manage jurisdictional waters. At the same time, there were challenges identified in terms of mind- set shifts and modalities for workable engagements, and legal recognition constraints. MCFN acknowledged that their Water Claim and adoption of this Water Framework will be a lengthy process which will require engagements with multiple levels of government through both collaborative and resistance mechanisms as advocated through treaties and calls for decolonization respectively.

187

8 Thesis Conclusions and Implications Highlighted in chapter 1, Indigenous peoples in Canada have internationally recognized Indigenous rights and constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights (Canadian Constitution Act, 1982; Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982; RCAP, 1996; UNDRIP, 2007; TRC, 2015a) which include their right to be responsible to protect and care for water (McGregor 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018a; Anderson et al., 2013; Longboat, 2015; Arsenault et al., 2018). However Indigenous peoples in Canada are unable to live their responsibilities to water due to Canadian water governance injustices of constrained self- determination (White et al., 2012; Norman and Bakker, 2015), imposed colonial frameworks (von der Porten and de Loë, 2013, 2014; Simms et al., 2016; Castleden et al. 2017; Arsenault et al. 2018; Daigle, 2018), and restricted legal notions of water rights (Borrows, 2017). These injustices embedded in power and knowledge hierarchies (Arsenault et al., 2018) continuously marginalize Indigenous peoples’ rights in Canada. Values of water as a resource or commodity to be used (Bradford et al., 2016; Castleden et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2018) dominate Canadian water governance over Indigenous peoples’ rights to protect and care for the water. This begets the unresolved question: ‘how can Indigenous peoples implement their own ways of knowing, being and doing, i.e., Indigenize, in relation to water in meaningful ways?’ (McGregor, 2014). Transforming dominant water governance for the marginalized, in this context Indigenous peoples, requires a social justice approach (Franco et al., 2013; Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014; Jackson, 2016) which adopts the multi-lens, three-prongs of economic redistribution, cultural recognition and political representation (Fraser, 2009). In response, this research addressed ‘how can water governance be Indigenized within a social justice framework’? This research was undertaken in the context of MCFN’s identified need for ‘Developing a MCFN Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance on their Treaty Lands and Territory’, as a partial resolution to the ‘Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Traditional Lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit’.

188

In this chapter, the main research findings are summarized as conclusions according to the five research objectives and conceptual framework which guided this community- engaged research as per Figure 2.3 (see p. 51). Next, the main research contributions (theoretical, methodological and empirical), the research strengths and challenges, future research opportunities, and self-reflections in the research are presented.

8.1 Main Findings: Summary and Conclusions Research Objective 1: To identify MCFN water values and to explore their relationships to historical and contemporary contexts shaping them. Tenet 1 of the conceptual framework contends that water governance is a system driven by stakeholder values. Before water governance can be Indigenized within a social justice framework, there is a need to identify and understand stakeholders’ water values. In this study, water governance is viewed from MCFN’s multi-faceted yet interconnected water values of use for living; cultural connections; spiritual relations; environmental sustainability; and economic development. MCFN’s water values were embedded in plural identities (Conceptual Framework, Tenet 2: Indigenous peoples’ identities in Canada are plural, dynamic and interwoven within self-identifying constructs of Indigenous) shaped by historical and contemporary colonial influences of relocation, assimilation and missionization, as voiced by key-informant conversation participants. Some MCFN members, as part of larger Indigenous resurgence movements, were in the process of revival to reclaim their Indigeny i.e., social-cultural identity related to cultural and spiritual water values. MCFN’s identity as Indigenous peoples, i.e., a socio-political group, regarded water for its environmental and use values. MCFN’s identity as Indigenous to strategically respond to political and economic external structural forces was positioned within Indigenism and this identity related to economic water values. These findings are supported by Hitlin (2003) who says that values are linked to personal and social identities. MCFN participants unanimously agreed that water must be

189

protected for seven generations into the future and that it was their inherent responsibility to ensure this.

Conclusion 1: MCFN’s water values of use for living; cultural connections; spiritual relations; environmental sustainability; and economic development were multi-faceted and interdependent within plural Indigenous identities shaped by historical and contemporary colonial influences and Indigenous resistances.

Research Objective 2: To identify the meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN members and to relate these meanings to MCFN members’ water values as shaped by historical and contemporary contexts. MCFN members who participated in this research regarded the Water Claim as their responsibility to water within inter-related topics of ‘Healing Ourselves’ by reconnecting with their Anishinaabe culture; ‘Protecting the water: having a say’; and ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ in terms of their inherent, Aboriginal title and treaty rights. These topics, which were not mutually exclusive for MCFN participants, were informed by MCFN’s multiple water values shaped by plural Indigenous identities and intersecting demographic identities of age, gender and residential location. These research findings were critical for the development of a MCFN Water Framework which had to consider the layered and textured complexity of a heterogenous MCFN community.

Conclusion 2: The meanings of the Water Claim to MCFN i.e., Healing Ourselves’ by reconnecting with its Anishinaabe culture; ‘Protecting the water: having a say’; and ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ in terms of its inherent, Aboriginal title and treaty rights, correlated to MCFN’s multi-faceted water values embedded in plural and intersecting Indigenous and demographic identities. As such the resolutions to the Water Claim including a Water Framework had to be multi-dimensional. 190

Research Objective 3: To develop a conceptual MCFN Water Framework based on the meanings of the Water Claim, and to explore possible opportunities, barriers and challenges for the Water Framework’s implementation. MCFN’s Water Framework based on the meanings of the Water Claim i.e., Healing Ourselves’; ‘Protecting the water; and ‘Sustaining Ourselves’ centralizes ‘Water is Life’. It provides supporting principles, objectives and some initial suggested actions for transformative and strategic engagements as part of their Water Claim. This Water Framework supports Indigenizing water governance on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory, which is dominated by Canadian water governance. (Tenet 3 in the conceptual framework).

Through interviews with Conservation Authorities who are mandated, by Ontario, to manage jurisdictional waters, both opportunities and barriers were identified to implementing MCFN’s Water Framework. Some initial opportunities included building new and strengthening existing local relationships and collaborations between MCFN and Conservation Authorities. Identified challenges were mind-set shifts; deciding on modalities for workable engagements; and legal recognition constraints. MCFN recognized that their Water Claim and adoption of this Water Framework will be a lengthy process involving multiple levels of government and requiring hybrid strategies of collaborative and resistance mechanisms.

Conclusion 3: MCFN’s Water Framework i.e., Healing Ourselves’; ‘Protecting the water; and ‘Sustaining Ourselves’, which centralizes Water is Life, will contribute to Indigenizing water governance as new arrangements on their treaty lands and territory, which will require varied approaches of collaboration and resistance movements with multiple levels of Canadian governments given the overlapping jurisdictions.

191

Research Objective 4: To examine western constructs of social justice and to deconstruct social justice from MCFN’s ways of knowing, being and doing. Tenet 4 of the conceptual framework posits that Indigenizing water governance should be through agency within a social justice framework by Fraser (2009), as Indigenous peoples’ water rights and responsibilities, recognition and representation within context.

Based on the research findings, MCFN related to the Water Claim as part of the reconciliation process. From the emergent principles of MCFN’s Water Framework, MCFN illustrated their agency for social justice. Indigenizing water governance within a social justice framework, is about MCFN reclaiming rights, asserting authority in water governance, and reclaiming the Anishinaabe way of life; and not Fraser’s (2009) dominant-subjugated approach of economic redistribution, political representation, and cultural recognition. This is what social justice as reconciliation meant to MCFN. This aligns to the TRC’s definition of reconciliation which calls for respectful relationships and social transformations.

Conclusion 4: MCFN’s Water Framework as social justice couched within the reconciliation process is about their agency in reclaiming and reconstituting their rights, culture and voice within respectful relationships and social transformations.

Research Objective 5: To deconstruct the concept of western water governance based on MCFN’s Water Framework and to relate how MCFN’s Water Framework contributes to Indigenizing water governance within treaty lands and territory. Tenet 3 of the conceptual framework argues that Canadian water governance dominates Indigenous peoples’ responsibilities and water rights which beckons the need to dismantle the dominant system by developing alternative Indigenous water governance approaches within context. 192

MCFN’s Water Framework supported a reconceptualization of Canada’s water governance towards an Indigenous water governance approach to meet MCFN’s needs. This Water Framework centralizes ‘Water is Life’, supported by water values of interconnectedness, respect, care, responsibilities and stewardship/keepers of water rather than dominant resource-based water governance in Canada. MCFN’s alternative water governance approach will steer our responsibilities to water for seven generations into the future because we will holistically relate to water to sustain ourselves, to heal ourselves and to protect water as life.

MCFN’s Water Framework supports larger Indigeny resurgence movements to Indigenize water governance in Canada. However, it only partially followed these resurgence movements because it was built on multiple and interdependent water values shaped by plural Indigenous identities influenced by colonialism. Yet despite Canada’s attempts to destroy MCFN as Indigenous peoples, MCFN participants knew that they were inherently connected to the waters and were responsible to the water.

Conclusion 5: MCFN’s Water Framework supports the reconceptualization of Canadian water governance towards an Indigenous water governance approach on MCFN’s treaty lands and territories. This alternative water governance approach is based on values of interconnectedness; respect; care; responsibilities; and stewardship/keepers of water rather than dominant resource-based water governance in Canada. This is how MCFN sees itself, through its Water Claim, Indigenizing water governance on its treaty lands and territory as part of the reconciliation process with the Canadian governments. MCFN’s Water Framework further supported the larger Indigenous resurgence movements to Indigenize water governance in Canada.

193

8.2 Research Contributions

8.2.1 Theoretical Contributions The theoretical contributions of this research were two-fold. First, it deconstructed western concepts of social justice and second it contributed a context-specific reconceptualization of Canadian water governance approaches to support Indigenizing water governance on MCFN’s treaty lands and territory as part of the reconciliation process. The theoretical contributions are discussed in section 8.1., research objectives 4 and 5 respectively. In brief, Fraser’s (2009) concept of social justice synthesizes various principles emerging from different western philosophies and theories of social justice. This research provided an Indigenous, context-specific, agency perspective of social justice in water governance which was about reclaiming Indigenous rights, reconnecting with culture, and regulating water decisions. This form of social justice rather than Fraser’s (2009) facets of economic redistribution, recognition of culture and political representation was what MCFN considered as self-determination for reconciliation. This theoretical contribution is significant because it alters the power hierarchy between the colonizer and Indigenous peoples towards respectful relationships.

In supporting a reconceptualization of Canadian water governance, towards a MCFN water governance approach, this research shifted the central premise of western water governance from an ethics of rights, property, and ownership (Christie, 2012) which frame water as a resource and a commodity to be bought, sold or traded (Bradford et al., 2016; Castleden et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2018) to one which centralizes ‘Water’ as the core ‘stakeholder’ in water governance because ‘Water is Life’. This reconceptualization, see Figure 7.4 (p. 171), while MCFN context-specific builds on embodiments of Indigenous water relations (see Anderson et al., 2013; Longboat, 2015; McGregor, 2015; Arsenault et al., 2018; Daigle, 2018; Wilson and Inkster, 2018). This is an important theoretical contribution because it supports Indigenous cosmologies that Water together with Air,

194

Fire, and Earth are the core interconnected spiritual beings in all systems and should be respected (Assembly of First Nations, n.d.-b).

8.2.2. Methodological Contributions This research adapted Kovach’s (2009) Indigenous research framework in two ways. First, it was adapted to be more reflective of research team members role as co- researchers rather than a project conducted from an outside researcher’s perspective. This adapted framework can be transferrable to guide the emergence of context-specific Indigenous research frameworks in other co-engaged community action-research studies.

Second, Kovach’s (2009) framework was adapted to be an appropriate research framework for co-engaged community action-research within MCFN’s historical and contemporary contexts. This is an important methodological contribution because it shows that Indigenous community-engaged research must be emergent and community- specific and as such a research approach cannot merely be transferable between communities.

Both these adaptations subscribe to best practices when doing research with Indigenous peoples in that it must be collaborative, and developed, organized, conducted and interpreted within context (Drawson et al., 2017). These adaptations expand on these best practices by adding that Indigenous research should be emergent and located within historical and contemporary contexts.

195

8.2.3. Empirical Contributions This research documented Indigenous peoples’ i.e., MCFN’s member participants, from a range of age groups (youth to elders), water values and related them to Indigenous identities within historical and contemporary context. Indigenous water values as water relations have been well documented by Anderson et al. (2013); Longboat (2015); McGregor (2015); Arsenault et al. (2018); Daigle, 2018; and Wilson and Inkster (2018). Specifically, MCFN’s cultural water values have been surveyed by Baird et al., (2015). This research however fills a gap by documenting that MCFN’s member participants’ water values go beyond water relations and cultural values. It showed that water values and identities were plural and intricately related, shaped by historical and contemporary colonial influences and Indigenous resistances. It also revealed that although some MCFN participants were disconnected from their Indigeny identity therefore their spiritual connections to water, they inherently knew that they were connected to the water. This is a significant finding that further illustrates Canada’s failed attempts to destroy Indigenous peoples through colonialism.

These findings were important because they defined MCFN’s multi-dimensional Water Framework as a partial resolution to their Water Claim which was formally lodged with the governments of Canada as their Aboriginal and treaty rights. These findings also informed new conceptual understandings as already described in section 8.2.1.

Moreover, in defining the meaning of the Water Claim by MCFN member participants, this research directly responded to a MCFN identified research need of developing a Water Framework for reconciliation and MCFN’s self-determination (Draft MCFN Water Framework: A Framework for Water Governance on MCFN Treaty Lands and Territory, unpublished). The meaning of the Water Claim as ‘Healing Ourselves, Protecting the water and Sustaining Ourselves’ (Figure 7.1, p. 163) formed the basis of the Water

196

Framework which MCFN will use in their negotiations and authority with Canada’s governments and water agencies as a partial resolution to their Water Claim.

Indigenous peoples have already made strides in developing frameworks to Indigenize water governance in their own contexts. As an example, the Yinke Dene in BC developed the Yinka Dene Uza’hné Surface Water Management Policy (Yinke Dene, 2016a) and the Yinka Dene Uza’hné Guide to Surface Water Quality Standards (Yinke Dene, 2016b) to support policy implementation – on their Territory. The enactment of the the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 (Vic) in Australia illustrates another example where the role of Aboriginal People in the management and protection of the Yarra was recognised and “the river was given an independent voice” to be represented by the Birrarung Council’ (O’Bryan, 2017, p. 48). Examples of other Indigenous resurgence movements are also described on p. 36.

The development process and content of MCFN’s Water Framework although specific to MCFN, can be considered by other Indigenous peoples in Canada and beyond within similar contexts, as a departing but not transferable model for developing their own water frameworks to contribute to Indigenizing water governance within their treaty lands and territory. Andrea King Dalton agreed that all Anishinaabe peoples should continue to be stewards of water on their territories and share: … we have already established our traditional territory, so it makes sense for us to

be stewards of that water. I feel, as Anishinaabe, that the other Anishinaabe bands,

they should be the stewards to their traditional territory. And we will have that

shared relationship if we want to go there, it is a back-and-forth just like it was. We

would be fluid. We were a very fluid society, as Anishinaabe, and we shared.

197

The sections below are reflected and narrated from my perspectives as the doctoral student. For this purpose, I will write in the first person, where appropriate.

8.3. Research Strengths and Challenges Research strengths and challenges are often two sides of the same coin. The greatest research strength of this community-engaged project was that it directly responded to a community identified need and it was co-led by the community as co-researchers. Regular meetings were held with the MCFN Water Committee as community research team members to develop the research and protocols which were endorsed by MCFN’s Chief and Council which facilitated access into the community. At the same time, this presented challenges because, first, it took time for me to develop relationships with the Water Committee members and at the beginning of our partnership I was very mindful that I was an uninformed outsider. Fortunately, our relationship evolved into trust and mutual respect as the research proceeded. At the end of the research, in May 2019, the Water Committee gifted me with a beautiful and priceless pair of deer-skin hand-made moccasins with embossed water drops (Image 1). I also had to develop relationships with the broader MCFN community. For this I attended community events e.g., I handled the Water Committee’s booth at MCFN’s Annual Historical Meeting held in February 2018, and MCFN research participants also invited me into their homes for the key-informant conversations.

Image 1: The pair of moccasins gifted to me by the Water Committee. 198

The second strength of this research was that it provided a platform for diverse views, personal stories, voices of dissent and support, and power relations and heterogenous identity contexts to unfold in multiple ways i.e., through individual conversations, group discussions, a survey and artwork activities. MCFN members were engaged across socio-demographic factors of age, gender as well as lifestyles and worldviews. This was important to understand MCFN members realities and heterogeneities for the development of a Water Framework that was reflective of the MCFN members who participated in this research. Although implicit, research participants felt comfortable to share their realities in the research. As examples: one key-informant conversation lasted 30 minutes however the off-the-record casual chat continued for two hours, and one MCFN participant expressed thanks at the November 2018 meeting for ensuring that their voices were heard and reflected in the Water Framework.

There were logistical challenges beyond the research team’s control including; broken internal communication leading to cancelled events; engaging limited off-reserve MCFN members despite proactive efforts; low participation in certain MCFN scheduled events for the adult group discussions; low participation in the e-survey which is not the ideal survey delivery mode because more people responded to in-person survey approaches at community events; and an interview decline by a relevant Conservation Authority operating within MCFN’s treaty lands and territories because it purely regarded the Water Claim as a legal process outside of its jurisdiction.

There was also a general low awareness of the Water Claim in the MCFN community, which was not totally unexpected. In preparation, the Water Claim was introduced at the start of the research engagements and materials on the Water Claim prepared by the Water Committee were distributed.

199

The learnings from these challenges were that these issues were not necessarily attributable to inappropriate research approaches but rather the challenges of doing community-engaged research. My advice is that meaningful community-engaged research must be flexible and accommodating of these unknowns which may not be resolved but rather accepted as part of the research process.

Finally, the academic ethics process as a challenge is briefly discussed. Although the university’s Research Ethics Board (REB) process was accommodating of Indigenous research and protocols, a REB process was not readily accepted by the Water Committee. Perhaps my approach was misplaced but the Water Committee was not pleased with an academic-led requirement. Especially identifying issues of risks and discomforts in the consent form were considered to be daunting and potential impediments for community participation. After a few iterations, a consent form was developed using language that was acceptable to the research team and defendable in the REB application.

8.4. Future Opportunities and Research Questions In the spirit of community-engaged research, the opportunities that emanated from this research should be centered on the implementation of the Water Framework’s identified objectives and suggested actions by MCFN member participants. This calls for implementation research which is identified by Peters et al. (2013) in the health sciences as “the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation — the act of carrying an intention into effect …” and “Implementation research can consider any aspect of implementation, including the factors affecting implementation, the processes of implementation, and the results of implementation …” (p.1). Future research questions based on the Water Framework’s nine objectives and associated suggested actions should focus on three aspects: 1) the development of appropriate interventions within

200

context; 2) implementation of interventions; and 3) the monitoring and evaluation of interventions86. These aspects are in line with the high-level steps proposed by Fernandez et al. (2019) as a systematic process for implementation science, albeit for health innovation. Some examples of specific research questions that could be posed in relation to these three high-level steps are summarized in Figure 8.1.

From a conceptual perspective, future Indigenous research in its ongoing efforts to build a critical body of alternative academic literature, needs to persistently ask: How can we continue to deconstruct colonial systems in all its realms from Indigenous agency? At the time of starting my doctoral research in April 2017, I opted to depart from a western social justice framing with the intention of applying a decolonising lens to contribute to decolonising western literature. Through my research, I was enlightened by the works of Indigenous scholars, including Deborah McGregor who powerfully advocates that the Anishinaabe mino-bimaadiziwin or more broadly water relations as shared by many Indigenous peoples should be a more fitting expression of justice (McGregor, 2018a). I strongly contemplated this stance but at the end of my doctoral research I opted to retain the original social justice framing because of MCFN’s multiple Indigenous identities and relations to water which emerged through this research. As explained in chapter 4. p. 78, the Water Committee agreed that a relational research paradigm, although acknowledged, would not frame the research but rather emerge from the research process.

86 Adapting the World Health Organization’s definition, an intervention is an act performed for, with or on behalf of an [individual] or [community] whose purpose is to assess, improve, maintain, promote or modify [community], functioning or [community] conditions (para. 1, n.d). Hawe et al. (2009) emphasize that interventions occur within systems and are dynamic in time and space. Interventions range in scale e.g., policies, strategies, programs, projects, activities, events. 201

Figure 8.1. Examples of specific future research questions for implementation research arising from this research.

202

Last, future research should continue to build on and adapt current Indigenous research methodologies within context. In doing Indigenous research as an emergent process, the central research question should be around: How do historical and contemporary contexts shape Indigenous identities today and into the future? If we acknowledge plural Indigenous identities as a process of being within the past, present and future – the research approach will be relevant, appropriate and meaningful.

8.5. Self-reflection and closing I entered this research with the experiences of a marginalized person with fervent anti- oppressive and anti-colonial lenses. I was ready to tackle and dismantle power hierarchies molded by and entwined into western systems. I will state upfront, that this standing influenced my choice of the overarching research question, my interpretation of the knowledge gathered and the research conclusions.

As an ardent environmentalist, I respect all of creation and I have a shared commitment to Indigeny i.e., a social-relational identity. As such I was surprised, perhaps from a romanticized position, how colonization strongly shaped Indigenous identities. I anticipated, although not rigid in my thoughts, that the research would involve water ceremonies, sharing circles, and storytelling but the research team rather agreed to traditional western research methods. However, I attempted to retain language throughout the research which was reflective of Indigenous community-engaged partnerships. As examples, I used conversations rather than interviews, group discussions rather than focus groups, knowledge sharing rather than data collection, and making meaning of the knowledge gathered rather than data analysis. In this way, I wanted to convey that we were not extracting information from MCFN members for pure research purposes but rather to develop something that MCFN will own and use for their self-determination. Perhaps this was partially an idealistic intention on my part but a

203

mindful one, nonetheless. In some of my interactions with MCFN members, especially during the adult group discussions, there remained a power hierarchy between me as the researcher and the MCFN members as research participants. I was expected to lead and not facilitate these group discussions. I had to adjust my role depending on the nature and dynamics of the group. The one-on-one conversations were however more conducive to equal partnerships and key-informants wanted to ‘tell their stories’ rather than merely respond to key probes (even though they generally spoke to the conversation schedule probes). Perhaps my learning is that the nature of one-on-one interactions is more appropriate for equal participation because I could adapt to the specific context of the person that is being engaged.

As the research unfolded, my PhD became my secondary focus and to me it was about MCFN’s rights and responsibilities to water, in all their identities. Perhaps this is why I persevered in the writing of my doctoral thesis (despite working full time), because it is a cause that I believe in.

Last, this research was healing for me. As a newcomer to Canada, I was hurting from the unpleasant nature of capitalism, an individualistic and competitive society who has so much, materially, yet has the essence of expectation and privilege. Even though I remained an outsider to MCFN, I am not Canadian and my life context, similar but not the same to Indigenous peoples in Canada gave us a sense of joint understanding. I found that our language was similar, we had a sense of sharing and giving. I felt that I was accepted into the community and developed friendships. The school’s music teacher asked me to return because the students enjoyed our interactions.

A MCFN member said to me, this research partnership was meant to be. I thank Niibi as the healing spirit that led me to this research and for guiding me throughout the research. 204

REFERENCES Aboucher, J., & Donihee, J. (2014). Supreme Court of Canada Grants Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Title in William – Implications for Resource Development in Canada. Willms & Shier: Environment. Aboriginal, Energy Law. Alcantara, C., & Spicer, Z. (2016). A new model for making Aboriginal policy? Evaluating the Kelowna Accord and the promise of multilevel governance in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 59(2), 183–203. Anderson, K., Clow, B., & Haworth-Brockman, M. (2013). Carriers of water: Aboriginal women’s experiences, relationships, and reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 11–17. Andolina, R. (2012). The values of water: Development cultures and indigenous cultures in highland Ecuador. Latin American Research Review, 47(2), 3–26. Anishinabek Ontario Resource Management Council Water Working Group. (2009). Anishinabek Traditional Knowledge & Water Policy Report. Anishinabek Ontario Resource Management Council. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Arquette, M., Cole, M., Cook, K., LaFrance, B., Peters, M., Ransom, J., Sargent, E., Smoke, V., & Stairs, A. (2002). Holistic risk-based environmental decision making: A Native perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 Suppl 2, 259–264. Arrows, F. (2019). The Indigenization controversy: For whom and by whom? Critical Education, 10(18), 1–13. Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A., & Bourassa, C. (2018). Shifting the Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the Past with an Eye on the Future. Water, 10(49), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010049

205

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718 Assembly of First Nations. (n.d.-a). National Water Declaration. https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/water/national_water_declaration.pdf. Assembly of First Nations. (n.d.-b). Honouring earth. https://www.afn.ca/honoring-earth/. Baird, J., Plummer, R., Dupont, D., & Carter, B. (2015). Perceptions of water quality in First Nations communities: Exploring the role of context. Nature and Culture, 10(2), 225–249. Bakker, K. (2003). Good governance in restructuring water supply: A handbook. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa. Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti- privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430–455. Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2011). Water governance in Canada: Innovation and fragmentation. Water Resources Development, 27(02), 275–289. Bakker, K., Simms, R., Joe, N., & Harris, L. (2018). Indigenous Peoples and Water Governance in Canada: Regulatory Injustice and Prospects for Reform. In R. Boelens, T. Perreault, & J. Vos (Eds.), Water Justice (1st ed., pp. 193–209). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831847.013. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–12. Barlow, M. (2012). Paying for Water in Canada in a Time of a Austerity and Privatization: A Discussion Paper. The Council of Canadians. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. Columbia University Press. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing Qualitative Data: More Than ‘Identifying Themes.’ The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 1–18. Benjamin, G. (2017). Indigenous Peoples: Indigeneity, Indigeny or Indigenism? In C. Antons (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Asian Law (1st ed., pp. 362–377). Routledge. Benton-Banai, E. (2010). The Mishomis Book. The Voice of the Ojibway. The University of Minnesota Press.

206

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692– 1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001. Berry, K. A., Jackson, S., Saito, L., & Forline, L. (2018). Reconceptualising Water Quality Governance to Incorporate Knowledge and Values: Case studies from Australian and Brazilian Indigenous Communities. Water Alternatives, 11(1), 40–60. Bertels, S., & Vredenburg, H. (2004). Broadening the Notion of Governance from the Organisation to the Domain. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 15, 33–47. Beteille, A. (1998). The idea of indigenous people. Current Anthropology, 39(2), 187–192. Bishop, C. A. (2008, August). Ojibwe. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ojibwa. Blackstock, M. (2001). Water: A First Nations’ spiritual and ecological perspective. B.C. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 1(1), 1–14. Bohaker, H. (2010). Reading Anishinaabe Identities: Meaning and Metaphor in Nindoodem Pictographs. Ethnohistory, 57(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1215/00141801-2009-051. Borrows, J. (1997a). Living between Water and Rocks: First Nations, Environmental Planning and Democracy. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 47(4), 417–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/825948. Borrows, J. (1997b). Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History, and Self-Government. In M. Asch (Ed.), Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference (pp. 155–172). University of British Columbia Press. Borrows, J. (2003). Indian Agency and Taking What’s Not Yours. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 22, 253–264. Borrows, J. (2010). Canada’s Indigenous constitution. University of Toronto Press. Borrows, J. (2017). Challenging Historical Frameworks: Aboriginal Rights, The Trickster, and Originalism. Canadian Historical Review, 98(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.3138/chr.98.1.Borrows.

207

Borton, I. M., & Paul, G. D. (2015). Problematizing the healing metaphor of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2015.1057704 Boutilier, S. (2017). Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and Reconciliation in Canada. Western Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–22. Bowie, R. (2013). Indigenous Self-Governance and the Deployment of Knowledge in Collaborative Environmental Management in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 47(1), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.47.1.91. Boyd, D. R. (2013). The Status of Constitutional Protection for the Environment in Other Nations. David Suzuki Foundation. https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre- article/status-constitutional-protection-environment-nations/. Bradford, L. E. A., Ovsenek, N., & Bharadwaj, L. A. (2016). Indigenizing Water Governance in Canada. In S. Renzetti & D. P. Dupont (Eds.), Water Policy and Governance in Canada (Vol. 17, pp. 269–298). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42806-2_15. Brant-Castellano, M. (2000). Updating aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In G. Dei, B. Hall, & D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts (pp. 21–36). University of Toronto Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brisbois, M. C., & de Loë, R. C. (2016). Power in Collaborative Approaches to Governance for Water: A Systematic Review. Society & Natural Resources, 29(7), 775–790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1080339. Brock, K. L. (1991). The politics of aboriginal self-government: A Canadian paradox. Canadian Public Administration, 34(2), 272–285. Bronskill, J. (2018, October). Canada Supreme Court says they have no duty to consult Indigenous groups on federal law-making. The Canadian Press, The Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/10/11/supreme-court-says-they-have-no- duty-to-consult-indigenous-groups-on-federal-law-making.html. Burger, J. (1990). The Gaia Atlas of First People. Gaia Books. 208

Burke, T. P. (2011). The Concept of Justice: Is Social Justice Just? Continuum Studies in Political Philosophy. Canadian Environmental Law Association. (2012). Fact Sheet: What is the provincial legal structure around water in Ontario? https://cela.ca/ (accessed in January 2019). Canessa, A. (2008). The past is not another country: Exploring Indigenous histories in Bolivia. History and Anthropology, 19(4), 353–369. Capra, F. (1983). The Turning Point. Bantam Books. Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity.: Vol. II, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Blackwell Publishers. Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & Nation, H. F. (2009). “Hishuk Tsawak” (Everything Is One/Connected): A Huu-ay-aht Worldview for Seeing Forestry in British Columbia, Canada. Society & Natural Resources, 22(9), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802098198. Castleden, H., Hart, C., Cunsolo, A., Harper, S., & Martin, D. (2017). Reconciliation and Relationality in Water Research and Management in Canada: Implementing Indigenous Ontologies, Epistemologies, and Methodologies. In S. Renzetti & D. P. Dupont (Eds.), Water Policy and Governance in Canada (Vol. 17, pp. 69–95). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-42806-2. Cave, K., & McKay, S. (2016). Water Song: Indigenous Women and Water. Solutions, 7(6), 64–73. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/water-song-indigenous-women-and- water/. Center for Theory of Change. (2019). What is Theory of Change? Setting Standards for Theory of Change. https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (1982). Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. https://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html. Chiefs of Ontario. (2008, October). Water Declaration of the Anishinaabek, Mushkegowuk and Onkwehonwe in Ontario. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ade7ebe4b07588aa079c94/t/54ea50c2e4b0fe aa4772eaaf/1424642242464/COO-water-declaration-revised-march-2010.pdf. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications. 209

Christensen, J. (2012). Telling stories: Exploring research storytelling as a meaningful approach to knowledge mobilization with Indigenous research collaborators and diverse audiences in community-based participatory research. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 56(2), 231–242. Christensen, R., & Lintner, A. M. (2007). Trading Our Common Heritage? The Debate Over Water Rights Transfers in Canada. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada (pp.219-241). UBC Press. Christie, N. (2012). From Interdependence to ‘Modern’ Individualism: Families and the Emergence of Liberal Society in Canada: Families and the Emergence of Liberal Society. History Compass, 10(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478- 0542.2011.00815.x. Clamen, M., & Macfarlane, D. (2015). The International Joint Commission, water levels, and transboundary governance in the Great Lakes. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 40– 59. Clifford, J. (2007). Varieties of Indigenous Experience: Diasporas, Homelands, Sovereignties. In M. de la Cadena & O. Starn (Eds.), Indigenous Experience Today. Berg. Coates, K. (1999). Being Aboriginal: The cultural politics of identity, membership and belonging among First Nations in Canada. Canadian Issues, 21, 23–41. Conservation Authorities Act, no. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27 Conservation Ontario. (2020a). Homepage. https://conservationontario.ca/. Conservation Ontario. (2020b). History of Conservation Authorities. https://conservationontario.ca/conservation-authorities/about-conservation- authorities/history-of-conservation-authorities/. Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page- 1.html. Constitutional Act, Section 35, part II (1982). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page- 15.html#docCont.

210

Corntassel, J. (2009). Indigenous Storytelling, Truth-telling, and Community Approaches to Reconciliation. English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.0.0163. Corntassel, J., & Bryce, C. (2012). Practicing sustainable self-determination: Indigenous approaches to cultural restoration and revitalization. Brown J. World Aff., 18, 151–162. Cote, P., Baird, R., Anthony, T., LaForme, E., King, R., & Hill, J. (2002). Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin “Our Story Art Mural” [Wall mural in the library of the Lloyd S. King Elementary School, New Credit Reserve]. Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press. Craft, A. (2011). Treaty interpretation: A tale of two stories. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3433842. Craft, A. (2013, December). Reading Beyond the Lines: Oral Understandings and Aboriginal Litigation. Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Conference, How Do We Know What We Think We Know: Facts in the Legal System, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Craft, A. (2014a). Living Treaties, Breathing Research. Canadian Journal of Women and Law, 26(1), 1–22. Craft, A. (2014b). Anishinaabe Nibi Inaakonigewin Report Reflecting the Water Laws Research Gathering conducted with Anishinaabe Elders June 20-23, 2013 at Roseau River, Manitoba. University of Manitoba’s Centre for Human Rights Research and the Public Interest Law Centre. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3433235. Craft, A. (2015, October 14). Ki’inaakonigewin: Reclaiming Space for Indigenous Laws. The Canadian Administration of Justice Conference, Aboriginal Peoples and Law: “We Are All Here to Stay.” Craft, A. (2017a). Giving and receiving life from Anishinaabe nibi inaakonigewin (our water law) research (Chapter 9). In J. Thorpe, S. Rutherford, & L. A. Sandberg, Methodological challenges in nature-culture and environmental history research (pp. 105-119). Routledge.

211

Craft, A. (2017b). Broken Trust: Finding Our Way Out of the Damaged Relationship Through the Rebuilding of Indigenous Legal Institutions, pp. 379-393. In Special Lectures 2017: Canada at 150, The Charter and the Constitution. The Law Society of Upper Canada. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1, Article 8), 139–167. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8. Daigle, M. (2016). Awawanenitakik: The spatial politics of recognition and relational geographies of Indigenous self-determination. The Canadian Geographer, 60(2), 259– 269. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12260. Daigle, M. (2018). Resurging through Kishiichiwan: The spatial politics of Indigenous water relations. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 159–172. Datta, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296. de la Cadena, M., & Starn, O. (2007). Introduction. In M. de la Cadena & O. Starn (Eds.), Indigenous Experience Today (pp. 1-30). Berg. Debassige, B. (2010). Re-conceptualizing Anishinaabe Mino-Bemaadiziwin (the Good Life) as Research Methodology: A Spirit-centered Way in Anishinaaabe Research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 11–28. Dei, G. J. S., & Jaimungal, Christina. S. (2018). Indigeneity and Decolonial Resistance: Alternatives to Colonial Thinking and Practice (Kindle Edition). Myers Education Press. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Translated by Spivak, G.C. 1st American ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408. Dion, S. (2009). Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal People’s Experiences and Perspectives. UBC Press. Kindle Edition.

212

Doorn, N. (2013). Water and Justice: Towards an Ethics of Water Governance. Public Reason, 5(1), 97–114. Drawson, A. S., Toombs, E., & Mushquash, C. S. (2017). Indigenous Research Methods: A Systematic Review. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2, Article 5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.5. D’Souza, I. (2017). Water Wisdom: Maude Barlow’s Clarion Calls to Action. Herizons, 16– 19. Dworkin, R. (1981). What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10(4), 283–345. Dyck, V., & White, L. E. (2013). “The people who own themselves”: Recognition of Métis identity in Canada. Canada Parliament Senate. Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. Eberts, M. (2013). Still colonizing after all these years. University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 64, 123–158. Eisenberg, A. (2018). The challenges of structural injustice to reconciliation: Truth and reconciliation in Canada. Ethics & Global Politics, 11(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2018.1507387. Escobar, A. (2008). Development, trans/modernities, and the politics of theory. Focaal, 2008(52), 127–135. Evans, B. M., & Smith, C. W. (2015). Introduction: Transforming Provincial Politics: The Political Economy of Canada’s Provinces and Territories in a Neoliberal Era. In B. M. Evans & C. W. Smith (Eds.), Transforming Provincial Politics: The Political Economy of Canada’s Provinces and Territories in the Neoliberal Era (pp. 3–18). University of Toronto Press. Evans, C. (2017). Analysing Semi-Structured Interviews Using Thematic Analysis: Exploring Voluntary Civic Participation Among Adults. SAGE Publications, Ltd, Research Methods Datasets, 1–6. Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. 213

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107. Fernandez, M. E., ten Hoor, G. A., van Lieshout, S., Rodriguez, S. A., Beidas, R. S., Parcel, G., Ruiter, R. A. C., Markham, C. M., & Kok, G. (2019). Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00158. Finegan, C. (2018). Reflection, Acknowledgement, and Justice: A Framework for Indigenous-Protected Area Reconciliation. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 9(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2018.9.3.3 Finlay, L. (1998). Reflexivity: An Essential Component for All Research? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(10), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269806101005. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Nowell, B., & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the system back into systems change: A framework for understanding and changing organizational and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3–4), 197–215. Four Directions Teachings.com. (2006, 2012). Ojibwe/ Powawatomi (Anishinaabe) Teaching. Elder: Lillian Pitawanakwat. http://www.fourdirectionsteachings.com/transcripts/ojibwe.html. Franco, J., Mehta, L., & Veldwisch, G. J. (2013). The global politics of water grabbing. Third World Quarterly, 34(9), 1651–1675. Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition: Dilemmas of justice in a ’post-socialist’ society. New Left Review, 212, 68–93. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Columbia University Press. Frideres, J. (2008). Aboriginal identity in the Canadian context. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 28(2), 313–342. Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2008). Positivism, Postmodernism, or Critical Theory? A Case Study of Communications Students’ Understandings of Criticism. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6(2), 112–141.

214

Gans, H. J. (1991). Symbolic Ethinicity. The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America. In N. R. Yetman (Ed.), Majority and Minority. The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life (5th ed., pp. 430–443). Allyn and Bacon. Garcia, M. E. (2008). Introduction: Indigenous Encounters in Contemporary Peru. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 3(3), 217–226. Gaudry, A., & Lorenz, D. (2018). Indigenization as inclusion, reconciliation, and decolonization: Navigating the different visions for indigenizing the Canadian Academy. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 14(3), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180118785382. Geertz, C. (2001). The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States. In V. P. Pecora (Ed.), Nations and Identities (pp. 279–291). Blackwell. Gheaus, A. (2013). The feasibility constraint on the concept of justice. The Philosophical Quarterly, 63(252), 445–464. Gibson, M. M. (2006). In the Footsteps of the Mississaugas (1st ed.). Mississauga Heritage Foundation Inc. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of the self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books. Goodall, H. (2008). Riding the tide: Indigenous knowledge, history and water in a changing Australia. Environment and History, 14(3), 355–384. Gopaldas, A. (2013). Intersectionality 101. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(Special Issue 2013), 90–94. Gordon, C. (2007). Aboriginal Nationhood and the Inherent Right to Self-Government. National Centre for First Nations Governance. Government of Canada. (2010, September). Indian Residential Schools Statement of Apology—Prime Minister Stephen Harper. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015677/1571589339246 Government of Canada. (2011). Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation. Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult. Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte- text/intgui_1100100014665_eng.pdf 215

Government of Canada. (2013a, June 4). Yukon devolution. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1352470994098/1535467403471 Government of Canada. (2013b, July,24). Northwest Territories devolution. Northwest Territories Devolution Agreement. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1352398433161/1539625360223 Government of Canada. (2013c, February,6). Mississaugas of the Credit—Connectivity Profile. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357840942094/1360164261110 Government of Canada. (2015a, July,13). Comprehensive Claims. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1551196153650?wbdisable=true Government of Canada. (2015b, October,26). Canada’s History. Discover Canada - Canada’s History. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications- manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-history.html Government of Canada. (2016, January 7). Water governance and legislation: Shared responsibility. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water- overview/governance-legislation/shared-responsibility.html Government of Canada. (2017a, December,4). Indigenous peoples and communities. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303 Government of Canada. (2017b, July,12). Get to know Canada—Provinces and territories. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new- immigrants/prepare-life-canada/provinces-territories.html Government of Canada. (2018a, February,14). Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj- sjc/principles-principes.html Government of Canada. (2018b). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2-2018). Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en- interactive-final.pdf

216

Government of Canada. (2019, August). Nunavut devolution. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1352471770723/1537900871295 Government of Canada. (2020a, July,30). Specific Claims Righting past wrongs and building for the future. Specific Claims. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100030291/1539617582343 Government of Canada. (2020b). Self-government. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 Government of Canada. (2020c, July,30). Treaties and agreements. https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028574/1529354437231 Government of Canada. (2020d, January 6). Water governance: Federal policy and legislation. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water- overview/governance-legislation/federal-policy.html#Section1 Grand River Conservation Authority. (n.d.). Routes and access points. https://www.grandriver.ca/en/outdoor-recreation/Routes-and-access-points.aspx Greenwood, D. J., Foot Whyte, W., & Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory Action Research as a Process and a Goal. Human Relations, 46(2), 175–192. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). SAGE Publications. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903. Hacker, K. (2013). Community-Based Participatory Research. SAGE Publications. https://dx- doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.4135/9781452244181. Hallenbeck, J. (2017). Water Ethics: Think Like a Watershed (Creative Intervention). Studies in Social Justice, 11(2), 316–317. Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334.

217

Hania, P. (2013). Uncharted waters: Applying the lens of new governance theory to the practice of water source protection in Ontario. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 24(2), 177–221. Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Taylor & Francis US. Hanrahan, M. (2017). Water (in)security in Canada: National identity and the exclusion of Indigenous peoples. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 30(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.3828/bjcs.2017.4. Hanrahan, M., Sarkar, A., & Hudson, A. (2016). Water insecurity in Indigenous Canada: A community-based inter-disciplinary approach. Water Quality Research Journal, 51(3), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrjc.2015.010. Hantula, D. A. (2018). Editorial: Reductionism and Holism in Behavior Science and Art. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(2), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018- 00184-w. Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an Indigenous Research Paradigm (No. 1). 1(1), 1–16. Hassenforder, E., & Barone, Sylvain. (2018). Institutional arrangements for water governance. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1431526. Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2009). Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3–4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9. Heidtman, J., Wysienska, K., & Szmatka, J. (2000). Positivism and Types of Theories in Sociology. Sociological Focus, 33(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2000.10571154. Helm, B. W. (2012). Accountability and some social dimensions of human agency. Philosophical Issues, 22(1), 217–232. Heritage Mississauga. (2018). The Mississaugas. https://heritagemississauga.com/the- mississaugas/.

218

Hildebrand, L. P., Pebbles, V., & Fraser, D. A. (2002). Cooperative ecosystem management across the Canada–US border: Approaches and experiences of transboundary programs in the Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes and Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(6), 421–457. Hill, E. (2012). A Critique of the Call to “Always Indigenize!” https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/peninsula/article/view/11513/3212. Hinzo, A. M. (2018). “We’re not going to sit idly by:” 45 Years of Asserting Native Sovereignty Along the Missouri River in Nebraska. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 200–214. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the Core of Personal Identity: Drawing Links between Two Theories of Self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519843. Hogan, S.-S., & McCracken, K. (2016, December 12). Doing the Work: The Historian’s Place in Indigenization and Decolonization. https://activehistory.ca/2016/12/doing-the-work- the-historians-place-in-indigenization-and-decolonization/. Holmes, J., & Associates. (2015). Aboriginal Title Claim to Water within the Traditional Lands of the Mississaugas of The New Credit. The Mississaugas of the New Credit. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MNC-Aboriginal-Title-Report.pdf. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory. Seabury Press; reprinted Continuum: New York, 1982. Horn-Miller, K. (2013). What Does Indigenous Participatory Democracy Look Like: Kahnawa: Ke’s Community Decision Making Process. Rev. Const. Stud., 18, 111. Impact Assessment Act, 2019 (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1). https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I- 2.75/index.html Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c I-5. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i- 5/160991/rsc-1985-c-i-5.html Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2015a, February 26). Why do Aboriginal Peoples want self-government? https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/why-do-aboriginal-peoples-want-self- government. 219

Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2015b, July 24). What are First Nation inherent rights? https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/what-are-first-nation-inherent-rights. Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2017, March 29). A Brief Definition of Decolonization and Indigenization. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/a-brief-definition-of-decolonization-and- indigenization. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge. International Labour Organization. (1989). C169—Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRU MENT_ID:312314. Jackson, S., & Barber, M. (2013). Recognition of indigenous water values in Australia’s Northern Territory: Current progress and ongoing challenges for social justice in water planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.845684. Jackson, S, Brandes, O. M., & Christensen, R. (2012). Lessons from an Ancient Concept: How the Public Trust Doctrine will meet obligations to protect the environment and the public interest in Canadian water management and governance in the 21st century. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 23(2), 175–199. Jackson, S. (2016). Indigenous Peoples and Water Justice in a Globalizing World. In K. Conca & E. Weinthal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Water Politics and Policy (online). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199335084.013.5. Jaffee, D., & Newman, S. (2012). A Bottle Half Empty: Bottled Water, Commodification, and Contestation. Organization & Environment, 26(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612462378. Jetoo, S., Thorn, A., Friedman, K., Gosman, S., & Krantzberg, G. (2015). Governance and geopolitics as drivers of change in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41, 108–118.

220

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224. Jones, J., & Smith, J. (2017). Ethnography: Challenges and opportunities. Evidence Based Nursing, 20(4), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102786. Jones, P. S. (2012). Powering up the people? The politics of Indigenous rights implementation: International Labour Organisation Convention 169 and hydroelectric power in Nepal. The International Journal of Human Rights, 16(4), 624–647. Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Lee, L. (2010). Haida Marine Planning: First Nations as a Partner in Marine Conservation. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 03225-150112. Joy, K. J., Kulkarni, S., Roth, D., & Zwarteveen, M. (2014). Re-politicising water governance: Exploring water re-allocations in terms of justice. Local Environment, 19(9), 954–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.870542. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153. Kanselaar, G. (2002). Constructivism and socio-constructivism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27690037_Constructivism_and_socio- constructivism/references Karlsson, B. G. (2001). Indigenous politics: Community formation and indigenous peoples’ struggle for self-determination in northeast India. Identities Global Studies in Culture and Power, 8(1), 7–45. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teaching of Plants (Kindle Edition). Milkweed Editions. King, M. (2015). Contextualization of socio-culturally meaningful data [Letter to the Editor]. https://doi:10.17269/CJPH.106.5328. Kingsbury, B. (1998). “Indigenous peoples” in international law: A constructivist approach to the Asian controversy. American Journal of International Law, 92, 414–457. Koggel, C. M. (2018). Epistemic injustice in a settler nation: Canada’s history of erasing, silencing, marginalizing. Journal of Global Ethics, 14(2), 240–251. 221

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies. Characteristics, Conservations, and Contexts. University of Toronto Press Inc. Kuchinke, K. P. (2013). Human Agency and HRD: Returning Meaning, Spirituality, and Purpose to HRD Theory and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 370–381. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press. Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Research methods for primary care. (Doing qualitative research, Vol. 3, pp. 31–44). Sage Publications, Inc. Ladner, K. L. (2003). Governing Within an Ecological Context: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Blackfoot Governance. Studies in Political Economy, 70(1), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2003.11827132. Ladner, K. L. (2006). Indigenous Governance: Questioning the Status and the Possibilities for Reconciliation with Canada’s Commitment to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. National Centre for First Nations Governance. LaPensée, E. (2018). Honour water: Gameplay as a pathway to Anishinaabeg water teachings. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 115–130. Latta, A. (2018). Indigenous Rights and Multilevel Governance: Learning from the Northwest Territories Water Stewardship Strategy. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 9(2), 1– 25. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2018.9.2.4. Lavallée, L. F. (2008). Balancing the Medicine Wheel through Physical Activity. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 4(1), 64–71. Lavallée, L. F. (2009). Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishinaabe symbol- based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21–40. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social Construction of Reality. In S. W. Littlejohn & Foss, K.A., Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 892–894). Sage Publications Inc. Le Grand, J. (2003). Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford University Press. 222

Le, T. N., & Gobert, J. M. (2015). Translating and Implementing a Mindfulness-Based Youth Suicide Prevention Intervention in a Native American Community. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9809-z. Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 95–115). SAGE Publications, Inc. Lewallen, A. E. (2003). Strategic ‘Indigeneity’ and the Possibility of a Global Indigenous Women’s Movement. Michigan Feminist Studies, 17, 105–139. Lightfoot, S. (2019, January). Elected vs. Hereditary chiefs: What’s the difference in Indigenous communities? CTV Vancouver News. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/elected-vs- hereditary-chiefs-what-s-the-difference-in-indigenous-communities-1.4247466. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc. Little, A., & Maddison, S. (2017). Reconciliation, transformation, struggle: An introduction. International Political Science Review, 38(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116681808. Longboat, S. (2012). First Nations Water Security and Collaborative Governance: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Ontario, Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University. Longboat, S. (2015). First Nations Water Security: Security for Mother Earth. Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2–3), 6–13. Lui, E. (2015). Report—On Notice for a Drinking Water Crisis in Canada. The Council of Canadians. https://canadians.org/drinking-water. Lukasiewicz, A., & Baldwin, C. (2014). Voice, power, and history: Ensuring social justice for all stakeholders in water decision-making. Local Environment, 1–22. Lukawiecki, J. (2017). Glass Half Empty: 1 Year Progress Toward Resolving Drinking Water Advisories in Nine First Nations in Ontario (ISBN: 978-1-988424-03-3). David Suzuki Foundation and partners. https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre-article/report- glass-half-empty-year-1-progress-toward-resolving-drinking-water-advisories-nine-first- nations-ontario/.

223

Maclean, K., & Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. (2015). Crossing cultural boundaries: Integrating Indigenous water knowledge into water governance through co-research in the Queensland Wet Tropics, Australia. Geoforum, 59, 142–152. MacLeod, D. P. (1992). The Anishinabeg Point of View: The History of the Great Lakes Region to 1800 in Nineteenth‐Century Mississauga, Odawa, and Ojibwa Historiography. Canadian Historical Review, 73(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.3138/CHR-073-02-03. Mamdani, M. (2001). Beyond settler and native as political identities: Overcoming the political legacy of colonialism. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 43(04), 651– 664. Manzano-Munguia, M. C. (2011). Indian policy and legislation: Aboriginal identity survival in Canada. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 11(3), 404–426. Markle, G. (2004). From struggles for recognition to a plural concept of justice: An interview with Axel Honneth. Acta Sociologica, 47(4), 383–391. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re‐search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14443050309387838. Marx, K & Engels, F. (1967). Capital, A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). International Publishers. Mascarenhas, M. (2007). Where the waters divide: First Nations, tainted water and environmental justice in Canada. Local Environment, 12(6), 565–577. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Sage Publications. MCFN. (n.d.-a). Title Claim to Water within Traditional Lands of MCFN. http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/land-and-water-claims/title-claim-to-water-within-traditional- lands-of-mncfn/. MCFN. (n.d.-b). Chief & Council. http://mncfn.ca/chief-council-profiles-2/. MCFN. (n.d.-c). MCFN Election Code. http://mncfn.ca/mcfn-election-code/. MCFN. (n.d.-d). MCFN Department Contacts. http://mncfn.ca/mncfn-department-contacts/.

224

MCFN. (n.d.-e). Mississaugas Treaty at Niagara (1781). http://mncfn.ca/mississauga- cession-at-niagara-1781/ MCFN. (n.d.-f). Between the Lakes Treaty No. 3 (1792). http://mncfn.ca/treaty3/. MCFN. (n.d.-g). The Brant Tract Treaty, No. 8 (1797). http://mncfn.ca/treaty8/. MCFN. (n.d.-h). The Toronto Purchase Treaty No. 13 (1805). http://mncfn.ca/torontopurchase/. MCFN. (n.d.-i). Head of the Lake, Treaty No. 14 (1806). http://mncfn.ca/head-of-the-lake- purchase-treaty-14/. MCFN. (n.d.-j). 12 Mile Creek, 16 Mile Creek and Credit River Reserves – Treaty Nos. 22 and 23 (1820). http://mncfn.ca/treaty2223/. MCFN. (unpublished). Draft MCFN Water Framework: A Framework for Water Governance on MCFN Treaty Lands and Territory. McGregor, D. (2004). Coming Full Circle: Indigenous Knowledge, Environment, and Our Future. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0101. McGregor, D. (2009). Honouring our relations: An Anishinabe perspective on environmental justice. In J. Agyeman, R. Haluza-Delay, C. Peter, & P. O’Riley (Eds.), Speaking for ourselves: Constructions of environmental justice in Canada (pp. 27-41). University of British Columbia Press. McGregor, D. (2012). Traditional knowledge: Considerations for protecting water in Ontario. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 3(3), 1–20. McGregor, D. (2014). Traditional knowledge and water governance: The ethic of responsibility. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 10(5), 493– 507. McGregor, D. (2015). Indigenous Women, Water Justice and Zaagidowin (Love). Canadian Woman Studies, 30(2/3), 71–78. McGregor, D. (2016). Living well with the Earth. In C. Lennox & D. Short (Eds.), Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (1st ed., pp. 167–180). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203119235-12.

225

McGregor, D. (2018a). Mino-Mnaamodzawin. Environment and Society, 9(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090102. McGregor, D. (2018b). From “Decolonized” to Reconciliation Research in Canada: Drawing from Indigenous Research Paradigms. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 17(3), 810–831. McGregor, D., Whitaker, S., & Sritharan, M. (2020). Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.007 Mcguire, P. D. (2008). Restorative Dispute Resolution in Anishinaabe Communities – Restoring Conceptions of Relationships Based on Dodem. National Centre for First Nations Governance. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your programs performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1. McNeil, K. (2001). Aboriginal rights in transition: Reassessing Aboriginal title and governance. American Review of Canadian Studies, 31(1–2), 317–329. Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in Systems- A Primer (ed. Wright, D). Chelsea Green Publishing. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Sovereignty. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty Middleton-Manning, B. R., Gali, M. S., & Houck, D. (2018). Holding the Headwaters: Northern California Indian Resistance to State and Corporate Water Development. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 174–198. Mills, J. S. (1965). Auguste Comte and Positivism. University of Michigan Press. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. (2015). Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Land Cessations 1781-1820 and Rouge Tract Claim, 2015 [Map]. http://mncfn.ca/about- mncfn/treaty-lands-and-territory/. Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. (n.d.). The Mississaugas of the Credit: Historical Territory, Resource and Land Use. Mississaugas of the New Credit First

226

Nation. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Mississaugas-of-the-Credit- Historical-Territory-Resource-and-Land-Use.pdf. Mitchell, A. (2020). Revitalizing laws, (re)-making treaties, dismantling violence: Indigenous resurgence against ‘the sixth mass extinction.’ Social & Cultural Geography, 21(7), 909– 924. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2018.1528628. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press. Murdocca, C. (2010). “There Is Something in That Water”: Race, Nationalism, and Legal Violence. Law & Social Inquiry, 35(2), 369–402. Nabigon, H., Hagey, R., Webster, S., & MacKay, R. (1999). The learning circle as a research method: The trickster and windigo in research. Native Social Work Journal, 2(1), 113– 137. Natural Resources Canada. (2002). Relief Map of Ontario [Map]. https://ftp.maps.canada.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/raster/atlas_6_ed/reference/bilingual/ont_r elief_new.pdf. Neal, M. J., Lukasiewicz, A., & Syme, G. J. (2014). Why justice matters in water governance: Some ideas for a ‘water justice framework.’ Water Policy, 16(S2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2014.109. Norman, E. S. (2014). Locating the Border in Boundary Bay: Non-point pollution, contaminated shellfish, and transboundary governance. In Reece Jones & C. Johnson (Eds.), Placing the Border in Every day Life (pp. 67–92). Ashgate Press. Norman, E. S., & Bakker, K. (2015). Do good fences make good neighbours? Canada– United States transboundary water governance, the Boundary Waters Treaty, and twenty-first-century challenges. Water International, 40(1), 199–213. Nowlan, L., & Bakker, K. (2010). Practising shared water governance in Canada: A primer. UBC Program on Water Governance. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59. O’Bryan, K. (2017). Giving a voice to the river and the role of Indigenous people. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 20(1), 48–77. 227

O’Flaherty, R.M., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., & Manseau, M. (2008). Indigenous Knowledge and Values in Planning for Sustainable Forestry: Pikangikum First Nation and the Whitefeather Forest Initiative. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 1–6. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art6/. Ontario. (2011). First Nations Map [Map]. https://files.ontario.ca/pictures/firstnations_map.jpg Ontario. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Under the Planning Act. Ontario. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020- 02-14.pdf. Oquist, P. (1978). The Epistemology of Action Research. Acta Sociologica, 21(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937802100204. Organization for Economic Co-operations and Development (OECD). (2015). OECD Principles on Water Governance. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/OECD- Principles-on-Water-Governance-en.pdf Osborne, B., & Ripmeester, M. (1997). The Mississaugas Between Two Worlds: Strategic Adjustments to Changing Landscapes of Power. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XVII(2), 259–291. Patrick, M. J., Syme, G. J., & Horwitz, P. (2014). How reframing a water management issue across scales and levels impacts on perceptions of justice and injustice. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2475–2482. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. Peach, I. (2012). Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Future of Federal Regulation of Indian Status. UBC Law Review, 45(1), 103–144. Peacock, T. D. (2020, July 21). The Ojibwe: Our Historical Role in Influencing Contemporary Minnesota. https://www.mnopedia.org/ojibwe-our-historical-role-influencing- contemporary-minnesota. Perreault, T. (2014). What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance. Water International, 39(2), 233–245. 228

Peters, D. H., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I. A., & Tran, N. (2013). Implementation research: What it is and how to do it. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6753. Phare, M.-A. S. (2009). Aboriginal Water Rights Primer. Created for: Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs of Ontario, In Response to: INAC Engagement Sessions on the Development of a Proposed Legislative Framework for Drinking Water in First Nation Communities. Phare Law. Postero, N. (2013). Introduction: Negotiating Indigeneity. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 8(2), 107–121. Premdas, R. (2016). Social justice and affirmative action. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(3), 449–462. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. Ratner, C. (2000). Agency and culture. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 413–434. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Original). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Reeves, S., Peller, J., Goldman, J., & Kitto, S. (2013). Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80. Medical Teacher, 35(8), e1365–e1379. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977. Rice, R. (2016). How to Decolonize Democracy: Indigenous Governance Innovation in Bolivia and Nunavut, Canada. Bolivian Studies Journal, 22, 220–242. Riddell, J. K., Salamanca, A. D., Pepler, D. J., Cardinal, S., & McIvor, O. (2017). Laying the groundwork: A practical guide for ethical research with Indigenous communities. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2/6), Article 2. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.6.

229

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Rogers, P., & Hall, A. W. (2003). Effective Water Governance (Vol 7). Global Water Partnership. https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background- papers/07-effective-water-governance-2003-english.pdf. Roncoli, C., Dowd-Uribe, B., Orlove, B., West, C. T., & Sanon, M. (2016). Who counts, what counts: Representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub-basin, Burkina Faso. Natural Resources Forum, 40, 6–20. Rothman, J. (1996). The Interweaving of Community Intervention Approaches. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3–4), 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v03n03_03. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). (1996). The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). Canada Communication Group. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/royal-commission-aboriginal- peoples/Pages/final-report.aspx. Sawe, B. E. (2017, August). Who are the Anishinaabe People? https://www.worldatlas.com/artic.les/who-are-the-anishinaabe-people.html Sax, J. L. (1970). The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: Effective judicial intervention. Michigan Law Review, 68(3), 471–566. Schein, L. (2007). Diasporic Media and Hmong/Miao Formulations of Nativeness and Displacement. In M. De La Cadena & O. Starn (Eds.), Indigenous Experience Today (chapter 8). Berg. Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In Denzin, N.K & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 221–240). Sage Publications. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journai of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Anchor Books. 230

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press. Sepulveda, C. (2018). Our Sacred Waters: Theorizing Kuuyam as a Decolonial Possibility. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 40–58. Shapiro, A. (2018, February 13). Privatization Risk and Rewards. https://www.watercanada.net/feature/privatization-risk-and-rewards/. Simms, G., & de Loë, R. C. (2010). Challenges for Water Governance in Canada: A Discussion Paper (Governance for Source Water Protection in Canada Report No. 2). Water Policy and Governance Group. Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 73, 6–16. Simpson, L. B. (2011). Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence (Kindle Edition). Arbeiter Ring Publishing. Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 1–25. Simpson, L. B. (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 373–384. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd, Kindle edition ed.). Zed books. Sproule-Jones, M., Johns, C. M., & Heinmiller, B. T. (2008). Canadian Water Politics Conflicts and Institutions. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Statistics Canada. (2016). New Credit (Part) 40A (Indian reserve), Ontario [Map]. Statistics Canada. (2017). Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-404-X2016001. Ottawa, Ontario. Data products, 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd- eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3529021 Statistics Canada. (2018). Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation [First Nation/Indian band or Tribal Council area], Ontario (table). Aboriginal Population Profile. (2016 231

Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-510-X2016001. Ottawa). Released July 18, 2018. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/abpopprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=AB&Code1=2016C1005158&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=Mississaugas%20of%20the%20New%20Credit%20First%20Nation&Se archType=Begins&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=2016C1005158&SEX_ID=1&AGE _ID=1&RESGEO_ID=1 Statistics Canada. (2020). Table 17-10-0005-01 Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex. https://doi.org/10.25318/1710000501-eng Stavenhagen, R. (1994). Indigenous Rights: Some Conceptual Problems. In W. J. Assiens & A. J. Hoekema (Eds.), Indigenous People’s Experience with Self-Government: Vol. IWGIA Document No. 76 (pp. 9–30). IWGIA. Supreme Court of Canada. (1996). R. v. Van der Peet, No. 23803 (August 21, 1996). https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1407/index.do. Supreme Court of Canada. (2014). Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, No. 34986 (June 2014). https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do. Sutton-Brown, C. A. (2014). Photovoice: A Methodological Guide. Photography and Culture, 7(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.2752/175145214X13999922103165. Sylvain, R. (2002). “Land, water, and truth”: San identity and global indigenism. American Anthropologist, 104(4), 1074–1085. Taylor, C., Appiahk, A.K, Habermas, J, Rockefeller, S, Walzer, M, & Wolf, S. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Kindle). Princeton University Press. The First Nations Information Governance Centre. Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAPTM): The Path to First Nations Information Governance. May 2014. (n.d.). Ottawa: The First Nations Information Governance Centre, May 2014. The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. (2012). USAI Research Framework: Utility, Self-Voicing, Access, Inter-Relationality (1st edition). Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres.

232

The Westway Law Group. (2018). Specific Claims and Special Claims—Justice Hennessy, Restoule v Canada (Attorney General). https://westawaylaw.ca/specific-claims-and- special-claims/. Tisdell, J. G. (2003). Equity and social justice in water doctrines. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 401–416. TLATOKAN ATLAHUAK Declaration—Declaration of the Indigenous Peoples Parallel Forum of the 4th World Water Forum. (2006). http://tribalinknews.blogspot.com/2006/09/tlatokan-atlahuak-declaration-4th.html Todd, Z. (2018). Refracting the State Through Human-Fish Relations: Fishing, Indigenous Legal Orders and Colonialism in North/Western Canada. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 60–75. Trigger, D. S., & Dalley, C. (2010). Negotiating indigeneity: Culture, identity, and politics. Reviews in Anthropology, 39(1), 46–65. Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: A methodological introduction. Educacao e Pesquisa, 31(3), 443–466. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. http://www.trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b). What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40. Turner, C. (2016). Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction. https://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/05/27/jacques-derrida-deconstruction/ Union of Ontario Indians. (2020). Anishinabek Nation. https://www.anishinabek.ca/who-we- are-and-what-we-do. United Nations. (n.d.-a). Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html.

233

United Nations. (n.d.-b). International Decade for Action “Water for Life” 2005-2015. United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (UNDESA). https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/background.shtml. United Nations. (2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf. United Nations Development Program. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. A UNDP policy document—Good governance – and sustainable human development. United Nations Development Programme. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration. Third World Water Forum, Kyoto, Japan. Van der Heijden, J. (2020, January). Systems thinking and regulatory governance (2): The evolution of systems thinking. From the Regulatory Frontlines. Mapping, Exploring and Interrogating the State-of-the Art in Regulatory Practice. https://regulatoryfrontlines.blog/2020/01/05/systems-thinking-and-regulatory- governance-2-the-evolution-of-systems-thinking/#_ftn5. Verdeja, E. (2017). Political reconciliation in postcolonial settler societies. International Political Science Review, 38(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115624517. von der Porten, S. (2012). Canadian Indigenous Governance Literature: A Review. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011200800101. von der Porten, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149–160. von der Porten, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2014). Water policy reform and Indigenous governance. Water Policy, 16(2), 222–243. von der Porten, S., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2015). Collaborative Environmental Governance and Indigenous Peoples: Recommendations for Practice. Environmental Practice, 17(2), 134–144.

234

Walkem, A. (2007). The Land Is Dry: Indigenous Peoples, Water, and Environmental Justice. In K. Bakker, Eau Canada: The future of Canada’s water (pp. 303–324). UBC Press. Watts, B. (2018). Governance. In The Royal Canadian Geographical Society/Canadian Geographic (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada. Canadian Geographic. https://indigenouspeoplesatlasofcanada.ca/article/governance/. Watts, V. (2013). Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour!). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 20–34. Waziyatawin, A. W., & Yellow Bird, M. (Eds.). (2005). For Indigenous eyes only: A decolonization handbook. School of American Research Press. Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts (pp. 65-92). The Aspen Institute. White, C. (2015). Understanding water markets: Public vs. Private goods. Global Water Forum. https://globalwaterforum.org/2015/04/27/understanding-water-markets-public- vs-private-goods/. White, J. P., Murphy, L., & Spence, N. (2012). Water and Indigenous peoples: Canada’s paradox. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 3(3), 1–25. Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2(7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7. Wiesenfeld, E. (1996). The concept of “we”: A community social psychology myth? Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 337–346. Wilson, D. D., & Restoule, J.-P. (2010). Tobacco Ties: The Relationship of the Sacred to Research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 29–45. Wilson, N. J. (2014). Indigenous water governance: Insights from the hydrosocial relations of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska. Geoforum, 57, 1–11. 235

Wilson, N. J., & Inkster, J. (2018). Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(4), 516–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618789378. Wilson, S. (2001). What Is an Indigenous Research Methodology?. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179. World Bank. (2020, October). Indigenous Peoples. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples. Woodburn, J. (1982). Egalitarian Societies. Man, New Series, 17(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2801707. Wyatt, K. C. (2009). “Rejoicing in this unpronounceable name”: Peter Jones’s authorial identity. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, 47(2), 153–176. Wybenga, D. (n.d.). Rights, Responsibility and Respect. MIssissaugas of New Credit First Nation. Wybenga, D., & Dalton, K. (2018). Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Past and Present. Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. http://mncfn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/MississaugasoftheNewCreditFirstNation-PastPresentBooklets- PROOFv4-1.pdf. Wyile, H. (2017). Towards a Genealogy of Reconciliation in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 51(3), 601–635. Yancey, W. L., Ericksen, E. P., & Juliani, R. N. (1976). Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation. American Sociological Review, 41(3), 391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094249. Yarra River Protection (Wilip-Gin Birrarung Murron) Act, 2017 (No. 49 Of 2017)—Sect 73. http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/yrpbma201749o2017600/s73.html Yazzie, M. K., & Baldy, C. R. (2018). Introduction: Indigenous peoples and the politics of water. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 1–18. Yinka Dene. (2016a). Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Surface Water Management Policy (version 4.1). http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/Yinka%20Dene%20%27Uzah%27ne%20Surfa ce%20Water%20Management%20Policy%20(March%2018%202016)%20(00303183x C6E53).pdf 236

Yinka Dene. (2016b). Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Guide to Surface Water Quality Standards’ version 4.1). http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/Yinka%20Dene%20%27Uzah%27ne%20Guid e%20to%20Surface%20Water%20Quality%20Standards%20(March%2018%202016)% 20(00303157xC6E53).pdf Zwarteveen, M. Z., & Boelens, R. (2014). Defining, researching and struggling for water justice: Some conceptual building blocks for research and action. Water International, 39(2), 143–158.

237

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Summary of institutional water governance arrangements in Canada. The Canadian constitution gives the federal government jurisdictional powers over water resources with regards to fisheries (section 91.12); navigation (section 91.10); federal lands (Section 108); and international boundary waters (section 132) (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008). Federal water legislation including the Canada Water Act, the Federal Water Policy, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Impact Assessment Act all provide for formal consultation and agreements between different departments and levels of government (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008 and Government of Canada, 2020d). The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) currently provides an annual forum for federal and provincial Environmental Ministers to engage on environmental policy issues inclusive of water resource management (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008). CCME activities related to water management are primarily achieved through multilateral or bilateral agreements87 between provincial governments and/or federal and provincial governments (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008).

Water located in the 10 provinces, other than on federally owned land or subject to Aboriginal rights, falls under the constitutional authority of the provinces de jure of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, section 109 (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008) and for Yukon and the Northwest Territories through the Devolution Transfer Agreements (Government of Canada, 2013a, b).

87 e.g., Canada Ontario Great Lakes agreement with regards to boundary waters, the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines in 1987 which are applied according to provincial water quality standards, The Canada Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization, the Master Agreement on Apportionment for the Prairie waters, and the Mackenzie River Basin Trans-boundary Waters Master Agreement (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008). 238

Provincial-specific water legislation which evolved since the 1950s views water as a resource to be protected for economic growth, human health and environmental sustainability (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008). In Ontario specifically, the context of this doctoral research, relevant legislations include the Ontario Water Resources Act; Ontario Environmental Protection Plan, Nutrient Management Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Bill of Rights (Canadian Environmental Law Association, 2012) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act (Ontario, 2020). Ontario also enacted, since 1946, 36 Conservation Authorities which are “local watershed management agencies, mandated to ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario's water, land and natural habitats through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs” (Conservation Ontario, 2020a, para. 1). They currently operate under Conservation Ontario and are largely responsible to their jurisdictional municipalities within their watershed boundaries (Conservation Ontario, 2020b).

The role of municipalities in water is not constitutionally defined (Simms and de Loë, 2010) yet many provinces delegated their water pollution managements function in response to the Environmental Protection Act to municipalities (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008).

Water allocation rights88 are included under the provinces domain and since the 1970’s introduced water-taking and diversion regulations; and established water licensing and

88 Water allocation rights used in this context refers to the “legal permission to withdraw or divert water. Withdrawing water refers to the water taking where the water is returned to or kept within the same watershed whereas water diversion is used when water is transferred from a watershed” (Christensen and Lintner, 2007, p. 220). 239

monitoring regimes (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008). The operation of these water allocation rights by the provinces follows three allocation approaches: the prior allocation system89, riparian rights90, and the Civil Code Management system91 (Christensen and Lintner, 2007). All of these regimes are not inclusive of Aboriginal rights (Christensen and Lintner, 2007). The territories operate under the public authority management regime (Christensen and Lintner, 2007) in alignment with their devolution agreements if applicable (Government of Canada, 2013a, b). Jackson et al. (2012) explain that reform of these very disparate water allocation systems brings to fore the public trust doctrine which is based on Roman law. This doctrine “holds that certain interests are so intrinsically important to every citizen that their free availability tends to mark the society as one of citizens” and that “certain uses have a peculiarly public nature that makes their adaptation to private use inappropriate” and control of these interests are usually assigned to the state “for the general benefit of the community” (Sax 1970, p. 485).

89 The prior allocation system is primarily based on the principle of first-in-time, first-in-right (Christensen and Lintner, 2007). 90 Riparian rights, based on the British common law, entitles the owner of land that borders on a surface water source to water access and use. Traditionally this principle has applied to Ontario and the maritime provinces – Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island (Christensen and Lintner, 2007). 91 The Civil Code Management is based on the French common law which establishes the use of all water resources (surface and groundwater) as “common to all”. This practice is only applied in Quebec (Christensen and Lintner, 2007). 240

Appendix 2: MCFN’s Creation Story - Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin.

Seven Fires of Creation The seven fires92 of Creation tell us that everything is interconnected as intricate systems. In this story, Creation birthed life through the projection of first thought and heartbeat. The seven fires i.e., the stars; the sun; the moon; movement; seeds of life; Earth; and human being, grew in succession.

The first Fire of Creation: According to the Ojibwe Story, the “Creator made our world from the darkness and our story is called the Seven Fires of Creation. The first fire is the first thought. Creator’s thoughts and heartbeat formed the stars” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

The second Fire of Creation: “The second fire of the Creation is the first fire - Grandfathers Sun” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

The third Fire of Creation: “The third fire of Creation is Twinness - Grandmother Moon- giving us two sides to all things” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

The fourth Fire of Creation: “The fourth fire of Creation is the First Movement- Movement of our world is balanced by the four directions” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

92 Here ‘fires’ allude to stages of Creation. 241

The fifth Fire of Creation: “The fifth fire of Creation is the First Seed. Seeds of life were made from the basics of the first four stages of Creation” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

The sixth Fire of Creation: “The sixth fire of Creation is the Earth, the first woman to birth the seeds of life” (Gibson, 2006, centre insert).

The seventh Fire of Creation: The seventh fire of Creation is the First Human Being - an image of the Creator

himself. The Creator made man from the four parts of the Earth and gave him life

by blowing his breath into man through a Megis shell. Creator lowered man to earth

along the Atlantic coast of North American, then asked him to walk the earth and

to name all things. Man learned of the physical and spiritual powers in things. The

wolf later walked with original man and they learned the meaning of brotherhood

which exists among all of creation. When man and wolf were asked to separate,

Creator told them their lives would be similar. (Gibson, 2006, centre insert)

Based on the seven fires of Creation in Kiinwi Dabaadjmowin, the guiding and fundamental principle of Anishinaabe law is that MCFN as an Anishinaabe Nation are to respect all of creation because everything is interconnected as intricate systems (Cathie Jamieson, personal communication, November 2018).

242

Appendix 3: University of Guelph Research Ethics Board Approval.

RESEARCH ETHICS BOARDS Certification of Ethical Acceptability of Research Involving Human Participants

APPROVAL PERIOD: November 10, 2017 EXPIRY DATE: November 9, 2018 REB: G REB NUMBER: 17-10-043 TYPE OF REVIEW: Delegated PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Longboat, Sheri DEPARTMENT: School of Environmental Design and Rural Development SPONSOR(S): N/A TITLE OF PROJECT: Development of Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory

CHANGES: Type Date Amendment 5-Mar-18 Amendment 11-Jun-18

The members of the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board have examined the protocol which describes the participation of the human participants in the above- named research project and considers the procedures, as described by the applicant, to conform to the University's ethical standards and the Tri-Council Policy Statement, 2nd Edition.

The REB requires that researchers: • Adhere to the protocol as last reviewed and approved by the REB. • Receive approval from the REB for any modifications before they can be implemented. • Report any change in the source of funding. • Report unexpected events or incidental findings to the REB as soon as possible with an indication of how these events affect, in the view of the Principal Investigator, the safety of the participants, and the continuation of the protocol.

243

• Are responsible for ascertaining and complying with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements with respect to consent and the protection of privacy of participants in the jurisdiction of the research project.

The Principal Investigator must: • Ensure that the ethical guidelines and approvals of facilities or institutions involved in the research are obtained and filed with the REB prior to the initiation of any research protocols. • Submit an Annual Renewal to the REB upon completion of the project. If the research is a multiyear project, a status report must be submitted annually prior to the expiry date. Failure to submit an annual status report will lead to your study being suspended and potentially terminated.

The approval for this protocol terminates on the EXPIRY DATE, or the term of your appointment or employment at the University of Guelph whichever comes first.

Signature: Date: June 11, 2018

Stephen P. Lewis Chair, Research Ethics Board-General

244

Appendix 4: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Key Informant Conversations.

Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Key Informants

Research Project Title: Development of Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory 1. Background and purpose In September of 2016 MNCFN filed an Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Treaty Lands and Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit (hereafter referred to as the Water Claim). In response to this Water Claim, a MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) was constituted. The purpose of this joint research project between the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph is to engage with MNCFN members about the Water Claim. It aims to explore how members value water and what would ownership of water within these lands entail. The envisaged outcome is the development of a MNCFN Water Framework as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution. 2. Joint research team: University of Guelph Should you have any questions Sheri Longboat (PhD, Faculty) related to the research project please Reneé Goretsky (PhD Candidate)

245

Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee feel free to contact any of the (Water Committee) researchers below: Darin Wybenga (Chair, Traditional  Reneé Goretsky Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator, ([email protected]), Department of Consultation and  Darin Wybenga Accommodation) ([email protected]). Kim Fullerton (Legal Counsel)  Sheri Longboat Cathie Jamieson (Band Councilor) ([email protected]) Fawn Sault (Consultation Manager, Department of Consultation and Accommodation) Margaret Sault (Director, Department of Lands, Research & Membership) Caron Smith (Environmental and Regulatory Officer, DOCA) 3. What are you expected to do? It is expected, that you, as a research participant will contribute by sharing your views on  your water values  the Water Claim  the Water Framework You will be asked to respond to five conversation probes on:  How important is water to you and why?  What does the Water Claim mean to you?  What does ownership of water within your Treaty Lands and Territory mean to you?  How are MNCFN’s water values and rights centrally included in water decision- making processes? AND/OR How do you think that MNCFN’s water values and rights can be centrally included in water decision-making processes?

246

 What you want to see in the Water Framework? It is anticipated that this conversation would last about one hour. 4. Benefits of participating There will be no direct benefit to participants, other than the opportunity to provide valuable input into the development of the water framework. 5. Possible discomforts due to this research project We do not foresee any major discomforts resulting from this research project. However, as a participant, you may experience some emotions e.g. being worried, anxious or upset about sharing your views. We will respect multidimensional views and all knowledges shared are considered to be equally important. 6. Voluntary participation and confidentiality Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and you may stop participating in the conversation at any time by letting the researcher know. Your name and other direct identifiable information (e.g. community positions, titles) will be held in confidence by the research team and will not appear in any research findings unless you give us prior permission to do so. 7. What will happen to the knowledge shared? Individual stories and direct quotes (indirect identifiable information) will be used and acknowledged with your permission as the knowledge sharer. Otherwise, the shared knowledge will be put together with other people’s knowledge to look for common meanings and interpretations (i.e. themes) – for your feedback. The research findings will be disseminated via community feedback, theses, reports and publications. 8. Withdrawal of your knowledge from the research project You may choose to withdraw your knowledge from the project. In the event that you withdraw from the research, you can opt to have all your knowledge shared to be immediately removed before knowledge meaning and interpretation have begun (i.e. before April 2018). If a request to remove knowledge shared occurs after the data analysis started, non-identifiable data and themes from your one-on-one conversation may remain

247

in the analysis and findings. To withdraw your knowledge from the research, please contact Reneé Goretsky ([email protected]) or Darin Wybenga ([email protected]). 9. Recording of activities This activity will be audio recorded and/or recorded in writing upon your consent and only the research team members and the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation will have access to these recordings. The recordings will be transcribed into typed format. 10. Knowledge Usage and Storage The knowledge shared by you will only be used for this research project. All original written, typed and audio recordings will be stored in locked cabinets or on password secured computers at the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation. They will be retained until the end of the research project (estimated for September 2019) after which they will be destroyed, unless you grant your approval for the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original written, typed and audio recordings in perpetuity for future research and decision making. Should you want to withdraw these recordings from the Department of Consultation and Accommodation in the future please contact Darin Wybenga ([email protected]). 11. Questions about the Research If you have questions about the conversation and/or research in general or about your role in it, please feel free to contact Reneé Goretsky ([email protected], 647 9737754) or Darin Wybenga, the MNCFN Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). 12. Ethics Endorsements This project has been reviewed by the  MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) for acceptable MNCFN research protocols. Any queries can be directed to Darin

248

Wybenga, the Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). And  Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606. 13. Legal rights You do not waive any legal rights by agreeing to take part in this research. 14. Prior Consents Yes No Confidentiality Do you grant the research team permission to use your direct identifiable information (e.g. names, community positions, titles) in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Use of Individual Stories and Direct Quotes (Indirect Identifiable information) Do you grant the research team permission to use your individual stories and direct quotes in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Recording of activities Do you grant the research team permission to record the activity through: Audio modes?

Written modes?

Knowledge Usage and Storage

249

Yes No Do you grant the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original written, typed and audio recordings of the knowledge you shared with the research team in perpetuity for future research and decision making? Permission to (re)contact you Do you grant the research team permission to re(contact) you for transcript accuracy and should further clarity be required? Do you grant MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation permission to contact you should future related projects emerge? 15. Agreement to participate You are agreeing to participate in this research as outlined above by signing this hard copy informed consent form. Participant’s Details: Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______Assumed consent (oral or through culturally accepted ways) will be recorded by the researcher should it not be appropriate or possible for you to sign this document.

250

Appendix 5: Schedule: One-on-One Key-Informant Conversations Schedule with MNCFN Adult members. The conversation will follow an engaged approach. There are five guiding probes with some possible expanding probes. Guiding probe 1: How important is water to you and why? Possible expanding probes:  What are your wants and needs in relation to water?  How do your life principles/values affect the way you see and think about water?  In your parents and grandparents time, how did they think about/see water (i.e., was it different then to now)?  How do you want your grand and great grand-children (seven generations into the future) to think about and see water?

Guiding Probe 2: What does the Water Claim mean to you?

Guiding Probe 3: What does ownership of water within your Treaty Lands and Territory mean to you? Possible expanding probes:  If so, what does the word ownership mean to you and why?  What would ownership of water imply?  Are there other expressions that we could use and what would those be?

Guiding Probe 4: How are MNCFN’s water values and rights centrally included (i.e. Indigenized) in water decision-making processes (termed water governance)? These decisions affect the way that water is managed, used and protected etc on your Treaty Lands and Territory. AND/OR

251

If you agree that it should be, how do you think that MNCFN’s water values and rights can be centrally included (i.e. Indigenized) in water decision-making processes (termed water governance)? Possible expanding probes:  If you do, what do you think of/how do you understand the terms water governance and Indigenize?  The use of language can sometimes be confusing and ambiguous. Are there alternative ways/words/languages that you (would rather) use to think about:  How decisions are made about water?  Should we make decisions about water? and  How you see MNCFN’s water values and rights regarded as being central on your Treaty Lands and Territory?

Given that our intention is to develop a Water Framework, which is a possible resolution as part of the Water Claim, Guiding Probe 5: What you want to see in the Water Framework? Possible expanding probe:  What other resolutions do you think are possible?

252

Appendix 6: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Adult Group Discussions.

Information Letter and Informed Consent Form for Adult Group Discussions Research Project Title: Development of Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory 1. Background and purpose In September of 2016 MNCFN filed an Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Treaty Lands and Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit (hereafter referred to as the Water Claim). In response to this Water Claim, a MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) was constituted. The purpose of this joint research project between the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph is to engage with MNCFN members about the Water Claim. It aims to explore how members value water and what would ownership of water within these lands entail. The envisaged outcome is the development of a MNCFN Water Framework as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution. 2. Joint research team: University of Guelph Should you have any questions related to Sheri Longboat (PhD, Faculty) the research project please feel free to Reneé Goretsky (PhD Candidate) contact any of the researchers below:  Reneé Goretsky Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin [email protected], Committee (Water Committee)  Darin Wybenga [email protected]

253

Darin Wybenga (Chair, Traditional  Sheri Longboat Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator, ([email protected]) Department of Consultation and Accommodation) Kim Fullerton (Legal Counsel) Cathie Jamieson (Band Councilor) Julie LaForme (Acting Director, Department of Lands, Research & Membership) Fawn Sault (Consultation Manager, Department of Consultation and Accommodation) Margaret Sault (Band Councilor) Caron Smith (Environmental and Regulatory Officer, DOCA) 3. What are you expected to do? It is expected, that you, as a research participant will contribute by sharing your views in a group setting on  your water values  the Water Claim  the Water Framework The group will be asked to respond to four discussion probes on:  How important is water to you and why?  What does the Water Claim mean to you?  What does ownership of water within your Treaty Lands and Territory mean to you?  What you want to see in the Water Framework? It is anticipated that this discussion would last about one hour and 30 minutes. 4. Benefits of participating There will be no direct benefit to participants, other than the opportunity to provide input.

254

5. Possible discomforts due to this research project We do not foresee any major discomforts resulting from this research project. However, as a participant, you may experience some emotions e.g. being worried, anxious or upset about sharing your views. We will respect multidimensional views and all knowledges shared are considered to be equally important. 6. Voluntary participation and confidentiality Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and you may stop participating in the group discussion at any time by leaving the room. Your name and other direct identifiable information (e.g. community positions, titles) will be held in confidence by the research team and will not appear in any research findings unless you give us prior permission to do so. By participating in this activity you agree to keep these discussions and participant information confidential. You acknowledge and accept that the research team cannot guarantee that your confidentiality will be retained because you will essentially be speaking in public. 7. What will happen to the knowledge shared? Individual stories and direct quotes (indirect identifiable information) will be used and acknowledged with your permission as the knowledge sharer. Otherwise, the shared knowledge will be put together with other people’s knowledge to look for common meanings and interpretations (i.e. themes) – for your feedback. The research findings will be disseminated via community feedback, theses, reports and publications. 8. Withdrawal of your knowledge from the research project Unfortunately, knowledge shared during group activities cannot be withdrawn due to the integrated nature of discussions. 9. Recording of activities This activity will be audio recorded ONLY if all the participants agree to this recording. Only the researchers and the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation will have access to this recording. Written recordings (e.g. poster notes) will be made of the discussions. The recordings will be transcribed into typed format. 255

10. Knowledge Usage and Storage The knowledge shared by the MNCFN members will only be used for this research project. All original written, typed and audio recordings will be stored in locked cabinets or on password secured computers at the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation. They will be retained until the end of the research project (estimated for September 2019) after which they will be destroyed unless you grant your approval to the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original written, typed and audio recordings in perpetuity for future research and decision making. Should you want to withdraw these recordings from the Department of Consultation and Accommodation in the future please contact Darin Wybenga ([email protected]). 11. Questions about the Research If you have questions about the group discussion and/or research in general or about your role in it, please feel free to contact Reneé Goretsky ([email protected], 647 9737754) or Darin Wybenga, the MNCFN Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). 12. Ethics Endorsements This project has been reviewed by the  MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) for acceptable MNCFN research protocols. Any queries can be directed to Darin Wybenga, the Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). And  Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606.

256

13. Legal rights You do not waive any legal rights by agreeing to take part in this research. 14. Prior Consents Yes No Confidentiality Do you grant the research team permission to use your direct identifiable information (e.g. names, community positions, titles) in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Use of Individual Stories and Direct Quotes (Indirect Identifiable information) Do you grant the research team permission to use your individual stories and direct quotes in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Recording of activities Do you grant the research team permission to record the activity through audio modes? Knowledge Usage and Storage Do you grant the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original written, typed and audio recordings of the knowledge you shared with the research team in perpetuity for future research and decision making? Permission to (re)contact you Do you grant the research team permission to re(contact) you should further clarity be required? Do you grant MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation permission to contact you should future related projects emerge?

257

15. Agreement to participate You are agreeing to participate in this research as outlined above by signing this hard copy informed consent form. Participant’s Details: Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______Assumed consent (oral or through culturally accepted ways) will be recorded by the researcher should it not be appropriate or possible for you to sign this document. Researcher’s Details if not signed by participant (i.e. verbal consent provided or culturally accepted consent provided): Notes: ______Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______

258

Appendix 7: Group Discussion with MNCFN Adult members Guiding Probes. Guiding Probe 1: How important is water to you and why?

Guiding Probe 2: What does the Water Claim mean to you?

Guiding Probe 3: What does ownership of water within your Treaty Lands and Territory mean to you? Possible expanding probes to consider:  If so, what does the word ownership mean to you and why?  What would ownership of water imply?  Are there other expressions that we could use and what would those be?

Given that our intention is to develop a Water Framework, which is a possible resolution as part of the Water Claim, Guiding Probe 4: What do you want to see in the Water Framework? Possible expanding probe to consider:  What other resolutions do you think are possible?

259

Appendix 8: Information Letter and Informed Consent Form MNCFN Youth Group.

Information Letter and Informed Consent Form MNCFN Youth Group Research Project Title: Development of Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory 1. Background and purpose In September of 2016 MNCFN filed an Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Treaty Lands and Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit (hereafter referred to as the Water Claim- see enclosed factsheet for more information). In response to this Water Claim, a MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) was created. The purpose of this joint research project between the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph is to engage with MNCFN members about the Water Claim. It aims to explore how members value water and what would ownership of water within your lands entail. The envisaged outcome is the development of a MNCFN Water Framework as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution. Although, there will be no direct benefit to you for being part of this group activity you will have the opportunity to provide valuable input into the development of this Water Framework. 2. Joint research team The joint research team is comprised of the following people:

260

University of Guelph Should you have any questions related to Sheri Longboat (PhD, Faculty) the research project please feel free to Reneé Goretsky (PhD Candidate) contact any of the researchers below:

Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin  Reneé Goretsky Committee ([email protected]), Darin Wybenga (Chair, Traditional  Darin Wybenga Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator, ([email protected]), and Department of Consultation and  Sheri Longboat Accommodation) ([email protected]) Kim Fullerton (Legal Counsel) Cathie Jamieson (Band Councilor) Fawn Sault (Consultation Manager, Department of Consultation and Accommodation) Margaret Sault (Director, Department of Lands, Research & Membership) Caron Smith (Environmental and Regulatory Officer, DOCA) 3. What are you expected to do? It is expected, that you, as a research participant will contribute by sharing your views in a group activity which will be led by Mrs Reneé Goretsky (a PhD candidate at the University of Guelph). You will be asked to illustrate through joint artwork your responses to two questions.  Why is water important to you?  What would you do to protect water for now and in the future? We will then discuss this artwork and as we go along, poster notes will be made of these discussions, which will be converted into typed format.

261

4. Informed Consent  With your permission photos of this group activity may be taken. Your name will be held in confidence by the joint research team and will not appear in any research findings. Photos will be identified by age group. Given this and that you will be participating in an open group activity, the research team cannot guarantee that your confidentiality will be retained.  The artwork and shared knowledge will be analysed for common meanings and interpretations (i.e. themes) by the group. Your contributions to the artwork created and knowledge shared during the group activity cannot be withdrawn due to the combined nature of these interactions. The research findings will be made available via community feedbacks including displays; theses; reports and publications.  You will be given an opportunity to ask any questions throughout this activity. Your participation in this group activity is completely voluntary. Should you wish to stop participating in this group activity at any time, you can do so by leaving the room.  We do not foresee any major discomforts resulting from you participating in this group activity. However, as a participant, you may experience some emotions e.g. being worried, anxious or upset about sharing your views. There are no right or wrong answers and that different ideas are important and to be respected. We may also stop the group activity at any time if we perceive it is in the group’s best interest.  The knowledge shared and the artwork created by this group will only be used for this research project. All original written and typed recordings; photos; and digital copies of the artworks will be stored in locked cabinets or on password secured computers at the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation. They will be retained until the end of the research project (estimated for September 2019) after which they will be destroyed unless you grant your approval to the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original written and typed recordings; photos and digital copies of the artwork in perpetuity for future research and decision making. Should you have any concerns about this policy, please contact

262

the Department of Consultation and Accommodation, Mr Darin Wybenga ([email protected]).  If you have questions about the overall research please feel free to contact Mrs Reneé Goretsky ([email protected], 647 9737754) or Mr Darin Wybenga, the MNCFN Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]).  This project has been reviewed by the  MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) for acceptable MNCFN research protocols. Any queries can be directed to Darin Wybenga, the Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). And  Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your child’s rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606.  You do not waive any legal rights by agreeing to take part in this research. 5. Prior Consents Yes No Permission to take and use photos for this research project Do you grant the research team permission to take and use photos of you participating in this group activity in dissemination materials (i.e. community feedbacks including displays; theses; reports and publications) of this research project? Knowledge Usage and Storage Do you grant the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original

263

Yes No written and typed recordings; photos and digital copies of the artworks of the knowledge you shared with the research team in perpetuity for future research and decision making? 6. Agreement to participate You are agreeing to participate in this research as outlined above by signing this hard copy informed consent form. Participant’s Details: Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______Oral consent will be recorded by the researcher should it not be appropriate or possible for you to sign this document. Researcher’s Details if not signed by participant (i.e. oral consent provided): Notes: - ______Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______

264

Appendix 9: Group Activity Schedule with MNCFN Youth Group.  Reneé will start the group activity with a water acknowledgement.  Reneé will explain the project’s purpose, the informed consent process and what is about to happen in this group activity. Reneé will facilitate the discussions on simple and related probes/questions as follows:  Why is water important to you?  What would you do to protect water for now and in the future? The scholars will be asked to do artwork in relation to the two questions above. They will then participate in a group discussion where they will be asked to talk about their artwork in relation to water.

265

Appendix 10: Parental Information Letter: Class Lesson on Water at Lloyd S. King Elementary School. Contacts for queries: Reneé Goretsky ([email protected], 647 9737754), Dr Sheri Longboat ([email protected]) or Darin Wybenga, ([email protected]) Parental Information Letter: Class Lesson on Water at Lloyd S. King Elementary School Dear Parent/Legal Guardian Your child(ren) will be participating in a class lesson on (date) which forms part of a joint research project between the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph. This research project aims to look at MNCFN’s water rights, and water values, needs and aspirations in support of a MNCFN filed Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within the Treaty Lands and Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit (see enclosed factsheet). Although, there will be no direct benefit to your child(ren) for being part of this class lesson he/she/they will have the opportunity to provide valuable input into the development of a Water Framework as a possible Water Claim resolution. This class lesson led by Reneé Goretsky (a PhD student) and co-facilitated by the class teacher will acknowledge ‘Water as Life’. After the lesson is explained to your child(ren) he/she/they will be involved in creating artwork in relation to two questions: 1) Why is water important to you? and 2) What would you do to care for/protect water for now and in the future? A sharing circle will follow which will be captured on poster notes. Principles to be followed for this lesson include:  Photos may be taken but will only be used where parents have granted the school prior permission to disseminate their child(ren)’s photos. Your child(ren)’s name will not be disseminated in any research findings. There is a risk though of your child(ren) being identified by name because of the use photos in research findings and that your child(ren) will be participating in an open class lesson.  Given the combined nature of these interactions you cannot withdraw your child(ren)’s contributions and the shared knowledge will be analysed for common themes by age 266

group which will be made available via community feedback and academic publications.  Your child(ren) will be given an opportunity to ask any questions throughout this lesson.  Although we do not foresee any major discomforts resulting from this class lesson, your child(ren) may experience some emotions e.g. being worried about sharing his/her/their views. Reneé will explain that there are no right or wrong answers. Reneé may also stop the class lesson at any time if she perceives it is in the class’ best interest.  The class’ contributions will only be used for this research project. All original written and typed recordings; photos and digital copies of the artwork will be stored in perpetuity in locked cabinets or on password secured computers at the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation for future research and decision making.  If you have any questions about this class lesson and your child(ren)’s participation in it, please contact the school principal H. Danielle MacDonnell, OCT at Tel 905-768- 3222.  This project has been reviewed by the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee and the Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your child(ren)’s rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606. Sincerely Darin Wybenga Water Committee Chair

267

Appendix 11: LSK Elementary School: Class Lesson Script (35 minutes). Time allocation 1: 5-8 minutes  Reneé will introduce herself: I am Reneé, and I am studying Water Management at the University of Guelph. I am from South Africa and I have been in Canada for just over 2.5 years (so you will hear a funny accent).  Reneé will acknowledge Water as Life by having water present in a glass bowl.  Reneé will explain the Water Claim purpose: The purpose of this class lesson today is for you to share your ideas/thoughts for your rights and the importance of water on your Treaty Lands and Territory.  Reneé will explain what is expected of the class: o I am asking you to think about two questions: Why is water important to you? And What would you do to care for/protect water for now and in the future? [She will have these two questions on poster boards so that the students can clearly read the questions in addition to her reading them aloud.] o What we are asking you to do is to create art on how you think about these questions i.e., create a drawing, use some of the stickers etc. that I have provided here. [She will hand out prepared sheets, with both questions spatially separated, to the scholars and have available a variety of artwork supplies for each child in bags]. You can work alone or in pairs… you can decide o We will then allow you share something about your artwork if you feel comfortable. o We will also be taking photos. Reneé will introduce a photographer (Allen Goretsky, her husband who is a professionally trained photographer) or she will take the photos herself if this is not approved by the school or UoG REB. o At the end, we will collect the artwork to take photos of them but we will return them to you so don’t forget to write your name on the back of the sheet. o Please let me or your teacher know if you have any questions throughout this class lesson.

268

Time allocation 2: 10 minutes  The scholars will be given the opportunity to create their artwork.  Reneé will remind the scholars to write their names on the back of the sheets so that they can be returned to them. Time allocation 3: 15-17 minutes  Reneé will ask the scholars to form a circle on the floor/mats in the classroom if appropriate.  She will say: If you feel comfortable you can say something short (one sentence) about your artwork. I will make poster notes as you go along. o We are all here to learn and experience so remember that there are no wrong or right answers, just share what you think and feel if you want.  Sharing circle held  Reneé will end the class lesson by thanking the scholars and the school teachers.

269

Appendix 12: MNCFN Water Framework Survey.

Information and Informed Consent Letter As an adult (over the age of 18) band member of the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN), you are invited to participate in a survey as part of a joint research project on the ‘Development of MNCFN Water Framework to Indigenize Water Governance within Treaty Lands and Territory. In September of 2016 an Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within your Treaty Lands and Territory was filed (hereafter referred to as the Water Claim). The purpose of this joint research project between the Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph is to obtain your valuable input into the development of this Water Framework as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution. Respondents who submit survey responses will be entered into a random draw for a chance to win a C$500 visa gift card. Only one entry is allowed per respondent into the draw and the probability of winning is dependent on the number of survey responses received. The draw will take place on Friday, 21 September 2018 and only the winner will be notified. This survey, will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, you can skip any question you would prefer not to answer, and you may stop at any time. It is based on preliminary research findings emerging from interviews and focus group discussions with a small number of MNCFN members. Hence these members are asked NOT to complete the survey because your views are already recorded. We ask you to rate these findings with regards to The importance of water to you The meaning of the Water Claim to you The goals of the Water Framework

270

The survey also provides you with an opportunity to submit your own views and understandings. There are no right or wrong answers. Different and multidimensional views will be respected with equal importance. We request some basic demographic information which will allow us to obtain a broad profile of respondents and to contextualize your survey responses. Towards the end of the survey, we request your name and contact information for entry into the random draw and to confirm your band membership. Your name and contact details will be held in confidence by the research team unless you give us prior permission to use your name in the research findings. Direct quotes will be used and acknowledged with your permission as the knowledge sharer. The shared knowledge will be put together with other people’s knowledge to look for common meanings and interpretations (i.e. themes). The research findings will be disseminated via community feedback (scheduled for late 2018), theses, reports and publications. You may choose to withdraw your knowledge from the project. In the event that you withdraw from the research, you can opt to have all your knowledge shared to be immediately removed before knowledge meaning and interpretation have begun (i.e. before August 2018). If a request to remove knowledge shared occurs after the data analysis started, non-identifiable data and themes from your survey response may remain in the analysis and findings. To withdraw your knowledge from the research, please contact Reneé Goretsky ([email protected]) or Darin Wybenga ([email protected]). The knowledge shared by you will only be used for this research project. All original survey responses will be stored in locked cabinets or on password secured computers at the MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation (DOCA). They will be retained until the end of the research project (estimated for September 2019) after which they will be destroyed, unless you grant your approval for DOCA to securely retain your survey response in perpetuity for future research and decision making. Should you want to withdraw your survey response from DOCA in the future please contact Darin Wybenga ([email protected]). This project has been reviewed by the: 271

MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) for acceptable MNCFN research protocols. Any queries can be directed to Darin Wybenga, the Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Coordinator ([email protected]). And Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606. You do not waive any legal rights by agreeing to take part in this research. You are agreeing to participate in this research as outlined above by completing and submitting the survey.

The survey’s closing date is Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 5pm.

Prior Consents Yes No

1. Do you grant the research team permission to use your name i.e. direct identifiable information in community feedbacks, theses, reports

and publications? o o 2. Do you grant the research team permission to use your direct quotes in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? o o 3. Do you grant the MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation to securely retain all original survey responses of the knowledge you shared with the research team in perpetuity for future o o research and decision making? 4. Do you grant MNCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation permission to contact you should future related projects

emerge? o o

272

Demographics

Your age in years is: o Under 18 o 18 - 35 o 36 - 55 o 55 or older o Prefer not to say o Not sure

With which gender do you identify? o Male o Female o Transgender o Two-Spirited o Other ______o Prefer not to say

Where do you live? Indicate where you live for more than 50% of your time. You can select more than one option if the choices are equally weighted. ▢ On New Credit Reserve ▢ On another First Nation Reserve ▢ Off reserve ▢ Other

273

Questions 1. How would you rate the following five statements on the importance of water to you? In I don't know/Not Important Unimportant between applicable 1) I use it e.g. to drink, to cook, to clean, for recreation and gardening o o o o 2) It keeps plants, animals and humans alive o o o o 3) It has economic benefits e.g. energy, industrial and food productions o o o o 4) It is part of our culture, I use it for canoeing, fishing, hunting etc o o o o 5) It has spiritual meaning to me. I see water as spirit and water has life o o o o

Do you have any other reasons for the importance of water to you? Please expand. ______

2. What does the Water Claim mean to you? Select all the options that apply. These options are based on preliminary research findings. ▢ Reclaiming our Treaty and Inherent rights ▢ Regulating-having a say, voice and decision-making powers ▢ Rediscovering and Reconnecting with our culture ▢ Other (please expand below)

Do you have any other options to add/suggested changes to make to these options? ______

274

3. Based on your response(s) to the previous question, how much do you agree that the Water Claim is about reconciliation? o Agree o In between o Disagree o Don't know/Not applicable

Do you have any suggestions for what the Water Claim could mean? ______

4. How strongly do you agree that the following 10 goals should be included in the Water Framework? A Water Framework will be developed based on this research as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution.

275

Neither Don't

Agree agree nor Disagree know/Not

disagree applicable 1) For us to have unhindered (free, easy and rightful) access to water bodies on our Treaty

Lands and Territory o o o o 2) For all people to meaningfully acknowledge and recognize water and our water values on our

Treaty Lands and Territory o o o o 3) For us to strategically advocate, lobby and position our Treaty and Inherent rights to water o o o o 4) For us to be directly, actively and seriously consulted and accommodated on all activities relating to water on our Treaty Lands and Territory o o o o 5) For all people to be actively and respectfully involved in the protection, conservation and remediation of the water o o o o 6) For us to vibrantly live and have knowledge about our responsibilities to the water based on our Anishinaabe teachings o o o o 7) For us to revive and integrate Anishinaabe teachings and traditions in our community o o o o 8) For us to benefit economically so that we can sustain ourselves into the future o o o o 9) To have sufficient and appropriate resources (e.g. people and funding) and structures (e.g. committees, task teams) in place to manage, o o o o implement and evaluate the Water Framework 10) To have appropriate and ongoing education, awareness and communication activities about the

Water Framework o o o o

Do you have any other goals to add/suggested changes to the above goals?

______

5. Are there any specific implementation actions that you would like to see in the Water Framework? ______

276

______

6. Do you have any general comments? ______

Name and Contact Details

Compulsory fields for your entry into the random draw and to confirm your band membership. Your name and contact details will be held in confidence by the research team unless you give us prior permission to use your name in the research findings.

Name ______

Email ______

Telephone number ______

Band registry number ______

Thank you for completing the survey.

Please enclose your completed survey into the self-addressed and pre-paid envelope provided and post it to MNCFN’s Department of Consultation and Accommodation by the closing date (31 July 2018).

277

Appendix 13: Information Letter and Consent Form: Interviews with Conservation Authorities. For any questions, please contact University of Guelph researchers: Reneé Goretsky ([email protected]) and Dr Sheri Longboat ([email protected])

MNCFN: Darin Wybenga ([email protected]) Information Letter In September 2016, the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation filed an Aboriginal Title Claim to Waters within their Treaty Lands and Territory (hereafter referred to as the Water Claim). In support of this Water Claim a joint research team, consisting of the MNCFN Ganawenjigejik Niibi Bimaadiziwin Committee (Water Committee) and the University of Guelph, engaged with MNCFN members to develop a Water Framework as a possible and partial Water Claim resolution. This Water Framework is based on MNCFN values, needs and aspirations to water. The purpose of this engagement with you is to understand current water governance policies, processes and practices on MNCFN Treaty Lands and Territory (see enclosed map). You will be asked questions relating to three core areas on: • Water governance principles and structures within your organization’s jurisdiction • Your organization’s current consultations and accommodations with First Nations • Foreseeable challenge areas and transformation opportunities with regards to MNCFN’s Water Claim It is anticipated that this interview would last about one hour.

Informed Consent Form  Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and you may stop participating in the interview at any time by letting the University of Guelph researcher (Reneé) know.  There will be no direct benefit to you as a participant, other than the opportunity to provide valuable input into the feasibility of implementing this Water Framework.

278

 Your name and other direct identifiable information (e.g. job positions, titles) will be held in confidence by the University of Guelph researchers (Reneé and Sheri) and will not appear in any research findings unless you give them prior permission to do so.  Should you provide the University of Guelph researchers with permission to use your identifiable information and you share critical, contentious and diverse opinions it could cause the risk of social conflict.  If you wish to remain confidential, the University of Guelph researchers will attempt to reduce any risk of your confidentiality and privacy being breached by codifying the knowledge you share with them immediately after the knowledge collection.  You may also feel some emotional discomforts due to sensitive and conflictual topics discussed. We will respect multidimensional views and all knowledges shared are considered to be equally important. The main purpose is to find ways to move forward for reconciliation.  Individual stories and direct quotes (indirect identifiable information) will be used and acknowledged with your permission as the knowledge sharer. Otherwise, the shared knowledge will be put together with other people’s knowledge to look for common meanings and interpretations (i.e. themes), if applicable.  The research findings will be disseminated via MNCFN community feedback, theses, reports and publications.  You may choose to withdraw your knowledge from the project. In the event that you withdraw from the research, you can opt to have all your knowledge shared to be immediately removed before knowledge meaning and interpretation have begun (i.e. before August 2018). If a request to remove knowledge shared occurs after the data analysis started, non-identifiable data and themes from your interview may remain in the analysis and findings. To withdraw your knowledge from the research, please contact Reneé ([email protected]).  This activity will be audio recorded and/or recorded in writing upon your consent and only the University of Guelph researchers will have access to these recordings. The recordings will be transcribed into typed format.

279

 The knowledge shared by you will only be used for this research project. All original written, typed and audio recordings will be stored in locked cabinets or on encrypted computer drivers in the office of Dr Sheri Longboat, University of Guelph. They will be retained until the end of the research project (estimated for September 2019) after which they will be destroyed.  This component of the project has been reviewed by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. If you have any questions regarding your rights and welfare as a research participant in this research (please quote REB# 17-10-043) please contact the Director, Research Ethics; University of Guelph; [email protected]; 519-824-4120 ext. 56606.  You do not waive any legal rights by agreeing to take part in this research. Prior Consents Yes No Confidentiality Do you grant the University of Guelph researchers permission to use your direct identifiable information (e.g. names, positions, titles) in MNCFN community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Use of Individual Stories and Direct Quotes (Indirect Identifiable information) Do you grant the University of Guelph researchers permission to use your individual stories and direct quotes in community feedbacks, theses, reports and publications? Recording of activities Do you grant the University of Guelph researchers permission to record the activity through: Audio modes?

280

Yes No Written modes?

Permission to (re)contact you Do you grant the University of Guelph researchers permission to re(contact) you for transcript accuracy and should further clarity be required?

Agreement to participate You are agreeing to participate in this research as outlined above by signing this hard copy informed consent form. Participant’s Details: Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______

281

Appendix 14: Semi-structured Interview Schedule - With Canadian Water Management Authorities. Question 1 What are the water governance principles/frameworks within your organization’s jurisdiction on MNCFN’s Treaty Lands and Territory? Probes  What laws, policies and regulations exist that you are bounded by with regards to water quantity and quality management? Question 2 What are the water governance structures within your organization’s jurisdiction on MNCFN’s Treaty Lands and Territory? Probes  What are the high-level and decision-making water governance structures within your organization’s jurisdictional area? Question 3 How does your organization currently consult with and accommodate First Nations? Probes  Do you consult with all First Nations bands within your organization’s jurisdictional area?  To what extent does your organization consult with First Nations?  To what extent does your organization accommodate First Nations’ needs? Reneé will explain the meaning of the Water Claim to the Canadian water governance authorities (i.e. the interviewees) based on the preliminary research findings as per Fig 1 below.

282

Fig 1: Meaning of the Water Claim based on preliminary research findings with MNCFN community Question 4 What do you see as foreseeable challenge areas and transformation opportunities with regards to MNCFN’s Water Claim? Probes  The MNCFN Water Claim is claiming ownership of the water, its waterbeds and resources within the water. How do you see their claim of water ownership?  What do you think that their water claim would mean for the provincial Ministry/conservation authorities?  How can the laws, policies and regulations be modified to accommodate the needs of MNCFN and First Nations?  How can MNCFN be beneficiaries of the water economy? How can MNCFN’s water values be central in decision making? 283

Appendix 15: Research Team Agreement. Research Team Agreement for the Research Project on the ‘Development of a Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation Band Water Agenda to inform Indigenous Water Governance Frameworks’93 I, ______, the undersigned of ______(affiliation i.e. UoG or MNCFN Water Committee) agree to:  Retain the privacy and confidentiality of all research participants by not revealing anyone’s name or personally identifying information to third parties, unless prior permission is granted;  Not use the knowledge gathered in the research for any reason other than for the purpose of this research project, unless prior permission is granted;  Inform the team of all possible conflicts of interest in a timely manner so that they can be appropriately managed; and  Not use my position as a research team member for the benefit of myself and my family or any other beneficiary who is not part of the research. THUS DONE AND SIGNED AT ______on this ______day of ______2017. ______SIGNATURE

93 The agreements were signed in early October 2017. The project title was slightly modified since then, but the agreements were still valid.

284