Episode 2: Treaties | Understanding Indigenous History: A Path Forward

Summary

This episode dives into the complexities and historical significance of treaties in Canada, specifically their impact on Indigenous communities and their relationships with European settlers. The discussion covers various aspects such as the intentions behind treaty negotiations, misunderstandings due to cultural and language barriers, and the ongoing impact of colonial policies like the Indian Act. The narrative highlights the resilience and challenges faced by Indigenous peoples in maintaining their rights and cultural identity amid systemic inequalities. The conversation also touches on the importance of reevaluating legal frameworks to ensure justice and equality for Indigenous communities.

Highlights

• Indigenous communities viewed treaties as sacred agreements meant to ensure their future, while Europeans saw them as land deals. 📜
• The Indian Act continues to impact Indigenous rights, acting as a tool for control rather than empowerment. 🔒
• Cultural laws and practices like the Sun Dance were banned, showcasing the oppressive nature of colonial policies. 🚫
• There's a movement towards self-governance and reclaiming Indigenous identity in Canada. 🇨🇦
• Modern treaty negotiations are redefining Indigenous and governmental relationships, paving the way for a more inclusive society. 🌐

Key Takeaways

• Treaties were seen as vital agreements by Indigenous communities but were often used by Europeans for land acquisition. 🤝
• Cultural and language differences led to misunderstandings, with Indigenous peoples valuing verbal agreements while Europeans focused on written contracts. 💬
• The Indian Act and other colonial policies continue to affect Indigenous communities, highlighting the need for systemic change. 📜
• Indigenous communities are gaining more control over their lands and governance through modern treaties. 🌍
• There is a push towards acknowledging and addressing historical injustices to build a more equitable future. 🚀

Overview

In this second episode of the series, the complexities of treaties in Canadian history unfold, revealing their deep-rooted impact on Indigenous populations. The hosts discuss how the initial intentions and understandings of these treaties have led to long-standing conflicts and misinterpretations, largely due to cultural differences and language barriers. The significance of these early agreements is emphasized, showing how they set the stage for contemporary issues facing Indigenous peoples today.

Much of the episode spotlights the infamous Indian Act, a legislative framework that legally controlled and marginalized Indigenous communities for generations. Hosts explore the Act's ongoing influence and the pressing need for reforms. Through interviews and stories, the harsh realities faced by Indigenous populations under these laws are laid bare, demonstrating the pervasive inequalities that were institutionalized through such colonial policies.

The episode concludes on a hopeful note, highlighting the progress being made through modern-day treaties and efforts towards self-governance. By reclaiming their traditions and asserting control over their lands, Indigenous communities are working to redefine their place within the Canadian landscape. The conversation encourages a reexamination of historical narratives and calls for justice and equality in moving forward.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Indigenous Origin Story and Land Acknowledgement The chapter begins with an acknowledgment of the Indigenous origin story, highlighting the importance of recognizing the history before and after European arrival.
• 01:00 - 02:30: Understanding Indigenous Treaties The chapter discusses the importance of acknowledging the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Indigenous peoples, specifically mentioning the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. This acknowledgment is customary at events in Canada. It reflects the historical context of treaties and the ongoing relationship with the land.
• 02:30 - 04:00: Treaty Interpretations and Expectations Canada's history is intertwined with treaties, which are essential to understanding the country's past. Initially, treaties were introduced to Indigenous people, and understanding their origins provides insight into their importance to Canadian history. Phil discusses how the first treaties made Indigenous people consider the concept of treaties and their significance.
• 04:00 - 06:00: Legal Language and Treaty Misunderstandings This chapter discusses the complexities of treaty negotiation, emphasizing how understanding and communication are crucial. It highlights the awareness among the people that the world was shifting, necessitating strategizing to ensure the vitality of their communities and the safeguarding of future generations.
• 06:00 - 08:00: Realities of Early Treaties The chapter titled 'Realities of Early Treaties' explores the initial negotiations and perceptions surrounding early treaties between indigenous people and the Crown. It emphasizes that while early treaties were more common in the east, the western communities were well informed about these negotiations. The treaties were considered highly significant and appeared promising, symbolizing hope and potential benefits for the people involved.
• 08:00 - 10:00: Government Control and Treaties The chapter discusses how commissioners announced meetings at Lower Fort Gary in July and August to discuss treaties with various tribes. This led to the gathering of Indian tribes and their leaders to engage in discussions on the proposed treaties.
• 10:00 - 12:00: Impact of Agriculture Policies The chapter explores the willingness of parties to negotiate and shape their future amidst a changing world. It highlights the rapid resolution of complex discussions, emphasizing the capacity to address intricate issues efficiently. Additionally, the chapter touches upon the crafting of legal documents in British legalese, underscoring the formalization of these agreements.
• 12:00 - 15:00: Punitive Measures and Indigenous Struggles The chapter explores the challenges Indigenous communities face in dealing with English legal systems and languages, which often require interpreters who may not fully capture the meanings and implications of legal matters. The discussions mainly revolve around issues of land, financial aspects, and the long-term impacts on their way of life. It highlights the complexities and struggles experienced by Indigenous peoples in navigating these legal and societal frameworks.
• 15:00 - 18:00: Impact of Disease and Modern Treaties The chapter titled 'Impact of Disease and Modern Treaties' discusses the dire impact of European colonization on indigenous wildlife and, subsequently, on the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples. As buffalo, beavers, and other fur-bearing animals became increasingly scarce due to overhunting and habitat destruction, Indigenous communities faced significant challenges. They were forced to reconsider their way of life, leading to critical decisions as they engaged in treaty negotiations with colonial powers. The chapter highlights a pivotal moment where Indigenous leaders expressed their needs and priorities, centering their hopes on the promises embedded in these treaties. However, the narrative underscores the complexities and challenges faced by these communities as they navigated this transformative period.
• 18:00 - 23:00: The Role and Memory of Indian Agents The chapter explores the promises made to Native American tribes, specifically focusing on the establishment of schoolhouses. These promises were often made by Indian agents who played significant roles in mediating relations between tribes and the U.S. government. The ability to read and write, dubbed as the 'cunning of the white man,' was highly valued and became a point of negotiation. The introduction of formal education, however, led to new crises, impacting tribal dynamics. Kathleen is mentioned as being in an awkward position, hinting at further discussion on the complexities faced by these agents and the tribes.
• 23:00 - 29:00: Dismantling the Indian Act The chapter titled 'Dismantling the Indian Act' discusses the contrasting perceptions during treaty negotiations between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. The Crown viewed these treaties primarily as real estate transactions aimed at acquiring land inexpensively. This would allow settlers and investors to exploit the land, which was the Crown's main objective in the treaty-making process.
• 29:00 - 38:00: Cultural Suppression in the Indian Act The chapter titled 'Cultural Suppression in the Indian Act' highlights the differing perspectives between Indigenous people and those representing the Canadian government. Indigenous people were focused on securing a future for themselves and future generations by protecting their culture, language, and ensuring access to healthcare and education. They were aware of what was necessary for their survival and prosperity. This insight emphasizes the misunderstanding and competing interests between the two groups, with the Indigenous communities aspiring for empowerment and preservation of their cultural identity.
• 38:00 - 45:00: Resurgence of Indigenous Traditions The chapter 'Resurgence of Indigenous Traditions' discusses the linguistic and conceptual differences in treaty negotiations between Indigenous peoples and their counterparts. It highlights the significance Indigenous communities placed on the verbal and ceremonial aspects of treaties, viewing them as sacred. These aspects, which included the exchange of wampum belts and ceremonial gifts, were deemed as critical as the written agreements, emphasizing the spirit and intent behind the treaties.
• 45:00 - 46:00: Closing Remarks and Next Topics The chapter discusses the differing perspectives on agreements between the British and Indigenous peoples. It highlights the British desire to codify agreements in writing for legal enforceability, contrasting this with the Indigenous approach. The conflict arises from the question of whose law - British Crown law or Indigenous law - should prevail. This difference in perception and understanding is likened to two ships passing in the night, illustrating the ongoing challenges and misunderstandings between the two cultures.

Episode 2: Treaties | Understanding Indigenous History: A Path Forward Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 We started this journey at the beginning, the Indigenous origin story, and the acknowledgement that there is a before and after. We're talking of course about before the Europeans arrived and
• 00:30 - 01:00 then after they settled here. As we talk about this I'm going to acknowledge once again that we are on the traditional ancestral and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) First Nations. That is usually the very first thing uttered from any podium at any event in Canada, a land acknowledgement we say out loud whose land we are on and we give thanks for the use of this land. This of course is all based on the language of treaties. So let's start with
• 01:00 - 01:30 that session now. Phil and Kathleen this is a fascinating element to the whole history and I suppose if you don't understand treaties, you don't understand the history of Canada. So let's try and help everybody understand better understand it. Give me the story, if you can, Phil, of how the first treaties sort of warmed Indigenous people to the notion of it. Well, one thing is very clear when
• 01:30 - 02:00 we talk about treaty - making, negotiating treaties. Our people knew and understood very well that the world was changing. That it would never be the same. And so they had to figure out how they were going to give life to their communities, how they were going to protect their children. What it is that
• 02:00 - 02:30 they were going to be able to extract from the Crown, the Queen Mother and that's how these treaties began. And so you had early treaties in the east but our people in the west knew that treaties were being negotiated. There was no, there were no secrets about this very important matter. Did it sound like a good thing or did they know right away? Oh gosh our people thought that the treaties were really very important, and they represented a lot of good to
• 02:30 - 03:00 their people and their communities. And so when the commissioners announced that they would be say in Lower Fort Gary in late, in July and August, and that they would like to meet with the Indians of the various tribes in the region to talk treaty, the people showed up. Their leaders showed up.
• 03:00 - 03:30 And they were prepared to sit down and negotiate something for their future, about their future. The fact that the world was changing, as I noted, and it would never be the same right? So they've had these discussions over very complicated matters and they resolve these issues in a matter of days, a very short period of time. These legal documents that were written in British legalese,
• 03:30 - 04:00 English legalese, and not in our languages. So we had interpreters that didn't always provide the kind of clarity and translation about what was being said, what was being proposed, but our people understood that it was about land. There was some issue of money, there was some issue of the future in terms of what kind of life that they would be able to provide for themselves since the
• 04:00 - 04:30 Buffalo had just about ceased to exist, the beaver had disappeared, all fur bearing animals and their fur had been depleted. So they had to think of another life. And this other life had to do with what was going to be described in the treaty. Most importantly the Indians said we want
• 04:30 - 05:00 to acquire the cunning of the white man. What was that? The ability to read and write. That's why most indicated that one of the promises was a schoolhouse. The schoolhouse had to be built at the behest of the chief of this tribe or that tribe. And that of course opened a whole new crisis, which we will get to. But Kathleen this is an awkward position I'm going to put you in
• 05:00 - 05:30 but be the Crown here at that negotiating table and tell me about the clash of perceptions, if you will. Sure, well the Crown approached these treaties as massive real estate deals where they could acquire all of this land for a very cheap price so that settlers and investors could come and exploit the land. That was their main objective in the treaty-making. On the other
• 05:30 - 06:00 side of the table, as Phil has said, the Indigenous people came with a different perspective. They wanted a future for themselves, their kids, their grandchildren, etc. They wanted to protect their culture, language, they wanted health care, they wanted education. They weren't stupid people, they knew what they needed in order to survive and thrive. So there was these two competing perceptions and further, to make the situation even more separate in terms of perception,
• 06:00 - 06:30 was the language barrier. There was the notion that, from the Indigenous side, that treaties were sacred, that the verbal expressions of what they wanted, the spirit and intent of this bargain, was much more important than the written word. That was how treaties historically were made and people honoured those. And so when they presented wampum belts or gifts or had the ceremony that was to ratify in
• 06:30 - 07:00 a sense the moral aspect of these agreements. On the other side, the British wanted to write it all down because they knew that perhaps they'd end up in court one day and they wanted the words there, they wanted this to be like a contract that was enforceable by law, but whose law? The Crown's law. The colonial law. And so British law versus Indigenous law was the crux of the matter here and was the problem in difference of perceptions. They were like two ships passing in
• 07:00 - 07:30 in the night in terms of where they were coming from. However, I would think the British knew what they were doing quite clearly. In financial terms, what did indigenous peoples get in return? They were promised so much land and quite often the land that the commissioners were prepared to offer
• 07:30 - 08:00 the people they were negotiating with, the various tribes, was never what the Indians wanted. Land to hunt to farm? Well they were supposed to be able to sustain themselves till the end of time with their traditional pursuits hunting, fishing, trapping, in addition to all of these other matters that I've mentioned to be able to farm, to educate their children and, of course, cash in terms of annual annuities. So much for the chief, so much for the head of the council and
• 08:00 - 08:30 so much for the ordinary folk. And in my case, I'm not a chief, I'm not, you know, I don't hold a political title in my community of Sagkeeng, but I still receive $5 a year for the fact that I belong to treaty number one. Still to this day you? Yeah, August 3rd, 1871, that's what we were
• 08:30 - 09:00 promised, that's what we receive today. So how does that show up today? This is something negotiated that long ago. It is seen as being completely unfair totally unfair, and our leadership firmly believe that the commissioners lied to them. When they were told you would get the land you need to
• 09:00 - 09:30 be able to sustain yourself, you'll get cash, you’ll get farm implements, you’ll get a school. But the land that was offered to them was not of the of the quantity, or volume, that would enable them to sustain themselves and and of course they felt deprived of what was rightfully theirs.
• 09:30 - 10:00 And so complaints started the day after. That the treaty was unfair they, promised this, they never delivered that and for example in treaty number one there's a there's a add-on called outside promises and there were not much in those days, right, the outside promises –the buggy
• 10:00 - 10:30 and whatnot. But today they are significant because you have to be able to translate the language of 1871 to the language of 2023. And to make it to make some sense out of that, you know. So what have we been able to deliver both sides in terms of peaceful coexistence,
• 10:30 - 11:00 peaceful coexistence between commissioners and the people they represented and our people. It's been nothing but conflict, right? Our people calling on the government to give them the land they promised them over 120 years ago, 100 years ago. To give them the implements that they promised them.
• 11:00 - 11:30 To give them the cash that they said they would provide as times changed, as the economy the Canadian economy changed. That this would be reflected in in terms of what the various tribes would receive from the Canadian government. That’s why we’re still besieged as a country with resolving land issues. There are so many examples of where obviously the European mindset was never
• 11:30 - 12:00 going to see Indigenous peoples as equals. Let's have a deeper understanding of some of the tactics that were in fact life-threatening tactics that were imposed on reserves. Well, one example that comes to mind is in terms of the transition to agriculture, the farming and
• 12:00 - 12:30 in Manitoba in the western part of the province, our people were so very successful at farming. The white farmers complained to the government. Government moved in and made it extremely difficult for the success to continue, withholding implements, farming
• 12:30 - 13:00 implements and the like, and in effect forcing people into starvation because they couldn't do as the government wanted them to be initially when they were negotiating treaties, for example, offering them farming implements, agricultural implements, so that they could make a transition from being Hunter hunters particularly and uh and Trappers trappers into farmers.
• 13:00 - 13:30 And yet it was near impossible for our people to become successful at that economic pursuit, rather the government wanted them to be farm hands. And this wasn't just, this isn't just oral history this is actually a written down principle. So Kathleen give us the background of the fact
• 13:30 - 14:00 that this was not something happening in the shadows. No, no, no. Well in fact I went to school with a with a friend, a high school, in Trail BC where I'm from. Her grandfather, Edgar Dewdney, was the man responsible for the government policy of reward and punishment. And if the Indigenous community was doing something the government didn't like with respect to the settlers and their economy, they would punish them. How? The punishment could be food rations being denied;
• 14:00 - 14:30 the punishment could be seizing their weapons so they couldn't hunt, the punishment could be not providing, as Phil said, the agricultural implements they would need to continue to be successful farmers. So people starved and this was also in the context of treaty making. All of this was happening around the same time. So not only was there this perception problem of the Indigenous people seeing treaties as a sharing agreement, sharing the land for
• 14:30 - 15:00 prosperity for both, sharing resources, whereas the government saw it as a real estate deal. Now what we had was inequality of bargaining power completely because when people are starving, or people are disease-ridden, because not only did the newcomers bring goods to trade, they also brought   disease that Indigenous people didn't have the natural resistance for. So there was thousands
• 15:00 - 15:30 of Indigenous people died of smallpox, the flu, tuberculosis, all sorts of diseases. So you had this going on in the community that they’re entering into these huge agreements, or these   agreements with huge implications I should say. They weren't huge agreements, they were, like, two pagers. So, you know, you had this tremendous inequality of bargaining power, this tremendous misconception of perception. And today even with the modern treaties, we have the same problem
• 15:30 - 16:00 with perception and attitudes and intention. The spirit and intent which Indigenous people enter into these agreements with of sharing the resources, sharing the wealth and the Crown's view of control and certainty for third-party investors, like the oil companies, like the pipeline companies. They're not going to invest if they don't have a treaty, or they don't have a legal thing they can take to court and have judges enforce. Judges operating from colonial legal principles, of course.
• 16:00 - 16:30 So the deck is stacked against the Indigenous people from the get-go and always has been. And so now, today, you try and achieve a fair and just resolution of these matters for example land. It's near impossible to achieve success because the government is still of the
• 16:30 - 17:00 mindset of the old time, of olden times right, and we have to pull out all stops to convince government negotiators that this is fair, this is unfair, the judge was wrong here, the judge was wrong here and it's really frustrating, nearly debilitating in terms of securing
• 17:00 - 17:30 what is right and just for our people. It's a sad tale really. And it's 2023 and the fight continues. And it's all about access now as well now as it was back then. Access for mining interests, for oil and gas, logging interests, hydroelectric power, major farming
• 17:30 - 18:00 operations and, essentially, Indian lands were open for business right. There were no rules that govern mining companies, for example, or particularly mining companies, for access to Indian land so that they could go out and explore and, you know, prospect. When I think about,
• 18:00 - 18:30 you know, in the Irish culture the Irish famine is something we all know the story of. We know it through oral history, we know it through facts, through history. Can you give us some kind of historical perspective on stories you may have heard growing up on what that starvation on those farms when the herds were disappearing, stories that may have carried into your life that
• 18:30 - 19:00 you learned as a small child? Well I'll give you one story. It's embedded in my in my memory, and this is a story about the Indian agent ruling according to edicts that were set out by government in Ottawa and in Winnipeg. The major center for Indian agencies in Manitoba and
• 19:00 - 19:30 this was in the period of high unemployment in our community. Men were desperate for work. Fishing wasn't the economy it used to be. Hunting wasn't something that our people did as they used to and trapping was for few. Government had come in and introduced the permit system.
• 19:30 - 20:00 Soyou had people had to have a a trap line here, or a trap line there, that had to be uh conferred on them by government. So there we became really dependent on welfare, social assistance. And it was quite often the men, in the early days, that had to go to the Indian office in town to seek
• 20:00 - 20:30 social assistance, to get welfare from the Indian agent. And this guy made a decision, okay if you have the money to be able to drive to town, why do you have to come here for welfare? And there'd be this long lineup of men on the street of this town right up to the Indian agent's office and it was, and he was insisting that these people that had cars that they bring
• 20:30 - 21:00 in their license plates, right before he would have the will to give them what was rightfully theirs. So it was humiliating it was, it was like… I don't know how you’d
• 21:00 - 21:30 describe the feeling or the feelings of the men that had to seek financial support so that they could sustain their families, and put through the humiliation of convincing the Indian agent that, you know, they had a few bucks that's how they came into town to get support from the government
• 21:30 - 22:00 someone has to be a stone heart, someone has to have a stone heart to compel him to implement these rules that were so completely unfair right, completely objectionable to any fair-minded person. And this is also why the concept of building trust, after so much is lost,
• 22:00 - 22:30 is so difficult and takes so long. You don't believe government when it makes a decision, or when government gives you its word that they will behave this way to you or to the people, right, because the quite often too often the opposite is true. And this image that I have in my mind about the people and from my community going to the Indian agent and asking this bastard,
• 22:30 - 23:00 right, this awful bastard to provide what was rightfully theirs, right? People in need of help, in need of support, not because they were lazy, right, they weren't beggars but they had no other option. And then to go to the government, as many peoples in the history of this country have had
• 23:00 - 23:30 to do is to go to government to sustain their families and their communities. That's history. After the government made it impossible for them to thrive. So this was the Catch 22 of course. So it brings tears to one's eyes to think about this in terms of our idea that we're a country that respects dignity, we're told this, and equality and we believe in human rights.
• 23:30 - 24:00 This is not human rights. This is human degradation, deliberate to degrade and subordinate a whole race of people. And the document that really drives all of this is the Indian Act. 1876, the Indian Act and, other than a few amendments, it remains essentially the same today. Well, it's no coincidence that the Indian Act shortly followed the beginning of this treaty making.
• 24:00 - 24:30 So the Indian Act became the legal instrument, the enforceable legal instrument, that would control people on reserves now because the treaties were putting people on reserve. So you have to look at what does the Indian Act say? Well the Indian Act, clearly its purpose was to totally assimilate and control and destroy the Indigenous culture. Go one step further cause I think it's so severe when you
• 24:30 - 25:00 read the language of what those reserves did and whether or not people were even allowed to leave them. Oh yeah, they had a past system. So the Indian agent, who was a non-indigenous person, was put on every single reserve and they were the police basically of the Indian Act. And so if you wanted to leave the reserve you had to show a pass or get permission, um was just one thing. But, I mean, the Indian Act it did all sorts of things. It took away the system
• 25:00 - 25:30 of governance that Indigenous people had and replaced it with an election type of governance with a chief and counsel. It took away the right of women to participate in the governance. It took away cultural activities like powwows and sun dances. Banned them. It banned them. By law.   It required children to go to Indian residential schools. What’s interesting on the land question, which, again is clearly no coincidence, it forbade Indigenous people from raising money to fight
• 25:30 - 26:00 these land grabs and theft of land and failure to adhere to the principles of the treaty, they could not raise money to fight them and, furthermore, they could not hire a lawyer to help them. In fact, we have one case that Phil and I are involved in where a lawyer tried for a number of years to help this community, which was illegally amalgamated, and he got a letter from the government saying
• 26:00 - 26:30 he would be disbarred if he continued to act for these people. So that's how the Indian Act worked. It's almost unbelievable that these laws could stand. And for women, it was terribly disadvantageous for women and this feeds into the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls issue.   Women were downgraded, they were put at the very bottom of this social ladder. And especially for a community that had such a matriarchal strength historically. And the women's role
• 26:30 - 27:00 in the fur trade was massive. But all of a sudden women couldn't participate in the governance. They were not considered to be active or important members. They were, residential schools sort of assigned them to be people that would do beadwork only and that would be homemakers and that would not have any significance in the in the community. So they also would lose their status. Their status was totally tied to men, so if an Indian woman, I'm using the term from Indian because it's under the Indian Act, if an Indian woman married a non-status Indian or a non-native person, she lost
• 27:00 - 27:30 her status, her kids lost their status. They were no longer under the Indian Act, which had other benefits, which allowed her to live on a reserve, which allowed her to be even buried on the reserve. They took all of that away if she dared to step out of the male dominance of her identity. And that lasted, frankly, till 2019 when finally, after several court cases, going all the way to the
• 27:30 - 28:00 United Nations, finally the Canadian government just a few years ago said that we finished with all the gender discrimination under the Indian Act. And now they cannot deny status based on who you marry. So you know in the generations they had all sorts of provisions about well if you married out and you were denied status fine you and your kids, well then that was changed. But then if your if your grandchildren married out, well, then they were denied. So it just went on
• 28:00 - 28:30 and on. So, you know the remnants of the Indian Act are still disadvantageous, right up until recently, for women especially. We really need to dig into this because this is still the document today. But, Phil, before we do that can you give us your earliest memory of an Indian agent on your reserve? Do you have memories of of that? That relationship between this outsider, basically,
• 28:30 - 29:00 who came onto your reserve and their impact. Well, one part of it is funny, because the Indian Indian agent stopped on the road in front of our house and there was a bottle of beer, on the, empty mind you, on the table and it might have been my mother had said hey hide that uh Indian agent
• 29:00 - 29:30 Frank Hughes is coming. You remember his name. Yeah, I do. And put away the Bannock, you know, so yeah Bannock wasn't for white people. And tell me why though. Obviously there was a fear, your mother felt if the agent saw the beer or the Bannock there was going to be judgment. Oh gosh   yeah, but, interestingly enough my parents had high regard for Frank Hughes. He wasn't an
• 29:30 - 30:00 overbearing kind of person, right, that imposed the laws as outlined in the Indian Act. He was more reasonable. But what was he doing at your house? What was his normal role? Well I think he was coming to check up on us. I don't know. We didn't have any well, we didn't hold any special
• 30:00 - 30:30 status in the community but he decided, I guess, to stop and see what was what was happening in the Fontaine homestead. And when he was done he drove off. But, interestingly enough, I don't think he was the one, but I couldn't tell you the name, the Indian agent had to give permission to my my father who was selling some of his cattle so he could buy a car. So the Indian agent had to come
• 30:30 - 31:00 out and, you know, with my father, count the cattle the number of cattle that were going to be sold, and that was just the way it was done. So he couldn't do any unilaterally, any business decision without the approval of the Indian agent. And the Indian agent had an overbearing presence in the lives of our people. And he didn't live on the reserve, the Indian agent, he had
• 31:00 - 31:30 an office in town, second floor of the post office, but before then he had been in Selkirk. So the Indian agent, while he had all of this power in control, didn't have a presence where everyone  on the reserve knew who he was right. But then when you became chief of your reserve at a very
• 31:30 - 32:00 young age you fired him, right? I didn't fire him. I just, I well… Who, Frank? No, no Frank. Frank, I probably would have been a friend. But no, the Indian agent at the time I was elected chief, we, in effect, pushed him out and he went to the office of the government, the Indian Affairs
• 32:00 - 32:30 Department, I should say, in Winnipeg because he felt so unwelcome in our office. Was that the beginning of the end of Indian agents? In our community. But in in general. I think there was a movement that was just beginning where our people made certain assertions to controlling our own destiny. You know, as you say this, I'm thinking back to 1920. If you look at there’s a
• 32:30 - 33:00 very famous, infamous quote from Duncan Campbell Scott who was the superintendent general of Indian Affairs. I'm going to quote it so I don't get it wrong: “wanting to get rid of the Indian problem    our objective is to continue until there is no Indian question and no Indian department.” So how
• 33:00 - 33:30 did that negative tone and that objective impact the lives, I mean, it couldn't have been a secret. You're saying when you became chief people recognized the fact that it was time to reclaim your own story, your own lives. This man, his job is to completely eradicate the Indian problem. He was the one that that pushed the legislation that didn't allow First Nations people or Indigenous
• 33:30 - 34:00 people to raise money on land claims to fight the government stealing their land. Or hiring a lawyer. So he was also in charge of Indian residential schools and what's interesting about Duncan Campbell Scott is that he's a member of the, he's a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, which is one of the highest honours that one can receive. And the reason he was made a fellow
• 34:00 - 34:30 was because of his poetry. He was a poet and guess what the theme of his poetry contributions were. The theme was the was the saga, the sad tale of the disappearing Indian. And here he was the architect of this legislation, devastating legislation for land and the rightful ownership of the land and everything that meant, as well as the running of the Indian residential schools where kids were well we all know the story of that where the kids were dying the
• 34:30 - 35:00 kids were being abused the kids were suffering from lack of food and clothing and nutrition and health care. This was the same guy. And we are going to that obviously is a big part of this conversation as we move forward on the journey, but I have to ask Phil given what we know about the Indian Act, yes there's been amendments, but why does it still exist today? Why do Indigenous
• 35:00 - 35:30 people want to keep this document? Well I have to make this one statement first. The Indian Act is a racist document. It's the only legislation of its kind in the world that speaks to a distinct  peoples, a race of peoples It is our apartheid document. Essentially and in
• 35:30 - 36:00 spite of the underlying theme of the Indian Act, which is about agency, which is about control, which is about dominion over our lands and our peoples, there are many in in our community that see the Indian Act as something important. When I was Grand Chief in Manitoba and National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, I uh made an offer, if I can put it that way, because I mean,
• 36:00 - 36:30 I didn't have any inherent power, but Iproposed that we take steps to repeal the Indian Act in Manitoba. One because we had an agreement with the federal government where one of the opportunities we had, one of the options we had was the repeal of the Indian Act. And I made similar a similar
• 36:30 - 37:00 move nationally when I was National Chief. In Manitoba, I recall one meeting, I have a distinct memory of that the room full of people that were gathered to talk about the dismantling of the Indian Affairs, including the Indian Act. We were going to take over control of our affairs. And a woman in the audience got up and said if we get rid of the government, if we get
• 37:00 - 37:30 rid of the of the Department of Indian Affairs, who's going to look after us? I said, look, we will. The treaties… I said the treaties never said we weren't going to look after ourselves or we didn't   have the right to do so. That is our right. We will look after ourselves. But that comment is so incredibly revealing of what the perception was. She said it out loud but clearly it still exists
• 37:30 - 38:00 so there must be a broader sense of that the government is looking after. Well, that's the prevailing attitude in my view in too many, too many of our communities. We're dependent on government. we're We're too dependent on government and that's what poverty does to a people's dependency. So part of this whole conversation, series of conversations, is to go to a future
• 38:00 - 38:30 where that may not be as damning, as obvious, as real. Kathleen how do you see, as a lawyer, taking the Indian Act, changing it, moving forward so that there isn't that level of dependency and poverty? Well, I think, like Phil says, people see protection in the Indian Act. It wasn't all negative, there were
• 38:30 - 39:00 some positive provisions, like there's the taxation provision, which if you're working on reserve you get relief from taxation, from income taxation. So you don't pay tax. If you're working on reserves and you're earning money on reserve. There's other protections, there's structural things that people feel comfortable with. So if one were to just pull all of that away all of a sudden, I mean, it gives people a sense of insecurity. So there has to be something to replace it.
• 39:00 - 39:30 It just can't be dissolved without something to replace it. But considering it was written in 1876 it's not all of a sudden that these conversations have happened. Well it's happening. It’s not that that nothing is happening, Lisa, it's happening because it's happening in a different vein it's happening through modern negotiation of treaties and land claims negotiations. And so Indigenous peoples are now taking back a lot of the power that was denied them through these
• 39:30 - 40:00 modern treaties. Now if you look at Nunavut for example or you look at the Nisga'a treaty, these are modern treaties where the governments are recognized as governments and, especially Nunavut, they have their own parliament, they make their own laws. The vast majority of people in the North in that territory are Indigenous, so it makes sense that they would self-govern and be self-determining. But until the Nunavut treaty was signed bureaucrats in Ottawa ran that huge territory.
• 40:00 - 40:30 So, things are changing but in different ways. Well, for example, one of the important, most important, changes is that First Nation communities can decide for themselves how they will elect their leadership and so many First Nation communities opted for custom of the band. There's a provision in the Indian Act that enables First Nation communities to, through custom,
• 40:30 - 41:00 elect their leadership but that provision still has to be sanctioned by the Minister of Indian Affairs. So what we have now is between 50 and 60 per cent of all First Nation communties in the country elect their chief and counsel by custom of the band. So that's I mean. That's a progress, significant progress,
• 41:00 - 41:30 but why isn't it that all First Nation communities in Canada aren't able to elect their people by custom, whatever the custom of the band may be, and it varies from band-to-band or tribe-to-tribe. Now there was a halt in that custom during the years of the ban in the act of these cultural events of the celebration of… Potlatch. The sun dance… I don't want us to skip over that because I
• 41:30 - 42:00 do think it's really important to look at a 20-year span or how many years was it? 30? Where this was illegal. To celebrate publicly any cultural event. Well, I mean, the authorities, the federal authorities saw the potlatch as contrary to the to the will of government, right,
• 42:00 - 42:30 because potlatches were giveaways where someone accumulated riches and wealth, but then gave it all away and yet the deep thinkers in Ottawa saying hey that's that's socialism. Riches and wealth from where though? That they've accumulated if they were outstanding hunters or fishermen.
• 42:30 - 43:00 The West Coast was largely fishing so and you had these alliances, you had traders and... So that made the government nervous. Well because, yeah, it was anti-capitalist. They were trying to develop capitalism, of course. What part of it was also to try to deny any kind of cultural celebrations? Well, the sun dance, which is really the thirst dance was just not consistent with the
• 43:00 - 43:30 teachings of the churches. It was inconsistent with the will of government that Indians should be practicing something that is so depraved. You know? People would allow themselves to be tethered to poles in the center with, you know, piercing the skin and dancing till
• 43:30 - 44:00 they're able to break free from being tethered. And government saw this as part of the savagery of the Indigenous peoples. And this kind of practice should not be allowed and was not allowed. But times have changed and so you have sun dances that are held in so many places in the
• 44:00 - 44:30 country here and to the south. And we’re our people are our participants, are organizers. Leading, in fact, these incredible celebrations. These very important cultural expressions of various of our people. Because it is now incumbent on you to teach younger generations who didn't know it and I mean that the key provision of the Indian Act really was assimilation, which of course then
• 44:30 - 45:00 spelled out the creation of residential schools and that is where we are going to take our next conversation. [Music] [Music]
• 45:00 - 45:30 [Music]