[MUSIC] So far in this lesson we have examined four distinct Indigenous government structures, and explore how governmental policies influence the growth of Indigenous political activism and organization. We will conclude this lesson with a culmination of what we've discussed and outline the resulting contemporary definitions of Indigenous political systems of governance. The concepts of self-government, self-determination, and Indigenous resurgence are important to understanding Aboriginal politics and governance. The concept of self-government means the political bodies, such as the Nisga'a agreement for example, allows Indigenous people the right to govern their own affairs. Furthermore, self-government provisions bestow greater responsibility and more control by Indigenous peoples over decision making processes unique to their own communities. According to the Federal Government: self-government agreements address the structure of Aboriginal governments, their law making powers, financial arrangements and their responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and other private companies to promote economic development and improve social conditions. More specifically, within the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, there is a section which allows for communities to be self-governing. This is a unique component because a Nunavut government represents all the Indigenous and non-Indigenous people residing in their territory. Self-determination often corresponds with self-governing principles. Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination includes the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development unchallenged and away from state control. Self determination of Aboriginal peoples have been outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under Article 3. The concept of self-determination is often used in international law. Finally, the concept of Indigenous resurgence can involve the ways that Indigenous peoples are trying to reconnect to the natural and traditional world. This reflects the need that many Indigenous peoples feel to decolonize their lives and is often done through spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political means. Examples of Indigenous resurgence in Canada are the Red Power Movement, Bill C-31, and the Lavell case, which will be discussed in more detail in another lesson. Briefly though, the Lavell case reinstated Aboriginal women's rights which had been taken away due to the sexist, patriarchal policies of the Indian Act. As we've discovered, there are many different ways in which Indigenous communities organize their government systems. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, some of the factors that influence the systems of government includes historical treaty and other relations, cultural characteristics, social organization, economic situation, political culture, philosophy, and traditions of political organization, geographic features, territorial size and existing land base, degree in continuity of territory, population size, distribution of population, and existing provincial and territorial boundaries. To illustrate this, we will focus on the Aboriginal Nation Model of government as defined by RCAP. The defining feature of the Aboriginal Nation Model is that it can be used to validate Aboriginal rights, traditions, through the effective control of traditional lands and resources. An example of a community that is using the Aboriginal Nation Model are the Teslin Tlingit. The Teslin Tlingit constitution provides that all citizens enjoy rights guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Teslin Tlingit Constitution includes the right to pursue a way of life that promotes Tlingit language, culture, heritage and material well-being. In exercising law making powers, the Teslin Tlingit government must observe certain norms and work within the parameters designed to protect the individual and the collective rights of the Teslin Tlingit Nation. Many Aboriginal Nations develop their own constitutions. According to RCAP, terms within the constitution may contain a statement of values, beliefs, principles, a description of units or levels of government and associated legislative, and definitions of jurisdictions, powers, and authority. Constitutions may also list criteria, application, and appeal procedures for citizenship, resources and the environment, individual and collective rights protections, as well as procedures for amending the constitution. Citizenship is another key element of the Aboriginal Nation Model, as it allows the nation to define who is a citizen and who is not. This includes residents who are Aboriginal and who are non-Aboriginal. Citizenship can be determined through such features as community acceptance, self-identification, parentage or ancestry, birthplace, adoption, marriage to a citizen, cultural or linguistic affiliation and residence. Citizenship instills rights, entitlements and benefits upon the individuals as well as responsibilities. These rights include civil, democratic and political rights, cultural and economic rights, such as the right to pursue traditional economic activities. There are also rights to entitlements, such as those flowing from treaties and those in the areas of education and healthcare. This model also allows for Aboriginal governments to have specific power and authority over various different levels of government structures. As well, Aboriginal Nations have sole jurisdiction over the authority of lands. Nation models allow for judicial matters to be controlled by the nation, including enforcement of laws, policing and healing. The element of control over healing is particularly important to communities as it allows for Elders to be incorporated into judicial matters. Aboriginal Nation Models can accommodate urban extensions of the Nation and include other relationships with various government parties. However, the key goal of a nation model is to create a centralized form of government. Under a centralized form, the power and authority can establish community or local governments and assign responsibilities to them. Urban extensions of Aboriginal nations may include urban Aboriginal citizens’ participation in governance initiatives. But for urban citizens, participation is voluntary and based on individual choice and consent. Urban extensions of an Aboriginal nation government might take the form of extraterritorial jurisdiction, host Nation, Treaty Nation government in urban areas, or Métis Nation government in urban areas. Extra territorial services includes the following: programs and services for spiritual and cultural beliefs and practices, provision of programs and services in Aboriginal languages, and healthcare. It also includes social and welfare services like training programs, custody and adoption and placement of First Nations children. For Aboriginal people living in the urban areas, that fall within the traditional territories of these host nations, they may choose to participate in the host nation's urban governance activities. In an urban area, an Aboriginal Nation government would most likely confine its activities as host nation to program and service delivery, whereas Treaty Nations may jointly establish centres in urban areas to deliver services and treaty entitlements. The authority to deliver programs and services to treaty people in urban areas would be delegated by participating treaty nations to the centres. The oppressive and exclusionary tactics of the Canadian state failed to extinguish Indigenous peoples’ right for self-government, self-determination and nationhood. Amidst the Canadian state, Indigenous peoples today continue to work towards their own political governance models, that represent and honour traditional forms of Indigenous governing systems. [MUSIC] >> Tân’si Shalene Jobin nitisîyihkâson. Loretta Wuttunee nikâwiy. nikâwiy nehiyaw ohci Red Pheasant. Fred Jobin nohtâwiy ohci Big Prairie. Hello my name is Shalene Jobin. I am Cree on my mother's side. My mother's a Wuttunee from Red Pheasant Cree First Nation which is a Treaty Six First Nation. My father was a Jobin from Big Prairie and he was Métis. I'm the Director of the Aboriginal Governance Program here at the Faculty of Native Studies, and I'm also an assistant professor. So governance often gets confused with government and governance is a broader idea. So governments do governance, but you don't have to be a government to do governance. The Institute on Governance talks about how governance is the way that societies determine the decisions they make, whom they involve, and how they render account. And different organizations can be involved in governance. So for example, the Native Studies Students' Association, they're involved in governance and how they elect their president, how they decide decisions, that's all the makings of governance. [MUSIC] There's a drawing that Fine Day drew based on a Cree camp in 1870 and it's on a Cree governance structure. And it's really interesting because he talks about nested levels of governance that happened at this camp. For example, there was, in this camp, there was the River People, which on my mother's side, the Wuttunees, we were part of the River People. There was the House People and four different groups of Plains Cree peoples that would gather together during the summertime as part of the ceremonial cycles, so this would happen every summer. And in these campgrounds, there would be between ten to 15,000 people. And so you can see with that amount of people, the complex and intricate levels of governance that would happen. So for example, each of those regional groups would have a chief, a leader, an okimaw. But then when all the four groups got together, there would be a head chief. So in the example that Fine Day drew, Chief Sweet Grass was the chief when the whole group went together for that camp. And you also had different societies that played different roles in this example. So you had different warrior societies in each of the regional groups had their own warrior society and they had different other societies and then also bundle carriers. All these different people were part of different ways of interacting as a collective and had different roles and responsibilities in that. And these different ceremonies are still happening today. And so we can look at the governance that happened in the ways that the Cree still are a society today and still have these governing practices. [MUSIC] So self-government has really been defined under the Canadian State. So when we look at how self-government plays out we can think of the federal government and INAC, which is now Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. They, in 1995, came out with their inherent rights policy. And that really defined the right of self-government for Aboriginal peoples, but under the Canadian constitution. So what that looks like is when we look at self-government agreements that have happened in Canada, it's really those that have been negotiated with the Canadian state, and sometimes trilateral agreements with provincial governments. So self-government has played out in really interesting ways. For example the British Columbia Treaty Process, one of the self-government agreements is with Maa-nulth First Nation. Self-government is really seen within the last few decades and negotiations with the state. So the state really gets to have say over what gets included in self-government for Indigenous communities. [MUSIC] So self-determination is a broader concept in that, whereas self-government for some Indigenous peoples or Indigenous Nations might see that as self-determination, there's been a lot of Indigenous authors that have written about self-determination and have written as what that could look like. And even political leaders. So the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, he talked about self-determination as control over one's life individually and control over collectively. So for him that was what self-determination looked like. But there's authors like Jeff Corntassel, and he sees self-determination away from current self-government agreements. So he talks about, in some of his work, and he's a Cherokee scholar, and he looks at the shift from rights to responsibilities. So, a shift from Aboriginal or Indigenous peoples focusing on negotiating rights with the Canadian state to looking at our own responsibilities in our communities. And he also looks at the shift from resources to relationships, so looking at the importance of relationships. And for me and my own work, thinking about as a nehiyaw’iskwew thinking about relationships to all living beings. So not just relationships to other Cree people, to other people in the territory but to non-human beings, too. So thinking about animals, the water, the air, the trees and all those things and how as let's say Cree people in this territory, how do we have good relationships? So when we think about self-determination someone like Glen Coulthard, who is a Dene scholar, he talks about the need to have a shift from taking our eyes off the state to on the ground practices of freedom. And so the room that that type of concept has is that instead of just focusing on negotiating with the state or going to the courts, we can look as Indigenous peoples at self-determination and what we can do in our own lives today and in our families. So reviving nehiyawewin - the Cree language. Doing acts on the land and the importance of that. The importance of different practices and the ceremonial cycle. And so that really builds the community from within. And so there's been this transition to a real focus on, let's say, self-government 20 years ago, to now this focus on self-determination, which is way broader than just the confines of self-government. [MUSIC]
