Historic Context of Modern Indigenous Business Models and Canada-Indigenous Relations 

Before proceeding too far into an exploration of ‘Modern’ Indigenous Business Models, it is important to review Canada’s history through an ‘Indigenous’ lens. Each Indigenous community has their own creation stories and ways of understanding the world. Their stories are rooted in, tied to, informed by the geographic places, languages, and traditions. These stories and knowledge systems are thousands of years old, and they are the basis of Indigenous sovereignty claims presented today. Indigenous ways of knowing and being refer to models of governance, law, and knowledge transfer.  Given the limitations around how much depth and detail can be included about each Indigenous community in Canada, this section of the text presents a perspective from Mi’kamw’ki Atlantic Canada. It is appropriate to start with Atlantic Canada because this book originates in Mi’kmaw’ki/Atlantic Canada, and the author identifies as Mi’kmaw/Canadian. It is also the most easterly part of Turtle Island and has some of the oldest stories of colonial encounter. 

 – INCUDE A MAP OF CANADA – AND IDENTIFY MI’KMAWKI – ATLANTIC CANADA 

It is common practice within many regions of Canada to recognize the territorial history by either doing a land acknowledgement, treaty acknowledgement, or territorial acknowledgement. Each form of acknowledgement has different political and legal meanings, but have a similar intent, to recognize the complexity of space and identities.

For example, at Cape Breton University there are land acknowledgements posted throughout campus and the same acknowledgement is read at the beginning of formal gatherings. “Mi’kma’ki, known today as Atlantic Canada, is the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq People. This territory is covered by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, which Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) people first signed with the British Crown in 1726 [Update with more details about the years the P&F Treaties were signed]. The treaties did not deal with surrender of lands and resources but in fact recognized Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) title and established the rules for what was to be an ongoing relationship between nations.”

• INCLUDE A PICTURE OF TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT POSTED ON CAMPUS

While these acknowledgments stand as reminders of the past, when read in class or at meetings, they are also expanded with a challenge to reflect on and discuss their ongoing relevance today. The Treaties of Peace and Friendship are among some of the oldest treaty agreements, they predate the formation of Canada, and are considered among a group of treaties referred to as “Historic Treaties.”  This category of treaties refers to the agreements made before the British North America (BNA) Act was passed in 1867, as the first constitutional document of Canada. Treaty agreements made after 1867, and before the 1970’s, were sequentially numbered, for the most part, and thus are referred to as “Numbered Treaties.” The regions covered by the numbered treaties cover most of provincial areas known today as Manitoba, northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Any treaties and land claims negotiated with the government of Canada after the Constitution Act, 1982, was passed (an update to the British North America act) are described as “Modern Day Treaties.” 

Each treaty covers a specific region. The territorial acknowledgement presented in Cape Breton explains the relevant treaty, the signatory parties, and the date. These specific details have significant legal and political implications for businesses and organizations. When and if they are to be contested or interpreted in a judicial process, the legal representatives of Indigenous parties explain that Mi’kmaw inherent rights to hunt, fish, self-govern, earn a moderate livelihood, must be understood a inherent legal rights because the treaties did not deal with surrender of lands and resources.  Further, anyone wishing to make use of or to extract value from lands and resources, must negotiate with (consult) Mi’kmaw governments.

Their position has been tested by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) who have reinforced their claims and this interpretation of the treaty agreements. Further, Canadian governments are expected to honour these agreements made with the British Crown because Canada’s sovereignty claims continue to rest with the relationship formed with the crown. Note this is one way in which Canada’s history politically and economically distinguishes itself from that of the United States. Canada inherited their sovereignty from the British Crown, where the United States of America won their independence from the British Crown and cut ties to them.

• Find a video online describing the treaties and when they were signed. AND/OR Insert a map that shows the treaties (e.g. Native-Land.ca | Our home on native land)  
• Recommended activity – Encourage students to identify the treaty territory they reside in currently, where they grew up, or where their favorite businesses are located. 

Treaty implications on identity (and identity politics)

The Past and Histories.  When trying to understand the formal and informal rules and norms of Indigenous business today it is important to have a general sense of the historical context of Canada-Indigenous relations. The historical context of the relationship refers to the histories of Indigenous nations that pre-date settlement, and the histories of Canada’s settlement, establishment of confederation, and sovereignty. The complexity of treaties also reflects how different regions, and regional governments, negotiated with settlers. Thus history has significant influence on why and how Indigenous people self-identify. The words they use also reflect the complexity of rules the governments use to identify citizenship. These are both important to understand as there are legal and access implications for each.

Word Matters. It can be difficult to understand Indigenous identity in Canada. There are a lot of words that have similar but specific meanings. For example, in this text we primarily use the term Indigenous referring to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or The Declaration). (Government of Canada, 2020). In Canada, we also have Indigenous rights affirmed legally in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. But they do not use the term “Indigenous” instead this legal document uses the term “Aboriginal“ which refers to First Nations (Indians),  Metis, and Inuit peoples. Although the term Aboriginal is socially recognized as derogatory, it continues to have legal relevance. 

INSERT SUMMARY OF HISTORY ECONOMIES FROM TWO-EYED CRITICAL SENSEMAKING CHAPTER 3.

• INCLUDE A TABLE – TIME LINE
• MAYBE INCLUDE LINKS TO VIDEOS ONLIN.

Discussion Questions/Activities 

TO DO LATER – CREATE QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES 

Explore the significance of Indigenous identity and traditional governance in business planning (ACTIVITY?)