Harsh Realities: Maintaining Indigenous Values in the Face of Poverty an Analysis of the Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘A Lisims Government

Harsh Realities: Maintaining Indigenous Values in the Face of Poverty An Analysis of the Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Lisims Government

Ryan Francis

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Political Science)

Acadia University Fall Convocation 2010

(ii)

This thesis by Ryan Francis was defended successfully in an oral examination on September 10, 2010.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. David MacKinnon, Chair

______Dr. Kiera Ladner, External Reader

______Dr. Phyllis Rippeyoung, Internal Reader

______Dr. Cynthia Alexander, Supervisor

______Dr. Malcolm Grieve, Head/Director (or delegate)

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree Master of Arts (Political Science).

….……………………………….

This thesis by Ryan Francis was defended successfully in an oral examination on September 10, 2010.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. David MacKinnon, Chair

Dr. Kiera Ladner, External Reader

Dr. Phyllis Rippeyoung, Internal Reader

Dr. Cynthia Alexander, Supervisor

Dr. David Malcolm Grieve, Head/Director (or delegate)

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree Masters of Arts (Political Science).

(iii)

I, Ryan Francis, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Author

______Supervisor

______Date

(iv)

Table of Contents

Introduction: Bracing for Impact………………………………..………...………………1

Chapter Two: Circles and Straight Lines: Understanding Indigeneity and Western European Philosophy…………………………………………………………………….16 Pre-contact……………………………………………………………………….18 Indigeneity……………………………………………………………………….21 Gender Relations………………………………………………………………....22 Elders…………………………………………………………………………….24 Culture and Language……………………………………………………………26 Land……………………………………………………………………………...28 Individualism and Citizenship…………………………………………………...30 Social Darwinism, Eurocentricism and Diffusionism…………………………...31 Post-contact……………………………………………………………………...34 Private Property………………………………………………………………….34 Gender Subordination…………………………………………………………...36 Indian Act………………………………………………………………………..37 Bill C-31…………………………………………………………………………39 Residential Schools………………………………………………………………42 Contemporary Struggles…………………………………………………………44 Storytelling………………………………………………………………………46 Cultural Disconnect……………………………………………………………...49 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….51

Chapter Three: A Commitment Reneged: Transitional Funding in the Government of Nunavut……………………………………………………………………….…….…...57 Pre-contact……………………………………………………………………….57 Post-contact and Relocation……………………………………………………..59 Suicide…………………………………………………………………………...61 Road to Nunavut…………………………………………………………………64 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit……………………………………………………….…67 Dual-member Dual-gender Constituencies…………………………….………...68 Territory Elections…………………………………………………………….…70 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit……………………………………………...74 Article 23……………………………………………………………….………..78 Bilingual Education……………………………………………………………...81 Language Protection……………………………………………………………..84 Land…………………………………………………………………………...... 85 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…89

Chapter Four: Private Property Ownership: Economic Independence or Cultural Alienation……………………………………………………………………………...... 95 Pre-contact……………………………………………………………………….93 Ayuukhl Nisga’a………………………………………………………………….95 The Journey to Self-Governance………………………………………………...96

(v)

Decision-making: Gender Equality……………………………………………...99 Sigidimhaanak and Simgigat……………………………………………...……103 Language……………………………………………………………………….105 Education………………………………………………………………………108 Modified Rights………………………………………………………………..112 Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act……………………………...……………117 Conclusion…………………………………………………………...…………125

Conclusion: Harsh Realities: The Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Lisims Government Ten Years Later…………………………….……………………………..127

References...... 136

Appendices...... 151

Appendix A: Indigenous Tribes in and around Turtle Island Pre-Contact……………..151

Appendix B: Percentage of First Nations people who have knowledge of an Aboriginal language, by age groups, Canada, 2001 and 2006……………………………………...152

Appendix C: Percentage of Inuit population who reported Inuktitut as mother tongue and as home language, and knowledge of Inuktitut, Canada and regions, 1996 and 2006…153

Appendix D: Map of Nunavut………………………………………………………….154

Appendix E: Nisga‘a Nation Post-Nisga’a Final Agreement…………………………..155

(vi)

Abstract

Indigenous nations in the 21st century are faced with an unfortunate reality: how to maintain Indigenous values and improve their socio-economic position in society. Faced with increasing pressures by national and foreign governments, private sector industries looking to extract natural resources on Indigenous lands and community members in desperate need of employment, Indigenous governments must make difficult choices between values and poverty. This thesis will explore the Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Lisims Government‘s struggles to accommodate these two choices. More importantly, the data will demonstrate that because the federal government has reneged on its commitment to provide long-term financial investments necessary for service delivery, the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have been unable to maintain n their Indigenous values, and as a result, have not been able to improve their quality of life.

(vii)

Abbreviations AFN Assembly of First Nations BCTC British Columbia Treaty Commission CAP Congress of Aboriginal Peoples CE Council of Elders CLCA Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements CLEY Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth GHG Greenhouse Gases GN Government of Nunavut GNWT Government of the Northwest Territories IK Indigenous Knowledge IQ Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit IQK Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit IQT Inuit Qaujuimajatuqangit Tuttarviit IS Inullariit Society ITC Inuit Tapirisat of Canada ITK Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami LCA Land Claim Agreement MNC Métis National Council NAO National Aboriginal Organization NFA Nisga‘a Final Agreement NIC Nunavut Implementation Commission NLCA Nunavut Land Claim Agreement NLG Nisga‘a Lisims Government NOW Nisga‘a on Wireless initiative NTC Nisga‘a Tribal Council NTI Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated NUHRDS Nunavut Unified Human Resources Development Strategy NVHA Nisga‘a Valley Health Authority NWAC Native Women‘s Association of Canada NWMB Nunavut Wildlife Management Board NWT Northwest Territories RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police SCC Supreme Court of Canada TFN Tungavik Federation of Nunavut TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada UNBC University of Northern British Columba WSN Wilp Si‘ayuukhl Nisga‘a WWNI Wilp Wilx-o‘oskwkl Nisga‘a Institute

(viii)

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have made this journey possible. I would first like to thank my family, my parents Cynthia, Eddie, and my siblings Cody, Shea, Michaela, and Brigitta. I believe that every human being is influenced by those most close to them. I would not be the person I am today without their unconditional love and support. Your continuous support throughout this process has helped me through many long days and I thank you.

I would also like to thank my friend, Dr. Don Julien. I was very honoured by your presence at my thesis defence and for delivering an opening prayer. I was deeply humbled by your presentation of an eagle feather at the conclusion of my defence. Words cannot describe my emotions at that moment. I am grateful to call you my friend and thank you for taking time out of your schedule to be with me that day. Oelalin.

I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Cynthia Alexander, for her commitment and devotion during this process. I am thankful for your patience and understanding and look forward to working with you in whatever capacity I can in the future.

I would also like to extend a special thank you to Jennifer for her unconditional support. The last six months have both an exhausting and rewarding experience. I am happy to have shared my journey with you.

Introduction: Bracing for Impact

The journey for many Indigenous nations to reclaim and reassert their cultural independence after decades, and in some cases centuries, of emotional, physical, psychological, and sexual abuse suffered at the hands of Western Europeans has been challenging to say the least. Indigenous nations in the 21st century have been left with the burden of decolonizing centuries of assimilative and cultural genocidal policies imposed by successive colonial governments. In the post-contact era, the process in which

Indigenous nations have begun to reassert their Indigeneity and break the culture of dependency that has plagued their communities has been a slow and painful one. Many

Indigenous communities are faced with the same dilemma: how to govern themselves according to their traditional laws while simultaneously improving the quality of life of their communities?

In an attempt to break the culture of dependency created by Euro-Canadian federal government policies, reclaim their independence and re-Indigenize their communities, the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have opted to negotiate land claim agreements with federal, provincial and territorial governments, with both agreements coming into effect in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Once the agreements were signed and the celebrations concluded, the Inuit and the Nisga‘a peoples were confronted with the difficult task of maintaining traditional values, improving the community‘s quality of life and managing expectations. Although the land claims agreements have given the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation the opportunity to develop their respective models of self-government, because the federal government has reneged on its commitment to provide long-term financial investments necessary for service delivery,

2 the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have had difficulties maintaining their

Indigenous values, and as a result, have not been able to improve their quality of life.

During the pre-contact period, diseases such as smallpox and tuberculosis were non-existent. The health and well-being of the tribe came first and foremost and

Indigenous men and women shared an equal role in their communities, garnering the deepest respect only superseded by those of community Elders.1 In addition, Indigenous nations shared a unique interconnected and interdependent relationship with nature, a relationship based on the idea that humanity and nature co-existed in an equal, peaceful and respectful way.

Indigenous ways of life were forever altered upon the arrival of Western

Europeans to Turtle Island (modern-day North America). Along with infectious and fatal diseases, the post-contact period brought with it the Western European philosophical mind; that is, a belief in dominant and subordinate cultures and a patriarchal system of beliefs that would forever alter traditional Indigenous lifestyles. In the Euro-Canadian experience, the interconnected relationship with nature was cast aside in favour of mass resource extraction for economic development purposes; traditional territories were reduced to small designated reserves, primarily located on swamp or nutrient depleted lands; and the decision-making authority of Indigenous women was forcibly removed, becoming legally subordinate to their once equal Indigenous men. This program of assimilation and cultural genocide was initiated in an attempt to remove Indigenous culture and identity through the implementation and management of the residential

1 Elders are seen as those who have accumulated Indigenous knowledge through a variety of life experiences (Taiaiake 2005) and pass on or transmit their knowledge to Indigenous youth through oral storytelling. See Alfred Taiaiake‘s Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom.

3 school system and the enforcement of the federal government‘s Indian Act, 1876, in the name of ―orphan protection.‖

In the Euro-Canadian experience,2 Indigenous nations from coast to coast to coast continue to struggle with decades of trans-generational trauma as a result of Eurocentric government policies. The residential school experience and the Indian Act destroyed lives, pinning one community member against another and creating community and family divisions through the classification of status and non-status individuals. Moreover, these policies have created a multigenerational inferiority complex fuelled by Church and government imposed self-hatred and self-worthlessness. These feelings of self- worthlessness continue to plague many survivors who struggle to reclaim their cultural identities and their place in their respective communities, the broader Euro-Canadian society, and the global village.

Despite these challenges, Indigenous peoples have remained resilient in the face of government attempted extinction and cultural genocide. Through the help of community Elders and Indigenous scholars teaching and writing from a holistic

Indigenous point of view, Indigenous peoples have embarked on the long and painful journey of reclaiming their cultural independence through community healings and mobilized resistance. Examples of community healings include the work of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), officially established in 2008 in response to residential school survivors taking the federal government and Churches to court for historic wrong-doings, resulting in the 2005 Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The mandate of the TRC is to ―learn the truth about what happened in the residential

2 The terms ―Euro-Canada‖ and ―Euro-Canadian‖ are used to describe the on-going struggles Indigenous nations of Turtle Island have with the federal government.

4 schools and inform all Canadians about what happened in the schools‖ (Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2010). Moreover, Indigenous peoples have begun the journey to reclaim their political independence by negotiating comprehensive and specific land claim agreements with the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Throughout the process, the question of whether or not negotiated land claim agreements adequately reflect the collective values and improve the quality of life of Indigenous peoples remains open for debate. On the one hand, there are those, such as Mohawk scholar Dr. Taiaiake Alfred, who argues that any land claim agreement that forces

Indigenous nations to cede or surrender their traditional lands and/or rights in exchange for financial compensation, a fraction of their traditional geographical land base, and self- government should be condemned and rejected.3 On the other hand, Indigenous nations, such as the Inuit of Nunavut and Nisga‘a Nation, have argued that the ability to gain jurisdictional independence from the federal government and jurisdictional authority over culture and language, education, health and social services outweigh the concessions made to achieve their self-government.

In this thesis, I will demonstrate that although Nunavut‘s Inuit peoples and the

Nisga‘a Nation have achieved self-government through their respective land claims agreements, because the federal government has reneged on its obligations to invest in long-term financial supports required for service delivery, both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have had difficulties maintaining their Indigenous values and as a result, have been unsuccessful at improving their quality of life. The correlation between

Indigenous values and quality of life is important, not only to understand the unique

3 See Andrew Findlay. 2010. ―The Nisga‘a‘s Private Struggle.‖ BC Business, March 3. http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/

5 interconnected relationship Indigenous nations have with nature, but also to explain the on-going socio-economic problems contributed by the disconnection from their traditional lands. The systemic poverty and Third World-like conditions that plague many

Indigenous communities are a result of federal government-imposed policies, whose sole intent was the eradication of Indigenous culture and assimilation into mainstream society.

By educating Euro-Canadians on the root causes of poverty in Indigenous communities, it is my hope that non-Indigenous peoples will begin the process of discarding derogatory stereotypes of Indigenous peoples as ―easy,‖ ―freeloaders,‖ or ―alcoholics.‖ More importantly, I am hopeful that by working together, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples can develop and implement Indigenous-based solutions so that culture and values are not viewed as an acceptable sacrifice to improve one‘s quality of life.

To help guide my analysis, two questions will be examined. The first is whether modern comprehensive land claim4 agreements (CLCA) truly reflect the collective values of Indigenous nations who negotiate them. To answer this question, four principles essential to understanding Indigeneity5 will be examined: gender; Elders; culture and language; and land. Gender is an important dimension to consider, given the unique relation Indigenous men and women had in the pre-contact era. Unlike the patriarchal structure of Western European societies, Indigenous nations respected the roles of men

4 Comprehensive land claims are modern-day treaties that are negotiated between the federal government and a specific Indigenous nation where Indigenous rights and title have not been previously addressed by a treaty. Visit the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada website for more information: http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/index-eng.asp 5 Indigeneity can take on a variety of meanings depending on the context of its use and by who is using it. For the purpose of this thesis, I will refer to Audra Simpson and Dale Turner‘s (2008) definition of Indigeneity, which refers to ―the state of being Indigenous,‖ meaning the ―distinctive cultural, historical and political reality of Indigenous peoples‖ that emerge, in part, from Indigenous peoples‘ ―unique political and historical experiences with European settlers,‖ and the ―unique relationships to their homelands [which] constitute the main moral and political force of their legal and political distinctiveness.‖ See Simpson and Turner‘s Indigenous Leadership in a Flat World, page 18.

6 and women equally, both as community leaders and in their decision-making capacities.

Some tribes, such as the Nisga‘a Nation, went so far as to govern themselves through matrilineal bloodlines out of respect. The unique relationship between Elders and their communities is also critical to understanding Indigeneity. Elders have a wide range of life experiences and teachings that are passed down from one generation to the next through oral storytelling. It is the transmission of knowledge from Elder to youth that is essential to passing on and preserving Indigenous Knowledge (IK).6

It is important to note that the use of Indigeneity as a single concept is also problematic. Indigenous nations, Elders, academics, and scholars, all have their own interpretations of what term best describes being Indigenous or Indigenous philosophy.

For the purposes of my thesis, I have used the term Indigeneity to make reference to

Indigenous philosophy in the broad sense. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the Inuit of

Nunavut or Nisga‘a Nation may refer to their respective cultures and traditions differently.

Understanding the differences between Indigenous and Western European cultures and languages is also crucial to explaining the rationale behind both the

Indigenous and Western European philosophical minds. Indigenous languages are verb- based languages that identify objects according to their interrelationship with other objects, which differ from Western Europeans whose languages are noun-based. In

Algonquian languages, such as Maliseet and Mi‘kmaq, time, the physical environment, the weather, and personal relations are all verb-based (Leavitt 1985, 265-266). For

6 There is no universally accepted definition of ―Traditional Knowledge‖ by Indigenous scholars. For the purposes of this thesis, I will use ―Indigenous Knowledge‖ as defined by Howard Mann‘s 2006 International Law and Indigenous Knowledge: Intellectual Property, Plant Biodiversity, and Traditional Medicine. Mann‘s definition of IK is cited on page 32 of this thesis.

7 example, ―weather words are virtually all verbs...There is no Micmac or Maliseet noun, for instance, meaning ‗rain‘ or ‗falling snow‘ or ‗storm‘‖ (Leavitt, 1985, 266). The verb- based examples given by Leavitt demonstrate the uniqueness Indigenous languages have in relation to their Western European counterparts.

Finally, understanding the interconnected and interdependent relationship

Indigenous nations have with the land and with nature in general, is equally important to understanding Indigeneity. This relationship is based on a holistic view of the world, where all living organisms interact with one another in a peaceful way. The Indigenous view of land contrasts dramatically with the Western European concept of private property ownership and resource extraction. The analysis of these four principles (gender;

Elders; culture and language; and land) will demonstrate their significance to Indigenous culture, governance and societal structure. More importantly, they will begin to explain the difficulties Indigenous nations have in reconciling traditional values in modern Euro-

Canada.

The second question that will help guide my analysis is whether the qualities of life of both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have deteriorated, remained constant, or improved since the signing of their respective land claims agreements.

Statistics such as high school graduation and unemployment rates, suicide rates in comparison to the Euro-Canadian average, and language retention will be examined.

The Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation were selected for several reasons.

Both land claim agreements came into effect at roughly the same time (Nunavut in 1999,

Nisga‘a Nation in 2000), which allowed for a more reasonable comparative analysis ten years later. In addition, I had no prior knowledge of either Indigenous nation, which

8 made the research that much more intriguing. Finally, on a more individual basis,

Nunavut was selected as a case study because of its unique territorial government status, which gave the predominately Inuit population the same jurisdictional authorities and responsibilities found in other provinces and territories in Euro-Canada. The Nisga‘a

Nation of north-western British Columbia was selected because of its municipality-like status, meaning that although the Nisga‘a Nation maintains jurisdictional authority over various programming within Nisga‘a designated lands, such as culture, education and social services, they still must abide by both federal and provincial laws that may supercede their own in extreme circumstances, such as the Criminal Code of Canada.

After careful analysis, I have concluded that both the Inuit of Nunavut and the

Nisga‘a peoples have not been able to live according to their indigenous values, or improve their qualities of life due to the lack of capacity and long-term financial resources. If both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation had the financial means and resources necessary to improve their qualities of life without sacrificing their indigenous values, a minimum of 20 years would be required for meaningful and positive results to occur. For example, there currently is a fundamental gap in the area of bilingual education and higher learning for both Indigenous nations that remains problematic. In order for the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a peoples to break the culture of dependency and stop relying on federal government funding, a long-term commitment must be made by all levels of government to work together and invest in areas of transitioning costs and bilingual education. This will allow Indigenous nations to educate their peoples and build the capacity and social capital needed to govern themselves independently from the Euro-

Canadian government. If Indigenous nations are provided with the necessary tools to

9 educate their peoples and assume control and responsibility over self-government, it is not inconceivable to suggest that the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation would experience positive results over a 20 year period. A successful bilingual education program would begin the process of educating Indigenous youth in both their traditional languages while simultaneously exposing them to English. This would give them the essential skills needed to manage the daily affairs of government while maintaining and incorporating Inuit and Nisga‘a culture in the process. More importantly, the sense of pride that would accompany an educated Indigenous workforce would result in an elevated quality of life, higher self-esteem and more effective decision-making.

Chapter Two begins with an introduction to one of the fundamental differences between Indigeneity and Western European thought: collectivism versus individualism.

Indigenous peoples have traditionally emphasized the collective well-being of the community over the individual desires, needs and wants of individuals. Decisions were made based on consensus, meaning that the entire community was given the opportunity to express themselves before a decision was reached. Western Europeans, on the other hand have historically embraced the liberal ideology of individual rights trumping those of the community or group.

In Chapter Two, the study of collectivism is followed by an examination of four principles vital to understanding Indigeneity: gender; Elders; culture and language; and land. This section describes the significance each theme has to daily Indigenous life and begins to explain the fundamental differences between Indigeneity and the Western

European philosophical mind. Chapter Two continues with the analysis of individualism,

Social Darwinism, Eurocentricism and diffusionism and its importance to the Western

10 philosophical mind. The final section of Chapter Two discusses how gender, Elders, culture and language, and land, have been impacted by these theories in the post-contact period. Topics of discussion include the Indian Act, 1876, residential schools, Bill C-31, private property, and oral storytelling.

Having outlined the various differences between Indigeneity and Western

European thought, the two questions on Indigenous values and qualities of life are applied to the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation experiences. In Chapter Three, this analysis begins with a brief historical overview of Inuit peoples of the Eastern Arctic during the pre-contact period, with emphasis on the traditional gender relationship between Inuit men and women. As I will demonstrate, this relationship was situation- based, meaning that Inuit men and women would often assume different responsibilities and roles based on specific circumstances or situations. Gender adaptation and flexibility contrasted with Western European cultures, whose gender relations were fixed, meaning that men and women were tasked with specific responsibilities in all situations. However,

Inuit gender relations changed dramatically upon the arrival of Western Europeans during the post-contact period.

During the 1950s, in an attempt to reaffirm the federal government‘s Arctic sovereignty and extract the area‘s natural resources, the Euro-Canadian government relocated multiple Inuit families in strategically placed resettlement areas. As I will demonstrate, the resettlement areas, combined with Church administered residential schools, dramatically altered the traditional gender relationship among Inuit men and women. Unable to hunt without reservation on the land as their ancestors did before them, Inuit men became depressed, unable to find their purpose in modern Inuit societies.

That feeling of worthlessness, combined with the mental, physical, psychological, and sexual abuse suffered in residential schools, resulted in abnormally high levels of alcohol and domestic abuse, drug addiction and suicide. Inuit women and their children faced the brunt of these abuses. As a result of the abuse suffered in residential schools, the passage of Inuit knowledge was curtailed and replaced instead with intergeneration grief and trauma, robbing Inuit men, women and children of both mutual and self-respect.

The post-contact period and its effect on traditional Inuit society is put into context through the examination of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ),7 Inuit knowledge and values, and the need for these values to be reflected throughout the negotiations process leading up to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The focus on IQ illustrates the importance of Inuit knowledge and values to the development of Nunavut‘s government and the need to incorporate Inuit culture and language into the daily operations of the Government of Nunavut (GN).

An analysis of the NLCA through the four principles critical to Indigeneity reveals how difficult it has been for the GN to retain their cultural values, improve their qualities of life and deliver programs and services to their peoples. In the area of gender relations,

Inuit women continue to be disproportionately represented in the post-NLCA decision- making process. As I will illustrate, restoring traditional gender equality was a priority of the Nunavut Implementation Commission (NIC) prior to the creation of Nunavut. The

Commission went so far as to propose dual-member dual-gender constituencies as a way to ensure female representation in the GN.

7 Because Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is constantly in motion, constantly evolving, there is no universally accepted definition among Inuit Elders or public policy makers. A more detailed analysis of IQ‘s interpretative properties will be examined later.

The roles of Inuit Elders in the post-NLCA have been very important in the transition from pre-to-post land claim, the incorporation of IQ within government departments and holding GN accountable for decisions that are not respectful of IQ and

Inuit culture. Moreover, the development and implementation of Inuit culture and language since the creation of Nunavut in 1999 is also important to the long-term success of Nunavut. Although the GN has made it a goal to have an ethnically representative government bureaucracy reflective of the Inuit population, the lack of long-term financial resources, highlighted in Thomas R. Berger‘s 2006 Conciliator's Final Report: Nunavut

Land Claims Agreement Implementation Planning Contract Negotiations for the Second

Planning Period, has made that objective difficult to achieve. As I will illustrate, the federal government must honour its long-term commitment to the NLCA in order for Inuit to achieve the independence and self-sufficiency they all hoped would accompany self- government.

Chapter Three concludes with an analysis of the unique relationship Inuit have with their traditional lands. This traditional relationship, I argue, is in jeopardy because of the GN‘s inability to deal with on-going socio-economic problems, such as high unemployment, overcrowding and poverty. These obstacles, combined with the effects of climate change, the cede and surrender provisions of the NLCA and private sector companies offering employment in exchange for large-scale resource extraction agreements, have essentially forced the GN to choose between Indigenous values and improving their quality of life.

The same two questions on Indigenous values and qualities of life are then applied to the Nisga‘a Nation and the Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA). Similar to the

Nunavut experience, the analysis in Chapter Four begins with a brief historical overview of Nisga‘a gender relations in the pre-contact era, focusing on the structure of clan membership as well as on traditional gender roles. As this study will illustrate, the societal structure was based on the Ayuukhl Nisga’a or ―Common Bowl,‖ the code of ethics and guiding principles of the Nisga‘a peoples. Through these guiding principles,

Nisga‘a leaders were successful in challenging the federal and provincial government‘s assertion that the Nisga‘a Nation did not hold Indigenous title prior to the arrival of

Western Europeans. The 1973 SCC‘s Calder Decision reaffirmed the Nisga‘a Nation‘s claim and forced both federal and provincial governments to enter discussions with

Nisga‘a representatives that resulted in the signing of the NFA. As this analysis will demonstrate, the matrilineal societal structure and the emphasis on Ayuukhl Nisga’a are fundamental to understanding Nisga‘a culture and values and the complexities the

Nisga‘a peoples have in applying them in the post-NFA.

An analysis of the four principles essential to understanding Indigeneity reveals the difficulties Nisga‘a leaders have with reclaiming Nisga‘a values while simultaneously improving the quality of life of their peoples. With respect to gender, Nisga‘a women, similar to their Inuit counterparts, continue to be under-represented at the government level. As I will illustrate, unless some drastic steps are taken to restore the level of gender equality that existed in the pre-contact period, such as the inclusion of a gender-quality provision in the Nisga‘a Constitution that is applied and enforced and delegating a mandatory threshold of female-held positions in government, Nisga‘a women will continue to be disproportionately under-represented in the Nisga‘a Lisims Government

(NLG).

Similar to their Inuit counterparts, the role of Elders and the importance of

Nisga‘a culture and language are crucial to the long-term success of the NLG. Nisga‘a

Elders have an important role to play with the preservation and transmission of culture and language. By using culturally-appropriate curricula, the NLG is attempting to use their education system as a method of decolonization. Despite their efforts, the NLG is faced with the same dilemma as GN: the lack of stable long-term funding from the federal government required for transition and training that will allow the Nisga‘a Nation to educate and train their peoples to successfully assume the responsibilities associated with self-government. The high levels of unemployment and low high school graduation rates attest to these problems. Unless the federal government honours the true spirit and intent of the land claims agreements it signed with both the Inuit of Nunavut and the

Nisga‘a Nation, the GN and the NLG will fail to achieve their objective of being self- sufficient and independent nations.

Chapter Four concludes with an analysis of Nisga‘a lands and the willingness by

Nisga‘a negotiators to accept modified rights on Nisga‘a designated lands in exchange for the NFA. More importantly, it discusses the NLG‘s controversial decision to enact the

Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act, which gives Nisga‘a citizens the ability to own their residential property in fee simple, meaning that they are able to sell their land to whomever they choose, including non-Nisga‘a citizens. This study will illustrate how private property ownership does not coincide with Nisga‘a values, nor does it guarantee an elevated quality of life.

In conclusion, the examination of both the NLCA and the NFA demonstrates the difficulties both the GN and the NLG have had with maintaining Indigenous values and

15 trying to improve community quality of life. Having to choose between values and poverty becomes increasingly problematic when private sector companies guarantee employment and benefits for the community in exchange for resource extraction projects.

It is important for all Indigenous nations to communicate and share their success stories with one another. Although there is no one size fits all approach, Indigenous nations must work together to ensure their values are not discarded in the name of economic development. Until the GN and the NLG are able to produce an educated workforce to coincide with an alternative to current revenue options, such as federal transfer payments or private sector resource extraction agreements, Indigenous values will be cast aside in favour of improving the deplorable socio-economic conditions facing many Indigenous communities.

Chapter Two Circles and Straight Lines: Understanding Indigeneity and Western European Philosophy

Indigenous nations from around the world have all suffered various degrees of emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual trauma at the hands of Western

Europeans. In the Euro-Canadian experience, the journey from pre-to post-contact is no different. Prior to the arrival of Western Europeans, the pre-contact period was a time in which Indigenous nations co-existed in relative harmony, lived only within their means, exercised their right as autonomous governing entities, and where Indigenous men and women were mutually honoured and respected in their communities, tribes, and nations.

That autonomous and self-governing way of life was dramatically altered with the arrival of Western Europeans to Turtle Island (modern-day North America). The post-contact period brought forth the disintegration of Indigenous cultures, languages and structures by foreign invaders who viewed the original inhabitants as nothing more than primitive beings; who attempted to eradicate Indigenous culture and language through cultural genocide, calculated execution, disease, (Alfred 1995, 6) and finally, assimilation through state sponsored initiatives such as the residential school experience; and who viewed

Indigenous women as inferior and subordinate beings.

The original inhabitants of Turtle Island continue to suffer the ripple effects of

Western European-imposed colonialism in the 21st century. Having been forced to abandon the traditional teachings of their ancestors, Indigenous nations have witnessed

17 their lands and traditional nomadic lifestyles reduced to compact reserves, their community-based decision-making replaced with elected chiefs and councillors, and the gradual extermination of their languages. As Ladner (2001) explains, ―colonial authorities began...disbanding traditional structures of governance and institutionalizing their own ‗puppet‘ regimes which were supposed to end in the goal of ‗civilizing‘ the

Indian‖ (110). The culmination of historic trauma has resulted in the creation of cultural, psychological and spiritual identity crises in many Indigenous communities, even as they attempt to reclaim their sovereignty as independent nations.

The arrival of Western Europeans to traditional Indigenous territory resulted in two significant struggles. The first, a struggle for Indigenous nations to preserve their

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and ways of being despite several attempts to civilize

Indigenous children through the residential schools experience and the enforcement of the Indian Act, 1876. The second, a renewed sense of urgency and desire by Indigenous nations to combat the forces of assimilation and to fight to have their traditional

Indigenous governances and treaties recognized and protected. In the Euro-Canadian experience, Indigenous peoples have endured much anguish and bloodshed in the process. Several National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO), such as the Native Women‘s

Association of Canada (NWAC), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Congress of

Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), and the Métis National Council

(MNC), were created to represent Indigenous interests, oppose regressive Euro-Canadian government policy, such as the 1969 White Paper, and to advocate for cultural and linguistic autonomy (Hawkes 1989, 43). This Indigenous determination was not only

based on the nation-to-nation relationship 8 that existed upon the arrival of Western

Europeans to modern-day Euro-Canada, but also on their unwillingness to be consumed

by the greater Euro-Canadian society.

After years of lobbying for the acknowledgement and recognition of Indigenous

treaty rights, the NAOs were successful in obtaining constitutional protections with the

inclusion of Section 35 (1) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which

recognizes and reaffirms the existence of Aboriginal treaty rights. Despite this

accomplishment, many Indigenous nations continued to struggle to obtain their

independence through self-government. Several significant land claims agreements have

been finalized after decades of negotiations. These include Labrador (2004), Nisga‘a

(1999), Nunavut (1993), James Bay (Nunavik) (1975 and later modified in 1978), to

name a few. Nonetheless, hundreds of claims remain outstanding with little progress,

including Maa-Nulth First Nations (British Columbia.), the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation

(Manitoba) and the Mi‘kmaq of Nova Scotia. More importantly, however, it is through

the same land claims process where some Indigenous nations feel they can begin to re-

assert their cultural and political autonomy as their ancestors once did. To what extent

modern land claims agreements are able to recapture the traditional attributes associated

with Indigenous self-governance and improve community quality of life is the basis for

this forthcoming analysis.

Pre-contact

From pre-to-post contact, Indigenous peoples from around the world have

staunchly advocated for the acceptance, preservation and protection of their cultures,

8 The nation-to-nation relationship is commonly known as Treaty Federalism, which will be discussed later.

19 languages and traditions. In the pre-and post-Euro-Canadian experience, this has extended to the recognition of Indigenous treaties signed in good faith between their ancestors and the British Crown. In the 21st century, Indigenous peoples in Euro-Canada have struggled to reclaim their cultural and spiritual identities, to come to terms with historic atrocities and injustices that continue to plague many communities and, in particular, the next generation of Indigenous youth. Moreover, this lack of trust was not only a by-product of centuries of assimilation and institutionalized cultural genocide through government imposed policies, it was also based on a cultural and philosophical divide that continues to exist in the 21st century.

When Western Europeans first made contact with Indigenous nations on Turtle

Island, they encountered a variety of Indigenous nations, such as the Beothuk of modern

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Mi‘kmaq of Nova Scotia (Frideres and Gadacz

2008, 23) (See Appendix A for pre-colonialism map). As the original inhabitants of

Turtle Island or modern-day North America (Ladner 2003, 169), Indigenous peoples lived in organized communities, governed themselves through a system of communal decision-making where men and women were viewed as equals, provided sustenance through hunting, fishing and trapping, and honoured and respected the environment in which they lived. Indigeneity emphasized the importance of the collective well-being of the community, not of the individual. As Triandis (1995) explains, collectivism can be defined as:

a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts of one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, nation); are primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by, those collectives; are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals; and emphasize their connectedness to members of these collectives (2).

The emphasis on the group rather than the individual was regularly practiced in various

Indigenous communities, regardless of geographic location or tribe. The essence and survival of the group was dependent on the strength of the tribe‘s willingness to set aside personal ambition and work together. Without this commitment, most Indigenous nations could not have survived for neither as long as they have, nor could they have resisted the assimilative policies and cultural genocide imposed on them by Western Europeans. As

Métis scholar Olive Dickason explains, Indigenous peoples ―shared the general characteristics of pre-state societies in that they were egalitarian‖ and ―lived within cultural frameworks that met social and individual needs by emphasizing the group as well as the self‖ (1992, 66). Moreover, the consensus decision-making model used by

Indigenous nations reflected the understanding that the health and well-being of the community depended on collaboration and not conflict. As Robert Warrior explains, ―the success and failure of American Indian communal societies has always been predicated not upon a set of uniform, unchanging beliefs, but rather upon a commitment to the groups and the groups‘ future‖ (in Ladner 2003, 137). The strength in unity and collectivity within the Indigenous communities meant that communal and consensual decision-making was the only effective means for deciding the tribe‘s domestic and international affairs.

Indigenous leaders also played a huge role in maintaining tribal harmony while simultaneously respecting the environment that provided for their community. As

Dickason reiterates, the leader of a particular tribe or nation‘s role ―was to represent the common will; not only were they not equipped to use force, they would have quickly lost their position if they had tried‖ (1992, 66). The ability to communicate and persuade

21 community members was viewed as an essential and important attribute for every leader.

Those communications skills proved invaluable for Indigenous tribes upon the arrival of

Western Europeans. For example, the Mi‘kmaq and Maliseet nations of Eastern Turtle

Island negotiated and signed several agreements with their British counterparts during the

18th century. These negotiations resulted in the Treaties of Peace and Friendship in 1752 and 1760-61 and the Royal Proclamation, 1763 (Macklem 2001, 134), which would later be used to reaffirm existing Indigenous treaty rights in the 1999 Marshall Decision.

These treaties were signed on the premise of mutual recognition and respect. More importantly, they were negotiated between two autonomous nations: Indigenous nations and the British Crown. This nation-to-nation relationship, also known as Treaty

Federalism, meant that:

Aboriginal peoples and Canadians recognize each other as equal, co- existing, and self-governing nations, and govern their relations with each other by negotiations based on procedures or reciprocity and consent that lead to arguments that are then recorded in treaties or treaty-like accords of various kinds, to which both parties are subject (Tully 2000, 41).

Indigenous nations have consistently made reference to the nation-to-nation relationship that existed, a fact that has been reaffirmed the Euro-Canadian judicial system.

Indigeneity

Emphasis on the collective well-being of communities rather than self- preservation remains essential to understanding Indigeneity. Indigenous communal governance structures were created on the basis of that philosophy. Moreover,

Indigeneity meant that all things are animate, imbued with spirit, and in constant motion, and energy and spirituality were highly respected. In this realm of energy and spirituality,

―interrelationships between all entities are of paramount importance, and space is a more important referent than time‖ (Little Bear 2000, 77). References made to all things changing and constantly moving was based on an Indigenous holistic understanding of the universe. People, the Earth, the sun, the animals, plants, the planets, and so on, all encompassed a holistic understanding of the universe, regardless of size or relationship.

Any effect on one would have had an effect on the greater whole. As Ladner (2000) writes, ―it is a world of circles not lines, holism not linear patterns of thought; a world in which everything exists together within the circle of life and not as compartmentalized fragments of the whole‖ (4). This Indigenous worldview was not shared by their Western

European counterparts.

This holistic understanding created an important interdependent relationship between Indigenous nations and nature. This interconnectivity was and continues to be a special relationship that most Western European cultures have difficulty conceptualizing.

Little Bear (2000) reiterates the special relationship between Indigeneity and nature by stating ―the value of wholeness speaks to the totality of creation, the group as opposed to the individual, the forest as opposed to the individual tree‖ (79). In contrast to the holistic approach practiced by Indigenous peoples, Western Europeans could not see the linkages between themselves and nature. As Unger explains, ―modern Western-Eurocentric society is predicted on a world view…in which man exists at the earthly centre, [and] man has dominion over the earth…‖ (in Ladner 2003, 126). This narrow-minded view of nature was based on a belief that Western Europeans were superior beings who could confine, control and defeat nature at will.

Gender Relations

Although the importance of the community and its collective well-being was essential for many Indigenous communities, equally important to understanding

Indigeneity was the traditional relationship shared between Indigenous men and women.

No greater difference existed between Indigeneity and Western European thought than the role of gender. As Fernández (2004) argues, ―before contact...the traditional balance between the roles of men and women kept our communities healthy‖ (244). Unlike the

Eurocentric belief that men were the predominant gender in society, Indigeneity was based on gender equality, and in some instances matrilineal lineage (Nisga‘a), which meant that Indigenous women were both honoured and respected as leaders, and in some cases, hereditary chiefs. As stated by Kelm and Townsend (2006), Nisga‘a and Tsimshian matriarchs or Sigidimanak, ―hold important rank because they are the ritual mothers of the matri-lineages, houses, and clans that constitute Nisga‘a and Tsimshian society…They are, though less visible and less vocal than their male counterparts, leaders in every sense of the word‖ (3). The patriarchal system that had long been established in

Western European societies during the Age of Enlightenment, considered women as secondary citizens and restricted them from participating in the political process. Unlike their Western European counterparts, Indigenous nations, believing in a holistic approach to communal decision-making, were not gender biased and treated men and women equally with respect. According to Ladner (2000), it was a society...

...where all people (human beings and non-human beings) regardless of gender were respected and honoured for the gifts they were given by the Creator and for the roles they played within the circle of life. It was a world where women existed at the centre of society – economically, spirituality, politically and culturally. It was a society in which women could choose their own path in life, as wives, mothers, spiritual leaders…

even as warriors and chiefs (4).

This strong gender interdependence among traditional Indigenous communities was necessary in order to ensure the survival of the community. Many Indigenous women, such as Nisga‘a and Tsimshian Sigidimanaks described by Kelm and Townsend (2006), were leaders in their communities and were given the opportunity to express their concerns over decisions affecting the community, tribe, or village. They kept the community healthy and strong in times of crisis, famine, or war. They were highly respected by all members of their community and their decisions were seldom questioned. As Mohawk Scholar Taiaiake Alfred (1995) explains, ―women were assigned political responsibilities for selecting and recalling nominal leaders and effectively vetoing any decision which they deemed to be against the interests of the community as a whole‖ (79). The leadership responsibilities shared among Indigenous men and women reaffirms how important gender equality was in Indigenous communities.

Elders

The importance of family and the role Indigenous Elders played in Indigenous communities was another crucial element to understanding the differences between

Indigeneity and Western European thought. The Indigenous family relationship was not restricted to immediate family members; rather, it was extended to include the entire community (Henderson 2000, 270). Family celebrations, a child‘s graduation, or the passing of a community member were all celebrated or mourned collectively. The unity of an Indigenous community would be put to the ultimate test on issues such as the education of youth and conflict resolution. Not only did the immediate family of a child

25 educate and teach their children, members of the entire community were also engaged in the growth and maturity of its young people. As Battiste and Henderson (2000) explain,

―When the child comes into the world, the extended family offers support and facilitates the transition of the child into the community and the transmission of heritage…‖ (51).

This community-based intergeneration transmission of knowledge from Elder to youth was essential, not only to preserve Indigenous culture, history and language, but to also pass on knowledge and experience to the next generation of youth.

The development and upbringing of Indigenous youth relied heavily on wisdom and teachings of the community Elders. Building relationships and gaining the trust of an

Elder or Elders was critical to the passing of IK from one generation to the next. As

Castellano (2000) suggests, ―in most Aboriginal societies, the wisdom of elder generations is highly regarded and elders are assigned major responsibility for teaching the young‖ (23). Their advice, expertise and knowledge were regularly sought after for a variety of reasons. They would often hold ceremonies or rituals to offer community healing, such as cleansings and talking circles. It was through ceremonies and spiritual teaching that Elders passed their IK to the next generation of community youth. Elders would share their IK and would teach their community about their cultural and historical teachings, their language, traditional ceremonies, and the special relationship they had with nature. Relationships between Elders and youth were especially significant as

Indigenous children were exposed to and taught the richness of their culture and their language. With variations from nation to nation, IK…

…tells of the creation of the world and the origin of clans in encounters between ancestors and spirits in the form of animals; it records genealogies and ancestral right to territory; and it memorializes battles, boundaries, and treaties and instills attitudes of wariness or trust toward neighbouring

nations (Castellano 2000, 23).

Elders were not necessarily the oldest people living among the tribe. They were people with a broad base of life experiences and knowledge that they would share with others through the form of spiritual teachings and oral storytelling. They were deeply respected within their communities and their presence was felt both in times grief and joy. ―Elders are seen as those who have accumulated knowledge, who have answers, or who know how to do things according to tradition‖ (Alfred 2005, 142). Furthermore, ―Elders [were] recognized as the historians, philosophers, leaders, and teachers of the community‖

(Martin-Hill in Simpson 2000, 176). The transmission of knowledge from Elder to community, individual or youth, was critical to the survival and well-being of Indigenous communities. Without their knowledge and expertise, traditional Indigenous practices, such as fishing and hunting, healing and spiritual ceremonies, would have been lost forever.

Culture and Language

As important as gender equality and the role Elders played in Indigenous communities were, the ability to communicate and share Indigenous languages was equally important to understanding Indigeneity. Language was more than just a knowledge base, it was essential to the survival of the community and the tribe. It reflected the philosophical ways in which the community interacted with and treated one another. Unlike Western European language, which was noun-based, Indigenous languages were verb-based languages. Indigenous languages ―identify objects and concepts in terms of their use or their relationship to other things in an active process‖

(Henderson 2000, 50). However, some Indigenous languages had multiple words to describe one term or expression that were used depending on the situation, how many people were present, and/or what were being addressed.

The ability for any individual to communicate in their respective language is a critical component of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples. Adopted by the General Assembly on September 13, 2007, Article 13 (1) stated the following:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, develop and transmit to future generations, their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems, literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons (UN 2007, para. 35).

The Declaration received overwhelming support, with 143 countries voting in favour, 11 abstaining and four rejecting the resolution: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the

United States. Despite its initial rejection, the Government of Canada surprised many with the following statement in the 2010 Speech from the Throne:

We are a country with an Aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada‘s Constitution and laws (Government of Canada 2010).

In a joint letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on May 11, 2010, AFN, ITK and MNC called on the Government of Canada to endorse the Declaration without qualifications:

The elaboration of the rights in the Declaration is a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect. The Declaration does indeed raise standards but it should not raise fears. We believe our participation as the leadership of the three Aboriginal peoples in Canada in an announcement endorsing the Declaration is an expectation that accords with the spirit of the Declaration, and would show Canadians that the Aboriginal peoples in Canada and the Government of Canada embrace the challenge of achieving the standards set out in the Declaration (Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Métis National Council, 2010).

Despite the calls from NAOs, the federal government has yet to indicate whether or not it will embrace the Declaration in its entirety.

Land

Until this point, three important Indigenous principles have been discussed: gender; Elders; and culture and language. The final Indigenous principle that merits discussion is the close relationship between Indigenous nations and the land that provides for them. This connection to the land is also based on IK, which is constantly changing and evolving. As Howard Mann (2006) explains, IK reflects…

…symbolic relationships between individuals, communities, generations, the physical environment, and other living creatures, and the spiritual relationships of a people. Indigenous knowledge evolves as ecosystems and other factors change but remains grounded in the more enduring aspects of identity, culture, generations and spirituality (25).

This evolution of knowledge is directly linked to the evolution of land and all the living organisms that encompass it. It is for that reason that Indigenous nations honour and respect the land that has long provided for their peoples.

Otherwise known as Mother Earth, the land not only provided food, shelter, and well-being to various Indigenous populations, it also served as a spiritual connector to the holistic vision of the world. As Jeannette Armstrong explains, ―I know that without my land and my people I am not alive. I am simply flesh waiting to die (in Anderson 2000,

127). The basis of this spiritual connection is a direct result of the interdependence

Indigenous peoples have with the land, with nature and with all living organisms. As

Taiaiake (2005) explains, ―for humans to enjoy happiness at all, they must be integrated politically, socially, spiritually and culturally; language, stories, and ceremonies are the

29 building blocks of an integrated human being‖ (249). This happiness Alfred speaks of highlights the importance of the interdependent relationship that traditionally existed between Indigenous communities and the land.

Gifts given to the community from Mother Earth were celebrated and honoured as a show of appreciation and respect. The death of an animal, for example, was highly respected for giving its life so the tribe would not go hungry. Offerings, such as sacred tobacco would be left after a successful hunt as a sign of respect for the animal who gave its life so the tribe could eat. In times of hardship, community members would often pray to Mother Earth and the Creator to provide for them. A season of little or no food or drought would symbolize the failure of the community to respect that land that provided for them.

The interdependent relationship between Indigenous nations and their traditional lands extended beyond spirituality and included ecological conservation and consciousness. As Henderson (2000) explains:

Most Aboriginal worldviews are founded on two understandings. First, they understand the ecosystem as an eternal system tolerant of flux and refined by endless renewals and realignments. Second, they understand that each ecosystem encapsulates and enfolds many forces or parts…These two understandings focus on the interdependence of the life forces…Together these understandings reinforce our belief that all life on earth is living and interrelated (260).

Indigenous ecological consciousness created by the interdependent relationship with the land and the broader ecosystem meant that resource extraction and exploitation were negatively viewed and frowned upon. Moreover, Indigenous tribes practiced ecological conservation by virtue of their seasonal migration patterns. Nomadic tribes, such as Inuit of the Eastern Arctic, would migrate from region to region, following animal migrating

30 patterns and moving on a seasonal basis. Others, such as Nisga‘a located in north-western

British Columbia, remained close to the water and only fished and hunted for sustenance purposes. There was a basic understanding that ecological conservation had to be practiced in order for the land to provide for the tribe. This allowed the land to rejuvenate itself in preparation for the following season while simultaneously insuring resource depletion did not occur. As Ladner (2003) explains, the relationship that existed between

Indigenous peoples and the land was a relationship that involved the ―‗circle of life‘ or all beings within a territory…it was about establishing a relationship with a territory and learning from that relationship‖ (125). Without this relationship, Indigenous nations would not have been able to survive for millennia.

Individualism and Citizenship

Western European thought is based, not on the collective, but on the individual.

Individualism can be defined as a social pattern that consists of...

...loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights, and the contracts they have established with others; give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others; and emphasize rational analyses of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with others (Triandis 1995, 2).

Western European political institutions were very individualistic in nature, often constructed in linear hierarchical governing structures, with the few making the decisions for the masses. As one witness described during public hearings on the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), Western Europeans based their political authority on ―legislative supremacy, centralized decision-making and majoritarianism,‖ whereas traditional Indigenous governance was based on ―a spiritual pact of communal

31 belonging, consensual decision-making power, and direct participation‖ (RCAP in

Schouls 2003, 66). While Indigeneity acknowledges and respects the roles individuals play within their respective communities, the health and well-being of the entire community superseded the individual interests of community members.

From the Western European point of view, only individuals who share similar intellectual and physical attributes are considered citizens and civilized human beings, allowed to have rights, and given the choice of debating and participating in the political process. From this worldview, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women were subordinate to Indigenous and non-Indigenous men; however both Indigenous men and women were excluded from citizenship and political participation.

This classification of citizenship can be traced back to the onset of ancient

Athenian democracy. According to the works of Aristotle, citizens were characterized by their political participation and ownership of private property. They were distinguished from non-citizens, such as foreigners or non-natives, slaves, children, and the elderly (in

Corbin and Swanson 2009, 48). Moreover, ―the male is by nature more capable of leadership than the female‖ and that ―females require male leadership‖ (2009, 33-34).

Aristotle‘s theory of citizenship and gender relations reflect the narrow-minded view long held by Western Europeans toward ―other‖ cultures.

Social Darwinism, Eurocentricism and Diffusionism

Three theories were used by Western Europeans as justification for the seizure of

Indigenous lands and need to ―civilize‖ Indigenous peoples during the post-contact period: Social Darwinism, Eurocentricism and diffusionism. According to Yazzie (2000),

32 the theory of Social Darwinism assumed that specific groups of people were inferior in nature to other groups, resulting in their unwilling subordination (2000, 42). Moreover,

Eurocentricism was defined as ―a dominant intellectual and educational movement that

postulates the superiority of Europeans over non-Europeans‖ (Henderson 2000, 58).

Grasping firmly to the belief that Western European civilizations were the superior beings, all non-Europeans and their respective cultures, languages and methods of governance were regarded as inferior and subject to change. Moreover, those Western

Europeans who accepted or acknowledged indigenous forms of governance and community-based decision-making could not do so publically for fear of punishment or even death. As one scholar of Eurocentrism noted:

When we discover that there are several cultures instead of just one and consequently at the same time when we acknowledge the end of a sort of cultural monopoly, be it illusory or real, we are threatened with the destruction of our own discovery. Suddenly it becomes possible that there are just others, that we are an ‗other‘ among others (Ricoeur in Henderson 2000, 32).

The possibility of being considered an ‗other among others‘ would have challenged the legitimacy of Western European philosophy and put into question their perceived superiority over non-European cultures.

In addition to Social Darwinism and Eurocentricism, diffusionism was another theory embraced by Western Europeans. Diffusionism was primarily based on two assumptions: one, that ―most human communities are uninventive;‖ and two, ―a few human communities (or places or cultures) are inventive and are thus the permanent centres of cultural change or progress‖ (Blaut 1993, 14). This duality results in a world divided in two: inside (Europe) and outside (non-Europe) groups.

Diffusionism assumes that non-Europeans are empty of any and all rationality.

This lack of rationality has also been referred to as the diffusionist myth of emptiness.

The myth of emptiness exerted four primary claims that were used by Western Europeans to claim the ―uninhabited‖ Indigenous lands.. These four claims were:

(1) A non-European region is empty or nearly empty of people (hence settlement by Europeans does not displace any Native peoples); (2) The region is empty of settled population: the inhabitants are mobile, nomadic, wanderers (hence European settlement violates no political sovereignty since wanderers make no claim to territory); (3) The cultures of this region do not possess an understanding of private property – that is, the region is empty of property rights and claims (hence colonial occupiers can freely give land to settlers since no one owns it); and (4) The final layer, applied to all of the Outside sector, is an emptiness of intellectual creativity and spiritual values...(Blaut 1993, 15).

These three theories, Social Darwinism, Eurocenticism and diffusion, were used by

Western Europeans as justification for seizure of Indigenous lands during the post- contact period.

This perceived Western European dominance has not only been rejected by

Indigenous scholars, it has also been questioned by Kwame Anthony Appiah, an African

American philosopher and cultural theorist of Ghanaian descent. Rejecting the idea that

African or black philosophy gains it legitimacy by comparing itself to Western European philosophy, Appiah (1992) states:

What account can we give, then, of the belief that there is a role for something that is importantly African to be done in philosophy? Part of the explanation must lie, as we have seen, in racialism: what more natural reaction to a European culture that claims—with Hume and Hegel—that the intellect is the property of white skins, than to insist there is something important in the sphere that belongs to black men? If there is white philosophy, why not also black philosophy? The origins of the argument are intelligible—and that it is somehow healthier than the view of the apostles of negritude, that black men should give the intellect over to whites and explore the affective realm that is their

special property (92).

Just as Appiah argued the merits of African or black philosophy, so too can the argument be made for the merits of Indigeneity. Indigenous nations developed their own philosophy based on IK and their unique relationship to the land, a relationship that that Western Europeans refuse to understand.

Post-contact

The impact of liberalism on Western European settlers prior to their arrival on

Turtle Island heavily influenced the ways in which they interacted with the established

Indigenous nations. Under the banner of individualism and liberalism, Western

Europeans first attempted to ―cleanse the land of its rightful owners‖ through ―bounties for human scalps, massacre, starvation and germ warfare‖ (Paul 2006, para. 3). Once

Indigenous resistance mounted against Western European extermination tactics, 9

European settlers decided it was necessary to save Indigenous peoples from their uncivilized and savage ways by educating them in the beliefs and values of Western

European society (Macklem 2001). As a consequence, Western Europeans undermined the cultural, economic, and political systems found in many Indigenous nations.

Private Property

The emergence of individualism as an ideology became more pronounced during the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. Modernity and

Enlightenment philosophies, as Blackburn (2007) explains, ―envisioned men as

9 See Ward Churchill‘s A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present for additional information on Indigenous extermination and genocide in the Americas.

35 autonomous, free-willed, and rational, capable of self-rule and self-improvement‖ (625).

The modernity and Enlightenment period produced several influential Western European philosophers who embraced the self-improvement idea. One of these philosophers included John Locke, who postulated that citizenship was derived from owning private property. Having studied the significance of the state of nature first introduced by

Thomas Hobbes‘s Leviathan, John Locke, in the Two Treatises of Government (1690), emphasized the rights of individuals within the establishment of the social contract.

These individual rights were based on property rights, which were acquired solely through an individual‘s labour and cultivation of land. The right to property, as Locke argued, limited the power of the Sovereign within the state of nature. ―The Supreme

Power cannot take from any Man any party of his Property without his own consent‖

(Locke in Henderson 1690, para. 138). The argument for limiting the Sovereign‘s authority was a result of individuals who developed the land through their labour and thus became citizens and entered civilized society. Those who did not were left at the

Sovereign‘s mercy.

The concept of private property or property ownership brought by Western

Europeans was a non-issue for the original inhabitants of Turtle Island. From the

Indigenous point of view, the land was not owned by one individual; rather, it was shared among community members, animals and vegetation that relied on it. Indigeneity coincided with the belief that they were merely a part of a larger ecological order in which every living organism was important and interdependent. As Henderson (2000) explains:

Most Aboriginal thought teaches that humans are the youngest life form

on Earth, and the most dependent and the least knowledgeable…Traditionally, Aboriginal people studied the behaviour of life forms and the seasons to develop an understanding of the dynamics of a space and the role of each life form within it….The ecosystem in which they lived was their classroom; the life forms who shared the land were their teachers (264).

For Indigenous nations, the ownership of land was not as important as the respect for it.

As Turpel-Lafond (1997) argues:

Unlike the European settlers who view this continent [Turtle Island] as land that existed for their people, we believe that as people we exist for the land…We are here with a primary responsibility: to learn from, and respect, this great gift of the Earth, and to make a life here is this harmonious with its blessing and cycles (66).

This collective respect for the land and community has manifested itself through the role of Indigenous women. ―It is women who give birth, on both the physical and the spiritual sense, to the social, political and cultural life of the community‖ (1997, 68). These two attributes, collective respect for nature and women, were the complete opposite to the ownership of land and the importance of individualism found in the Western European philosophical mind.

Gender Subordination

The equality that existed between men and women in Indigenous communities unfortunately did not exist in the traditional male-female relationship in Western

European cultures. Thus, when Western Europeans first arrived on Turtle Island, they were amazed at the level of political participation by the Indigenous women. As Maracle

(2004) explains, ―when the treaty parties came to us, the Europeans didn‘t bring their women…they didn‘t want to deal with the woman who were the leaders of our families, clans, communities and Nations‖ (73). This astonishing realization that Indigenous men

37 and women were equal in society baffled the Western European visitors. As Cree scholar

Kim Anderson (2000) explains:

The Europeans who first arrived in Canada were shocked by the position of Aboriginal women in their respective societies. It was not long before they realized that, in order to dominate the land and the people that were occupying it, they needed to disempower the women. Indigenous systems that allocated power to women were incompatible with the kind of colonial power dynamics that would be necessary to maintain colonial power (58).

To ―correct‖ these problems, Western European men attempted to teach Indigenous men that the roles of Western European women applied to those of Indigenous women. As a consequence, assimilation and patriarchal-supported policies were imposed in an attempt to disrupt Indigenous gender equality and weaken the community. The end result fundamentally changed the gender equality accustom to Indigenous nations and quickly proliferated across Turtle Island.

The Eurocentric rationale slowly gained credence among Indigenous men and eventually became embedded into the male Indigenous psyche. Gradually, Western

European mentalities were accepted and Indigenous women were neither viewed as equals to their male counterparts, nor were they allowed to participate in the decision- making processes. Indigenous communities began to shift away from the traditional gender equality relationship and adopted Eurocentric-supported practices of patriarchy.

As Voyageur (1996) explains, Western Europeans had developed specific standards for women. This included the belief that women were ―psychologically unstable, physically fragile, and morally susceptible‖ (97). These patriarchal beliefs were only the beginning as successive Euro-Canadian governments marginalized and suppressed Indigenous women through federal legislation known as the Indian Act.

Indian Act

The establishment of the Indian Act, 1876, by the Euro-Canadian government created more obstacles for Indigenous women and institutionalized gender inequalities in

Indigenous communities. It was the first Act to discriminate against Indigenous women openly by ―assigning them fewer fundamental rights than Indian men‖ (1996, 100). The

Act also replaced traditional Indigenous political institutions with a system of elected chiefs and councils through an electoral process designed and operated by Euro-Canada.

Speaking from a First Nations point of view, Theresa Ann Nahanee (1997) writes, ―the

Indian Act imposed upon all First Nations communities a system of patriarchy customs and laws that had become so ingrained by 1971 that patriarchy was accepted as a

‗traditional trait‘‖ (90). These newly accepted ‗traditional traits‘ removed the authority of

Indigenous women from the decision-making process, forcing women out of the gender co-equality position they previously shared with Indigenous men while simultaneously giving men more political authority and community autonomy.

From 1876 onward, the Act‘s designated reserves and elected chief and councils excluded Indigenous women from participating in their traditional decision-making roles.

According to NWAC, ―since 1869, Indian women were legally subordinated through banishment from their communities…[which]…was a deliberate federal government policy to destroy Aboriginal culture and communities‖ (1991, 4). This exclusion lasted as late as 1951. As Fiske explains, ―Until 1951, the Indian Act denied women the right to vote in band elections, to hold elected office, and to participate in public meetings that decided band business‖ (in Voyageur 1996, 100). These destructive federal government policies also extended to the classification of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

The most discriminatory provision of the legislation focused on the classification of and removal of status from Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men. On the one hand, any marriage between an Indigenous man and a non-Indigenous woman resulted in the woman and her children gaining status and band membership. Indigenous women and their off-spring, on the other hand, who married non-Indigenous men, were stripped of their status and band membership. According to the Indian Act, 1876, the definition of an Indian became:

Any person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular Band, any child of such person, and any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person. Excluded Indian status was persons living continuously five years or more in another country, Indian women marrying non-Indian men, and, in some cases, illegitimate children (in Ponting 1997, 21).

Section 12(1) (b) of the Act allowed for the relinquishment of an Indigenous women‘s status by marrying non-Indigenous men. Status was relinquished if ―a woman who married a person who is not an Indian, unless that women is subsequently the wife or widow of a person described in Section 11‖ (Indian Act 1876). Section 12(1) (b) stripped

Indigenous women of their cultural identity, alienated them from their community and legally classified them as second-tier or subordinate individuals. As Martin-Hill (2004) explains, ―in pre-contact culture, we were regarded as Sacred Women and shared in the spiritual, economic, and political authority of our societies. But under colonialism…we were devalued and lost our authority and voice‖ (107). The systemic institutionalized marginalization of Indigenous women and their children occurred for such a long period of time that Indigenous men gradually embraced the Euro vision as truth.

Bill C-31

Indigenous women continue to face enormous challenges as a result of Euro-

Canadian legislation and policy. However, several successful court challenges to the patriarchal system imposed on Indigenous women have forced the Euro-Canadian government to rethink and revisit the Indian Act. Bill C-31, passed into law in 1985, attempted to correct the injustices placed on Indigenous women and their children. The legislation‘s objective was to restore status to Indigenous women and their children who were enfranchised by the Euro-Canadian government. Status eligibility was based on the following:

1. women who lost status as result of marriage to non-status men; 2. individuals who lost status or were denied status under other discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act; 3. individuals who lost status through enfranchisement, a process under the old act whereby persons could voluntarily give up status; and 4. children of persons in any of the above categories (Paul in Voyageur 1996, 105).

Although Bill C-31 appeared to resolve the historical legislative discrepancies between

Indigenous men and women, Indigenous women disagreed. Gender discrimination still remained and continued to deny status recognition to the children of Indigenous women who regained status under the new Euro-Canadian legislation. As Wendy Moss (1997) explains:

The result is that pre-1985 intermarriages between an Indian and a non- Indian woman are treated as marriages between two Indians for the purposes of the new act, whereas pre-1985 marriages between Indian women and non-Indian men are treated as ‗intermarriages‘(81).

A 2009 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, McIvor v. Canada, successfully challenged the gender discrimination that remained after Bill C-31. The Court called on the federal government to amend several provisions of the Indian Act. As a result, the federal government has brought forth Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration

Act. If passed, the legislation would extend status to the grandchildren of Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men. Although the legislation is being examined by the Euro-Canadian government, the proposed changes must be thoroughly reviewed and approved by NAOs beforehand to ensure the marginalization of Indigenous women and their children no longer occurs.

Prior to Bill C-31, Indigenous peoples could either gain or lose their status through marriage depending on their gender. After Bill C-31, status was no longer lost through marriage as long as ―status Indians‖ continued to marry other ―status Indians.‖

However, after two successive intermarriages (a ―status Indian‖ who marries a ―non- status Indian‖), status would not be passed on to the children of the second intermarriage.

As Thomas King (2003) explains:

The children produced by the status/status couple are status. The Children produced by the status/non-status couple are status…The children from the status/status/status couple are status. The children from the status/non-status/non-status couple are not (143).

The amendment created two subcategories of status Indigenous peoples, most commonly referred to as six-ones (status/status marriage) and six-twos (status/non-status marriage).

As King (2003) argues, ―six-one Indians are status and, for legal purposes, are considered to be full-bloods even if they aren‘t, while six-two Indians are status and for legal purposes considered to be half-bloods even if they aren‘t‖ (143-44). The six-one/six-two categories created the so-called two-generation cut-off rule, which meant that ―status would be terminated after two successive generations of intermarriage between Indians and non-Indians‖ (Furi and Wherrett 2003). The categorization of ―status‖ and ―non- status Indians‖ has become increasingly problematic, particularly among First Nations peoples.

The two-generation cut-off rule has long-lasting implications for Indigenous peoples living in Euro-Canada. After two generations of non-status marriages, the children from the last union are not-status. As King (2003) explains, ―you can continue to call yourself an Indian, but you can‘t live on a reserve…you can‘t vote in band elections.

You can go to powwows…but you are no longer eligible for treaty benefits, and neither are your children or their children…‖ (144). Furthermore, because 50 per cent of status peoples are marrying non-status peoples (2003, 145), ―if this rate holds steady, in fifty to seventy-five years there will be no status Indians left in Canada‖ (2003, 145). Indigenous nations should be mindful of Euro-Canadian policies defining who is and who is not an

Indigenous person. As NWAC (2007) explains:

Bill C-31 provided each First Nation community with the mechanism to develop their own membership codes. While each membership code had to be approved by the Minister of Indian Affairs, subsequent amendments are not subject to this requirement. The creation of band membership codes created problems as such some people who were registered under Section 6 (1) were automatically put on a band list. Many others got a conditional membership or no membership. Indian bands were not required to give those registered under Section 6 (2) band membership. This meant that some people can have band membership and status, while others could have band membership and no status and others could have status with no band membership‖ (2).

Indigenous politicians, NAOs and community leaders should vocalize their opposition to a rule that is nothing more than a modern-day attempt to assimilate Indigenous peoples into mainstream Euro-Canadian society and pin community members against one another.

Residential Schools

In order to civilize Indigenous nations, Indigenous children were taken from their parents and their communities and placed in state-sponsored residential schools administered by Anglican, Catholic and other religious dominations. Created and supported by successive Euro-Canadian governments, residential schools attempted to eradicate Indigeneity through cultural genocide and assimilation. As Voyageur (1996) writes, the elimination of the ―Indian mind‖ or the ―savage‖ could only be accomplished through ―education and religious training in European customs and values‖ (99). As a result, Indigenous children endured a daily denigration of their culture, heritage and language, as well as the forceful removal of their cultural and spiritual identities.

This cultural, psychological and spiritual trauma ostracized many Indigenous youth well into their adulthood. Unable to speak their mother tongue, Indigenous men and women, unable to communicate with their families and treated as second-class citizens by the greater Euro-Canadian society:

Internalized a sense of inferiority and shame as intrinsic to their identity as Aboriginal people. The practical skills taught in residential schools prepared students for little more than menial jobs in a world that was not ready to accept them as equals. Unable to understand their Aboriginal languages or participate in cultural practices, they found themselves in a marginalized position as neither fully Aboriginal nor ‗mainstream‘(Brass et al, 2007, 69).

The loss of culture and language, the long-term separation from community and family and the internalized sense of Indigenous inferiority has resulted in many socio-economic problems that plague many Indigenous communities. These problems include mental, physical and sexual abuse, alcoholism and poverty, incarceration, mental health issues, violence, particularly against children and women, and suicide. For example, suicide rates among First Nations communities are about twice those of the Canadian average,

44 while rates among Inuit are even higher-five to six times higher (Brass et al, 2007, xv).

Moreover, suicide rates are particularly alarming among Indigenous youth. Between the ages of 10 to 29, Indigenous youth are five to six times more likely to die of suicide than their peers in the general population (Brass et al, 2007, xv). These alarming statistics merely skim the surface of the problems that can be attributed to negative effects of the residential schools system. The notion of group inferiority can be attributed a feeling of internal colonization, which as Hicks (2004) writes, ―is a colony that exists inside the boundaries of the state which colonized it‖ (1). It is a longstanding colonial legacy that many Indigenous nations around the world struggle to cope with on a daily basis.

Contemporary Language Struggles

As a result of the Euro-Canadian government‘s imposed Indian Act and the residential school experience, many Indigenous nations struggle with language articulation, comprehension and preservation. There are approximately 60 different

Indigenous languages spoken by First Nations people in Euro-Canada today, grouped into several distinct language families, including Algonquian, Athapaskan, Siouan, Salish,

Tsimshian, Wakashan, Iroquoian, Haida, Kutenai, and Tlingit (2006). According to the

2006 Census, approximately 29 per cent of First Nations people reported they could speak an Indigenous language well enough to carry on a conversation (2006). The figures were higher for First Nations living on-reserve (51 per cent) compared to First Nations living off-reserve (12 per cent) (2006) (See Appendix B). Although the statistics for First

Nations living on-reserve have not changed from 2001 to 2006, they have declined for

First Nations off-reserve. From 2001 to 2006, First Nations who had a working

45 knowledge of an Aboriginal language living off reserve declined from 14 per cent to 12 per cent (2006). If this trend continues, more and more First Nations languages will be lost as a result of many First Nations migrating from reserves to urban centres.

Language statistics for Inuit populations living in the Eastern Arctic region are slightly better. Inuit have five distinct Inuit dialects: Inuvialuktun, spoken in the

Inuvialuit region in the Northwest Territories; Inuinnaqtun (primarily in the western

Nunavut); Inuttitut (Eastern Nunavut and Nunavik); and Inuttut (Nunatsiavut) (Statistics

Canada 2006). These languages are collectively known as Inuktitut. According to the

2006 Census, 64 per cent of Inuit reported Inuktitut as their mother tongue, down from 68 per cent in 1996 (2006). Moreover, only 50 per cent of Inuit speak Inuktitut at home, compared to 58 per cent in 1996 (2006) (See Appendix C).

The preservation of Indigenous languages has become a priority for many

Indigenous nations. Nevertheless, it has also been one of the more contentious issues as well. Those who continue to speak and teach their traditional language are in favour of early immersion programs in community schools, while those who have lost it as a result of residential schools and community exclusion remain hesitant about allowing their children into these programs. To a large extent, this resistance is a result of various degrees of guilt and shame in their inability to speak their mother tongue. Residential school survivor, Shirley Williams, speaks of self-esteem problems she suffered as a result of her stay at a residential school, ―you begin to think you are not worth anything, being

Indian. Being an Indian woman you [are] dirty. Being Indian was to be told that you are not worthy. You are less than. You begin to feel this low self-esteem‖ (Anderson 2000,

93). Nevertheless, residential school survivors should be provided with the time and

46 space they need to deal with the mental, physical, psychological and sexual trauma they suffered as a result of Church-administered residential schools. Every opportunity should be given to survivors to reacquire their traditional cultures and languages. Helping survivors to restore their Indigenous cultural and spiritual identities is essential to help begin the healing process. According to Castellano (2008), examples of healing include individual healing, where residential school survivors begin the process of healing through four stages: safety and/or awareness; remembrance and/or mourning; reconnection/reclamation; and giving back (391). Moreover, as Alfred (2009) writes, it is only through ―spiritual revitalization and cultural regeneration‖ that Indigenous communities will be able to collectively heal properly (44). Once survivors have reached a point where the feel comfortable discussing their past experiences, many continue their journey by aiding other survivors through their own recoveries.

Storytelling

In the pre-contact world, oral storytelling was important for the transmission of knowledge from one generation to another. In the post-contact world, the importance of storytelling and its recognition as a credible source of information has been called into question. From the Western European standpoint, knowledge and language is communicated and legitimize through written texts. For the academic community, ―the written text plays a central role in determining what counts as legitimate content.‖

(Turner 2006, 47) The written text continues to be the measuring stick of authenticating and legitimatizing historical works from the Western European world. Indigenous knowledge, on the other hand, is communicated and shared through oral stories. As

Marlene Brant Castellano (2000) writes, ―Aboriginal knowledge is said to be personal,

oral, experiential, holistic, and conveyed in narrative or metaphoric language‖ (25). In

most Indigenous communities, the wisdom of Elders is highly regarded. They are

assigned the important responsibility for sharing their knowledge and teaching the young.

The problem with oral history revolves around intellectual property and copyright issues.

As McCartney (2009) explains, because oral histories are considered sound recordings

and not literary works10…

…storytellers have no recourse if the story is appropriated or used in such a way as to prejudice his or her reputation. A storyteller has no legal recourse if his or her name is not used and no legal recourse if the work is distorted, modified, misinterpreted, or changed. In other words, the storyteller has no moral rights. By contrast, in the case of literary works, the author-creator enjoys both the copyright and moral rights (88).

The Copyright Act has more to with the protection of private property ownership than

anything else. Since Indigenous history is passed from one generation to the next orally,

it is neither private nor does it specifically belong to one individual. Instead, the stories

Elders share with Indigenous youth and their community belong to the greater Indigenous

community. Western Europeans, and in this case, Euro-Canada must recognize the

importance of oral histories and stories and provide storytellers with the necessary

protections to ensure Indigenous history is not distorted, misinterpreted, or modified.

Indigenous peoples not only have to worry about their oral stories, they also have

to be cognisant of the stories that are written about them. For centuries Indigenous

peoples have witnessed anthropologists, sociologists and philosophers describing and

recounting the history of Indigenous peoples from the Western European perspective. As

Indigenous scholar Donald L. Fixico (2003) explains:

10 The Canadian federal government’s Copyright Act, 1985, characterizes any written materials as “works” whereas sound recordings are characterized as “other subject matter,” and are thus not awarded the same protections.

The late 1960s witnessed an effort by Indian activists and native scholars to call attention to the fact that books and articles about Indian people were wrong. The prevailing literature about Indians only presented one side of the story of American Indians. The white version of Indian books and articles focused on Indian-white relations, and are not necessarily about American Indians...Furthermore, the white version has been a case of the ‗conqueror writing his history.‘ Americans demonized the co-called Noble Savage to become the Wild Savage – a foe to be conquered, and killed (129-130).

This has resulted in centuries of accepted misconceptions and detrimental stereotypes of

Indigenous peoples. As late Chippewa scholar Gail Gutherie Valaskakis (2005) notes, in the years when Indians were silenced by commission or omission, ―newcomers wrote hundreds of books describing tribal history and culture, detailing the impact of colonialism and telling about life among Indians‖ (2). This ―colonial education,‖ as

Appiah (1992) suggests with reference to the African American experience, ―produced a generation immersed in the literature of the colonizers, a literature that often reflected and transmitted the imperialist vision‖ (55). Moreover, as George Manuel and Michael

Posluns (1974) explain:

The colonial system is always a way of gaining control over another people for the sake of what the colonial power has determined to be ‗the common good.‘ People can only become convinced of the common good when their own capacity to imagine ways in which they govern themselves has been destroyed (60).

The imposition of ―colonial education‖ in the name of the ―common good‖ further exemplifies the inability of Western Europeans to look beyond Eurocentric thought and consider the possibility that ―other‖ cultures and philosophies are equal to their own.

Having studied, practiced, and taught in Western European academic institutions, the more evident it became for emerging Indigenous academics and scholars, such as

Taiaiake Alfred, Marie Battiste, Leroy Little Bear, Gail Gutherie Valaskakis, James

Sa‘ke‘j Youngblood Henderson, Kim Anderson, Donald L. Fixico, Bonita Lawrence, and

Kiera Ladner, to refute the Eurocentric portrayal of Indigenous-Western European history. While discussing the importance of Indigenous governance, Ladner (2000) explains:

Just because indigenous nations emerged from and were a part of a different political tradition does not necessitate or justify their exclusion from political science and the disciplined manner in which nationalism is studied and theorized. Instead, we have to venture forward and begin the process of decolonizing and deconstructing the dominant Eurocentric understanding of politics, and begin to see and understand Indigenous nations and Indigenous nationalisms as nations and nationalisms in their own right and as separate from the dominant, essentialist, western Eurocentric paradigm (2).

Non-Indigenous academics and scholars must be willing to look beyond the traditional rhetoric of Western European institutions and Western accepted academia and engage in meaningful discussions with Indigenous academics, Elders and philosophers. These discussions should include more culturally appropriate curricula development, a willingness to explore alternative forms of learning, including out-of-class and/or on-the- land instruction with Elders and neighbouring Indigenous communities, and Indigenous services and supports for incoming students transitioning from community to university life.

Cultural Disconnect

Serious debate continues regarding the appropriate usage of traditional lands to spur economic development needs, including massive natural resource extraction. The dilemma of remaining truthful to the traditional Indigenous relationship with the land, while facing increasing pressures to create employment opportunities for community

50 members is a difficult one. Modern land claims agreements signed between Indigenous nations and the federal government have attempted to resolve outstanding Indigenous land and treaty issues, in exchange for financial compensation, self-government and specific land and natural resource allotments. These agreements also had the potential of creating community divisions between those in favour of the agreement and those unwilling to cede their Indigenous treaty rights in favour of a substantially smaller portion of land and natural resources. These struggles were spiritually-based as

Indigenous nations traditionally did not exploit the land for its resources; rather, the community took only what was necessary for survival purposes. As one witness described during the public hearings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

(RCAP), the Western conception of land is that of an ―exploitable resource, subject to alienation, division, and private holding, and the Aboriginal view of land as spiritual sustainer, conceived in terms of trusteeship, integral in its relationship to the entire cosmos, and held in common with all people‖ (RCAP in Schouls 2003, 66). As more and more Indigenous nations enter into land claim negotiations with the Euro-Canadian government, the potential for resource extraction for economic development purposes is likely to increase.

The loss of traditional territory, combined with the creation of the reserve system under the Indian Act, had a devastating impact on the spiritual identity of Indigenous peoples. As one witness described during the public hearings of the RCAP, community members ―link loss of land to loss of connection to the source of Aboriginal spirituality since the ‗Creator has made us the care takers of the land‘‖ (Blacksmith in Schouls 2003,

64). Moreover, the loss of land has not only led to the loss of spiritual identity, it has also

51 led to many Indigenous mental and social health problems. Discussing the struggles of

Innu communities in the Labrador-Québec peninsula region, Colin Samson suggests that the loss of land has led to severe identity and mental health problems, ―The Innu have interpreted these actions not merely…as theft but also as loss of their personhood since their identity as hunters and as human beings is inseparable from the land‖ (in Kirmayer and Valaskakis (ed). 2009, 118). By relocating Innu to settlement areas, successive Euro-

Canadian governments have gradually removed their cultural identity, disrupting their traditional hunting practices and, as a consequence, have led to a variety of community mental and social health problems in both adults and youth. This has had a devastating impact on Inuit youth in Nunavut, and in particular, young Inuit men. As Jack Hicks

(2007) notes:

In the Canadian Arctic, the generation of Inuit who first began to display elevated rates of suicidal behaviour was the first generation to grow up in settlement communities – at a time when the communities were raw and rough, when substance abuse was just beginning to ravage families, and when discrimination was an everyday fact of life (35-36).

As a consequence, the first generation of Inuit who experienced the residential school system and the shift from nomadic to settlement lifestyle has passed on their historical trauma to their children. This intergenerational trauma is a direct result of parents who have suffered the pains of assimilation and colonization. As Wesley-Esquimaux (2007) suggests:

In order for indigenous people to devise culturally appropriate healing modalities that will help them overcome social disorders resulting from the historic trauma they experienced, a people-centred and people-driven approach has to be adopted (9).

Unless drastic measures are taken to address these long-standing historical traumas, the trend of abnormally high suicide among Inuit youth is a trend that is likely to continue.

Conclusion

The philosophical differences between Indigeneity and Western European thought are profound. Prior to the arrival of Western European, Indigenous nations roamed Turtle

Island freely and openly, practicing their cultural and traditional beliefs in a peaceful and ecological way. Indigenous men and women were equally respected in their communities, sharing various responsibilities, including decision-making authorities.

Decisions affecting the well-being of the community were made collectively and individuality was accepted so long as it was not detrimental to the collective well-being of the tribe. Indigenous consensual decision-making reflected a holistic approach to the world. Within this approach, all things, the cosmos, the Earth, animals, vegetation, and humans, were part of a constant cycle of interdependence. This holistic mentality required Indigenous peoples to respect and honour the ecological order and the world around them.

Traditional Indigenous lifestyles dramatically shifted following the arrival of

Western Europeans to Turtle Island. Failing to understand the Indigenous holistic perspective, either by choice or indifference, Western Europeans challenged Indigeneity with theories of Social Darwinism and Eurcentricism. This resulted in the attempted annihilation of Indigenous peoples through disease, such as smallpox, assimilation, and then civilization through the residential school experience. The civilization of Indigenous boys and girls was required in an attempt to save them from their savage-like ways, which resulted in the Euro-Canadian and Church supported eradication of Indigenous culture, language and spirituality. Indigenous children were taken from their families,

53 placed in residential schools and ―prevented from speaking their language, practising their customs, seeing their relations or learning what it meant to be [Indigenous]...the result of these colonial practices have been near cultural genocide‖ (Ladner 2000, 7-8).

Having accepted and embraced the philosophical attributes of individualism and liberalism, Western Europeans began a lengthy and methodical process of Indigenous salvation through institutionalized assimilation and cultural genocide. Having accepted the diffusionistic assumption of a superior peoples or race, Western Europeans began the

Western ―Europeanization‖ of Indigenous peoples. In the Euro-Canadian experience, the creation of the Indian Act and the Euro-Canadian government-sponsored Church- administered residential school system began the institutionalized assimilation and cultural genocide of generations upon generations of Indigenous youth.

Historical hunting and migrating patterns were replaced with reservations.

Indigenous languages were forbidden and replaced with Western European languages and communal decision-making was replaced with a Euro-Canadian mirrored electoral process through the election of chiefs and councillors. Moreover, gender co-equality was replaced with Eurocentric patriarchy, which removed female Indigenous power in favour of female subordination. Indigenous women were no longer hereditary chiefs or warriors.

Most disturbing, however, was that over time these patriarchal beliefs became so embedded in the minds of Indigenous men, they came to accept them as truths. As

Monture-Okanee notes, ―we must also accept that in some circumstances it is no longer descendants of European settlers that oppresses us, but it is Aboriginal men in our communities who now fulfill this role‖ (in Fiske 2006, 337). The oppression of

Indigenous women by their male counterparts is a result of an internalized colonial oppression that continues to manifest externally in Indigenous communities to this day.

Despite decades of institutionalized assimilation and centuries of cultural genocide, Indigenous nations have managed to regain some of their cultural identities.

Elders have re-emerged as important figures within their respective communities.

Traditional ceremonies and rituals are being reclaimed and passed down IK through spiritual teaching and oral storytelling. The role of Elders and the emphasis on the well- being of the community were critical to the system of communal decision-making that was common in many Indigenous tribes.

There are also fears that many Elders will pass on to the spirit world without transmitting their IK to younger Indigenous generations. This is particularly troubling considering that many Elders are only now feeling comfortable to share their stories, both as individuals with extensive worldly knowledge, and also as residential school survivors.

As Inuit residential school survivor Joe Kremmidjuar explains to fellow survivor and former Commissioner of Nunavut Peter Irniq on writing a letter to his mother during his stay at the residential school…

…It was useless to write. If I write a letter to my mother, and I write about things that I do not agree with. For instance, if I say ―I am homesick,‖ the letter will be read by those who were looking after us, the Grey Nuns/ Sisters. If they see and heard, what we did not like, they would spank/ whip us, guaranteed! They would have done anything to us, punish us, what-ever-way, they consider fit! We were not to write letters like that, words, that they did not wanted to hear. When we write, they would not send them out! Writing letter was actually useless…They would have been thrown in the garbage. Those of us, who wrote the way we did, became no good. We were told that we lied to our mothers. And to our fathers. They had all of us, tied to their hands. They also held on to our thoughts. When I say, I mean, the Grey Nuns, the priests, and others, who were looking after us. They said, ‗you have to be like this‘ (in Kunuk 2008, para. 46 and 48).

Kremmidjuar‘s comments reiterate the difficulties residential school survivors have with sharing their experiences and stories with others. Hopefully, testimonials such as

Kremmidjuar‘s will help expose the atrocities committed to young Inuit boys and girls by state-sponsored Church-administered schools and be of some benefit to survivors who have yet to begin the healing process.

Despite decades of assimilation and attempted cultural genocide, many

Indigenous nations have been able to retain some of their cultural teachings and languages, although some tribes have been more fortunate (Cree) than others (Beothuk).

Several National Aboriginal Organizations (NAOs), such as the Assembly of First

Nations (AFN), the Métis National Council (MNC) and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

(ITK), have called on the federal government to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which advocated for the practice, protection and freely transmission of Indigenous languages. As stated earlier, the federal government has yet to commit to that request. In spite of the federal government‘s response,

Indigenous culture and languages remain important attributes to understanding

Indigeneity and will be examined in greater detail in Chapters Three and Four.

The cultural attachment Indigenous peoples have traditionally cultivated with the land cannot be overstated. As I have demonstrated, Indigenous peoples have a unique relationship to the land that has bewildered Westerns Europeans upon their arrival to

Turtle Island. The concept of private property ownership was foreign to Indigenous nations, who collectively acted as caretakers of the land, recognizing that human beings were simply one tiny piece of an interconnected and interdependent universe where all living organisms depended on one another for survival. That special connection to the

56 land was evident for the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic and the Innu of Québec and Labrador, for example, who began to suffer higher rates of suicide, depression and domestic abuse after having been relocated to settlement areas, causing a cultural disconnect directly related to their removal from their traditional lands.

Indigenous nations negotiating land claim agreements with the federal government continue to be pressured by private industries who want to engage in massive natural resource extraction with the promises of providing economic development opportunities and jobs to cooperative Indigenous nations. As I will demonstrate in

Chapters Three and Four, both the Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation are under pressure to improve the qualities of life for its peoples, the Nisga‘a Nation going so far as to enact a revolutionary and potentially dangerous piece of legislation in the area of private property ownership.

The four principles essential to understanding Indigeneity, gender, Elders, culture and language, and land, illustrates the uniqueness from which Indigeneity derives itself from and helps to explain the difficulties Western Europeans have in understanding a culture and philosophy so different from their own. These difficulties arose from

Eurocentric and diffusionistic principles embedded in the Western European psyche, a mentality that saw non-European cultures as inferior and non-progressive.

Having differentiated and explained the rationale behind both Indigeneity and

Western European thought, the four principles crucial to understanding Indigeneity will be applied to two CLCAs in Chapters Three and Four: the 1993 Nunavut Land Claim

Agreement (NLCA) and the 1999 Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA). By analyzing both land claims agreements with reference to the four Indigenous principles, I will

57 demonstrate that due to a lack of long-term financial investments required to deliver services, the Government of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have had difficulties maintaining their indigenous values, and, as a result, have not been able to improve their

quality of life.

Chapter Three A Commitment Reneged: Transitional Funding in the Government of Nunavut

On April 1, 1999, Inuit of the Eastern Arctic formally entered Euro-Canadian

Confederation when the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (NLCA) officially came into effect. After more than 25 years of discussions, Inuit peoples finally reclaimed a territory they could call their own, Nunavut (See Appendix D). The signing of the NLCA in 1993 concluded an exhausting and lengthy negotiations process between representatives of the federal government, the Northwest Territories (NWT) and Inuit negotiators. The NLCA achieved two historical and significant accomplishments for Inuit: first, a comprehensive land claim agreement (CLCA); and second, the reclaiming of an Inuit territory and self- government.

Eleven years have passed since this historic agreement came into effect. Despite their initial excitement, several questions remain. Has the NLCA lived up to the collective expectations of Inuit in Nunavut? Have Inuit values been maintained during the transition from pre-to-post agreement? Has Inuit quality of life improved? By analyzing four

Indigenous themes (gender, Elders, culture and language, and land), I will demonstrate that the NLCA has yet to live-up to the expectations of the Nunavut‘s Inuit peoples.

Pre-contact

Inuit of the Eastern Arctic, like many of their Indigenous counterparts in the pre- contact period, lived a traditional lifestyle where both Inuit men and women were widely respected and considered equals, both within the immediate family and by the community. Inuit gender relations were ―situational and contextual‖ rather than ―fixed and binary,‖ a common characteristic found in Western European societies (Trott 2006,

97 and 106). Inuit men and women would assume different responsibilities and roles based on the situation. Emphasis was placed on the collective good rather than individual needs. As a nomadic people, Inuit freely traveled the Eastern Arctic, following animal migration patterns for sustenance while respecting the land that made it possible for their survival. Inuit respect for the land was based on an interconnected and interdependent relationship with nature that remains in constant motion, constantly evolving.

Inuit men and women equally participated in the hunt and jointly formulated decisions based on the best interests of the community. Both men and women had important roles regarding the hunt. As Reimer notes, the women acted as ―keepers of the camp and men as keepers of the land‖ (in Minor 2002, 71), although these roles would and could overlap depending on the needs and wants of the group. As keepers of the camp, Inuit women would perform many tasks, such as processed skins, sewed clothing, raised dogs, and gathered food. As keepers of the land, Inuit men would also run dog sleds, build igloos, make tools, and sewed (Minor 2002). In addition to sharing hunting responsibilities, Inuit men and women also shared decision-making authorities. Unlike their Euro-Canadian counterparts, Inuit decision-making was community-driven and not based on political and/or institutionalized governmental hierarchies. Occasionally

59 disagreements arose from time to time, but they were often settled collectively in a respectful manner. If a member of the group expressed a concern or problem, that individual would seek the advice and guidance of a community Elder. Moreover, each group or camp would select a leader based on the community‘s best interests. The leader usually went to the most skilled hunter based on her or his ability to provide sustenance for the camp, particularly during peak winter months. As a consultant working with

Minor explains:

Whoever was the most skilled in the camp became the hunter of the camp. And usually it was the male. But without the woman, the man couldn‘t have certainly survived because he couldn‘t have sewed everything that he brought back. So there had to be that quality of respect for each other, but we didn‘t have a structure like band councils in Indian societies. Our elders were our government regardless if they were female or male. If they were elders, you respected them…(2002, 72).

By providing for the entire community, the group or camp leader not only gained the respect of the group, his or her generosity all but guaranteed others to reciprocate when the hunt did not go so well.

Post-contact and Relocation

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the traditional co-equal roles shared by

Inuit men and women were gradually replaced upon the arrival of Western Europeans to their Eastern Arctic homeland. Arctic sovereignty and the perceived threat of the Soviet

Union prompted the federal government to assert its claim to the entire Arctic region and all the untapped resources associated with it. According to Hicks and White, Euro-

Canada‘s sudden interest in the Eastern Arctic was based on the...

...recognition of the Canadian state‘s obligations to aboriginal peoples, coupled with a strongly assimilationist agenda to eliminate the distinctive

elements of aboriginal society; interest in fostering large-scale exploitation of the north‘s mineral and other resources; and desire to solidify Canada‘s disputed claim to sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic archipelago (in Dahl et al. 2000, 47).

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, many Inuit families were relocated to Euro-Canadian settlement areas. These settlements included the presence of the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police (RCMP), the Hudson Bay Company‘s trading post, missionary churches, and military installations (2000, 47). Between 1953 and 1955, the federal government relocated eleven families from Inukjuak (Port Harrison) to two communities in the

Northern Arctic: Resolute and Grise Ford (Henderson 2007, 21). Moreover, many Inuit allege that the RCMP played a role in relocating many Inuit families by systematically slaughtering 20,000 sled dogs ―for the purpose of forcing the Inuit to move into [western] settlements‖ (RCMP Watch 2009). The Qikiqtani Truth Commission is currently investigating these allegations.

With relocation came the arrival of missionaries from various religious dominations whose sole purpose was to civilize young Inuit boys and girls through the establishment of residential schools and attempted cultural genocide. As John Amagoalik, widely known among Inuit as the Father of Nunavut, explains:

Our parents and grandparents experienced a time when their independence and human rights were stolen. There was a time when many Inuit did not have pride in their identity but this is now changing. Inuit have encountered racial discrimination in the past but now reconciliation is underway and Inuit are starting to regain their strengths and pride in who they are (in Owlijoot 2008, 2).

As history has shown, the residential school experience, combined with the patriarchally- imposed Indian Act, have affected multiple generations of Inuit families.

The relocation of Inuit families also had a dramatically negative impact on the traditional roles of men and women. For Inuit women, the relocation to Euro-Canadian

61 settlement sites shifted the responsibilities of women from keepers of the camp to keepers of the household. As a result, ―traditional Inuit self-sufficiency and interdependency were turned upside-down‖ as families ―were moved into larger communities where foreign culture was imposed on them‖ (GN 2007, 5). Having lost much of the control and freedom they once enjoyed, ―traditional social support structures were undermined as the role of elders, family and Inuit societal values were usurped by these new self-appointed authorities and their agencies‖ (GN 2007, 5). This breakdown in family and the social structure would also negatively impact the relationship between Inuit men and women.

Although the relocation from land-based living to federal government constructed homes in relocation sites was challenging for Inuit women, the transition proved to be equally difficult for Inuit men, who were no longer able to hunt as freely on the land as they did previously. This cultural disconnect from the land created a gender imbalance and fuelled frustrations that were largely directed toward Inuit women and their children.

As a result, violence against women and children, sexual assaults and abnormally high suicide rates among Inuit men became frequent occurrences. For example, in 2004 alone,

Nunavut‘s reported crime rate was eight times higher than the Euro-Canadian average.

That same year, the RCMP in Nunavut reported 498 domestic assaults against women and 58 against men (Pauktuutit 2006, 2). According to the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of

Canada, the national voice of Inuit women:

Abusers are often survivors of abuse themselves – abuse that occurred in the community, in residential schools, or in their own families. Abuse creates a cycle of fear, shame, anger, addictions and violence that passes from one generation to the next, from man to woman and from adult to child (2006, 1).

Because of the multiple generations of abuse that occurred as a result of residential schools, violence against Inuit women and children continues to be a problem.

Suicide

From 1999 to 2003, ―the suicide rate in Inuit regions across Canada averaged

135/100,000, over 10 times the national rate‖ (Brass et al. 2007, 14). According to the

Annirusuktugut: A Suicide Intervention and Prevention Strategy for the Government of

Nunavut, ―since April 1, 1999, there have been 553 reported deaths...of those 222 involved Nunavummiut, predominately young males taking their own lives‖ (2007, 3).

This equates to an astonishing 40 per cent deaths attributed to suicide since April 30,

2007 (2007, 3). The Annirusuktugut goes on to state that the 40 per cent deaths associated with suicide...

...[are] the equivalent of 10 classrooms-the population of an entire school- lost, in less than a decade. In 2006 alone there were 26 completed suicides in Nunavut. To put this in perspective, an equal rate in Toronto, Ontario would have resulted in 2,500 suicides in a single year (2007, 3).

Moreover, Inuit men aged 15 to 24 years were ―five times more likely to commit suicide than Inuit women of the same age‖ (Boothroyd et al. in L. Williamson 2006, 59). These figures clearly demonstrate that Inuit are in a time of crisis of epidemic-like proportions.

The abnormally high rates of suicide in Nunavut draw attention to several challenges facing Inuit society. Life expectancy among Inuit men and women continue to be lower compared to the Euro-Canadian average. In 2001, the average life expectancy for Inuit men and women was 64.4 and 69.8 years respectively (Wilkins et al 2008). The average life expectancy for Inuit was 67 years of age, representing the average life expectancy of the Euro-Canadian population in 1946 (2008). In addition, Inuit youth have

63 increasingly developed the perception that hunting was less valuable than ―normal‖ wage economy jobs. According to Laakkuluk Jessen Williamson (2006), many Inuit youth saw hunting as a ―leisure activity.‖ When asked if their fathers were employed, many replied that ―their fathers were not – they only hunted‖ (62). This negative perception of traditional hunting practices exemplifies the disconnect that exists between Inuit youth and pre-contact Inuit lifestyles that can be attributed to the relocation of Inuit families to resettlement areas.

High suicide rates among Inuit men were also influenced by low graduation rates, which result in few employment opportunities. According to Statistics Canada, the secondary graduation rate for Inuit men and women was only 31.6 per cent in 1999/2000;

27 per cent for men and 43 per cent for women (in Williamson 2006, 59). Moreover, the

GN is the territory‘s largest employer; seven out of 10 government employees are women

(Minogue 2005). Furthermore, Inuit women earned $974 more per year than the average

Canadian woman, while Inuit men earned $7,099 less than the average Canadian man

(2005). The data demonstrate that in terms of education and income, Inuit women are better off than Inuit men in education, employment and income. According to Williamson

(2006), in asking Inuit men why there were fewer male high school graduates, more male suicides and high unemployment rates, she received the following response:

The Western life seems to lie in the theoretical realm, while the traditional male lifestyle is much more tactile and pragmatic. To prove themselves as‘ ‗real‘ Inuit men, many young mean leave school in search of that practical and immediately applicable lifestyle. Many get lost in their search and, in the end, lose themselves, making suicide, substance abuse and other forms of abuse, such as physical and sexual violence, an easy alternative (2006, 60).

To make matters worse, unemployment is rampant across Nunavut. Roughly 30 per cent

64 of all Inuit citizens are unemployed; increasing to as high as 70 per cent in more isolated communities (2006, iv). Again, Inuit men are far worse off than their female counterparts. See Table 2 for unemployment statistics based on gender.

Table 2 Unemployment rates for Inuit and non-Inuit adults, aged 25-64, 2006

Group Inuit Non-Inuit ______Geography Male % Female % Male% Female% ______Nunatsiavut 23 15 5 5 Nunavik 45 21 21 0 Nunavut 21 17 8 4 Inuvialuit region 13 15 3 3 ______Total outside land claims 18 13 5 5 ______Source: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2008 Inuit Statistical Profile

It is also important to recognize that traditional hunting practices, conducted primarily by

Inuit men, contribute to their high unemployment rates. As Hicks and White note, ―the continuing importance of these activities to the economies of many Inuit households, means that office work does not appeal to all‖ (in Timpson 2008, 6) and helps to explain some of the difficulties with attracting young Inuit men to the GN‘s workforce. It is less problematic for Inuit women, who often join the workforce so their spouses can hunt on the land.

The Road to Nunavut

The events of the late 1960s and early 1970s had a profound impact on

Indigenous nations across the country. Like many of their Indigenous counterparts, Inuit were staunchly opposed to the federal government‘s proposed White Paper, 1969, and the proposed civilization of Indigenous peoples into mainstream Euro-Canadian society.

Indigenous discontent and unrest prevailed as the Euro-Canadian government abandoned

65 the White Paper’s assimilative policies. However, Indigenous mobilization was used as motivation and aided in the creation of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC), in 1971.

Initially, the ITC was preoccupied with the large scale gas and oil exploration occurring in the Eastern Arctic. However, the SCC‘s 1973 Calder decision proved to be a turning point for the organization‘s long-term objectives. By reaffirming the existence of

Indigenous title, the SCC prompted the Euro-Canadian government to re-examine their land claims policies and begin discussions with Indigenous nations who have not signed treaties with the Crown. Immediately following the Court‘s decision, the ITC launched a land claim feasibility study. As Henderson explains, ―Inuit wanted to ensure that they would benefit from any future development and that the development itself would not harm their environment‖ (2007, 68). The onus on protecting the environment was based on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), an Inuit concept that will be explored in more depth later.

In 1976, the ITC published its proposal for a land claim which also recommended territorial division (2007). Three years later, ITC published a position paper entitled

Political Development in Nunavut. The document proposed a 15 year timeline in which the Eastern Arctic would assume province-hood in three stages: ―first, the recognition of

Nunavut; second, the transfer of territorial powers to the new territory; and third, the conversion of Nunavut into a province‖ (Purich 1992, 69). Six years later, after the inclusion of Indigenous rights via section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, ITC created the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN) to represent all 26 Eastern Arctic communities during any and all negotiating with the Euro-Canadian government

(McElory 2008). After several years of on and off again negotiations, an agreement-in-

66 principle was reached in 1990, ratified two years later and finally signed in 1993 by the

TFN, the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT).

The NLCA is the largest land claim agreement in the history of modern Euro-Canada, covering approximately one-fifth of Turtle Island‘s land mass. The land claim contained several provisions, including land and resource distribution, jurisdiction and representation on committee and wildlife boards, a culturally representative bureaucracy, and the creation of an Inuit-designed government. Highlights of the NLCA included:

1) Title to approximately 350,000 square kilometres of land, of which approximately 38,000 square kilometres include mineral rights; these figures represent surface title to just under 20% of the lands in Nunavut and formations as indicated through mineral research; 2) Priority rights to harvest wildlife for domestic, sports and commercial purposes throughout lands and waters covered by the agreement; 3) A guarantee of the establishment of the three national parks; 4) Equal memberships with government on new institutions of public government established to manage the lands, waters, off-shore, and wildlife of the Nunavut area; these institutions include the Nunavut Wildlife Management Boards, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, and a surface Rights Tribunal; 5) Capital Transfer payments of $1.148B, payable to Inuit over 14 years 6) A 5% share of royalties that government receives from oil, gas, and mineral development on Crown lands; 7) Where Inuit own surface title to lands, the rights to negotiate with industry for impact mitigation and for economic and social benefits from non- renewable resource development; 8) Measures to increase Inuit employment within government in Nunavut to levels representative of the Inuit share of the population, and fair access by Inuit businesses to the government contracting purposes; and, 9) A 13$M training trust fund (Kusugak in Dahl et al. 2000, 21).

Under the provisions of the agreement, the NLCA was a modern-day treaty that was entrenched and received protection under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The

Preamble to the land claim reiterates its four primary objectives:

1) to provide for certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of lands and resources, and of rights for Inuit to participate in decision-making

concerning the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources, including the offshore; 2) to provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to participate in decision making concerning wildlife harvesting; 3) to provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities; and 4) to encourage self-reliance and social well-being of Inuit (INAC 1993, 1).

The long-awaited vision of generations of Inuit Elders and negotiators had finally come to fruition, signifying an end to a long chapter in Inuit-Euro-Canadian relations and the beginning of a new one. This Inuit vision was also predicated on a concept referred to as

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ).

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit

For Inuit, IQ symbolized something more than Inuit Indigenous Knowledge (IK); it symbolized ―the Inuit way of doing things: the past, present and future knowledge, experience and values of Inuit society‖ (IQ Task Force 2002, 4). Through extensive consultation with Inuit Elders, eight guiding principles were developed to help the GN honour and implement the true intent of IQ within the territorial government. The eight guiding principles were defined as follows:

1) Inuuqatigiitsiarniq: respecting others, relationships and caring for people; 2) Tunnganariq: fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming and inclusive; 3) Pijitsirniq: serving and providing for family and/or community; 4) Aajiiqatigiinniq: decision-making through discussion and consensus; 5) Pilimmaksarniq/Pijariuqsarniq: development of skills through practice, effort and action; 6) Piliriqatigiinniq/Ikajuqtigiinniq: working together for a common cause; 7) Qanuqtuurniq: being innovative and resourceful; and 8) Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq: respect and care for the land, animals and the environment (Pinasuaqtavut 2004, 3-4).

Notwithstanding these guiding principles, defining the exact meaning of IQ has been challenging and at times controversial. According to the Department of Culture,

Language, Elders and Youth, ―there is no clear consensus about the meaning of Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit‖(in Timpson 2006, 526). Moreover, there has been tension between public servants who want to focus on IQ in the ―past tense‖ by developing cultural policies which ―highlight Inuit connection to the land,‖ while there are others who want to focus on a more ―contemporary‖ meaning by ensuring IQ is set ―in the present and future tense, merging the old and the new…‖ (Arnakak in Timpson 2006, 526). Despite these challenges, IQ remains a focal point of Inuit life and a priority within the GN.

The NLCA was a historical accomplishment for generations of Inuit Elders and negotiators who lobbied the Euro-Canadian government on behalf of their peoples to recognize their distinct rights as Indigenous nations. Eleven years after the land claim came into effect, Inuit continue to face many challenges. However, two important questions must be asked. The first, does the NLCA truly reflect the collective values of

Inuit? Moreover, has quality of life become worse, remained the same, or improved for

Inuit since the NLCA came into effect? In an attempt to answer these questions, the four main principles to Indigeneity will be examined: gender, Elders, culture and language, and land.

Dual-member Dual-gender Constituencies

One of the most fundamental differences between Indigeneity and Western-

European thought was gender relations. Before the NLCA officially came into effect in

1999, the Nunavut Implementation Commission (NIC) made a series of recommendations, including the territorial government‘s structure and gender composition. In an attempt to restore pre-contact gender relations found in traditional

Inuit society, the NIC recommended and sought public consultation on the following proposals:

1) the precise size of the first Nunavut Legislative Assembly; 2) two-member constituencies; 3) guarantees of male and female representation on the Assembly; and 4) the direct election of the Nunavut Government Leader (NIC 1995).

The dual-member dual-gendered constituencies‘ proposal caused the most controversy.

To clarify the Commission‘s position, the NIC released a discussion paper on the proposal in a document entitled Footprints in New Snow. In an attempt to reconcile the need for both increased female representation and female decision-making authority commonly found in the pre-contact era, the discussion paper advocated the following:

One simple way of structuring the Nunavut Legislative Assembly both: to ensure that it is of sufficient size to function smoothly; and to guarantee balanced participation of men and women;

[was to] have two-member constituencies for the existing electoral districts, with one seat being held by a man and the other being held by a woman (NIC 1994).

In 1997, a territorial-wide plebiscite was held to decide the dual-member, dual-gender proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by a margin of 57 per cent to 43 per cent (Bourgeois and Wilkin 1997), much to the Commission‘s disappointment.

Despite receiving support from all three signatories of the NLCA, two misconceptions hampered the proposal‘s success. First, the belief that men would vote for men and women would vote for women exclusively; and second, that gender parity would unnecessarily increase the size of the legislature, and thus, increase the financial burden of the territory (Hicks and White 2000, 70). Both opponents and proponents alike launched territory-wide media campaigns in their efforts to influence the electorate the day of the plebiscite. Supporters argued a gender equal legislature would ―return to the

70 values of traditional Inuit society, in which families were built on an equal division of labour between men and women‖ (2000, 73). Those opposed to the proposal argued that gender was irrelevant. As Theresa Tungilik explained, ―the Yes side was painting a picture that we had to have a man and a woman, but the No side said it doesn‘t matter as long as we have good representation‖ (Bourgeois and Wilkin 1997). Another contributing factor to the proposal‘s defeat was the low voter turnout. A dismal 39 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots on the day of the plebiscite. Many have speculated that low voter turnout was due to the day the plebiscite was held. It was the belief that many Inuit were out on the land. Tungilik reiterated that sentiment, ―I definitely would expect a low turnout in the month of May…explaining it‘s the month when Inuit families feel drawn to the land to hunt and fish‖ (1997). Others have their theories about the proposal‘s failure.

According to Nicole Gombay, the proposal failed because ―the Inuit public either did not like or did not understand what the political elite were doing and punished them with what seemed to be a lack of interest‖ (in Williamson 2006, 58). Another theory, proposed by Jack Hicks, suggests that ―people were turned off by the bitter and sometimes ugly debate in what had been an otherwise smooth transition into a new territory. People thought this was dirty politics, something they did not want to get involved in‖ (in

Williamson 2006, 59). Another theory proposed by Hicks suggests that the GNWT had a role to play, ―when gender parity became an active issue, the NWT decided to step into the arena and derail the Nunavut train. They were a powerful influence that led to the ruin of the gender parity proposal‖ (in Williamson 2006, 59). Although the dual-member dual- gender idea was rejected, the discussion that erupted as a result served a purpose as other jurisdictions took notice. As Lisa Young (1997) explains:

Although the Nunavut legislative assembly will not be elected through this system, the public debate over the proposal may have contributed to a subtle rethinking of the merits of electoral systems that consistently produce legislatures that under-represent women and other groups (313).

While the proposal was narrowly defeated, the idea would surface yet again in the immediate aftermath of Nunavut‘s third general election.

Territory Elections

On February 15, 1999, Inuit made history by electing 19 men and women to

Nunavut‘s first Legislative Assembly. Of the eligible 12,210 voters, approximately 88 per cent turned out on voting day to cast their ballot (GNWT 1999). In total, 71 candidates put their names forward, including 11 women and seven non-Inuit men (Hicks and White

2000). All candidates ran as independents, a model incorporated from the NWT. Despite its historic moment, the election outcome reaffirmed the worries expressed by members of the NIC. Of the 19 members elected to Nunavut‘s first Legislative Assembly, 18 were men. Coincidently enough, the lone female elected was Manitok Thompson, a vocal opponent of the dual-member dual-gender proposal just two years earlier. Nunavut‘s second territorial election held on February 16, 2004, yielded similar results. An astounding 93.7 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots on Election Day (CBC

Nunavut Votes 2008). Of the ten women who put their names on the ballot, two were elected: Leona Aglukkag, who won the riding of Nattilik; and Levinia Brown, who took the riding of Ranklin Inlet South-Whale Cove (Bell 2004). Of the 81 candidates who presented themselves, 17 men and two women were elected to Nunavut‘s second legislature. Although female representation doubled from the previous election, Inuit

72 women significantly lacked the representation they would have had if the dual-gender constituency proposal had passed.

On October 27, 2008, the residents of Nunavut voted in their third general election. Despite the small improvement made in 2004, Inuit women continued to be disproportionally represented in Nunavut‘s territorial government. Of the 40 candidates seeking public office, only nine were women. Of those nine, only one woman was successful: Eva Aariak. Elected in the riding of Iqaluit Centre, Aariak expressed her disappointment in being the lone woman elected to the legislature:

Many women in the communities across Nunavut are the bread-winners in a home. They have a lot of things on their plate, as a mother in the home, also working outside of their home…There‘s just not enough support for them, let alone the lack of daycare facilities at this time, which is a crisis that does not ease the situation (McKenzie 2008).

The question of support for female candidates, particularly those with children, is not a new phenomenon. It has been a common problem vocalized by both Indigenous and non-

Indigenous women across the country. The need for child and daycare supports for female candidates is further amplified due to the long distances between communities.

Manitok Thompson reiterates the problems candidates with children have:

I think there is a lot of truth to that up here in the North because the distances are so far from one community to the other. You cannot just get in your car and drive home for the week-end. You can‘t do that. So we have more local women politicians that don‘t travel. And when it becomes sort of a traveling political life, the men are the ones that will take that role…Once you have become a mother and you have children, you can‘t just hop in your car and drive down the road and go home in three hours or something. That‘s a real big barrier. And it is a lot more stressful being a mother in a political job like this (Minor 2002, 86).

Both Aariak and Thompson‘s comments indicated that little has changed in terms of providing additional services, such as childcare, to increase the level of political

73 participation among Inuit women. Furthermore, shortly after the 2008 territorial election,

Aariak went so far as to suggest that the gender parity proposal defeated in a 1997 plebiscite should be reconsidered, stating that ―since the results came out [this] way, then perhaps that is something that people should revisit‖ (CBC News 2008). Quillit Nunavut

Status of Women acting president Neevee Wilkins echoed Aariak‘s comments, ―We‘re very proud to have Eva Aariak elected…but it‘s a situation where we have only 5.3% of the representation now in the legislature‖ (McKenzie 2008). As these comments demonstrate Inuit women continue to be under-represented in Nunavut‘s Legislative

Assembly and marginalized in the decision-making process.

Notwithstanding these challenges, many Inuit women have assumed various leadership roles in organizations and at the municipal level. Notable prominent Inuit leaders include former Ambassador Mary Simon, President of the Inuit Tapirit Kanatami

(ITK); Elisapee Sheutiapik, the first female Mayor of Iqaluit (entering third term) and former candidate for the territorial riding of Iqaluit West; the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq,

Member of Parliament and federal Minister of Health; and the Hon. Eva Aariak, Premier of Nunavut. Although the dual-gender dual constituency proposal was initially rejected, if

Inuit want to achieve gender equality and improve the current state of gender relations in

Nunavut, then re-examining the proposed dual-member dual-gender constituency model is worth exploring. If the Indian Act institutionalized patriarchal Chief and Council governments on designated reserve lands, than re-institutionalizing traditional gender equality through dual-gendered dual member constituencies is an appropriate action to take. Moreover, the inclusion of a gender provision in the NLCA may have also drawn

74 more attention to the need of gender equality that is currently lacking in the Nunavut legislature.

Furthermore, the Nunavut Legislative Assembly is also based on a Western

European Westminster model of governance, a model developed by old white wealthy men whose depiction of women as inferior beings puts into question the rationale for embracing such a system all together. As Henderson (2007) notes, ―the institutions initially established in the territorial north were little tailored to a territorial reality‖ (168).

Moreover, the establishment of Western European institutions in the Eastern Arctic is further epitomized in the discussion of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board

(NWMB). As White (2006) explains, while the NWMB has tried to incorporate IQ in the decision-making process, the structure and operation of boards continue to be rooted in

Western European composition (2006, 407). The structure and operations of both the GN and the NWMB demonstrate that although Nunavut may be an Inuit territory, it is still largely operated by Western European influences and structures.

Interestingly, in March, 2010, India‘s Upper House of Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a bill that would reserve one-third of legislative seats for women. Known as the Women’s Reservation Bill, if passed, the legislation would ―raise the number of female legislators in the 545-seat lower house to 181 from the current

59…[and] quadruple the number of women in the 250-seat upper house‖ (Sharma, 2010).

Although it is unclear whether or not the legislation will be adopted, discussions of gender representation in the political arena may spark other jurisdictions, including

Nunavut, to re-examine the notion of gender inclusion.

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit

As important as gender equality and respect was in traditional Inuit life, equally important to the function of Inuit society was the advice and guidance provided by Inuit

Elders. By sharing their life experiences through oral storytelling, Elders would transfer their knowledge to both adults and youth alike. Having recognized the difficulties with implementing IQ across all government departments, the GN created an advisory board that would not only provide assistance to departments with the implementation of IQ, it would also examine government legislation and policies to ensure Inuit values were respected and taken into consideration. In recognition of the significant contributions

Inuit Elders made in the development of IQ, the GN announced the creation of an Elders

Council during its 2002/03 budgetary address. Referred to by some as the ―new parents‖ of Nunavut (George 2003), the Council was renamed to the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit

Katimajiit (IQK) shortly thereafter. Its mandate was to ―provide advice and assistance to the government on how to incorporate IQ, or Inuit language and culture, into its operations‖ (2003). In addition to the role of IQK, an interdepartmental committee known as Inuit Qajuimajatuqangit Tuttarviit (IQT) was created to help IQK develop ―IQ related initiatives for the Government of Nunavut‖ (IQ Task Force 2002, 11). Referred to as ―IQ coordinators,‖ representatives from IQT were assigned to each government department to aid with the implementation of IQ policies. IQK – IQT co-initiatives included oral history and terminology collection, where the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and

Youth (CLEY) began collecting oral stories and recorded terminology at risk of being lost with the passing of Elders; language preservation, protection, and support; a Nunavut archaeology program; and the development of a Nunavut Heritage Centre (2002, 11).

The recording of Inuit knowledge is an important aspect of cultural preservation that is essential to the long-term survival of Inuit culture.

The establishment of IQK and their advisory role to the GN in the implementation of IQ-related programming is a positive step to ensure Inuit culture is reflected in the daily operations of government. Although IQK does not have formal decision-making authority, departmental coordinators and Elders are significantly involved in the policy making process. For example, Nunavut‘s Department of Environment (Avatiliqiyikkut)

South Baffin Caribou management planning includes Inuit hunters and Elders, whose decades of experience in tracking animal migration patterns have provided valuable information that will help in the conservation and management of caribou in the region

(Department of Environment 2005). The management of South Baffin Caribou serves as an example of how policy makers, both elected and appointed, can aid in revitalizing the transmission of Inuit knowledge to youth who are disconnected from traditional hunting practices and other traditional techniques relating to culture and language.

In addition to the IQK, a program called Paaraqtuqtut, meaning ―meeting on the trail,‖ was created by a group of Elders, known as the Inullariit Society (IS), in 1993

(Takano 2005, 465). Prior to the birth of Nunavut, many Inuit Elders recognized the importance of passing on their teachings to the next generation of Inuit youth. Through

Paaraqtuqtut, Inuit youth ranging from the ages of 17-30 were given the opportunity to experience land-skills training from experienced Elders who have continued to hunt on the land in spite of the federal government‘s relocation policies in years previous. Inuit youth were taught a variety of skills, including tracking hunting and migration patterns, land names, snow formation, weather prediction, and hazard recognition. The necessity

77 of programs serve as a reminder of the on-going disconnects many Inuit youth have with the land. Many Inuit youth have not lived in land-based environments and have only experienced settlement-based lifestyles. As one Elder explained it during the retreat:

In winter when I get senior boys we go out into the blizzard to make themselves build an igloo. Because the life is not cheery and beautiful everyday, you know, you have to…go ups and downs. Bad weather and surviving in the harsh environment is what makes you an Inuk… (MU interview 23 May 2002 in Takano, 474).

Moreover, the GN created the Maligarnit Qimirrujiit, or Nunavut Law Reform

Commission, whose mandate was to review all laws the territorial government inherited from the GNWT. Premier at the time, Paul Okalik, described the Commission‘s objectives as to ―‗identify laws that [were] inconsistent with the visions and goals of

Nunavummiut: laws that are not in keeping with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangi‘‖ (Legislative

Assembly of Nunavut in Timpson 2006, 94). Commissioners had no academic or legal training; rather, they were Elders with a deep and profound understanding of traditional

Inuit values who examined inherited laws from a cultural point of view. For example,

―the Commission pointed out that the non-Inuit practice of naming buildings for deceased persons is contrary to traditional Inuit culture and offensive to Inuit elders‖ (Nunavut

Law Reform Commission in Timpson 2006, 94).

In addition, Elders are also involved in the restorative justice component of the

Nunavut Court of Justice, where ―Elders and Justices of the Peace (JPs) sit with the Judge in the courtroom and are given the opportunity to speak with the accused following sentencing submissions and prior to the passing of the sentence‖ (Nunavut Court of

Justice 2010, para. 12). Elders operate on-the-land programs in order to aid in the offender‘s rehabilitation. Examples include Elders bringing offenders ―into the bush to

78 hunt, trap and live off the land in traditional ways‖ with the intention of giving the offender the opportunity to reclaim ―his/her traditional roots, increase attachment to the land and to improve traditional skills‖ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Adventure 2010). Similar to the management of South Baffin Caribou, Elder participation in the Nunavut Court of

Justice is another example of how policy makers, law enforcement and IQ can be work together to improve the quality of life of Nunavut citizens.

Despite the level of Elder participation within the GN, many Elders are having difficulties in transmitting IQ and IK to young Inuit, not only because of lifestyle changes as a result of state-imposed relocation in the 1950s, but also because of the effects of climate change. According to Johnson (2009), ―Elders worry that their knowledge is not as ‗valuable‘ as it once was because they are no longer able to predict whether conditions are safe for travel with the same accuracy as in the past‖ (12). The GN must take the concerns of Elders seriously to ensure they feel welcome and can freely express their concerns on issues facing the territory.

Article 23

Just as gender and Elders were important attributes of the Inuit culture, the celebration and preservation of its unique culture and language was and continues to be an essential component of Inuit Indigeneity. Because of their geographical location and later contact with Western Europeans, Inuit have been fortunate enough to maintain and preserve their culture and language relative to other Indigenous nations across Turtle

Island. According to ITK statistics, roughly 69 per cent are able to converse in one of four Inuit dialects (Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuttitut, and Inuvialuktun), 50 per cent used

79 the Inuit language the most at home, and 64 per cent indicated that the Inuit language was their mother tongue (2008, 3). In Nunavut alone, these figures were 91 per cent, 64 per cent, and 83 per cent respectfully (2008, 3). The data suggest that the Inuit remain linguistically strong, relative to other Indigenous nations across Turtle Island. More importantly, the data also suggest that based on the region‘s strong linguistic population, the implementation of Article 23 is possible provided that a long-term and viable culturally-appropriate bilingual education is properly funded, maintained and supported by both the federal government and the GN.

Inuit linguistic strength was based, in part, due to their geographical remoteness.

The harsh natural environment and the perceived lack of natural resources meant that the land itself served as a natural barrier to colonialism and Euro-Canadian policies that had affected other Indigenous nations much earlier, such as the Mi‘kmaq in modern-day

Atlantic Canada. Nonetheless, Inuit were not exempt from the brutality and destructive nature of state-sponsored colonialism. As described earlier in Chapter Three, from the mid-1950s onwards, the federal government became increasingly interested in the

Eastern Arctic, particularly its role in national defence during the Second World War.

The objective of Article 23 ―[was] to increase Inuit participation in government employment…to a level representative of the Inuit population‖ (INAC 1993, 191-192).

As Timpson (2006) explains, the goal of the GN was to develop ―an ethnically representative and culturally sensitive bureaucracy‖ (519) representative of Nunavut‘s population. This vision was based on the recommendations brought forth in the Bathurst

Mandate, or Pinasuaqtavut: that which we’ve set out to do. (Bathurst Mandate 1999). The

Pinasuaqtavut outlined the government‘s long-term commitment to the people of

Nunavut, stating by 2020, Nunavut would become ―a fully functional bilingual society, in

Inuktitut and English,‖ that it would respect ―the needs and rights of French speakers,‖ and that ―Inuktitut, in all forms, [would be] the working language‖ of government (1999).

To bridge the educational gap, Article 23 also included the ―merit‖ provision, which provided job description flexibilities that would take into consideration the

―understanding of social and cultural milieu of the Nunavut Settlement Area‖ (INAC

1993, 193). If successful, Nunavut‘s bilingual workforce could become a model to which many other Indigenous nations could look to.

According to statistics from Nunavut‘s Department of Human Resources, over a nine-year period, Inuit occupied a high percentage of lower-level and administrative positions relative to those available in middle and upper management. Table 1 provides a complete breakdown. Although Article 23 was good in theory, the reality was that most

GN positions required well-educated and preferably bilingual Inuit professionals.

Table 1 Percentage of Inuit employees in Government Boards, Corporations, and Departments, 1999-2008

June 1999 June 2004 June 2008 ______Executive 61% 50% 55% Senior Management 22% 23% 26% Middle Management 24% 20% 24% Professional 41% 24% 27% Paraprofessional 47% 59% 69% Administrative Support 64% 86% 94% ______Total Employees 44% 46% 52% ______Source: Government of Nunavut, Human Resources, 2004b: 19; 2008b: 19

Nowhere in the NLCA does it make reference to a long-term education funding arrangement required to develop the comprehensive bilingual education Article 23 requires. The only funding allocated for training Inuit for public service employment was the ―creation of a $39.8 million Nunavut Unified Human Resources Development

Strategy (NUHRDS), funded by the federal government as part of the $150 million start- up budget allocated for the creation of Nunavut‖ (Timpson 2008, 4). Frustrated by the lack of commitment by the federal government to provide additional resources in Inuit employee training and education, the GN and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), which represent the Inuit of Nunavut and the beneficiaries with respect to the land and resources associated with NLCA (Berger 2006, ii), hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to calculate the cost of failing to implement an ethnically representative bureaucracy in

Nunavut. According to their 2003 report, The Cost of Not Successfully Implementing

Article 23: Representative Employment for Inuit within the Government:

Inuit would have earned $258 million in compensation if Article 23 had been fully implemented. Due to their under-representation in Government, particularly in the high paying positions, $123 million of this compensation is expected to go to non-Inuit in 2003. The total value in lost wages, if representation rates remain at their current level, is estimated to be $2.5 billion over the next 18 years...(PricewaterhouseCoopers 2003, 9).

Moreover, the report goes on to suggest:

Full implementation of Article 23 would ensure that Inuit have the power to develop and administer Government policies in a manner consistent with Inuit values and culture, in direct proportion to the percentage of the population that they represent; and...that Inuit receive their fair share of Government funding resources, as per the requirement that the Representative Level be achieved at all occupational groups and grade levels (2003, 15).

The PricewaterhouseCoppers‘ report demonstrates that with each passing day, the GN and its citizens are losing out on much needed revenue that could have been reinvested in the areas of education and employee training, resulting in an overall improvement of Inuit quality of life. The failure of the federal government to recognize this reality can be viewed as an attempt to renege on its responsibilities to aid in the education and employment transition required for Article 23 and the NLCA to be successful.

Bilingual Education

Former Justice Thomas R. Berger, appointed to the position of Conciliator in

2005 to resolve the impasse between the federal government, GN and NTI on how to update and amend the Nunavut Implementation Contract. In Berger‘s view, education and employment go hand in hand. According to his 2006 Conciliator's Final Report:

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Implementation Planning Contract Negotiations for the

Second Planning Period, Berger argued that...

...only a robust and effective system of bilingual education can provide the foundation for the fulfillment of the objective of Article 23...[If] Nunavut students have first and second language skills by the time they complete their schooling, they will be able to maintain their identity and their culture, and at the same time be equipped to enter government or private sector employment (2006, 30).

The problem has not been the lack of effort on behalf of the GN to achieve these goals.

Rather, ―only 25 per cent of Inuit children graduate from high school, and by no means

[do] all these graduates go on to post-secondary education‖ (2006, iii). The areas in most need of Inuit employment–executive and management positions–are those that require post-secondary education and mentorship. Moreover, the GN inherited an education system from the GNWT which ―emphasized English at the expense of Inuktitut‖ (Berger

2006, v). Currently, Inuktitut is the language of instruction from kindergarten to grade four, but is abandoned completely in favour of English from grade five onwards (2006).

Another barrier is that only 35 per cent of teachers are fluent in Inuktitut (2006, 31). As a result, many Inuit youth are neither proficient in either Inuktitut or English, which

―reinforces the colonial message of inferiority‖ that many Indigenous peoples face today

(2006, v). As Ejetsiak Peter, chairman of the Cape Dorset Education Authority explains,

―the children who drop out have not developed the skills to live off the land, neither do they have employment skills. So they are caught between two worlds‖ (2006, iv).

Moreover, in Berger‘s (2006) view...

...the failure of the school system has occurred most of all because the education system is not one that was set up for a people speaking Inuktitut. It is a bilingual system in name only, one that produces young adults who, by and large, cannot function properly in either English (because they never catch up with the English curriculum) or Inuktitut (because they learn only an immature version of their first language before switching to English) (vi).

Without immediate action, the likelihood for success among young Inuit men and women is highly unlikely.

To combat unemployment trends, Berger has advocated for a model of bilingual education that emphasizes the importance of both English and Inuktitut, not the former at the expense of the latter. Berger‘s bilingual model contained four elements:

1) An Inuktitut head start type pre-school program; 2) Grades K-3: 100 percent in Inuktitut with the option of one English as a Second Language (ESL) period per day; 3) Grades 4-8: Inuktitut used for the main academic subjects and English used for two periods per day with a focus on developing conversational skills; and 4) Grades 9-12: both Inuktitut and English could be used for academic subjects but students would take a minimum of one-language arts period and one other subject in each language (2006, 48-49).

Under the proposed model, Inuktitut would not be abandoned as a language of instruction, giving Inuit a great opportunity to learn English while maintaining their culture and language.

In order to successfully implement a bilingual education model that would achieve the culturally appropriate and ethnically representative bureaucracy outlined in

Article 23, Berger called for an ―additional investment of $20 million per annum‖ (2006,

40) in the areas of curricula development and teacher training. Moreover, Berger argued

84 that the bulk of the funds would have to come from the federal government ―over and above what Nunavut receives through Territorial Funding Formula Financing‖ and would have to be ―targeted funding, not to be devoted to any other territorial priorities‖ (2006,

41). Although the federal government established a working group to respond to Berger‘s report, Prime Minister Harper responded by saying ―education itself is a responsibility of the territory,‖ and that ―if Ottawa gives Nunavut any extra money for education, it will do so within a new territorial funding formula...‖ (Bell 2006). The federal government‘s response and the impasse on implementation negotiations prompted the NTI to launch a

$1 billion lawsuit against the Euro-Canadian government, ―alleging that Ottawa has violated the Nunavut land claim agreement by failing to carry out its implementation responsibilities‖ (Nunatsiaq News 2006). Notwithstanding NTI‘s lawsuit and Berger‘s

2006 report, it has become abundantly clear that the federal government has reneged on its responsibility to assist the GN in its educational transition post-NLCA.

Language Protection

In an effort to highlight the importance and presence of Inuktitut in the education system, the GN enacted the Education Act in the fall of 2008. Section 1 (1) states that

―the public education system in Nunavut shall be based on Inuit societal values and the principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit‖ (2008, 2). Moreover, Section 23 (1) states: ―Every student shall be given a bilingual education and the languages of instruction shall be the Inuit Language and either English or French as determined by a district education authority with respect to the schools under its jurisdiction‖ (2008, 15).

To complement the Education Act, the GN also passed the Official Languages Act and

85 the Inuit Languages Protection Act. It was thought that the two Acts would help reinforce the GN‘s commitment to both bilingual education and the preservation and practice of

Inuktitut. The Official Languages Act affirmed that:

Contrary to past practice in which the Inuit Language was legally, socially and culturally subordinated in government and elsewhere, it is desirable that the Inuit Language be recognized as:

(a) the indigenous language of Nunavut; (b) the spoken and preferred language of a majority of Nunavummiut; (c) a defining characteristic of the history and people of Nunavut, and of the Inuit as a people of the wider circumpolar world; and (d) a necessary element in the improvement of the Inuit social, economic and cultural well-being, as contemplated by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the development of the public service, and of government policies, programs and services, as contemplated by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (2008, 1).

The Official Languages Act also provided language equality in the Legislative Assembly and the judicial system. Other provisions included the publication of all documents, notices, and signs from public bodies to be published in all three languages. The purpose of the Inuit Language Protection Act was:

Determined to respond to the pressures confronting the Inuit Language by ensuring that the quality and prevalent use of the Inuit Language are protected and promoted, and the Inuit Language is affirmed as

(a) a language of education, in a system that in both its design and effect strives to equip Inuit children to enter adult life as world citizens having a rich knowledge of the Inuit Language and full ability to participate in the day-to-day life, development and cultural vibrancy of their communities and homeland, a language of work in territorial institutions, and a necessary element in the development of a representative and appropriate public service environment in Nunavut, and (b) the full and representative participation of the Inuit of Nunavut in the economic opportunities and development of Nunavut, and (c) a language used daily in services and communication with the public throughout all sectors of Nunavut society (2008, 1-2).

Although all three Acts have demonstrated the GN‘s commitment to preserving and practicing Inuktitut, as well as developing and implementing a bilingual education system, it cannot achieve this objective alone. As Berger‘s report indicated, the federal government must honour the spirit of the NLCA and invest additional dollars into transitional training and education for the three aforementioned Acts to have any significant meaning.

Land

The final Indigenous principle fundamental to the analysis of NLCA‘s success is the relationship between Inuit and their traditional lands. Despite decades of lobbying by

Inuit negotiators and representatives on the importance of traditional Inuit lands, the

NLCA has accepted the federal government‘s request to cede and surrender a significant portion of their traditional territory in exchange for the CLCA. Paragraph 2.7.1 of the

NLCA‘s General Provisions states:

In consideration of the rights and benefits provided to Inuit by the Agreement, Inuit hereby:

(a) cede, release and surrender to Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, all their aboriginal claims, rights, title and interests, if any, and to lands and waters anywhere in Canada and adjacent offshore areas within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Canada; and

(b) agree, on their behalf, and on the behalf of their heirs, descendents and successors not to assert any cause of action, action for a declaration, claim or demand of whatever kind or nature which they ever had, now have or may hereafter have against Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada or any province, the government of any territory or any person based on any aboriginal claims, rights, title or interests in and to lands and waters described in Sub-section (a) (1993, 12).

The words cede, release and surrender were the complete opposite of the recommendations brought forth by the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which advocated for a model of treaty negotiations that did not require Indigenous nations to surrender or extinguish their rights and title. Paragraph 2.24 reads as follows:

The federal government establishes a process for making new treaties to replace the existing comprehensive claims policy, based on the following principles:

(a) The blanket extinguishment of Aboriginal land rights is not an option;

(b) Recognition of rights of governance is an integral component of new treaty relationships;

(d) Treaty nations that are parties to peace and friendship treaties that did not purport to address land and resource issues have access to the treaty-making process to complete their treaty relationships with the Crown (1996 Appendix A).

Having to surrender a substantial portion of traditional Inuit territory in exchange for the land claim agreement and territorial government is completely at odds with the historical position of Indigenous nations around the world.

Notwithstanding the acceptance of cede and surrender provisions outlined in the

NLCA, Inuit must also deal with the side effects of climate change that has dramatically altered and reduced their traditional homelands. According to GN‘s 2003 Nunavut

Climate Change Strategy, the Arctic ice has thinned by nearly 40 per cent over the last 30 years, in addition to disturbing and disrupting animal habitats dependent on colder climates (2003, 6). As one witness explained...

...while weather is more uncertain and unpredictable these days, hila will continue to change and so people will have to go along with the weather... People will adapt, but this will not be easy for the Inuit who have long

depended on their observations of the weather to survive (2003, 6).

The GN itself is experiencing several challenges in their attempts to combat the forces of climate changes. For example, in 2001, Nunavut‘s total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) were forecasted to be 743 kilo-tonnes (kt) (2003, 8). Based on its current projections, the

GN is predicting that by 2013, GHG emissions could be 23 per cent higher than 1990 levels (2003, 8). Dependence on petroleum to produce electricity for heating and transportation costs is viewed as the main obstacles to confronting this problem.

Despite these difficulties, Inuit are a resilient people, having adapted to and survived the Arctic‘s harsh, and at times, unpredictable climate. Inuit adaptability is based on their IK and land-based skills. Inuit hunters rely heavily on their land-based skills, which are based on ―knowledge passed down the generations...[and] from repeated personal experience and observation‖ (Ford et al. 2006, 155). This allows hunters to learn from the inherent dangers associated from hunting and how to evaluate risks.

To further complicate matters, Inuit must also be weary of land developments and resource extraction for economic development purposes. This is no better exemplified by the evolution of NTI‘s uranium policy. Prior to 2006, NTI was adamantly opposed to uranium mining in the Baker Lake region because of a lack of economic and employment benefits, in addition to the potential health impacts on neighbouring communities (Wang

2006, 539). Moreover, NTI had gone so far as to ban uranium mining on its lands, ―a policy which was based on the Inuit Circumpolar Conference declaration of the Arctic as a nuclear-free zone‖ (2006, 538). However, after 2006, this attitude changed. The rise of uranium prices and the need for economic development in the Eastern Arctic made the

NTI reconsider its position. According to a May 5th, 2006 headline in the Nunatsiaq

News, ―NTI endorses uranium mining on Inuit-owned land: New draft policy embraces nuclear power because it does not release greenhouse gas‖ (2006). The sudden change on uranium development speaks to a more complex issue: pursuing economic development through resource extraction while simultaneously adhering to the principles of IQ. In the

Parnautit: A Foundation for the Future, Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy, the

GN states the eight guiding principles of IQ were ―used to guide the development of the

Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy, and must be kept in mind throughout its implementation‖ (2008, 9). However, the eighth principle, Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq: respect and care for the land, animals and the environment (Pinasuaqtavut 2004, 3-4), is at odds with the mere idea of development and the potential impacts on wildlife.

Conclusion

The exploitation of Nunavut lands in the name of economic development has put the GN in a precarious position. Inuit want to remain loyal to the values and principles associated with Indigeneity and IQ, yet they have been forced to exploit their lands in an attempt to improve their qualities of life and lift them out of an impoverished state created by the Euro-Canadian government. Accepting the cede and extinguishment provisions of the NLCA in exchange for a substantially reduced land-base is enough to question the land claim‘s merit. However, combined with an already diminished territory as a result of climate change and private-sector-driven resource extraction, the Inuit may not have enough ―traditional lands‖ left in the future to call their own.

Has Inuit quality of life declined, remained the same, or improved since the creation of the Nunavut territory? Is the NLCA truly representative of traditional Inuit

90 values and Indigeneity? After careful analysis, I have concluded that because the federal government has reneged on its obligations to provide long-term financial supports necessary for service delivery, such as bilingual education, Inuit of Nunavut have had difficulties maintaining their Indigenous values, and, as a result, have not been able to improve their qualities of life.

The pre-contact period for Inuit was a time of cultural vitalization, community, independence, and traditional practice. Inuit men and women were treated equally with dignity and respect, and important traditions, such as hunting and land-based skills, were regularly practiced and passed down to younger generations through instruction and practice. That world changed dramatically upon the arrival of Western Europeans in the

Eastern Arctic. As I have demonstrated, the cultural and social fabric of Inuit life was forever altered and damaged by state-imposed relocation of Inuit families to settlement areas shortly after the Second World War. As a result, traditional gender equalities and respect were no longer practiced. The cultural disconnect that occurred as a result of removing Inuit from their lands, combined with state-sponsored residential schools, led to an internalized colonial oppression that would manifest externally through violence against women and their children. High rates of domestic abuse, drug addiction, sexual assaults, and suicide, particularly among young Inuit men, would become a regularly occurrence of Inuit life. For example, Inuit men aged 15 to 24 years were ―five times more likely to commit suicide than Inuit women of the same age‖ (Boothroyd et al. in L.

Williamson 59). Moreover, as victims of this externalized violence, Inuit women and their children would later transmit that violence on to their future families, creating an intergenerational transmission of trauma that continues to affect Inuit today.

In the area of gender relations, Inuit have not demonstrated the level of gender equality and respect that was common in the pre-contact period. Despite a few noticeable exceptions, such as current the Hon. Aariak, Premier of Nunavut, Inuit women continue to be disproportionately under-represented in post-NLCA governance. Since Nunavut‘s first general election in 1999, a total of four Inuit women have been elected. In 1997, the residents of Nunavut rejected a proposal that would have created dual-member dual- gender constituencies that would have re-introduced gender equality in the composition of government. The proposal‘s rejection was highlighted immediately following the results of the 2008 general election. Eva Aariak (prior to becoming the territory‘s first female premier) expressed her frustration over the lack of female representation, going so far to suggest that the proposal should be revisited.

The results of Nunavut‘s third territorial election have made it abundantly clear that electoral reform of some kind must be discussed to ensure Inuit women are represented in the post-NLCA government. The current system has not increased the level of female participation, nor has it encouraged women to run for public office. If the

Indian Act institutionalized patriarchal Chief and Council governments on designated reserve lands, than re-institutionalizing traditional gender equality through dual-gendered dual member constituencies is an appropriate action to take. The Nunavut legislature is also based on a Western European Westminster model developed by old white wealthy men who would have historically excluded Indigenous men and women from political participation. Although the GN has incorporated the Council of Elders or Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit, and has established committees for the sole purpose of implementing the principles of IQ throughout government, the legislative model chosen

92 from the outset was a model that historically excluded Indigenous peoples. However, if

Inuit of Nunavut use their model of public government as a decolonization tool, blending the best of both Inuit and non-Inuit perspectives, I believe co-existence is possible.

With respect to culture and language, the GN remains far from achieving Article

23 and its ethnically representative bureaucracy. As highlighted in Thomas R. Berger‘s

2006 report, the federal government has reneged on its commitment to aid GN through its time of educational transition and provide additional resources required to develop and implement a successful bilingual education program. Currently, graduation rates are below what is required to achieve Article 23‘s objectives. Inuit students are unable to function fluently in either English or Inuktitut at sufficient levels required to assume leadership roles within the territorial government. Although Inuit are employed within the

GN, the majority are employed in entry-level or secretarial positions, well-below the senior level positions that influence and shape territorial policies. Unless the federal government commits an additional $20 million dollars annum, as stated in Berger‘s report, federal government bureaucrats will continue to develop and implement policies that affect Nunavut‘s cultural and political aspirations.

The surrender of Indigenous title, as set out in the provisions of the NLCA, is completely at odds with the recommendations brought forth by RCAP in 1996 and contradicts the historical rejection of any cede or surrender provisions. Combined with the effects of climate change and resource extraction, which is inherently at odds with the principles of IQ, the GN is confronted with multiple challenges with no easy remedy.

While Inuit negotiators have accepted the cede and extinguishment provisions as a necessary sacrifice to achieve Inuit independence, the federal government‘s failure to

93 honour its commitment to the NLCA and invest in areas such as bilingual education, transitioning costs and training and housing, may prevent Inuit of Nunavut from achieving the independence they have hoped for and struggled to realize.

Chapter Four Private Property Ownership: Economic Independence or Cultural Alienation?

On May 11, 2000, the Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA) came into effect, bringing an end to a 113 year old struggle for generations of Nisga‘a Chiefs and Elders alike. This struggle began in 1887 when a group of Nisga‘a and Tsimshian Chiefs travelled from their homelands in the Nass River to the provincial legislature in an attempt to resolve the

Nisga‘a land question. Since that less than welcoming visit, the leadership of the Nisga‘a

Nation has publically stated their belief in their inherent right to self-government and rejected claims by both federal and provincial governments of the extinguishment of

Indigenous rights.

Ten years have passed since the NFA came into effect. The same questions posed about the NLCA will asked about the NFA. Has the NFA lived up to the collective expectations of Nisga‘a Nation? Have Nisga‘a values been maintained during the transition from pre-to-post agreement? Has the Nisga‘a quality of life improved? By analyzing four Indigenous themes (gender, Elders, culture and language, and land), I will demonstrate the on-going challenges the Nisga‘a Nation faces and how these obstacles have forced the Nisga‘a leadership to redefine their relationship to their traditional territories.

Pre-contact

The process by which the Nisga‘a Nation has reaffirmed the existence of their

Indigenous treaty rights and their inherent right to self-government had been a lengthy and exhausting one. Just as many of their Indigenous counterparts in modern Euro-

Canada, the Nisga‘a Nation had continuously advocated for and staunchly defended their

95 right to live on and use their traditional lands just as their ancestors had done previously for generations. The Nisga‘a story begins in the Nass River Valley region, located in the northern mainland of British Columbia; the traditional territory of the Nisga‘a peoples

(See Appendix E for map). The Nisga‘a, along with the Gitksan peoples, were part of the

Tsimshian language family; one of 11 Indigenous language families that exists in Euro-

Canada today (McMillan 1995, 5). Dialects were regionally-based; the Nisga‘a speaking one dialect of Tsimshian, while the Gitksan peoples spoke another. Because of their proximity to the river, the Nisga‘a along with other neighbouring Indigenous nations shared and relied heavily on fishing, particularly salmon, sea mammal hunting and shell- fish to survive.

The social organization of the Nisga‘a Nation distinguished them from other coastal Indigenous peoples. While most tribes were divided into two clans (Haida

Nation), the Nisga‘a Nation was divided into four: the Wolf (Laxgibuu), the Eagle

(Laxsgilk), the Raven (Ganada), and the Killer Whale (Gisk‘ahaast) (Government of

Canada 2010). Because lineage was based on the mother‘s bloodline (McMillan 1995,

207), the Nisga‘a social structure was matrilineal, meaning that traditional names and territories were passed down to the next brother or sister‘s son within a house or wilp in each village (Vickers 2005, 702). Each wilp owned fishing, gathering and hunting territories. In addition, each village had houses that were headed by members of each clan, meaning that every village also had representation from all four clans (Trosper

2009, 63). Moreover, individuals from the same clan were prohibited from marrying amongst themselves. The son (sim’oogit) of one of the houses would marry a woman from a different clan and the children of the marriage would become members of the

96 wife‘s clan and house (2009, 63). In turn, the next titleholder of the house would be the oldest son of his oldest sister (sigidimnak’m) who would be given the responsibility for training the young man. The oldest male and female children of the matriarch were also important to each wilp and qualified as traditional leaders in their own right.

Ayuukhl Nisga’a

The Nisga‘a Nation governed themselves according to Ayuukhl Nisga’a, their traditional laws and practices that governed civil order, property ownership and succession (Molloy 2000, 21). As the late Elder Dr. Bert McKay explained:

The Ayuukhl Nisga’a is our code of laws…ten areas we still observe and consider hallowed. The first is respect. When you understand the meaning of respect, you have a power that emanates from you. People around you will respond in kind – they will treat you respectfully (Ayuukhl Nisga‘a Department, n.d.).

The Ayuukhl Nisga’a was based on the principle of sayt k’ilhl wo’osihl Nisga’a, the

―Common Bowl‖ of the Nisga‘a (Vickers 2005, 702). The sayt k’ilhl wo’osihl Nisga’a or common bowl was based on the willingness of the four clans or simoygyet to work together and place their territories in common to express the ―importance of respect, sharing and peaceful co-existence‖ (Allen 2004, 234). According to the Nisga‘a Tribal

Council:

Throughout Nisga‘a history, from the beginning of time, one of the most important principles in Nisga‘a society has been that of sharing and co-existence. Both concepts are embodied in Nisga‘a tribal laws and traditions such as amnigwootkw, the yukw, hagwinyuuwo’oskw and a Nisga‘a edict which declares the sharing of ‗common bowl‘ - sayt k’ilhl wo’osihl Nisga’a (in Trosper 2009, 50).

The agreement to share the ―common bowl‖ was the result of the willingness for Nisga‘a hereditary chiefs to work together. As Victors (2005) explains, this meant that ―Nisga‘a

97 chiefs agreed to place their ango’oks (land inherited with the Chief‘s name) in common holding rather than maintaining territorial rights as had been done for thousands of years‖

(702). Holding land in common was also viewed as an important leverage tool against

Western European claims of terra nullius or no man‘s land.

Like many Indigenous cultures, the principles of Ayuukhl Nisga’a were not written down; they were passed on through oral storytelling that had survived and evolved over time. As Molloy (2000) explains, Ayuukhl Nisga’a ―evolved in ceremony, tradition, and story for generations… embracing civil, criminal, and international law, a social code, a national history and mythology, political organizations, and religious institutions‖ (121). For example, potlatches were important gatherings where clan Chiefs assembled to discuss a variety of issues, including the distribution of clan wealth and the naming of clan leaders in the event of the passing of a hereditary chief or simoygyet.

The Journey to Self-Governance

It was through the same principles of the Ayuukhl Nisga’a that guided Nisga‘a negotiators in discussions with federal and provincial representatives in an attempt to solve the land question once and for all. On May 11, 2000, the Nisga’a Final Agreement

(NFA) officially came into effect, recognizing the Nisga‘a Nation‘s treaty rights and their inherent right to self-government. After 113 years of negotiations, setbacks, resiliency, hardship, and perseverance, Euro-Canada officially acknowledged the unique relationship it had with the Nisga‘a Nation and officially welcomed them into modern Euro-Canada.

That journey began in 1887 when a group of Nisga‘a and Tsimshian Chiefs travelled from their homelands in the Nass River to the provincial legislature in Victoria to meet

98 with then Premier William Smithe in an attempt to resolve the Nisga‘a land question, 11 years after the federal government established the Indian Act and three years after prohibiting the ceremonial potlatch in 1884. Much to their chagrin, Nisga‘a and

Tsimshian Chiefs were barred from entering the legislature, a humiliating incident that would later be corrected by Nisga‘a Tribal Council leader Joseph Gosnell‘s 1998 address to the same provincial legislature.

In 1967, eighty years after the Nisga‘a leadership first approached the government of British Columbia to resolve the land question, the Nisga‘a Tribal Council (NTC) sought to reaffirm their existing Indigenous and treaty rights through the Euro-Canadian judicial system. The legal argument presented by NTC representative Frank Calder and the Nisga‘a nation was twofold: that the ―Nisga‘a held Aboriginal title to their ancient lands in the Nass Valley prior to the assertion of British sovereignty; and that Aboriginal title had not been lawfully extinguished‖ (McKee 1990, 26). Initially, the British

Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Royal Proclamation,

1763, did not apply to Indigenous nations in British Columbia. The province argued that if Aboriginal title had existed in British Columbia, ―it had been extinguished implicitly prior to 1871 by colonial land legislation‖ (1990, 27), an argument the Nisga‘a Nation disagreed with.

Dissatisfied with the court‘s ruling, the Nisga‘a took their case to the British

Columbia Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). In an historic ruling, six of seven justices found that the Nisga‘a Nation held aboriginal title prior to the assertion of British sovereignty. On the question of whether or not aboriginal title continued to exist was another matter. The justices were split evenly on the question:

99 three ruled that Aboriginal title continued to exist; three ruled that it had been extinguished, while the final justice did not rule on the decision (1990, 27). The main reason for the appeal‘s dismissal, however, was that ―four of seven justices found that the

Nisga‘a had improperly brought suit before the Court, since they had failed to obtain a fiat from the British Columbia government‖ (1990, 27). The split decision prompted the federal government to enter into negotiations with Indigenous nations who had not previously signed treaties and to develop a land claims policy.

After years of negotiations, the Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA) was signed in

April 1998, ratified by the BC Legislative Assembly in April 1999, and passed by

Parliament in April 2000 (Rynard 2000, 217). Once in effect, the NFA received constitutional protection via section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms Indigenous and treaty rights. In addition to its constitutional protections, the

Agreement contained several provisions, ranging from land and resources, to jurisdiction over culture and education, and self-government. Highlights include:

1) $196.1M (in 1999 dollars); 2) 1,992 square kilometres of land; 3) An average yearly allocation of 44,588 sock-eyed salmon, 11,797 coho salmon, 6,330 chum salmon, 6,524 chinook salmon, and 4,430 pink salmon, protected by the Treaty; 4) A commercial yearly allocation averaging 28,913 sock-eye and 88,526 pink salmon under an agreement which is not part of the Treaty; 5) Limited allocations of moose, grizzly bear and goats, for domestic purposes; 6) $11.8M to increase participation in the general commercial fishery; 7) $10.3M in Canada‘s contribution to the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust (to which the Nisga‘a provide $3.1M); 8) Transition, training and one-time funding of $40.6M; 9) A water reservation for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes; 10) Authority to operate their own government, and the ability to make certain laws; and, 11) Funding to help deliver health, education, and social services to their members and other area residents (Fact Sheet-Nisga‘a Treaty-INAC).

100

To determine whether or not the NFA improved the quality of life and reflected the collective values of the Nisga‘a Nation, a similar analysis used in Chapter Three will be used to examine the Nisga‘a Nation experience.

Decision-making: Gender Equality?

As explained in Chapter Two, Indigenous women were important, powerful and strong individuals whose roles and responsibilities were critical to the community or tribe‘s survival. Nisga‘a women were no exception. They were great leaders whose opinions and thoughts were highly respected. They were excellent hunters whose primary responsibility was to look after the villages they represented. Because they controlled the production and distribution of food and other economic resources, they ―received recognition for their skilled management of resources...the surplus they produced became the basis for trade and generated wealth for distribution in the potlatch‖ (Cooper in Pagh

2000, 85). They were strong and powerful matriarchs whose advice and opinion was sought in decisions affecting the community or wilp. Because of their strong traditional roles in the community or wilp, do contemporary Nisga‘a women exhibit the same decision-making authority and respect? Has the NFA begun to restore the level of gender equality that was common prior the arrival of Western Europeans and the imposition of the Indian Act? An analysis of female participation in the post-NFA government provides a good starting point.

The NFA recognized the Nisga‘a Nation‘s right to self government. Paragraph

11.1 of the Nisga’a Government chapter reads, ―The Nisga‘a Nation has the right to self- government, and the authority to make laws, as set out in this Agreement‖ (1999, 159).

101

The Nisga‘a government is comprised of the Nisga‘a Lisims Government (NLG) and four

Nisga‘a Village Governments (1999, 159). The four villages are: Gingolx (Kincolith),

Gitlaxdamix (New Aiyansh), Gitwinksihlkw (Canyon City), and Laxgalts‘ap (Greenville)

(Nisga‘a Nation Knowledge Network). The NLG‘s President, Chairperson, Secretary-

Treasurer, and Chairperson of the Council of Elders are all elected at large by Nisga‘a citizens (NFA Implementation Report 2008, 1). The NLG included the creation of Three

Urban Locals that would represent and express the concerns of the Nisga‘a citizens. The structure of the NLG is comprised of five branches:

1) Wilp Si‘ayuukhl Nisga‘a; 2) Executive of Nisga‘a Lisims Government; 3) Village Government; 4) Council of Elders; and 5) Urban Locals

The Wilp Si‘ayuukhl Nisga‘a (WSN) is the legislative branch of the NLG and has the power to enact laws on Nisga‘a lands. The WSN is composed of the elected members at large (President, Chairperson, Secretary-Treasurer, and Chairperson of the Council of

Elders), the Chiefs and Councillors of each of the four Village Governments, and two representatives of each of the three Urban Locals (Wright 2002, 26). WSN has quarterly meetings and to date has enacted 32 Nisga‘a laws, 28 Nisga‘a Statute Amendment Acts and adopted six Nisga‘a budgets (Wright 2006, 3). More importantly, during WSN meetings, all members are also able to make statements, participate in question periods, introduce petitions, and introduce motions (2006, 3). This ensures that all elected representatives are given the opportunity to voice the concerns of their constituents.

Although Nisga‘a men held the positions of hereditary chiefs in traditional

Nisga‘a governance, matriarchs held very important and prestigious positions in each

102 village and clan. In the post-NFA experience, as of May 21, 2010, there are 35 elected members of the WSN. Of the 35-member legislative body, only eight or roughly 22 per cent were women (Nisga‘a Nation Knowledge Network). No Nisga‘a women have been elected at large. Of the four Village Governments, no women hold the position of Chief

Councillor, and a total of five women have been elected as Village Councillors. Although

Village Councillors are part of the NLG and are allowed to make statements, participate in question periods, introduce petitions, and introduce motions during legislative proceedings, they still are subject to the leadership of the Chief Councillors in their communities. The executive branch of the NLG does not fare much better. Composed of the four elected members at large, the four Village Government Chiefs, and one representative from each of the three Urban Locals, a total of two or 18 per cent of executive positions are occupied by Nisga‘a women (Nisga‘a Nation Knowledge

Network). Nisga‘a women appear to have greater representation in Urban Locals, which

―provide liaisons and contact between Nisga‘a Government and Nisga‘a citizens ordinarily residing within the Nisga‘a Land Areas‖ (Nisga‘a Lisims Government 2009,

9). Of the six current representatives, half of their memberships are Nisga‘a women.

While no concrete data explain this trend, one possible hypothesis is that Nisga‘a women share the same obstacles as their Indigenous and non-Indigenous counterparts: family responsibilities. A lack of childcare services, combined with long-distance traveling could have resulted in a larger proportion of Nisga‘a women being politically involved at the community level, which allows them to be closer to their children and their families while exercising influence at the community level.

In the lead up to the NFA, many Nisga‘a women publically questioned the merit

103 of the land claim, in part due to the documents failure to incorporate a specific gender equality provision. Such a provision was viewed as a necessary step to begin the decolonization of patriarchally-based Indigenous governments established under the

Indian Act and return to traditional gender equality that was a norm in the pre-contact period. Senator Pat Carney, speaking on behalf of Nisga‘a woman, Mercy Thomas, at a

2000 Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, expressed concern for First

Nations women...

…who are likely to suffer under similar provisions in other treaties. I worry about the fundamental loss of gender equality and other rights provided by the Canadian Charter, the Constitution and common law. It is my opinion that this treaty is a dictatorship-structured treaty. Those who have concerns are left on the outside looking in (in Cornet et al 2001, 18).

The inclusion of a gender-equality provision would have acted as a safeguard to ensure

Nisga‘a women would have been full participants in the design and implementation of the post-NFA governance model and not relegated to second-tier status as they were under the Indian Act. Moreover, the inclusion of an equality provision merely recognizes the unique relationship Nisga‘a men and women traditionally shared. If the objective is to reclaim Nisga‘a culture, governance and identity, then gender equality should be recognized for its cultural relevance and reflected in the post-NFA government structures.

If the post-contact era institutionalized patriarchal-based Indigenous governments through the imposition of male-only Chief and Councils through the enforcement of the

Indian Act, than decolonizing Indigenous governments through traditional gender- equality should be examined. Moreover, the gender equality discussion should examine all possible options, including but not limited to delegating a mandatory threshold of female positions or determining a minimum percentage of female representation required

104 to pass Nisga‘a laws. Furthermore, the positions of the President, Secretary Treasurer,

Chairperson, and Elders Chairperson are positions currently held solely by men, a theme that has continued pre-and post-NFA. Why Nisga‘a women have not been elected at large to these four positions remains unclear. At the community level, Nisga‘a women are active players in their communities. The 50-50 composition in Urban Local representation exemplifies that reality. If distance and geographical location is the main determinant, then community supports, such as childcare services, must be provided to ensure that Nisga‘a women are given an equal opportunity to participate in the decision- making process.

Sigidimhaanak and Simgigat

As in most Indigenous societies, Elders were highly respected individuals whose wisdom, knowledge and practical experiences were widely praised and sought for advice.

The transmission of Nisga‘a IK included the sharing of life experiences and stories through oral storytelling. Since the Nisga‘a Nation adhered to the traditional laws and practices of the Ayuukhl Nisga’a, Nisga‘a Elders were and continue to be highly influential and trusted figures, both at the community and at the decision-making level.

This is exemplified in the creation of the Council of Elders (CE), an important component of the NLG and essential to the daily activities of the WSN. Comprised of

Simgigat (Hereditary Chiefs), Sigidimhaanak (Hereditary Matriarchs) and respected

Nisga‘a Elders, the Council acts as advisors to and provide guidance and interpretation of the Ayuukhl Nisga’a for the Nisga‘a Lisims Government (NFA 1999, 160-61). Appointed in accordance with Ayuukhl Nisga’a by the NLG, Elders pledge to:

105

Uphold the Ayuuk of the Nisga‘a Nation and provide guidance, wisdom, and interpretation of the Ayuuk for those who seek it…and work to preserve the peace and unity of the Nisga‘a Nation by encouraging the Nisga‘a Lisims Government and Village Governments to provide good, effective and accountable government for the Nisga‘a Nation (Nisga‘a Nation Special Assembly 2006, 55).

The Council is mandated to meet at least six times a year to coincide with the regular meetings of the WSN and Nisga‘a executive to ensure the principles of Ayuukhl Nisga’a are followed and upheld. In addition to its role with the WSN, Nisga‘a Elders work closely with the Nisga‘a Youth Advisory Council to ensure traditional Nisga‘a knowledge and teachings are passed on and shared with Nisga‘a youth councils established in each of the Village Governments and Urban Locals. Despite its inclusion into the workings of the NLG, the Council suffers from the same gender disparities of the

WSN and Village Governments. Currently, of eight possible Elders, only one Nisga‘a

Elder is female (Nisga‘a Nation Knowledge Network). Since the CE is appointed by the

NLG, whose membership consists mainly of Nisga‘a men, the CE selection process should be re-examined as well to ensure Nisga‘a women are represented and given the opportunity to pass on their IK.

The Chairperson of the CE, like the President, Secretary-Treasurer and

Chairperson of the NLG, was elected at large by all Nisga‘a citizens. The Council works closely with Ayuukhl Nisga‘a Department, a department entrusted by the WSN to

―protect, preserve and promote Nisga‘a language, culture, and history‖ (Ayuukhl Nisga‘a

Department, n.d). In the areas where the WSN can enact laws–healthcare, education, social services, lands and resources, economic development, environmental stewardship, fisheries and wildlife, and culture and heritage–the Council provides guidance and support (About Nisga‘a Lisims Government n. d.). In addition, Nisga‘a Elders are

106 involved with the Nisga‘a Court and judicial system. Under the NFA, the Nisga‘a Court

―may apply traditional Nisga‘a methods and values, such as using Nisga‘a elders to assist in adjudicating and sentencing…emphasizing restitution‖ (2000, 192). The emphasis on rehabilitation and restitution is emphasized in the Yuuhlimk'askw program, which

―provides culturally appropriate alternative justice solutions‖ and involves community healing and supports (Nisga‘a Lisims Government n. d.). The involvement of Nisga‘a

Elders in all aspects of Nisga‘a life is not only important to the well-being of the community, it is also an invaluable opportunity for Nisga‘a citizens to learn from their mistakes and reintegrate into Nisga‘a society through Elder mentorship.

Language

The third principle of Indigeneity examined in the post-NFA, and certainly not the least important, is the role and significance of Nisga‘a culture and language. To what extent does the NFA maintain the Nisga‘a Nation‘s strong cultural and linguistic ties to its past, present, and future? Chapter 2(7) of the NFA on Nisga‘a culture and language reads as follows, ―Nisga‘a citizens have the right to practice the Nisga‘a culture, and to use the

Nisga‘a language, in a manner consistent with the Agreement‖ (1999, 17). This was an important attribute of the NFA and was consistent with the principles of Ayuukhl Nisga’a, its traditional laws and practices. All public records, including Nisga‘a laws enacted by the WSN, were made available to the public in both English and the Nisga‘a‘s Tsimshian language. In addition, the NLG and the four Village Governments have the legislative jurisdiction and authority with respect to ―Nisga‘a Government, Nisga‘a citizenship,

Nisga‘a culture, Nisga‘a language, Nisga‘a lands, and Nisga‘a assets‖ (1999, 165). This

107 legislative jurisdiction and authority allow the NLG to administer and implement cultural and linguistic-based policies and procedures at the local level, free from federal or provincial intrusion. This local autonomy puts the onus on the NLG and the four Village

Governments to remain culturally and linguistically sensitive to Nisga‘a concerns.

Moreover, paragraph 41 of the NFA reads:

Nisga‘a Lisims Government may make laws to preserve, promote and develop Nisga‘a culture and Nisga‘a language, including laws to authorize or accredit the use, reproduction, and representation of Nisga‘a cultural symbols and practices, and the teaching of Nisga‘a language (1999, 167).

Unfortunately, the ownership of intellectual property was excluded from the NFA, a contentious issue for many Indigenous nations, particularly for those involving the documentation and preservation of oral history and storytelling. Paragraph 42 reads:

Except as provided for by the federal or provincial law, Nisga‘a Lisims Government jurisdiction under paragraph 41 to make laws with respect of Nisga‘a culture and Nisga‘a language does not include jurisdiction to make laws in respect of intellectual property…(1999, 167).

As explained in Chapter Two, since the federal Copyright Act, 1985, characterizes written materials as ―works‖ and sound recordings as ―other subject matter,‖ Indigenous oral history and storytelling do not receive the same protections as written texts. The issue of ownership and preservation, particularly in relation to the documentation and transmission of oral stories, continues to be a contentious issue for many Indigenous nations.

One of the most significant accomplishments of the NFA was the creation of the

Ayuukhl Nisga‘a Department which, as noted earlier, was tasked with protecting, preserving, and promoting Nisga‘a language, culture and history. This was no better exemplified than by the recent completion a Nisga‘a document known as the Yukw

108

Document or Anhluut’ukwsim Saw’inskwhl Nisga’a, ―the first transcribed version of the oral tradition of the feast system,‖ a cornerstone of Nisga‘a culture that will be forever preserved and shared with generations and generations to come (NFA Implementation

Report 2008, 1). The Anhluut’ukwsim Saw’inskwhl Nisga’a, along with the creation of the Nisga‘a Museum, scheduled to open in the summer of 2010, will help the Nisga‘a

Nation preserve and showcase their culture and history within their community and to visitors alike. Once complete, the museum will house nearly 300 artifacts that have been patriated from various jurisdictions and museums that were taken from their ancestors throughout the course of Euro-Canadian history.

The NFA also gives the NLG jurisdictional authority over their education system, from pre-school to post-secondary education. Chapter 11, paragraph 100 states:

Nisga‘a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of pre-school to grade 12 education on Nisga‘a Lands of Nisga‘a citizens, including the teaching of Nisga‘a language and culture, provided that those laws include provisions for:

a. curriculum, examination, and other standards that permit transfers of students between school systems at a similar level of achievement and permit admission of students to the provincial post-secondary education system; and

b. certification of teachers, for the teaching of Nisga‘a language and culture, by a Nisga‘a institution, in accordance with standards established under Nisga‘a laws (NFA 1999, 176).

On Nisga‘a lands, K-12 education is provided by School District 92 (Nisga‘a). The school board consists of four Nisga‘a members representing each Nisga‘a Village and one non-Nisga‘a board member who works directly with BC‘s Ministry of Education.

The District serves the four Nisga‘a Villages, operating three elementary and one high school. In addition to promoting and teaching Nisga‘a culture, history, language and

109 values, District 92 offers a unique 1:1 laptop – to student program as part of the Nisga‘a on Wireless initiative (NOW). Established to provide ―seamless, invisible integration of technology with instruction and curriculum‖ (School District 92 Nisga‘a 2009, 3), the

NOW initiative will allow Nisga‘a students to share their culture and connect with the global community. What originally began as a program for students in grades five and six, the initiative expanded and is now offered to all students in grades four to twelve.

Each teacher and student has access to an Apple laptop, a significant accomplishment that will help bridge the digital or technological divide that has plagued many Indigenous communities, particularly those located in remote and isolated areas.

Education

In addition to the NOW program, Indigenous academics, educators and scholars are using the same educational system that colonized Indigenous peoples as an instrument of decolonization. According to School District 92 (Nisga‘a), in order to achieve their goal of developing a culturally-responsive system of decolonized education:

The history and context of the Nisga‘a Nation requires that we understand, develop, and incorporate a long-term philosophy and vision that is grounded in an understanding of culturally responsive education and of the relationships among language, culture, learning, and literacy in the lives of the people of the Nisga‘a Nation (2009, 9).

After consulting with their community partners during the 2008/09 school year, School

District 92 (Nisga‘a) assembled a series of meetings to ―enhance partnerships between the school district and their communities…and [began] articulating responsibilities for the physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual well-being of all Nisga‘a learners‖

(2009, 8). School curricula and best practices are currently under development.

110

As a result of their efforts, School District 92 (Nisga‘a) has achieved several positive outcomes. For example, in September 2005, the school district expanded its

Nisga‘a Language and Culture Enrichment/Immersion Program to all four schools (2009,

5), consisting of an afternoon of daily immersion. As of 2008/09, Nisga‘a language became a requirement for all high school students. In addition, similar curricula development for grades K-3 has begun. Despite the gains made by School District 92

(Nisga‘a), many challenges remain. According to District 92 (Nisga‘a), ―limitations in instructional personnel, resources and assessment means‖ have hampered efforts to remain consistent and offer district-wide programming (2009, 5). However, despite these challenges, language immersion and culturally relevant curricula are methods by which

Nisga‘a communities can decolonize an education system whose original purpose was to devalue their culture and civilize them into mainstream Euro-Canadian society.

Moreover, by providing culturally relevant curricula to all four schools, Nisga‘a youth will have further pride in themselves knowing and practicing their cultural traditions, while simultaneously gaining a quality education that will allow them to assume positions in the NLG in the future.

Graduation rates among grade 12 Nisga‘a students are mixed. Between the years

2004/05 and 2008/09, the eligible grade 12 graduation rates have fluctuated from year to year – 95 per cent in 2004/05; 100 per cent in 2005/06; 58 per cent in 2006/07; 92 per cent in 2007/08; and 58 per cent in 2008/09 (Government of British Columbia 2009, 1)

(See Appendix E for complete statistical overview). First-time grade 12 graduation rates fared far worse. Between the years 2004/05 and 2008/09, the percentage of first time graduates fluctuated between 51 per cent in 2004/05; 49 per cent in 2005/06; 23 per cent

111 in 2006/07; 49 per cent in 2007/08; and 34 per cent in 2008/09 (2009, 1). The low high school graduation rates and the apparent lack of long-term employment opportunities have caused frustration for some Nisga‘a citizens, such as Ginger Gosnell-Myers.

Originally residing from the Village of New Aiyansh, Gosnell-Myers notes that little has changed since the NFA came into affect ten years ago, ―employment has only grown in

Lisims Government positions, or short-term jobs – nothing sustainable‖ (Terrace

Standard 2010, Opinion). The lack of sustainable and long-term employment outside of the NLG demonstrates the difficulties the Nisga‘a Nation are having in providing employment opportunities for their peoples. The Nisga‘a and Inuit find themselves in the same predicament: the ability to design their models of self-governance but lacking long- term financial resources required to build capacity and delivery services to its peoples.

The one-time lump sum of $40.6 million provided to the NLG by the federal government was not enough to develop the necessary infrastructure needed to support the Nisga‘a peoples in the post-land claim era. Without an adequate funding stream, the Nisga‘a

Nation will continue to suffer from the same socio-economic problems they faced before the NFA.

With respect to post-secondary education, the Wilp Wilx-o‘oskwkl Nisga‘a

Institute (WWNI), or Nisga‘a House of Wisdom, offers Nisga‘a-based post-secondary education programming in all four villages and select urban centres (NFA

Implementation Report 2008, 4). The WWNI has worked diligently to foster partnerships with other post-secondary institutions in British Columbia to maximize the potential of all Nisga‘a students. For example, through a federal agreement with the University of

Northern British Columba (UNBC), the WWNI ―offers a Bachelor of Arts degree in

112

Nisga‘a Studies-Nisga‘a, a Northern Advancement Program that helps new university entrants prepare for academic success, and an Education Diploma in Nisga‘a Language and Culture‖ (NFA Implementation Report 2005, 29). Moreover, in an agreement with

Northwest Community College, WWNI also offers ―vocational and technical training,

Grade 12 achievement, university/college preparation, Carpentry/Timber Framing, and continuing education programs‖ (2005, 29). As part of its long-term planning over the next ten years, WWNI is exploring the possibility of building a complete campus that includes faculty and student housing, child and daycare facilities, and new programming development, such as Nisga‘a Recreation and Tourism, Early Childhood Development, and Archival and Curatorial Studies (2005, 29). In addition, the WWNI has partnered with School District 92 (Nisga‘a) to operate the Nisga‘a Nation Language and Cultural

Resource Centre. The centre‘s objectives are ―to preserve Nisga‘a history, language, and cultural practices, and make Nisga‘a cultural resources accessible to the public‖ (NFA

Implementation Report 2008, 1). Furthermore, the Institute, in partnership with School

District 92 (Nisga‘a), published the first edition of the Nisga‘a Language Dictionary (date unknown) and Nisga‘a Language CD (the Wilp Wilx-o‘oskwkl Nisga‘a Institute 2010, para. 1 & 2). By developing culturally-appropriate curricula and Nisga‘a-specific programming in partnership with other post-secondary institutions, the NLG has demonstrated its commitment to building capacity and educating its people. However, before Nisga‘a citizens can attend institutions of higher learning, the NLG must also provide the culturally-friendly learning environment at the primary, elementary and high school levels.

The Nisga‘a education system is not the only service Nisga‘a citizens are using as

113 a decolonizing tool. The Nisga‘a Valley Health Authority (NVHA) has also been used as an instrument of decolonization. According to its mandate, the NVHA is:

Built on Nisga‘a culture, and traditional healing practices teaching that listening learning, and choosing healthy lifestyles result in health of mind, body and spirit. We are committed to collecting and sharing traditional wisdom of Nisga‘a Elders pertaining to overall health and vitality. We strive to integrate these traditional ways with present day practices (Nisga‘a Valley Health Authority n.d.,para. 3).

By incorporating Nisga‘a IK within the Western European-based health system, the

NVHA is achieving the best of both worlds by both gaining administrative control over health services and by teaching Non-Nisga‘a health professionals traditional healing practices.

Despite these significant accomplishments, there are several long-term goals that have yet to be achieved. The first deals with the language of instruction of the NLG.

Currently, the Nisga‘a language is not the working language of the NLG. Unlike the

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), the NFA did not include a working language of government provision. Although this is the long-term goal of the NLG, such a provision would have applied pressure on government officials to achieve this objective sooner rather than later.

Modified Rights

The final principle important to understanding Indigeneity, and possibly the most contentious of the four, is the relationship the Nisga‘a Nation has maintained with its traditional lands post-NFA. A long-standing issue, the Nisga‘a Nation has long articulated to both federal and provincial governments that title to their traditional territories was not, nor had it ever been extinguished. The Nisga‘a position was affirmed in the SCC‘s

114

Calder decision and later reaffirmed in Delgamuukw. However, the question of extinguished title is precisely where this analysis begins. Indigenous nations from around the world have consistently articulated their cultural, historical and traditional interconnectedness and interdependency with the land. In the Nisga‘a Nation experience, the NFA includes several provisions that could have long-standing implications in future land claim discussions and has raised concerns among British Columbia‘s First Nations.

Paragraph 2.23 of the General Provisions chapter, reads as follows:

This Agreement exhaustively sets out the Nisga‘a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of those rights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed, and those rights are:

a. the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, as modified by this Agreement, in Canada of the Nisga‘a Nation and its people in and to Nisga‘a Lands and other resources in Canada;

b. the jurisdictions, authorities, and the rights of Nisga‘a Government; and;

c. the other Nisga‘a section 35 rights (Emphasis added) (1999, 20).

Moreover, paragraphs 2.26 and 2.27 effectively replace Indigenous rights with modified treaty rights and release the governments of British Columbia and Euro-Canada from any further responsibility to deal with the Nisga‘a Nation with issues related to Indigenous treaty rights. Paragraph 2.26 reads:

If, despite this Agreement and the settlement legislation, the Nisga‘a Nation has an aboriginal right, including aboriginal title, in Canada, that is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga‘a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement, the Nisga‘a Nation releases that aboriginal right to Canada to the Extent that the aboriginal right is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga‘a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement (1999, 21).

Furthermore, paragraph 2.27 reads:

The Nisga‘a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons

115

from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga‘a Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga‘a Nation (1999, 21).

By accepting the releases and modified rights, Nisga‘a negotiators have accepted provisions that were rejected by the recommendations brought forth by the RCAP in 1996 calling on the federal government to remove all calls for surrender of Indigenous rights.

More importantly, these provisions are at odds with the historical position of Indigenous nations who have adamantly defended their rights from Western European intrusion. This sentiment is echoed by Nisga‘a hereditary chief Sim‘oogit Keexkw, who states:

Our title to our lands must be maintained by us. Our rights to these lands are embedded in our title…Should we be forced to forego our title then we will have no future…Losing our title and rights to our lands through extinguishment will not bring honour to our collective future (Guno in Roth 2002, 152).

These comments by Nisga‘a hereditary chief Sim‘oogit Keexkw reaffirm the unique relationship the Nisga‘a peoples have with traditional lands that must be preserved and protected.

The acceptance of extinguishment in exchanged for modified rights was not accepted as a reasonable sacrifice by the neighbouring Gitksan and Wet‘suwet‘en

Nations. Their concerns were twofold: one, the Nisga‘a Nation negotiated the Agreement outside of the British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC); and second, accepting the government‘s conditions prior to hearing the ramifications of the Delgamuukw ruling. In

1997, the SCC ruled that the Royal Proclamation, 1763, did apply to British Columbia and ―the province [British Columbia] had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867, or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act‖

116

(Delgamuukw 1997). The Court also provided three guidelines for proving Indigenous title derived from Indigenous legal systems and forms of self-government:

1) Documentation of pre-contact occupation (which can include oral histories of the type presented in Delgamuukw); 2) Continuity of territorial use (of the type presented in Delgamuukw); and 3) Exclusive possession, defined as evidence that First Nations attempted to control use of their territorial protocols ( Kent in Roth 2002, 150) .

The 1997 Delgamuukw ruling debunked the provincial claim that Indigenous title in

British Columbia was ever extinguished. Much to the dismay of the Gitksan and

Wet‘suwet‘en nations, the Nisga‘a Nation signed an Agreement in Principle (AIP) in

1996 that surrendered a substantial parcel of their traditional territory; territory that the

Gitksan and Wet‘suwet‘en nations argue overlap onto their own. According to Neil

Sterritt, past president of the Gitksan and Wet‘suwet‘en Tribal Council and part of their litigation team for Delgamuukw, ―it is not right to sacrifice the land entitlement of a nation to obtain a treaty with another nation‖ (1998, 97). Roth reaffirms that sentiment

―not every First Nation at a treaty table is willing to accept extinguishment of aboriginal title. No one else will have to do what the Nisga‘a have done‖ (2002, 160). The sentiments from the Gitksan and Wet‘suwet‘en First Nations underscore the tensions that exist among various Indigenous nations with respect to acceptable and non-acceptable concessions.

The extinguishment or surrender of Indigenous title has established a negative and potentially dangerous precedent for other Indigenous nations negotiating Indigenous and treaty rights with the federal and provincial governments. More importantly, it could have a negative impact for British Columbia First Nations negotiating agreements using the

BCTC. As Roth explains:

117

Many First Nations regard the Nisga‘a treaty as a negative example, and there was, among First Nations at the treaty table, immediate resistance to the BCTC‘s suggestion that the Nisga‘a 8 per cent land-for-cash formula could be a model for other treaties in the province (2002, 151).

The fear of mandatory extinguishment or surrender came to fruition with the federal government‘s 2007 policy on concluding Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements

(CLCA):

To obtain certainty respecting ownership, use and management of lands and resources by negotiating an exchange of claims to undefined Aboriginal rights for a clearly defined package of rights and benefits set out in a settlement agreement (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in Papillon 2008, 7).

Indigenous nations in modern Euro-Canada must be mindful of the federal government‘s position on CLCA‘s and defend the RCAP‘s recommendation to remove extinguishment and surrender provisions from future agreements. It also worth noting that there has always been the willingness on behalf of governments to negotiate with Indigenous communities when potential economic development projects are jeopardized, halted, or stalled. As Papillon (2008) explains, provincial and territorial governments always have an interest in clarifying the nature of Indigenous rights ―in order to facilitate access to the land for the purposes of economic development‖ (7). Recent developments at Matawa

First Nations, located in Northern Ontario‘s ―Ring of Fire‖ region, highlight the precarious positions most Indigenous nations face. Although Matawa First Nations are not in treaty negotiations with the federal or provincial governments, the provincial government has issued permits to several mining companies to begin exploration without properly consulting the Indigenous communities affected. As Matawa CEO David Paul

Achneepineskum explains:

The Matawa First Nations communities and its leaders continue to voice

118

that we are open for business, but our communities wish to make it known that if there is going to be any development on our lands, we are going to play an active role throughout the entire process. This is to ensure burial sites, customary lands, and other sacred areas are identified and protected. What happened in Marten Falls is simply unacceptable; the mining industry needs to be respectful of our land (Wataway News: Northern Ontario‘s First Nation Voice 2010).

As the Matawa First Nations explained, their community is open to economic development opportunities, but not at the expense of their culture. Unfortunately, this is a reality many Indigenous communities face as the federal and provincial governments seek to develop previously under developed regions of Euro-Canada. As Rynard (2000) explains:

The treaty-making process is still tainted by political inequity. The land and resource ownership provisions may be insufficient for future generations, and the release of Nisga‘a title to most of the traditional territories will permit profitable exploitation by corporations while undermining the bonds between those lands and Nisga‘a citizens (234).

The Nisga‘a Nation must be mindful of the federal and provincial governments‘ relationships with corporate and private sector investors whose sole purpose is resource extraction.

Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act

Economic development opportunities or the lack thereof, have prompted the NLG to explore a variety of approaches. None have been more controversial than the discussion of granting private property ownership to Nisga‘a citizens. The Wilp

Si‘ayuukhl Nisga‘a has enacted a revolutionary and potentially dangerous piece of legislation that could dramatically alter the Nisga‘a Nation‘s historical relationship with their traditional territories. In October, 2009, the WSN enacted the Nisga’a Landholding

119

Transition Act, which gave Nisga‘a residents the opportunity to own or sell their residential properties, an opportunity all Euro-Canadians currently have. Under the Act,

Nisga‘a Villages Governments may offer fee simple to entitlement holders:

2. (1) Subject to section 4, if

(a) a Nisga‘a Village is registered as the owner of the estate in fee simple to a parcel of Nisga‘a Lands, and (b) a Nisga‘a citizen is registered as the holder of an entitlement to the parcel,

the Nisga‘a Village Government of the Nisga‘a Village may, by adopting a resolution in the prescribed form, offer the estate in fee simple to the parcel to the Nisga‘a citizen, without charge to the Nisga‘a citizen (Nisga‘a Landholding Transition Act 2009, 4).

The legislation means that every Nisga‘a citizen who acquires fee simple title will be able to ―mortgage their property as security for a loan, or to transfer, bequeath, lease or sell their property, to any person,‖ Indigenous or non-Indigenous (Nisga‘a Landholding Act

Passed 2009, para. 2). At risk is the traditional relationship Indigenous nations have had with the land, an interdependent relationship whereby Indigenous peoples collectively assumed the responsibilities of caretakers. This drastic reversal in thinking prompts the question: why is the Nisga‘a Nation abandoning this relationship?

For many Nisga‘a citizens, such as former President Nelson Leeson, the legislation would eliminate economic development barriers and grant Nisga‘a citizens the same property-owning rights that many Euro-Canadians have. ―This is a significant step towards true self-government. It is a process increasing economic prosperity for our people…It is important for us to be able to find ways of building capacity for our people so that they can stand on their own‖ (2009, para. 4). Section 4 of the Act also stipulates that entitlement to fee simple property is based on if:

120

(a) the entitlement is not subject to a registered mortgage;

(b) the parcel is not greater than 0.2 hectares in areas, and

(c) the principal use of the parcel permitted under a zoning law enacted by the Nisga‘a Village Government having jurisdiction over the parcel is residential (Nisga‘a Landholding Transition Act 2009, 5).

Although any Nisga‘a citizen with fee simple title is free to transfer their property to any person, the ―property will always remain Nisga‘a Lands and be subject to Nisga‘a laws under the Nisga’a Final Agreement‖ (Nisga‘a Landholding Act Passed 2009, para. 5).

Moreover, the Act would only affect city lots in the four Nisga‘a Villages, totalling approximately 10 square kilometres or about one per cent of the land (Findlay BC

Business 2010) allocated to the Nisga‘a Nation under the NFA.

Although the legislation currently restricts fee simple title to residential property, its failure or success will determine whether the law could be extended to commercial or industrial properties in the future. The Vancouver Sun described the legislation‘s significance with the following:

This is not simply the latest manifestation of the inevitable victory of capitalism over collectivism. Rather, what the Nisga‘a seem to be demonstrating is good governance in the form of being able to get beyond tradition to remove what they were to identify as an obstacle to economic development (Anonymous 2009).

Nisga‘a President Mitchell Stevens suggests that the new legislation ―is a real significant step in self-government because it‘s a process for us to increase our economic prosperity‖

(Canadian Press 2010). Nisga‘a Chair Kevin McKay described the legislation as ―very significant for the Nisga‘a as a step toward true self-government…the opportunity to own land fee simple will enable people to use their land as collateral to get a loan from the bank or transfer land onto family members‖ (Findlay BC Business 2010).

121

Nisga‘a leaders, such as McKay and others have found inspiration in literature of

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, a 2002 Nobel Peace Prize finalist and author of

The Mystery of Capital, a book chronicling the challenges facing the world‘s poorest citizens. In his book, de Soto argues that ―poverty in the developing world is largely a function of citizens not having formal ownership rights to their property‖ (2010). From de Soto‘s perspective, property ownership is directly linked to higher quality of life and improved socio-economic status.

Currently the Nisga‘a Nation suffers both from a lack of employment and an educated workforce to sustain what jobs they do have. The Nisga‘a Nation is not facing this challenge alone. The GN is facing similar challenges in their attempt fulfill the objectives of Article 23 and create a culturally and ethnically representative bureaucracy.

The federal government has failed to fulfill its obligations to both the NLCA and the NFA with respect to transitional and education funding. This is not to be mistaken for a

―handout.‖ Rather, this is the federal government owning up to its responsibilities so that

Indigenous nations can acquire the tools they need to break from the shackles of dependency that have plagued their lives since the arrival of Western Europeans. Private property ownership will not solve the problems of the GN and the NLG. Without long- term investments in bilingual education, neither Indigenous government will be able to improve the qualities of life for their peoples.

With any decision come risks; the change to fee simple property ownership is no exception. Any Nisga‘a citizen using their property as collateral will ultimately have to repay any loans or risk losing their homes to foreclosure. However, McKay argues that the community is fully aware of the risks, stating that ―this is what our people told us they

122 want‖ (2010). Despite those claims, not everyone is convinced. While some Nisga‘a citizens have expressed enthusiasm about the legislation‘s potential, others view the move to private property ownership as a ―cultural sellout‖ and ―a desperate measure by a native band that‘s been backed into an economic and social cul-de-sac‖ (Findlay BC

Business 2010). Mohawk scholar, Professor Taiaiake Alfred, echoes that sentiment, calling the move to private property ownership ―an affront to traditional native values‖ regarding communal ownership that will inevitably result in ―an exodus from the Nass

River Valley as Nisga‘a with few other opportunities cash out of their properties‖ (in

Findlay BC Business 2010). In addition, Professor Alfred suggests:

This not an economic development issue; it‘s a colonization issue. Every- body knows that the Nisga‘a are going broke and they are being put in the position where they will have to sell their land. In my view, the Nisga‘a are embracing their own assimilation (2010).

That sentiment is further exacerbated due to the erosion of the Nisga‘a Nation‘s capital base. According to the NLG‘s financial statements for the 2007/08 and 2008/09 fiscal years, the community‘s financial assets fell dramatically, from $263 million to $154 million (Nisga‘a Lisims Government 2007 and 2008). Moreover, unemployment rates continue to be a problem. According to the 2006 Census, the unemployment rates of two

Nisga‘a Villages, New Aiyansh and Ginglox, were 28.4 per cent and 46.7 per cent respectively; substantially higher than BC‘s unemployment rate at six per cent (Statistics

Canada 2006). Unemployment statistics for the Villages of Gitwinksihlkw and

Laxgalt‘sap were not available. According to Andrew Finlay (2010), unemployment in the four Nisga‘a Villages hovers at approximately 60 per cent; those lucky enough to have a job are likely employed by the NLG. The lack of long-term and sustainable employment prohibits the Nisga‘a Nation from building capacity and developing the

123 expertise and human resources needed to become economically-sustainable communities.

Furthermore, because Nisga‘a services and programs are funded largely on transfer payments from the Euro-Canadian government, the culture of dependency that has historically been present in many Indigenous communities will likely remain unchanged unless immediate action is taken. As Helin (2006) explains:

Self-generated wealth is critical to Aboriginal aspirations of self- government. Without a revenue source independent of the federal government, Aboriginal communities will continue to be trapped in the cycle of poverty, remaining dependent on transfer payments and the agendas of those interests providing the revenue (141).

Unless the Nisga‘a Nation is able to educate their peoples and generate its own source of revenue, this culture of dependency Helin speaks will only continue the cycle of poverty that exists in many Indigenous communities across Turtle Island.

It is too early to tell what the repercussions of private property ownership will be for the Nisga‘a Nation. The NLG have undertaken a bold and risky move in an attempt to improve the quality of life of its citizens. By embracing the idea of private property ownership, the Nisga‘a Nation is defying one of the fundamental principles of

Indigeneity: their interconnected relationship with the land. Indigenous peoples have never individually owned the land. Rather, they were the land‘s caretakers, just as their ancestors were for multiple generations. The concept of individual private property ownership does not coincide with traditional values, nor does it guarantee an improvement in the quality of life of the Nisga‘a Nation. Instead, sustainable long-term financial investments in education and the development of culturally-appropriate curricula can both accommodate traditional Indigenous values and has the potential to improve Indigenous quality of life in the long-term.

124

Has the quality of life of Nisga‘a citizens improved since the implementation of the NFA? Does the land claim agreement reflect the collective values of the Nisga‘a

Nation? From a socio-economic perspective, the quality of life of Nisga‘a citizens has not dramatically improved since the signing of the NFA. Unemployment rates are staggeringly high, high school graduation rates have had mixed results, the forestry sector has not generated as much revenue as it had prior to the economic recession, and the salmon harvest has experienced a dramatic decline, causing grave concerns among all

Indigenous nations in British Columbia.

Through the NFA, the Nisga‘a Nation acquired jurisdictional authority in the areas of culture and heritage, economic development, education, environmental stewardship, health care, natural resources, and social services. These services were administered and implemented with the creation of the Nisga‘a Lisims Government (NLG), the self- government of the Nisga‘a peoples. The record of the NLG in relation to the four

Indigenous themes – gender, Elders, language, and land – has been mixed. Only eight or roughly 20 per cent of Nisga‘a women are represented in the NLG while very few occupy upper management positions within the government bureaucracy. An electoral model that is more representative of the Nisga‘a population and more welcoming to Nisga‘a women would benefit the community greatly, such as executive gender rotations and a minimum female participation threshold to pass government legislation. This would help restore the level of gender equality and respect that was a norm during the pre-contact period. If the

Indian Act institutionalized patriarchal-based Chief and Councils on designated reserve lands then decolonizing the system and re-institutionalizing gender equality that existed

125 in pre-contact Indigenous societies should be explored. Ultimately, the Nisga‘a Nation will have to decide collectively if this is the route they would like to examine.

The creation of the Council of Elders (CE) has the potential to provide checks and balances on behalf of the public by monitoring government legislation and public policies to ensure they do not conflict with the Ayuukhl Nisga’a, the code of laws of the Nisga‘a peoples. Ultimately, it is up to the NLG as to whether to accept the recommendations of the Nisga‘a Elders. In addition, Nisga‘a Elders are also involved in the development of cultural programming and play a role in the restorative justice of previously incarcerated individuals. Moreover, through the Nisga‘a District 92 school board, culturally relevant curriculum and language immersion programs have been created, which coincide with the creation of the Ayuukhl Nisga‘a Department; a department dedicated to preservation and promotion of Nisga‘a culture. Accreditations for several post-secondary degrees, such as a Bachelor of Arts in First Nations Studies-Nisga‘a, as well as an Education Diploma in

Nisga‘a Language and Culture, have been developed in partnership between the WWNI and the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) and the Northwest Community

College. These post-secondary partnerships will give Nisga‘a students the opportunity to pursue their post-secondary education in an environment that is culturally-appropriate to their needs and the needs of their communities. However, the federal government should honour its obligations to the NFA and invest in long-term financial supports to aid in the educational transition that is needed for Nisga‘a citizens to assume independent responsibility of their government and lands.

126

Conclusion

In every agreement, concessions and sacrifices must be made by both parties. The

NFA was no different. The Nisga‘a Nation gained control over approximately eight per cent, or 1,992 square kilometres of land designated as Nisga’a Lands and modified rights in exchange for the extinguishment and surrender of their Indigenous and treaty rights.

By accepting the extinguishment and surrender provisions of the NFA, the Nisga‘a

Nation has completely ignored the recommendations of the 1996 Royal Commission on

Aboriginal Peoples, which called on the federal government to abolish all cede, extinguish and surrender provisions in any land claim agreement discussions with

Indigenous peoples. Moreover, the decision by the NLG to offer fee simple private property that would allow any Nisga‘a citizen to use their home as collateral to obtain bank loans or sell their property to non-Nisga‘a citizens is both revolutionary and risky.

Although property ownership can be used as collateral to secure loans from financial institutions, they can just as easily lead to foreclosures and repossessions. The working poor and those already living below the poverty line will not benefit from private property ownership because they will not have the financial means to both secure ownership and provide for their families simultaneously. More importantly, individual private property ownership does not coincide with the principles of collectivism and is in direct conflict with the holistic and interconnected relationship Indigenous nations had with nature during the pre-contact period. However, the Nisga‘a Nation will argue that embracing the Western European concept of property ownership is an acceptable sacrifice in order to generate economic development opportunities and improve the quality of life of their community. Not only does the granting of fee simple individual

127 private-property right conflict with the principles of Indigeneity, it also does not guarantee an improved quality of life for Nisga‘a citizens. Embracing individual private- property rights in an attempt to improve the Nisga‘a Nation‘s quality of life is a short- term solution with no long-term benefit and defies the very meaning of being an

Indigenous person.

In 2010, the Nisga‘a Nation celebrated the tenth anniversary of the NFA and the achievement of self-government. While Nisga‘a negotiators considered the NFA as the crowning achievement that would lead to greater independence from the federal government, the lack of gender representation in the NLG, shortfalls in transitional funds by the federal government and the forced surrender of Indigenous and treaty rights in exchange for modified and specific rights have done little to improve the Nisga‘a quality of life.

128

Conclusion Harsh Realities: The Government of Nunavut and the Nisga’a Lisims Government Ten Years Later

The differences between Indigeneity and Western European philosophical thought are profound. The emphasis on the collective well-being of the group or tribe is essential to understanding Indigeneity and is inherently at odds with individualism embraced by

Western European thought. Such a statement is not revolutionary. For centuries,

Indigenous nations have lived according to their cultural and traditional practices, adhering to their respective Indigenous philosophies that have guided them in the pre- contact period. Despite their differing philosophies, the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a

Nation shared common principles essential to the understanding of Indigeneity: gender;

Elders; culture and language; and land. These four broad principles laid the foundation for a holistic point of view of the world, a world where all living organisms are interconnected and interdependent and where human beings played a minor role in the ecological order of things. This Indigenous mentality contrasted greatly with Western

European thought, which, because of Eurocentric thought and private property ownership, had difficulties conceptualizing Indigeneity, let alone attempting to understand it. The four aforementioned principles of Indigeneity were examined to answer two very important questions: one, whether the NLCA and the NFA reflected the collective values of the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation; and second, whether their qualities of life had diminished, remained constant, or improved as a result of both land claim agreements. After analyzing both the NLCA and the NFA, the evidence shows that although Nunavut‘s Inuit peoples and the Nisga‘a Nation have achieved self- government through their respective land claims agreements, because the federal

129 government has reneged on its obligations to invest in long-term financial supports required to deliver services to their peoples, both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a

Nation have been unable to maintain their Indigenous values, and, as a result, have been unsuccessful at improving their quality of life.

As my research illustrates, both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation faced similar problems in their efforts to break away from the culture of dependency created by the Euro-Canadian government that continue to plague their peoples today. In the

Nunavut experience, traditional Inuit life was dramatically affected by the relocation of families to resettlement areas shortly after World War II. The cultural disconnect from the land, combined with the residential school experience, created an internalized colonial oppression that continues to manifest in many communities. High levels of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, drug addiction and suicides have become a common occurrence in Nunavut.

The gender relations of both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nation have been affected after the arrival of Western Europeans in the post-contact period. Neither one of these agreements has made it easier for Indigenous women to reclaim their gender equality and participate at the decision-making level. In the Nisga‘a Nation experience, women make up less than 20 per cent of the composition of government. Moreover, those elected to the NLG are neither on the government executive, nor are in key policy making positions. Rotating the election of important and influential positions, such as President,

Secretary-Treasurer and Council of Elder from male to female, and vice versa, would help re-kindle the importance of gender equality in the decision-making process. In the

Nunavut experience, Inuit had an opportunity to restore gender equality to their peoples

130 by voting in favour of dual-member dual-gender constituencies. For a variety of reasons, that proposal was rejected. If the Indian Act institutionalized patriarchal-based Chiefs and

Councils systems of government, then re-institutionalizing traditional gender equality by embracing the dual-member dual-gender constituency proposal should be re-examined.

This would begin the process of restoring pre-contact gender relations while simultaneously giving Inuit the opportunity to use the Nunavut Legislative Assembly as an instrument of decolonization.

In the realm of Elder participation in the post-NLCA and NFAs, both the GN and

NLG governments have created Councils of Elders (CE) that would act as advisors to their respective governments and ensured traditional culture and values were reflected in government legislation and policy development. Although Inuit and Nisga‘a Elders are provided with the opportunity to participate in a variety of fields, including restorative justice, on-the-land training exercises and advising government policy, concerns arose over whether Elder input was actually being considered. According to NTI‘s 2006

Second Independent Five Year Review of Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims

Agreement, interviewees indicated that there were ―many rules being set, and processes...established...they believed their opinions, and most importantly the opinions of elders, [were] neither solicited, nor respected‖ (2006, 4). The interviewee comments reiterate the difficulties post-land claim governments have with incorporating the views of Elders, whose roles are to ensure the GN and the NLG incorporate Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and Ayuukhl Nisga’a in the daily operations of government.

The need for the preservation and protection of Inuit and Nisga‘a cultures and languages cannot be overstated. Both the GN and the NLG are having difficulties

131 building capacity, educating their peoples and coming up with the resources to achieve both. In the Nunavut experience, the NTI has decided to sue the federal government in excess of $1 billion dollars for monies lost as a result reneging on their commitment to help implement Article 23, which called for the creation of a culturally and ethnically representative bureaucracy reflective of the Inuit population. According to Thomas

Berger‘s 2006 Conciliator's Final Report: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

Implementation Planning Contract Negotiations for the Second Planning Period, additional federal investments totalling $20 million per annum are required to successfully implement a bilingual education model that would meet the goal of establishing an ethnically representative bureaucracy. Although Berger‘s report only discusses the Inuit of Nunavut, both the GN and the NLG lack the financial means to develop an education model that will improve graduation rates, curb high unemployment and make the Inuktitut and Tsimshian/Nisga‘a languages the working languages of their governments. Moreover, implementing a proven bilingual education system may help alleviate the socio-economic problems currently plaguing both communities.

Finally, in relation to the GN and NLG‘s relationship with their lands, the data illustrated that by accepting the federal government‘s cede, extinguish and/or surrender provisions, both the Inuit of Nunavut and the Nisga‘a Nations are ignoring the recommendations brought forth by the RCAP, urging the federal government to repeal any extinguish and/or surrender provisions. Moreover, such provisions are the opposite of what these very nations have advocated for prior to the signing of their respective land claim agreements. In the case of the Nisga‘a Nation, this is particularly alarming considering the NLG has opted to embrace the Western European concept of individual

132 private property ownership through the 2009 Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act. The

Act would allow any Nisga‘a citizen to own their property in fee simple and sell it to whomever they wish, including non-Nisga‘a citizens. Despite its revolutionary and risky proposition, the legislation has received mixed reviews. Those in favour of the legislation, such as NLG President Mitchell Stevens, views the Nisga’a Landholding

Transition Act as a way for Indigenous entrepreneurs to level the playing field with their non-Indigenous counterparts and help create economic development opportunities for their community. Those opposed to the legislation, such as Mohawk Scholar Taiaiake

Alfred, suggests the Nisga‘a Nation are embracing their assimilation by moving from traditional communal ownership to individual-based private property. What is both surprising and disturbing, is that the Nisga‘a leadership would subscribe to a policy that was used by Locke to separate citizenship from slaves and savages. Despite the economic potential that may or may not come to fruition, from a Lockean perspective, the Nisga‘a

Nation is embracing their willing assimilation into mainstream Euro-Canadian society.

The NLG‘s decision to embrace individual private property ownership not only defies the historical and traditional Indigenous concept of collectivity, it also does not guarantee the quality of life of Nisga‘a citizens will improve as a result.

Both Indigenous governments are at a crossroads. The challenges for the GN and the NLG are how to remain Indigenous and practice the principles of Indigeneity, when the socio-economic well-being of Inuit and Nisga‘a peoples are in such a deplorable states. High unemployment, low graduate rates, high levels of poverty and overcrowding, in addition to epidemic levels of suicide rates put immense stress on Indigenous governments, who often accept resource extraction contracts and allow private

133 development to occur on traditional lands with the hope of creating long-term employment.

The Inuit of Nunavut and Nisga‘a Nation may have achieved their goal of self- government but the lack of financial resources required to deliver programs have made it difficult for the GN and NLG to maintain their traditional values and improve the qualities of life of their peoples. Until the GN and NLG are able to cultivate the expertise, educate their workforce and assume complete control over decision-making and policy development, both governments will be forced to improve the socio-economic state of their communities at the expense of their Indigenous values.

All is not lost. While my research has demonstrated the on-going challenges the

GN and the NLG are facing, both governments are in their infancy at 11 and 10 years old.

Both the GN and the NLG have the ability to look back at the last 10 years and reflect on the things that have gone well, and those that have not. Both nations have demonstrated their resiliency by preserving their culture despite decades of assimilative policies at the hands of the Euro-Canadian government. The successes that these two nations have experienced can be attributed to their unwillingness to be consumed by the greater Euro-

Canadian society and their desire to govern themselves as independent and self-sufficient nations. It is the responsibility of the Euro-Canadian government to honour the true intent of land claim agreements in general, not only those signed with the Nisga‘a and Inuit peoples, but also with other Indigenous nations moving forward. As I stated during my thesis defence, a deal is a deal. It is time the Euro-Canadian government acknowledges its obligations to Indigenous peoples.

It is also important to note that because of their young status, academic literature

134 on both governments is somewhat limited. The research that has been done thus far has provided a valuable insight into the on-going problems facing both nations. Much more can be done. It is critically important for Inuit and Nisga‘a citizens to both guide and lead the research of their peoples moving forward. In the case of Nunavut, Inuit suicide rates continue to be at epidemic levels. On-going research is needed to follow-up on the GN‘s suicide prevention policies to measure what progress has been made and exploring other models used by other Indigenous nations. In addition, whether the priorities of government and the success of policy objectives are influenced or enhanced as a result of more educated Inuit assuming senior managerial positions in the GN merits attention in the future. Moreover, issues such as the environment and climate change, electoral reform, community data, gender participation in government and elected office, animal migration, traditional hunting practices, accessible broadband and general communication technologies, particularly for cultural preservation purposes, are just a few areas where more research could be done.

In the case of the Nisga‘a Nation, gender representation, both within the government bureaucracy and elected representation, is another area lacking data. Also, an analysis of private property ownership over the next 10-15 years is particularly relevant.

Moreover importantly, whether all residential Nisga‘a lands have been sold to non-

Nisga‘a citizens will be extremely important in wake of the Euro-Canadian government‘s recent decision to explore private property ownership on First Nations reserves. Other areas of research may include statistical profiles on Nisga‘a Village Governments and

Urban Locals, the success of the Nisga‘a on Wireless (NOW) program, and role of education as an instrument of decolonization.

135

It is unclear where the GN and the NLG go from here. The GN is relying on bilingual education to improve the socio-economic status of their peoples. The NLG, on the other hand, has embraced private property ownership to improve combat unemployment and poverty. There is no one size fits all approach. As future Indigenous nations negotiate agreements with the federal government, it is critical that the

Indigenous leadership is both well-educated and well-intentioned. While the Euro-

Canadian government has a long history of reneging on its commitments to Indigenous peoples, I remain hopeful as a young Mi‘kmaq person that there are a select few who will honour the treaties of Peace and Friendship our ancestors signed with the British Crown.

Although I am not an aggressive individual, there are others who will resort to more militant means unless the Euro-Canadian government addresses the on-going disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

136

References

Alfred, Taiaiake. 1995. Heeding the Voices of our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Toronto: Broadview Press.

______. 2009. ―Colonialism and State Dependency.‖ Journal of Aboriginal Health. 5(2): 42-60. http://www.naho.ca/jah/english/jah05_02/V5_I2_Colonialism_02.pdf (June 24, 2010).

Allen, Edward. 2004. ―Our Treaty, Our Inherent Right to Self-Government: An Overview of the Nisga‘a Final Agreement.‖ International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 11(3): 233-249. http://search.ebscohost.com (April 10, 2010).

Anderson, Kim. 2000. A Recognition of Being: Reconstructing Native Womanhood. Toronto: Sumach Press.

Anderson, Kim, and Lawrence, Bonita. 2004. Strong Women Stories: Native Vision and Strong Community Survival. Toronto: Sumach Press.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1992. In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

Armstrong, Jeanette. 1997. ―Sharing One Skin.‖ In A Recognition of Being: Reconstruction Native Womenhood, eds. Kim Anderson. Toronto: Sumach Press.

Arnakak, Jaypetee. 2003. ―Northern IQ.‖ In Stretching the Concept of Representative Bureaucracy: The case of Nunavut. Annis May Timpson International Review of Administrative Science, 72(4): 517-530.

Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. May 11, 2009. http://afn.ca/misc/itk-afn- mnc-undrip.pdf (May 11, 2010).

Battiste, Marie, and Henderson, James (Sa‘ke‘j) Youngblood. 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing.

Bell, Jim. 2004. ―Whopping turnout marks second Nunavut election.‖ Nunatsiaq News. Feb 20. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/40220/news/nunavut/40220_01.html (Sept 25, 2010).

Bell, Jim. 2006. ―Harper on Berger: No new school funds outside TFF.‖ Nunatsiaq News. Aug 18. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/harper_on_berger_no_new school_ funds_outside_tff/ (May 25, 2010).

137

Berger, Thomas. 2006. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Implementation Contract Negotiations for the Second Planning Period 2003-2013: Conciliator’s Final Report. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/fagr/nuna/ lca/nlc- eng.pdf (May 25, 2010).

Blackburn, Carole. 2007. ―Producing Legitimacy: Reconciliation and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Rights in Canada.‖ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 13(3): 621-638.

Blacksmith, James. 1992. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Public Hearings. Quebec: Waswampi (June 9, 1992).

Blaut, J.M. 1993. ―The Colonizer‘s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism And Eurocentric History.‖ In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Marie Battiste (ed), Vancouver: UBC Press.

Boothroyd, Lucy J., et al. 2001. ―Completed suicides among Inuit of Northern Quebec, 1982-1996: A case-control study.‖ In Inuit gender parity and why it was not accepted in the Nunavut Legislature, Laakkuluk Jessen Williamson. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 30(1): 51- 68. http://www.erudit.org/revue/etudinuit/2006/v30/n1/016149ar.pdf (July 15, 2010)

Bourgeois, Annette, and Wilkin, Dwane. 1997. ―Nunavut Voters Say No to Gender Parity Plan.‖ Nunatsiaq News, May 30. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/april0199/nvt90 401_35.html (May 30, 2010).

Brass, M. Gregory, et al. 2007. Suicide Among Aboriginal People in Canada. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Castellano, Marlene Brant. 2000. ―Updating Aboriginal Traditions of Knowledge.‖ In Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of the World, eds. George J. Sefa Dei et al, 21-36. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Castellano, Marlene Brant .2008. ―A Holistic Approach to Reconciliation: Insights From Research of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.‖ In From Truth to Reconciliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools, prepared for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Linda Archibald, Marlene Brant Castellano and Mike DeGagné, pp. 383- 402. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

CBC News. 2008. ―Reconsider gender parity, says lone female Nunavut MLA.‖ Oct, 29. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/10/29/nunavut-women.html (May 30, 2010).

Churchill, Ward. 1998. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americans 1492 to the Present. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press.

138

Cooper, Carol. 1992/93. ―Native Women of the Northwestern Pacific Coast: An Historical Perspective.‖ In Nancy Pagh Imagining Native Women: Feminine Discourse and Four Women Travelling the Northwest Coast in Catherine A. Cavanaugh and Randi R. Warne Telling Tales:Essays in Western Women’s History. Toronto: UBC Press.

Cook, Curtis, and Lindau, Juan D. 2000. Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government: The Canadian and Mexican Experience in North American Perspectives. Montreal: McGill- Queen‘s University Press.

Corbin, C. Davie & Swanson, Judith A. 2009. Aristotle’s Politics : A Reader’s Guide. London: Continuum International Publishing.

Dahl, Jean, et al. (eds). 2000. Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of their Lands and their Lives. Copenhagen: IWGIA Document No. 102.

Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Frenádez, Carlos. 2004. ―Coming Full Circle: A Young Man‘s Perspective on Building Gender Equity in Aboriginal Communities.‖ In Strong Women Stories: Native Vision and Community Survival, eds. Kim Anderson and Bonita Lawrence, 242-256. Toronto: Sumach Press.

Findlay, Andrew. 2010. ―The Nisga‘a‘s Private Struggle.‖ BC Business, March 3. http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2010/03/03/nisga039a039s-private- struggle?page=0%2C1&24Version=0&%24Path=/&%24Domain=.bcbusinessonline.ca #ixzz01kMEPeXG (April 12, 2010).

Fiske, Joanne. 1990. ―Native Women in Reserve Politics: Strategies and Struggles In Contemporary Indian Women.‖ In Contemporary Indian Women, eds. Cora J. Voyageur. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada Ltd.

Ford, J., T. Pearce, et al. 2007. ―Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Arctic: The Case of Nunavut, Canada.‖ Arctic Review. 60(2): 150-166. http://pubs.aina.ucalgar y.ca/arctic/Arctic60-2-150.pdf (August 10, 2010).

Frideres, James S. & Gadazc, René R. (2008) Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. 8th ed. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Furi, Megan, and Wherrett, Jill. 2003. Indian Status and Band Membership Issues. Political and Social Affairs Division, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, Government of Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp410-e.htm#bchangestx (March 30, 2010).

139

George, Jane.2003. ―Inuit Elders to Advise Territorial Government.‖ Nunatsiaq News, October 31. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/31031/news/nunavut/31031_05.html (May 26, 2010).

Gombay, Nicole. 2000. ―The politics of culture: Gender parity in the legislative assembly Of Nunavut.‖ In Inuit gender parity and why it was not accepted in the Nunavut Legislature. Laukkuluk Jessen Williamson. Etudes/Inuit/Studies. 30(1): 51-68. http://www.erudit.org/revue/etudinuit/2006/v30/n1/016149ar.pdf (May 26, 2010).

Gosnell-Myers, Ginger. 2010, March 23. Ten Years on, the Nisga‘a Face Challenging Times. Terrace Standard: Opinion. http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/terrace standard/opinion/88857472.html (May 19, 2010).

Government of British Columbia. 2006. Aboriginal Community Data Initiative. BC Statistics. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/lss/abor/profile/abprof.asp (May 23, 2010).

Government of British Columbia. Education. 2009. School District 92 (Nisga’a): Achievement Contract 2008/09. Government of British Columbia: Victoria. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/schools/sdinfo/acc_contracts/2010/92.pdf (May 20, 2010).

Government of British Columbia. Education. 2009. Six-year Completion and Grade 12 Graduation Rates - 2008/09 092 Nisga’a. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pdfs/ graduation/092.pdf (May 19,2010)

Government of Canada. Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. (2000). Forging New Relationships: Aboriginal Governance in Canada, in Wendy Cornet et al First Nations Women, Governance and the Indian Act: A Collection of Policy Research Reports. Status of Women Canada: Ottawa, November 2001. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc. gc.ca/Collection/SW21-85-2001E.pdf (May 20, 2010).

Government of Canada. 2010. Nisga’a Culture. Library and Archives Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/settlement/kids/021013-2151.12-e.html (April 16, 2010).

Government of Canada. 2010. Speech from the Throne. 2010. March 3, 2010. http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1388 (March 30, 2010). Government of Northwest Territories. 1999. First Nunavut Legislative Assembly Elected. Elections NWT. Iqaluit.

Government of Nunavut. 1999. The Bathurst Mandate: Pinasuaqtavut. http://web.archive .org/ web/20010114213200/%20%20%20%20gov.nu.ca/eng/bathurst.html (May 26, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. 2000. Backgrounder: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Report. Niaqunngnut: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/news/2000/july/jul24a. pdf (May 26, 2010).

140

Government of Nunavut. 2004. Pinasuaqtavut 2004-2009: Our Commitment to Building Nuanvut’s Future: Working to Improve the Health, Prosperity, and Self-reliance of Nunavummiut. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/pinasuaqtavut/ engcover.pdf (May 31, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. 2007. Annirusuktugut: A Suicide Intervention and Prevention Strategy for the Government of Nunavut. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/annirusuktugut/jun29a.pdf (August 10, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Culture, Language, Elders, and Youth. 2002. First Annual Report of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) Task Force. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/cley/english/pdf/IQ%20Annual%20 %20Report-Eng.pdf (May 27, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Economic Development and Transportation. 2008. Parnautit: A Foundation for the Future, Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.edt.gov.nu.ca/docs/parnautit eng.pdf (August 11, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Education. 2008. Education Act. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.edu.gov.nu.ca/apps/authoring/dspPage.aspx? page=71 (May 31, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Education. 2008. Inuit Language Protection Act. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/cley/english/langleg.html (May 29, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Education. 2008. Official Languages Act. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/cley/english/langleg.html (May 30, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Environment. 2005. South Baffin Caribou. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/env/peary.shtml (May 30, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Finance. 2005. Nisga’a Final Agreement: Implementation Report 2004-2005. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://nnkn.ca/files/u28/Implementation%20Annual%20Report%202004%20-2005% 20Open.pdf (July 10, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. 2009. Consolidated Financial Statements of Nisga’a Lisims Government. Nisga‘a Lisisms Govenrment. March 31, 2009. http://www.afoa.ca/acfme/ pdf/Converting_Nisga.pdf (June 26, 2010).

Government of Nunavut. Department of Sustainable Development. 2003. Nunavut Climate Change Strategy. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. http://www.gov.nu.ca/env/ Climate%20Change%20Full%20English%20low.pdf (August 10, 2010).

141

Guno, Ray. 1997, June 18. ―Nisga‘a Deal a Modern ‗Thirty Pieces of Silver.‘‖In Without Treaty, Without Conquest: Indigenous Sovereignty in Post Delgamuukw British Columbia. Christopher Roth Wicazo Sa Review. Fall:143-165. http://www.jstor.org/pss /1409578 (May 23, 2010).

Hawkes, David Craig. 1989. Aboriginal Peoples and Government Responsibility: Exploring Federal and Provincial Roles. Montréal: McGill-Queen‘s Press.

Helin, Calvin. 2006. Dances with Dependency: Indigenous Success through Self- Reliance. Vancouver: Orca Spirit Publishing & Communications Inc.

Henderson, Ailsa. 2007. ―Cultural Renaissance or Economic Emancipation? Predictors of Support for Devolution in Nunavut.‖ Journal of Canadian Studies, 41(2): 65-87.

Henderson, Ailsa. 2007. Nunavut: Rethinking Political Culture. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Henderson, James (Sa‘ke‘j) Youngblood. 1997. The Mikmaw Concordat. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Henderson, James (Sa‘ke‘j) Youngblood. 2000. ―The Context of the State of Nature.‖ In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, eds. Marie Battiste, 11-38. Vancouver: UBC Press,

Henderson, James (Sa‘ke‘j) Youngblood. 2000. ―Ayukpachi: Empowering Aboriginal Thought.‖ In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, eds. Marie Battiste, 248-278. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hicks, Jack, and White, Graham. 2000. ―Nunavut: Inuit Self-Determination through a Land Claim and Public Government.‖ In Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of their Land and their Lives. Jens Dahl et al, eds, pp. 30-117. Copenhagen: IWGIA Document No.102.

Hicks, Jack. 2004. ―On the Application of Theories of ‗Internal Colonialism‘ to Inuit Societies.‖ Presentation for the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association. June 5. http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/Hicks.pdf (July 15, 2010)

Hicks, Jack. 2007. ―The Social Determinants of Elevated Rates of Suicide Among Inuit Youth.‖ In Social Suffering, eds. Jack Hicks and Sille Stideen. IWGIA Journal of Indigenous Affairs. 4: 30-37. http://www.iwgia.org/graphics/Synkron-Library/ Documents/publications/Downloadpublications/IndigenousAffairs/IA%204_07.pdf (July 15, 2010).

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 1993. Agreement Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development and the Tungavik. http://www.nucj.ca/library/bar_ads_mat/Nunavut_Land_Claims_Agreement.pdf

142

(May 27, 2010).

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Vol II: Restructuring the Relationship. Appendix A. Ottawa: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071124130607/http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sha6a_e.html (April 23, 2010).

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2007. ―General Briefing Note on the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy of Canada and the Status of Claims.‖ In Aboriginal Quality of Life under a Modern Treaty: Lessons from the Experience of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and the Inuit of Nunavik. Martin Papillon Institute for Research on Public Policy. 4(9):1-26. http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol14no9. pdf (July 21, 2010).

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2008. Inuit Statistical Profile. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. http://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/InuitStatisticalProfile2008_0.pdf (May 27, 2010).

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Adventure. 2010. The Traditional Inuit Justice System. [PowerPoint Slides]. http://inuitq.ca/learningresources/powerpoints/CCO_Justice% 20_english.pdf (August 8, 2010).

Johnson, Noor. 2009. ―In Inuit Traditional Knowledge and the Politics of Adaptation: Broadening Conceptions of Agency in Climate Change Governance.‖ Paper Presented at the 2009 Amsterdam Conference on Earth System Governance. http://www.earth systemgovernance.org/ac2009/papers/AC2009-0068.pdf (August 10, 2010).

Kelm, Mary-Ellen, and Townsend, Lorna. 2006. In the Days of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women’s History in Canada, eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kent, McNeil. 2000. ―The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title.‖ In Without Treaty, Without Conquest: Indigenous Sovereignty in Post Delgamuukw British Columbia. Christopher Roth. Wicazo Sa Review Fall: 143-165.

King, Thomas 2003. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anasi Press.

Kunuk, Zacharias. 2008. Joe Kremmidjuar Testimony. [Video File]. http://www.isuma. tv/lo/en/testimony-isuma/joe-kremmidjuar-testimony (August 7, 2010).

Kusugak, Jose. 2000. ―The Tide Has Shifted: Nunavut Works For US, and It Offers A Lesson to the Broader Global Community,‖ in Jens Dahl et al, ed. Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of their Lands and their Lives (pp. 20-29) Copenhagen: IWGIA Document No. 102.

Ladner, Kiera. L. 2000. ―Women and Blackfoot Nationalism.‖ Journal of Canadian

143

Studies. 35(2): 35-60. Http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?=did64745522&Fmt=3client ld= 18852&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Ladner, Kiera. L. 2001.‖Visions of Neo-Colonialism? Renewing the Relationship With Aboriginal Peoples.‖ The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XXI(2001): 105-135.

______. 2003. ―Governing Within an Ecological Context: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Blackfoot Governance.‖ Studies in Political Economy.

______. 2003. ―Treaty Federalism: An Indigenous Vision of Canadian Federalism.‖ In New Trends in Canadian Federalism, eds. François Rocher & Miriam Smiths Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Leavitt, Robert. M. 1985. ―Confronting Language Ambivalence and Language Death: The Roles of the University in Native Communities.‖ The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. V(2): 262-267. http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/5.2/leavitt.pdf (Sept 28, 2010).

Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. Hansard. 1999. In ―Stretching the Concept of Representative Bureaucracy: The Case of Nunavut.: Annis May Timpson. Internal Review of Administrative Sciences. 72(4): 517-530. DOI: 10.1177/0020852306070081.

Little Bear, Leroy. 2000. ―Jagged Worldviews Colliding.‖ In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, eds. Marie Battiste, 77-85. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Locke, John. 1690. Two Treatises of Government, reprint 2 vols., ed. Laslet Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mackenzie, Karen. 2008. ―Daycare needed to tip scales, says sole female MLA.‖ Northern News Services, November 3. http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2008- 11/nov3_08sad.html (May 30, 2010).

Macklem, Patrick. 2001. Indigenous Differences and the Constitution of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Maligarnit Qimirrujiit/Nunavut Law Reform Commission. 2000. First Report to the Premier. In ―Stretching the Concept of Representative Bureaucracy: The Case of Nunavut.‖ Annis May Timpson. Internal Review of Administrative Sciences. 72(4): 517-530.

McKee, Christopher. 1996. Treaty Talks In British Columbia: Negotiating a Mutually Beneficial Future. Vancouver: UBC Press

McMillan, Alan D. 1995. Native Peoples and Cultures of Canada. 2nd ed. Vancouver/Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd.

144

Mann, Howard. 2006. International Law and Indigenous Knowledge: Intellectual Property, Plant Biodiversity, and Traditional Medicine. Chidi Oguamanam Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Manuel, George, and Posluns, Michael. 1974. The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. New York: Collier Macmillan Canada. Quoted in Alfred, Taiaiake, and Corntassel, Jeff. ―Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Conlonialism.‖ Government and Opposition. 40(4): 597-614. http://web.uvic.ca/igov/uploads/pdf/Being%20 Indigenous%20GOOP.pdf (June 11, 2010).

Maracle, Sylvia. 2004. ―Native Women, Leadership, and Community Development.‖ In Strong Women Stories: Native Vision and Community Survival, eds. Kim Anderson and Bonita Lawrence, 70-80. Toronto: Sumach Press.

Martin-Hill, Dawn. 1995. ―The Lubicon Lake Nation: Spirit of Resistance.‖ In Aboriginal Health, Identity, and Resources, eds. Leanne Simpson, et al. Winnipeg: Department of Native Studies.

McCartney, Leslie. 2009. ―Respecting First Nations Oral Traditions.‖ In First Nations, First Thoughts: The Impact of Indigenous Thought in Canada, eds. Annis May Timpson, 77-96. Vancouver: University of UBC Press.

McElory, Ann. 2008. Nunavut Generations: Change and Continuity in Canadian Inuit Communities. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.

Meissner, Dirk. 2010. ―Nisga‘a have taken great strides since signing BC‘s first modern treaty.‖ Canadian Press, May 11. http://fpinfomart.ca (May 13, 2010).

Milloy, John. 1999. A National Crime: the Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Minogue, Sara. 2005. ―Two girls for every boy at GN.‖ Nunatsiaq News, May 27. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/50527/news/nunavut/50527_01.html (May 27, 2010).

______. ―NTI endorses uranium mining on Inuit-own land: New draft policy embraces nuclear power because it does not release greenhouse gas.‖ Nunatsiaq News, May 5. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/nti_endorses_uranium_mini ng_on_inuit-owned_land/ (August 11, 2010).

Minor, Tina. 2002. ―Political Participation of Inuit Women in the Government of Nunavut.‖ Wicazo SA Review (Spring): 65-90.

Molloy, Tom. 2000. The World is Our Witness: The Historic Journey of the Nisga’a into Canada. Calgary: Fifth House Publishing.

145

Monture-Okanee, Patricia. 1992. ―The Roles and Responsibilities of Aboriginal Women‖. In Contemporary Indian Women, eds. Cora J. Voyageur, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada Ltd.

Monture-Okanee, Patricia, and Turpel, Mary Ellen. 1992. ―Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Criminal Law.‖ In Political Status of Native Indian Women: Contradictory Implications of Canadian State Policy, Jo-Anne Fiske, In In the Day of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women’s History in Canada, Mary-Ellen Kelm and Lorna Townsend, eds, pp. 336-366. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Moss, Wendy. 1997. ―The Canadian State and Indian Women: The Struggle for Sex Equality Under the Indian Act. ―In Women and the Canadian State, eds. Caroline Andrew & Sandra Rodger, pp. 79-88. Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s Press.

Nahanee, Theresa Ann. 1997. ―Indian Women, Sex Equality, and the Charter.‖ In Women and the Canadian State, eds. Caroline Andrew & Sandra Rodger, pp. 89-103. Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s Press.

Native Women‘s Association of Canada. 1991. Aboriginal Women & the Implementation of Bill C-31. Paper presented to the Ontario Native Women‘s Association, October 3, in Thunder Bay, ON.http://www.nwac- hq.org/sites/default/files/reports/Aboriginal Women&ImplementationofBillC31.pdf August 18, 2010),

Native Women‘s Association of Canada. 2007. Aboriginal Women and Bill C-31. Issue Paper Prepared for the National Aboriginal Women‘s Summit, June 20-22, in Corner Brook, NL. http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/naws/pdf/nwac-billc-31.pdf (August 18, 2010).

―Nisga‘a Band Moves in Right Direction with Property Rights.‖ 2009. Vancouver Sun, November 25. www.vancouversun.com (May 14, 2010

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2006. Nisga’a Nation: Special Assembly. 2006. Gitwinksihlkw May 1-5. http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/files/nlg/u1/assembly2006.pdf (April 19, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2007. Financial Statements of the Nisga’a Lisims Government. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://nisgaalisims.ca/ files/nlg/u1/NLG_Consolidated_Financial_Statements_2008.pdf (April 19, 2010). Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2008. Financial Statements of the Nisga’a Lisims Government. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://nisgaalisims.ca /files/nlg/Mar%2031-09%20NLG%20Consolidated%20Financial%20Statements.pdf (April 19, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2008. Nisga’a Final Agreement: Implementation Report 2006- 2007/2007-08. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://www.nnkn.ca /files/u28/NLG-AR06-08.pdf (April 19, 2010).

146

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2009. Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://nisgaalisims.ca/files/nlg/Nisga_a_Landholding Transition_Act_%28October_2009%29.pdf (April 12, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2009. Nisga’a Landholding Transition Act Passed. New Aiyansh: Nisga‘a Lisims Government. http://nisgaalisims.ca/node/999 (April 12, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2010. About Nisga’a Lisims Government http://www.nisgaa lisims.ca/about-nisgaa-lisims-government (April 19, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2010. Nisga’a Nation: Sayt-K’ilim-Goot – One Heart, One Path, One Nation. http://nisgaalisims.ca/files/nlg/u1/NLGCorporateKit.pdf (April 19, 2010).

Nisga‘a Lisims Government. 2010. Ayuukhl Nisga’a Department. http://www.nisgaalisims.ca /ayuukhl-nisgaa-department (April 16, 2010

Nisga‘a Nation Knowledge Network. Community Centre. 2010. http://www.nnkn.ca/ node (April 19, 2010).

Nisga‘a Tribal Council. 1995. ―Lock, Stock and Barrel: Nisga‘a Ownership Statement.‖ In Resilience, Reciprocity and Ecological Economics: Northwest Coast Sustainability. Ronald Trosper. London and New York: Routledge.

Nisga‘a Valley Health Authority. n.d. ―Who we are.‖ http://sites.google.com/a/nvha.ca/ main/home (July 12, 2010).

Nunatsiaq News. 2006. ―NTI hits Ottawa with $1 billon lawsuit.‖ December 8. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/nti_hits_ottawa_with_1_billion_lawsuit/ (August 10, 2010).

Nunavut Court of Justice. 2010. About the Nunavut Court of Justice. http://www.nucj.ca/ unifiedcourt.htm (August 8, 2010).

Nunavut Implementation Commission. 1994. Two-Member Constituencies and Gender Equality: A ‘Made in Nunavut’ Solution for an Effective and Representative Legislature. Discussion Paper.

Nunavut Implementation Commission. 1995. Footprints in New Snow: A Comprehensive Report from the Nunavut Implementation Commission to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Concerning the Establishment of the Nunavut Government. Iqaluit, NWT.: The Commission.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 2006. Second Independent Five Year Review of Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 11.

147

http://www.tunngavik.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/second-five-year-review-of- the-nunavut-land-claims-agreement.pdf (August 12, 2010).

Owlijoot, Pelagie. 2008. Guidelines for working with Inuit Elders. Language and Culture Committee of Nunavut Arctic College. Arviat: Nunavut Arctic College. http://www.arcticcollege.ca/publications/books/elder%20guide%20english.pdf (May 26, 2010).

Papillon, Martin. 2008. ―Aboriginal Quality of Life Under a Modern Treaty: Lessons from the Experience of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and the Inuit of Nunavik.‖ Institute for Research on Public Policy. 14(9): 1-26. http://www.irpp.org/choices /archive/vol14no9.pdf (May 26, 2010).

Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. 2006. National Strategy to Prevent Abuse in Inuit Communities and Sharing Knowledge, Sharing Wisdom: A Guide to the National Strategy. Ottawa: Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. http://www.pauktuutit.ca/ pdf/publications/abuse/InuitStrategy_e.pdf (May 26, 2010).

Paul, Daniel. 2006. We Were Not Savages, 3rd ed. http://www.danielnpaul.com/WeWere NotTheSavages-Mi'kmaqHistory.html (Aug 7, 2010).

Paul, Pamela Marie. 1993. ―The Trojan Horse: An Analysis of the Social, Economic, And Political Reaction of First Nations People as a Result of Bill C-31‖. Masters‘Thesis, University of New Brunswick.

Ponting, J. Rick. 1997. First Nations in Canada: Perspectives on Opportunity, Empowerment, and Self-Determination. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2003. The Cost of Not Successfully Implementing Article 23: Representative Employment for the Inuit within the Government. February 17. http://www.tunngavik.com/documents/publications/2003-02-17-Pricewaterhouse Coopers-The-Cost-of-Not-Successfully-Implementing-Article-23.pdf (Aug 9, 2010).

Purich, Donald. 1992. The Inuit and Their Land: The Story of Nunavut. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company.

Qikiqtani Truth Commission. 2007. Qikiqtani Truth Commission: Mandate. Qikiqtani Inuit Association. http://www.qtcommission.com/actions/GetPage.php?pageId=31 (May 27, 2010).

RCMP Watch. 2009. ―Inuit commission blasts RCMP‘s report on dog slaughter.‖ Oct, 30. http://www.rcmpwatch.com/inuit-commission-blasts-rcmps-report-on-dog-slaughter/ (May 27, 2010)

Reimer, Gwen D. 1996. ―Female Consciousness: An Interpretation of Interviews of Inuit Women.‖ In Political Participation of Inuit Women in the Government of Nunavut.

148

Tina Minor. Wicazo SA Review(Spring): 65-90

Ricoeur, P. 1965. History and Truth. Trans. C. Kelby. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Roth, Christopher F. 2002. ―Without Treaty, Without Conquest: Indigenous Sovereignty in Post Delgamuukw British Columbia.‖ Wicazo Sa Review Fall: 143-165.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co- Existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.

Samon, Colin. 2009. ―A Colonial Double-Bind: Social and Historical Contexts of Innu Mental Health.‖ In Healing Traditions: The Mental Health of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, eds. Laurence J. Kirayer and Gail Gutherie Valaskakis Vancouver: UBC Press.

Schouls, Tim. 2003. Shifting Boundaries: Aboriginal Identity, Pluralist Thought, and The Politics of Self-Government. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Sharma, Ashok. 2010. ―India moves to reserve seats for women in parliament: Upper house votes overwhelmingly to hold one-third of seats for women.‖ The Globe and Mail, March 9. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/india-moves-to-reserve- seats-for-women-in-parliament/article1495269/ (May 30, 2010).

Sharon McIvor to Members of Parliament. May 18, 2010. http://www.nwac-hq.org/ sites/default/files/imce/SharonMay182010MPletterfinal%20%282%29.pdf (June 17, 2010).

Simpson, Audra, and Turner, Dale. 2008. Indigenous Leadership in a Flat World. Research Paper for the National Centre for First Nations Governance. May. http://www.fngovernance.org/research/turner_and_simpson.pdf (Aug 6, 2010).

Statistics Canada. 2006: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census: First Nations Peoples. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensem ent/2006/as-sa/97-558/p19-eng.cfm (March 30, 2010).

Statistics Canada. 2006: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census: Inuit. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as- sa/97-558/p9-eng.cfm#nt21 (March 30, 2010).

Sterritt, Neil. 1998. The Nisga‘a Treaty: Competing Claims Ignored! The British Columbian Quarterly 120(Winter): 73-97. Takano, Takako.2005. ―Connections with the Land: Land-skills courses in Igloolik, Nunavut.‖ Ethnography. 6(4) : 463-486

―The Americas: Home-owning nation; Canada‘s Nisga‘a.‖ 2009. The Economist, Dec

149

12. 393(8661): 40. http://proquest.umi.com (April 12, 2010).

Timpson, Annis May. 2006. ―Stretching the Concept of Representative Bureaucracy: the case of Nunavut.‖ International Review of Administrative Science. 72(4): 517- 530.

Timpson, Annis May. 2008. ―Building an Aboriginal-Oriented Public Service in Nunavut.‖ Canadian Political Science Association, June 4, 2008. http://www.cpsa- acsp.ca/papers-2008/Timpson.pdf (August 15, 2010).

Trott, Christopher G. 2006. ―The gender of the bear.‖ Etudes/Inuit/Studies. 30(1): 89-109 http://www.erudit.org/revue/etudinuit/2006/v30/n1/016151ar.pdf (May 31, 2010).

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2010. http://www.trc.ca/websites/ trcinstitution/index.php?p=4 (May 21, 2010).

Tully, James. 2000. ―A Just Relationship between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Peoples in Canada.‖ In Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government: The Canadian and Mexican Experience in North American Perspectives, eds. Curtis Cook and Juan David Lindau, pp. 39-71. Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s University Press.

Turner, Dale. 2006. This is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

Turpel-Lafond, Mary Ellen. 1997. ―Patriarchy and Paternalism: The Legacy of the Canadian State for First Nations Women.‖ In Women and the Canadian State, eds. Caroline Andrew & Sandra Rodger, pp. 64-78. Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s Press.

United Nations. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. General Assembly Resolution 61/295, 13 September 2007. http://www.un.org/esa/soc dev/unpfii/en/drip.html (March 30, 2010).

Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1987. Social Theory: Situation and Its Task; A Critical Introduction to Politics, A Work in Constructive Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quoted in Ladner, Keira. ―Governing Within an Ecological Context: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Blackfoot Governance.‖ Studies in Political Economy. 70(Spring):125-152

Valaskakis, Gail Guthrie. 2005. Indian Country: Essays on Contemporary Native Culture. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press.

Vickers, Patricia J. 2005. ―Sayt k‘ilim goot (Of One Heart): Transforming Suffering.‖ American Indian Quarterly 29(3-4): 691-706. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (May 18, 2010).

Voyageur, Cora. J. 1996. ―Contemporary Indian Women.‖ In Visions of the Heart: Canadian Aboriginal Issues, eds. Olive Patricia Dickason and David Alan Long, pp.

150

93-115. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada Ltd.

Wang, Elaine. 2006. ―Mining for Power: Uranium and the Community of Baker Lake, Nunavut.‖ University of Vermont: pp. 528-555. http://www.uvm.edu/~shali/Uranium %20and%20the%20Community%20of%20Baker%20Lake.pdf (August 15, 2010).

Warrior, Robert Allen. 1995. Tribal Secrets: Recovering American Indian Intellectual Traditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wataway News: Northern Ontario’s First Nation Voice. 2010. ―Concerns grow over rail survey.‖ April 29. http://www.wawataynews.ca/archive/all/2010/4/29/Concerns-grow- over-rail-survey_19763 (May 23, 2010).

Wesley-Esquimaux, Cynthia. C. 2007. ―The Intergenerational Transmission of Historic Trauma and Grief.‖ In Social Suffering, eds. Jack Hicks and Sille Stideen. IWGIA Journal of Indigenous Affairs. 4: 6-11. http://www.iwgia.org/graphics/Synkron-Library/ Documents/publications/Downloadpublications/IndigenousAffairs/IA%204_07.pdf (July 15, 2010).

White, Graham. 2006. ―Cultures in Collision: Traditional Knowledge and Euro-Canadian Governance Processes in Northern Land-Claim Boards.‖ Arctic. 59(4): 401-414. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic59-4-401.pdf (August 11, 2010).

Wilkins, Russell, et al. 2008. ―Life expectancy in the Inuit-inhabited areas of Canada, 1989 to 2003.‖ Health Reports. 19(1) Cat. No. 82-003-XWE. Statistics Canada. Ottawa: Public Works. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2008001/article/10463/ 4149059-eng.htm (May 26, 2010).

Williamson, Laakkuluk Jessen. 2006. ―Inuit gender parity and why it was not accepted in The Nunavut Legislature.‖ Etudes/Inuit/Studies 30(1): 51-68. http://www.erudit.org/ revue/etudinuit/2006/v30/n1/016149ar.pdf (May 26, 2010).

Wilp Wilx-o‘oskwkl Nisga‘a Institute. 2010. ―Nisga‘a Language Dictionary.‖ http://wwni.bc.ca/language.htm (July 10, 2010).

Wright, Edmond. 2002. Speaking the Truth to Power III, Self-Government: Options and Opportunities. BC Treaty Commission: Vancouver

Wright, Edmond. 2006. The Nisga’a Nation: Implementation of the Nisga’a Final Agreement. Presentation to the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada, Feb 21—23, Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.afoa.ca/afoa/pdf-2006/Edmond%20 Wright.pdf (April 13, 2010).

Yazzie, Robert. 2000. ―Indigenous Peoples and Postcolonial Colonialism.‖ In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, eds. Marie Battiste. Vancouver: UBC Press.

151

Young, Lisa. 1997. ―Gender Equal Legislatures: Evaluating the Proposed Nunavut Electoral System.‖ Canadian Public Policy 23(3): 306-315 http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3551574 (May 29, 2009).

152

Appendix A Indigenous Tribes in and around Turtle Island Pre-Contact

Source: Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

153

Appendix B Percentage of First Nations people who have knowledge1 of an Aboriginal language, by age groups, Canada, 2001 and 20062 First Nations people 2001 2006 On Off On Off Age Total reserve reserve Total reserve reserve groups percentage percentage

Total all ages 30 50 14 29 51 12 0 to 14 years 21 36 8 21 39 6 15 to 24 years 25 44 10 24 43 9 25 to 44 years 33 58 17 30 56 13 45 to 64 years 45 71 26 39 67 21 65 to 74 years 56 79 33 50 79 26 75 years and over 59 83 31 52 83 24 Source: Statistics Canada, censuses of population, 2001 and 2006.

Notes: 1. 'Knowledge' refers to languages in which the respondent can conduct a conversation. 2. Data have been adjusted to account for incompletely enumerated reserves in 2001 and 2006.

154

Appendix C

Percentage of Inuit population who reported Inuktitut as mother tongue and as home language, and knowledge of Inuktitut, Canada and regions, 1996 and 2006 Inuktitut as Inuktitut as home Knowledge3 of mother tongue1 language2 Inuktitut 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 Regions percentage

Canada 68 64 58 50 72 69 Total - Inuit Nunaat 79 78 69 63 84 84 Nunatsiavut 20 22 9 7 27 27 Nunavik 98 97 96 94 99 99 Nunavut 88 83 76 64 94 91 Inuvialuit region 20 14 4 3 23 20 Total - Outside Inuit Nunaat 13 14 4 4 16 15 Rural 9 13 1 2 11 15 Total urban 15 14 5 4 17 15 Census metropolitan area4 17 17 8 7 20 19 Urban non- census metropolitan area 13 11 3 2 16 11 Source: Statistics Canada, censuses of population, 1996 and 2006.

Notes: 1. 'Mother tongue' refers to the first language learned at home in childhood and still understood. 2. 'Home language' refers to the language spoken most often at home. 3. 'Knowledge' refers to languages in which the respondent can conduct a conversation. 4. A CMA, or census metropolitan area, has a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core.

155

Appendix D Map of Nunavut

Source: Kiviq‘s Journey : An Inuit Hero‘s Epic Quest http://www.unipka.ca/Index.html

156

Appendix E Nisga’a Nation Post-Nisga’a Final Agreement

Source: Molloy, Tom. 2000. The World is Our Witness: The Historic Journey of the Nisga’a into Canada. Calgary: Fifth House Publishing.