LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCETRANSfORmATIONAL CHANGE THROuGH EDuCATION AND CAPACITy BuILDING

Serving the People: Cree Women & Ceremonial Leadership

Directing First Nations Corporations

Using a Framework of Standards to Help Achieve Objectives

JAM The JournAl of AboriginAl MAnAgeMenT

SubScripTion inforMATion

AFOA Canada members receive a free subscription to JAM: The Journal of Aboriginal Management. The Journal is published twice a year – spring and fall editions. The Journal is mailed to members.

Non-members can subscribe to JAM for $50.00 a year. To get a subscription, call AFOA Canada toll free at 1-866-722-2362 or visit AFOA at www.afoa.ca.

AdverTiSing inforMATion

JAM is distributed to over 1,500 members and delegates, and is made available to all First Nations, Métis and Inuit across the country. These are the people with the purchasing power who spend millions of dollars a year on products and services. Advertisers gain valuable exposure to key decision-makers in Aboriginal communities and organizations. Corporations who advertise in JAM also contribute to enhanced Aboriginal finance and management in this country and, ultimately, make a contribution to the enhancement of the quality of life among Aboriginal peoples.

AFOA Canada welcomes advertisers for JAM: The Journal of Aboriginal Management. All advertisements are in full colour.

Corporate Members OtherFull page, inside front or back cover $3,500 $4,500Full page $2,500 $3,500Half page $1,000 $1,500

iSbn inforMATionJAM: The Journal of Aboriginal Management

Published by: AFOA Canada 1066 Somerset St. West, Suite 301, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4T3

Managing Editors: Jody Anderson, Manager, Public Relations, AFOA Canada (613) 722-5543 ext. 103 janderson@afoa.ca Wayne K. Spear (647) 882-1965 wayne.k.spear@gmail.com

For subscription and advertising information see above.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication The journal of Aboriginal management: JAM Semiannual Issue 18 (February 2016) ISSN 1716-5237 (Print) ISSN 2292-8677 (Online)

Native peoples – Canada – Finance – Periodicals Native peoples – Canada – Politics and government – Periodicals. AFOA Canada. Title: JAM

E78.C2J678 658.15’0897071’05 C2005-903501-3

“All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.”

Cover image: www.cattroll.com Graphic Design: www.PaulEdwardsDesign.com Copyright 2016 AFOA Canada Printed in Canada

AdverTiSing diSclAiMer

AFOA Canada does not make any representation as to the accuracy or suitability of any of the information contained in the advertisements and does not accept responsibility or liability for those advertisements. They are not endorsed or recommended by AFOA Canada.

The JournAl of AboriginAl MAnAgeMenT (JAM) iS A reSource docuMenT ThAT ASSiSTS our MeMberS in STiMulATing ideAS And diScuSSionS wiThin Their coMMuniTieS And beyond. ThiS ediTion, on Leadership and Governance – TransformaTionaL chanGe ThrouGh educaTion and capaciTy BuiLdinG, iS wriTTen AT A TiMe of renewed hope And opTiMiSM wiThin our coMMuniTieS.

To take advantage of present and future opportunities, our communities need strong leadership and good governance practices to perform at a higher level. Those communities who have addressed these important areas recognize that fundamental capacity areas also need to be addressed to move the community forward on its journey. Every organization has capacity issues at one time or another. Whether this happens because of staff turnover or starting a new initiative, managers need to identify the gaps in their staff’s knowledge and skill level and ensure they are addressed.

Equally important to achieving our goals are the relationships we will build with corporate Canada, all levels of government, educational institutions, charities, non-profits, and amongst ourselves. After all, relationship building is part of leadership and governance.

Terry GoodtrackM.A (P.Admin) B.Admin, CPA, CGA, CAFM, CAPA President & CEO, AFOA Canada

LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE

AfoA cAnAdA iS pleASed To offer

The cApA in-perSon cuSToMized

progrAM AS A cApA cerTificATion

opTion for Senior AdMiniSTrATorS,

chief execuTive officerS, And Senior MAnAgerS working

in AboriginAl coMMuniTieS And

orgAnizATionS on-reServe, off-reServe

And in urbAn, rurAl, And iSolATed

SeTTingS AcroSScAnAdA.

developed under The guidAnce of An AboriginAl cApA

council, ThiS iS The only nATionAl

progrAM in cAnAdA ThAT AddreSSeS The coMpeTency needS of ThoSe working

in AboriginAl environMenTS.

SeSSion fAciliTATorS And gueST SpeAkerS

Are “SpeciAliSTS” in Their fieldS

And proficienT in AboriginAl MATTerS.

2300+

FOLLOWERS

certified aboriginal professional administrator

AFOA Canada

CAPAIn-Person Customized ProgramTHE PROGRAMThe CAPA In-Person Customized 18 day program is delivered in six three-day sessions over a period of up to two years or less.Your Customized Program can be tailored to meet your schedule as well as receiving the training in YOUR community. The participants in your customized group will have the opportunity to engage in interactive and participatory sessions with each other from various departments. There will be mandatory pre-reading and homework assignments throughout the program. The program curriculum covered is outlined by session.

BEnEfITs Of CusTOMIzEd TRAInInG» Training delivered in

YOUR COMMUNITY» Group savings» Schedule that best matches

YOUR AVAILABILITY

THE sEssions1 Emotional & Relationship Competencies» Human Resources Management» Emotional Intelligence and Professional

Development» Communications

2 Ethical & Personal Competencies» Values, Ethics and Professionalism» Knowledge of Culture and Language» Knowledge of Community

3 intellectual & Leadership Competencies» Leadership» Governance Structures and Processes» Review Exam

4 intellectual & Leadership Competencies» Critical Thinking and Analysis» Organizational Behaviour and Capacity

Development» Negotiations and Conflict Resolution

5 Fiscal Management Competencies» Planning and Organization» Financial Oversight» Accountability and Performance Reporting

6 Fiscal Management Competencies» Law & Legislative Awareness » Community Economic Development» Review Exam & Diploma Ceremony

DesigneD for» Senior Administrators » Chief Executive Officers» Directors» Senior Managers» Aspiring Managers

DePArTMenTs» Chief & Council » Administration» Finance» Health» and many more

1-866-722-2362Or email us for more information: info@afoa.ca

CALL NOW FOr A QUOTE!

Table of ConTenTs2 leAderShip And governAnce: An ediToriAl Wayne K. Spear

4 whAT iS firST nATionS governAnce? Daniel Brant

8 Serving The people: cree woMen And cereMoniAl leAderShip Janice a. MaKoKiS & patricia a. MaKoKiS

12 Above boArd: iMproving firST nATionS governAnce Dr. MiKe DeGaGné

16 leAderShip & governAnce MarShall M. MurDocK

18 leAderShip & governAnce: developing our fuTure leAderS aDaM GoulD

22 plAnning forwArd, AcTing now: leAderShip chAllengeS for firST nATionS governMenTS Ken coateS

26 STrong leAderShip And governAnce iS All AbouT bAlAnce Jp GlaDu

28 direcTing firST nATionS corporATionS Dr. roSlyn Kunin

30 governAnce And AboriginAl TruSTS GeorGina VilleneuVe

32 poTAShcorp inveSTS in The fuTureS of AboriginAl youTh And coMMuniTieS leanne BelleGarDe

34 SucceSSful buSineSS pArTnerShipS And proJecTS: The role of AedcS, coMMuniTy, good governAnce, And STrong leAderShip alicia t. DuBoiS

36 The evoluTion of firST nATionS’ governAnce STrucTureS liSa ethanS & GuillauMe VaDeBoncoeur

40 hAS firST nATion AccounTAbiliTy gone M.A.d.? ruSSell a. eVanS

44 coSo’S inTernAl conTrol frAMework: uSing A frAMework of STAndArdS To help Achieve obJecTiveS helen BoBiWaSh

52 SupporTing your viSion. inveSTing in your STrengThS. nAccA. Francine WhiteDucK

56 firST nATionS MArkeT houSing fund DeBorah taylor

58 eSTATe plAnning for firST nATionS people in cAnAdA DoMenic natale

2

leadership and GovernanCe

an ediTorialWayne K. Spear, Editor, The Journal of Aboriginal Management

SocrATeS: JuST Think whAT would hAppen if piloTS were To be choSen According To Their properTy, And A poor MAn were refuSed perMiSSion To STeer, even Though he were A beTTer piloT?

AdeiMAnTuS: you MeAn ThAT They would Shipwreck? SocrATeS: yeS; And iS noT ThiS True of The governMenT of AnyThing?

– Plato, The republiC: Book VIII, “the eVIls of olIgarchy.”

In her article, “Governance and Aboriginal Trusts,” Georgina Villeneuve reminds us that the English word governance derives from an Ancient Greek verb, kubernáo (to steer), via the Latin gubernare. Whether we speak of governance or leadership – and in this issue of JAM we do both – metaphors guide us. Governors steer the ship of state, on a course set by far-seeing leaders. This issue is about the distinctly human act of journeying, from vision to arrival. The Old English root of leadership, lædan (to travel), underscores the idea that governance and leadership are about getting somewhere.

Perhaps the best distinction of leadership from governance can be found in Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: “Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.” Successful leaders, says Peter Drucker, ask “What needs to be done?” The authors of Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath, call the resulting mission the “Commander’s Intent” – the clearly described goal that serves as destination. A leader with this clarity of vision is better able to discern and attract the right people – the effective managers to whom they delegate. On this topic of observing distinctions, Mike DeGagné argues that knowing and respecting the differences between Board leadership and day-to-day executive management is essential to healthy organizations. “In my view,” he writes, “governance can be improved by taking practical steps in three areas: conflict-of-interest, Board training, and community consultation.” Dr. Roslyn Kunin rounds out the picture with her detailed article on the basic principles of good Board governance, entitled “Directing First Nations Corporations.”

There are universal lessons to be drawn from history’s most effective leaders and experiments in governance. There are also considerations unique to Indigenous leaders and communities. Janice and Patricia Makokis highlight cultural teachings and traditions that guide effective Nehiyaw leaders, focusing on the importance of women in leadership. Ken Coates examines the socio-economic, political, and technological context of Indigenous governments, concluding that they bear “the most difficult, intense, and challenging administrative responsibilities in Canada.” Lisa Ethans and Guillaume Vadeboncoeur, of Deloitte, add that “the external environment in which First Nations are operating has changed significantly over the last two decades, and the pace of change continues to accelerate.” Meanwhile, they consider some of the common themes of internal governance change, with reference to specific Aboriginal communities.

Governance – whether of households, trusts, corporations, band offices, tribes, businesses, markets, or nations – subsists in the informal and formal norms, traditions, rules, and laws that together establish and sustain a decision-making process. “Fundamentally,” writes J.P. Gladu, leadership and governance “is about power, relationships, and accountability.” Russell A. Evans takes us further into the business of accountability, in his article “Has First Nation Accountability Gone M.A.D.?” Indigenous or not, we must all confront the essential human task of marshalling and allocating scarce resources, in the work of meeting our individual and collective needs and goals. Call it steering the ship or, to use the Haudenosaunee metaphor, building the longhouse. Governance is at bottom the skill of managing well-crafted systems.

3

Although we tend not to think of them this way, our Aboriginal teachings and traditions are indeed systems. A ceremony is a system. Indeed, nature itself is a system – a composite of interconnected and interdependent parts. In a low-functioning organization, we manage personalities and behaviour, while in a high-functioning organization we manage our system. And the system gives us all we need to set out on, and complete, our journey. This insight explains why McDonald’s has been able to run a multi-billion-dollar business staffed largely by inexperienced teenagers, yielding consistent results throughout the world and across decades. As Ray Kroc well understood, a good and well-managed system provides all that is required by the members of a team, organization, business, or community: why we exist, what we do, how we do it, our role, and our values – in short, what The E-Myth Revisited author Micheal Gerber terms “the rules of the game.”

If governance is a skill, leadership is often seen as an art. The art of leadership is, for both good and bad, often an occasion for poetic flights of imagination. The leader is conceived as necessarily heroic, charismatic, or a genius – even as a saviour in whom all must place their hopes. The best examples of this model can be seen in the inspirational entrepreneurs who envision solutions to stubborn problems and in the politicians who lead nations from war and Depression to peace and prosperity. On the other side of the ledger, we find history’s autocrats and dictators. Indigenous cultures, which have traditionally crafted collectivist and egalitarian systems of governance, have been less susceptible to tyranny than have Europe’s hierarchical societies. But, as we see in several JAM articles, colonization has eroded traditional Indigenous practices. Do current-day Aboriginal governments and leaders differ all that much, in their “indigeneity,” from Canada’s municipal, provincial, or federal counterparts? Some of our authors weigh in on this question, too.

We know that governance by its very nature is not a one-size-fits-all commodity. “First Nations governance,” writes Daniel J. Brant, “is a non-monolithic creature of many perspectives. Some advocate a total return to traditional governments, while others want to chart a path of inclusion in the Canadian body politic.” Membertou’s article “Leadership & Governance: Developing Our Future Leaders” comes down firmly on the side of opting “to make additional strides toward self-government and to step further away from the Indian Act.” As always, Membertou First Nation shares with us their bold new ideas. Marshall Murdock helpfully reminds us that “the question now is how do we establish good governance and develop quality leaders? When we think of a First Nation community that has seen great success and leads by example, we ask ourselves, how did they get there?”

As I have tried to show, the articles included in this issue of JAM offer practical answers to this question. From well-crafted Boards to ancient cultural teachings, Indigenous people have proven leadership and governance principles at their service. In addition to the articles I’ve already mentioned, we have Helen Bobiwash’s contribution, subtitled “Using a Framework of Standards to Help Achieve Objectives.” This contribution considers the relationship of third-party accreditation and quality governance systems. Francine Whiteduck, CEO of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association (NACCA), describes the role of Aboriginal Financial Institutions in supporting the development of stronger, local governance systems within the AFI network. “AFIs are now recognized as the experts in risk-assessment across Aboriginal communities,” she writes, “focusing on capacity building of clients through all stages of business development.” Scotiabank’s National Director of Aboriginal Financial Services, Alicia T. Dubois, examines the contribution of strong community leadership and good governance to Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation success. I hope you enjoy this issue, and I look forward to seeing your governance and leadership successes.

wAyne k. SpeAr was born at Buffalo, New York and grew up in Fort Erie, Ontario. He completed graduate studies in English Literature at Queen’s University and worked for over two decades in Aboriginal health and education. From 1999-2012 he employed at the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, where he was the Director of Communications. He is the author of two books released in 2014, Full Circle: the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the unfinished work of hope, healing and reconciliation and Residential Schools: With the Words and Images of Survivors. Today he lives in Toronto, where he appears regularly on CTV News and writes for the National Post and Huffington Post.

THE JOuRNAL Of ABORIGINAL mANAGEmENT

4

WhaT is firsT naTions GovernanCe?Daniel Brant, CAFM, CAO, Tyendinaga First Nation

MAny Think ThAT governAnce iS SiMply fulfilling The role of A governing body by elecTing A firST nATionS chief And council. buT, AS we will explore in ThiS ArTicle, governAnce – And in pArTiculAr firST nATionS governAnce – iS A highly coMplex AreA ThAT SiMple

concepTS cAnnoT AdequATely AddreSS. There Are So MAny viewS AS To whAT An elecTed governing body iS SuppoSed To do, And for The MoST pArT TheSe viewS hAve been clouded by The legiSlATed, policy driven, finAnciAlly enforced SySTeM foiSTed on The indigenouS governing STrucTureS ThAT were operATing prior To The colonizATion of The AMericAS.

So where does the confusion come from, and why has this not been clarified, given that the foisting was undertaken centuries ago? Is colonization the root of dysfunction and the cause of socio-economic disparity among First Nations peoples? Is colonization the reason the federal and provincial governments feel compelled and justified to continue to advocate the Westminster style of democracy?

At the heart of colonization is a particular relationship to the land. Generally speaking, Indigenous peoples see the land as an integral part of their humanity, whereas the colonizers see, and saw it, as a commodity ripe for exploitation. This concept, of nature as commodity, was inherent in the “empty land” philosophy in evidence when the Europeans arrived and formally termed the Americas “terra nullius.” Policy makers, and even the Supreme Court, now disavow the role of this heinous policy in dismantling Indigenous governments. Scholars such as John Borrows disagree. He has weighed in on this issue in a yet to be published paper:

The Supreme Court of Canada purported to deny a key aspect of this creed in the recent case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia.1 It wrote that “[t]he doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada.”2 If only this declaration were deeply true. Despite the potentially narrow accuracy of this assertion Canadian law still has terra nullius written all over it. The same paragraph which purportedly denied terra nullius contains the following statement: “At the time of assertion of European sovereignty, the Crown acquired radical or underlying title to all the land in the province.”3 If land was owned by Indigenous peoples prior to the assertion of European sovereignty, one wonders how the Crown acquired title in that same land without a version of terra nullius being deployed. Some kind of legal vacuum must be imagined to create the Crown’s radical title (Borrows, 2015).

This also speaks to a flaw in the policy of recognition of inherent right. But does this answer the question why a new style of governing structure is so compelling that it takes centuries to adapt? It goes without saying that Aboriginal people have held on to their cultural values through centuries of adversity, mainly because they are the only thing that could not be taken away. Dr. Stephen Cornell, well know for his participation in the Harvard Study, states that “Colonialism had – and continues to have – intentionally transformative effects on many of those peoples, seizing Indigenous lands, dispersing or consolidating populations, bypassing and undermining social and political organization, attacking cultural practices, prohibiting languages, and so on. Claiming or revitalizing an Indigenous Nationhood has to confront the embedded legacies of these practices” (Cornell, 2015).

Indigenous governing bodies are certainly not new. The Iroquois Confederacy, or Haudenosaunee, was initially a confederacy of five nations formed in the year 1091AD (Johansen, 1995), although some European scholars claim that European influence was evident in its structure and formation. The Blackfoot Confederacy also has roots going back between 3000-5000 years.4 Most other Indigenous pre-contact nations had political and social structures that ensured their continuance as a people. The “House” structure of the Indigenous peoples of the West Coast was, and continues to be, highly sophisticated, with social mores built into cultural practices and ceremony. Many of these practices and ceremonies are used today and are part of the cultural fabric of not only the West Coast Indigenous peoples but Indigenous peoples across the Americas.

5

The federal government overtly discouraged participation in ceremonies and cultural practices, using police action and incarceration. However, during the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, Indian people were meeting to discuss their rights (Cuthand, 1977). Only following the War did the Canadian government start to hear the voices of First Nations leaders. John Leslie writes, “In the immediate post-war era, the fundamental message of national Indian leaders – the likes of Andrew Paull [BC], John Tootoosis [Sask.], Rev. Peter Kelly [BC], John Gambler [Man.], William Scow [BC], Joe Dion [Alb.], and George Manuel [BC] – to politicians and Indian Affairs Branch officials was that Indian people wanted to retain their “Indianness” and not assimilate into the dominant society” (Leslie, 2004). While discussions were taking place, a stronger movement was percolating as a result of a federal policy paper introduced by the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chretien, a Minister of the Trudeau government (Weaver, 1977).

The First Nations political movement crystallized following the release of the federal government’s 1969 “White Paper.” The immediate response focused on Indian rights and was led by a 23-year-old Cree from Alberta, Harold Cardinal. Cardinal authored The Unjust Society, a stinging rebuke of the White Paper, which had been put forward as a major change in relations between Indian peoples and the Canadian public. The Indian response was a total rejection of the government’s proposed policy, considered to be yet another attempt at assimilation. The primary issue of rights as a precursor to self-government was put forward. The rejection of assimilation was also the major factor in Indian people not obtaining the right to vote until 1960. Although First Nations people were offered the right to vote as early as 1885, they would have had to agree to relinquish their status and to become enfranchised, resulting in them not being allowed to live on their homeland or reserve (Elections Canada, 2015). First Nation peoples universally rejected the notion of assimilation, as is the case today.

At the same time in the United States, Native American tribes were using the term “sovereignty.” Young lawyers such as Kirke Kickingbird5 were actively involved in the crusade to promote Indigenous rights and sovereignty among tribes in the United States. In both Canada and the US, a revival of “Indianness” was taking place. The American Indian Movement (AIM) took the spotlight with a more aggressive plan of action. Following an international focus on the eviction of Indians from Alcatraz, in 1971, AIM put forward a proposal of twenty items for presentation to the President of the United States (Chapman, 2010). One of the items demanded a formal recognition of Indian Nations as sovereign political entities. President Nixon dismissed the proposal, but its philosophy was strongly supported by Indian nations in both Canada and the United States and probably should be considered the rebirth of the right to govern.

Self-government as a policy consideration became vogue in the mid 1970s, as the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs began considering the issue of governance and started examining the issue as “local government.” However, concepts of self-government formulated by Indian Affairs in the mid 1970s were seen only as administering federal programs (Cassidy, 1990). The Department of the Secretary of State (DSS) was involved in Aboriginal programming as well as Indian Affairs, and the staff in DSS were quite aware of the necessity of supporting a change in policy. Jim Lanigan (Belanger, 2004) described this as a transition “from wards of the state to participating Canadians.”

The wards of the state concept had been deeply embedded through the various measures of colonization. However, the basic concept still being promoted by Canada was that local governments must be structured by principles embodied in the Westminster style of governance. This insistence, whether intentional or unintentional, has been promulgated in other areas of colonization. McHugh (2011) states that “Increasingly settler-state legalism demands that [tribal] leaders must govern by Western principles of transparency and accountability geared more towards displaying those attributes to the outer world than necessarily being an outgrowth of the tribes’ own political agenda.” Cornell (2015) further states, “to the extent that central governments have either tolerated or encouraged the organizational efforts of Indigenous peoples, they have wanted to determine its form, often imposing their own organizational models, moral codes, and assumptions about what

dAniel brAnT is a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, where he grew up and went to school on the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in southern Ontario. His undergraduate work was in the field of Architecture at Ryerson University. He holds two Master’s degrees – one in Engineering from the University of Waterloo and the other in Public Administration from Queen’s University. He is currently working on his Phd from Nipissing University in North Bay. He has held senior positions with the AFN as CEO and with NACCA as CEO. His work experience also includes being on staff with four federal Ministers of Indian Affairs. He was the founder of First Nations Management, a consulting company where he worked for near twenty years. Among those years, he was an associate with Coopers & Lybrand. He has served on a number of Boards, including both federal and provincial Order-in-Council appointments, Gignul Housing in Ottawa, and First Nations Technical Institute at Tyendinaga. He is currently the CAO at his home at Tyendinaga, the 9th largest First Nation in Canada.

THE JOuRNAL Of ABORIGINAL mANAGEmENT

1 Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia [2014] SCC442 ibid. at para. 69.3 ibid. 4 Website5 Kickingbird now practices law in Oklahoma with the law firm HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP

6

“good” governance should look like.” Throughout the history and development of First Nations governance, this indeed has been the case.

The Penner Report (1984) was a seminal turning point, as it was the first formal government document that acknowledged the existence and necessity of First Nations governments within a pluralist Canada. As summarized by Belanger & Newhouse (2004), the Penner Report articulated three major areas of departure from mainstream thinking of the day:

1 The report envisaged Indian government as a “distinct order” of government within Canada with a set of negotiated jurisdictions and fiscal arrangements

2 The report recommended the right of Indian Self Government should be constitutionally entrenched with enabling legislation to recognize Indian Government

3 The report defined areas of authority for Indian governments as education, child welfare, health care, membership, social and cultural development, land and resource use, revenue raising, economic and commercial development, justice and law enforcement, and intergovernmental relations.

Canada’s response was positive, but to date none of the major recommendations has come to fruition. The response was indeed reminiscent of the President of the United States some forty-five years ago.

So whAT doeS good governAnce look like? First Nations Governance, as stated at the outset of this article, is a non-monolithic creature of many perspectives. Some advocate a total return to traditional governments, while others want to chart a path of inclusion in the Canadian body politic. Obviously, these perspectives involve totally different views of the responsibilities of governing. Borrows advocates constitutional solutions and the necessity of more Aboriginal law supporting stronger Aboriginal governance within the Canadian legal system (Borrows, 2010). Other scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred implore First Nations people to return to their traditional ways of governing (Alfred, 2009). The Institute of Governance has developed a recipe of elements that constitute good governance, as has the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples (RCAP).

The decision on how to govern must be taken by First Nations themselves if there is serious determination to implement self-government. Stephen Cornell states, “Acting as a Nation involves more than organization; it is about accepting responsibility for strategy and its outcomes and for delivering the goods: law, justice, economy, resource stewardship, cultural revitalization, productive intergovernmental relationships, the intergenerational transmission of knowledge, and so forth” (Cornell, 2015). Many First Nations leaders fear that if they take the bold step to rebuild their nation according to traditional values, the government will cut off their funds. The fact that First Nations are institutions within the framework of Canada, constitutionally protected under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, makes this fear highly unlikely. However, it is still seen as a risk to most leaders. The decision remains in the hands of the political leaders. Do we want to be “Wards of the State,” or do we want to become viable, self-directing and self-sufficient First Nations, in every respect of the word, contributing to our homeland with the gifts the Creator charged us with?

wHAT IS fIRST NATIONS GOVERNANCE?

MAny firST nATionS leAderS feAr ThAT if They

TAke The bold STep To rebuild Their

nATion According To TrAdiTionAl

vAlueS, The governMenT will

cuT off Their fundS. The fAcT ThAT

firST nATionS Are inSTiTuTionS wiThin

The frAMework of cAnAdA,

conSTiTuTionAlly proTecTed under SecTion 35(1) of

The conSTiTuTion AcT, MAkeS ThiS feAr

highly unlikely.

7

8

servinG The people

Cree Women and Ceremonial leadershipPatricia A. Makokis, EdD, and Janice A. Makokis, BA., MA., LLB

indigenouS woMen1 hAve AlwAyS been in SoMe forM of leAderShip role wiThin Their coMMuniTy And nATion, wheTher iT’S in elecTed leAderShip poSiTionS (Such AS chief or councillor), educATion, or leAding Their fAMily in rAiSing up The fuTure generATionS. The MAnner in which indigenouS woMen leAd iS unique And deServeS More explorATion. iT’S eSpeciAlly iMporTAnT To exAMine The dynAMicS in SpAceS ThAT don’T hAve high repreSenTATion of woMen, Such AS buSineSS, bAnking, engineering, And Science. ThiS pAper will ouTline SoMe of The unique leAderShip quAliTieS of nehiyAw ikSwewAk (cree woMen), SoMe of The chAllengeS They experience, And how exerciSing leAderShip iS inexTricAbly linked To The lAwS of cree people – lAwS conTAined in our cereMoniAl TeAchingS. we Argue ThAT indigenouS woMen, And SpecificAlly cree woMen (Since The AuThorS Are boTh froM The nehiyAw nATion), find Their STrengTh, reSilience, creATiviTy, foreSighT, And guidAnce in Their leAderShip, Through Their culTurAl vAlueS And TeAchingS.

ShAring cree woMen’S leAderShip prAcTice

The authors attended the first Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) Conference, hosted by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB) and held in Saskatoon in November 2015. The Conference brought people together to discuss the emerging trend of AEDCs within the Canadian business landscape. Specifically, we gathered “to discuss the importance of business fundamentals as well as community engagement, two necessary pillars that support economic growth and sustainability.”2 The conference attendees had varied backgrounds and provided an excellent opportunity for networking and learning to take place.

Whether or not by coincidence, one of the authors (Dr. Pat Makokis) was asked to fill in for another speaker last minute, since the original speaker could not make the panel they were scheduled to participate in. Dr. Makokis ended up participating in the panel “Understanding Community Goals.” The following story, written from the perspective of Dr. Makokis, highlights some of the events of the CCAB conference which gave rise to this article.

A nArrATive on leAderShip froM The ccAbWhen I arrived at the session I agreed to participate in, I realized that I was the only woman on the panel. The other panel participants included the CEO of Frog Lake Energy and the Executive VP of Real Estate of Walton Global Investments. They were given the questions for this panel in advance, which gave them more time to reflect and to develop responses for the panel discussion. Since the panel was about “community,” I was not too worried about not being prepared, since I live and breathe community everyday. I live on a First Nation, and my entire professional life has been spent serving the Indigenous community with the vision of making change for our people. Once the panel began, the questions started coming, some of which included How do Indigenous men and women lead? What are the challenges for Indigenous women in leadership roles in a male dominated world? and so on.

As I sat on the panel and looked into the audience, noting that many of the conference attendees were non-Indigenous, I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to give an Indigenous perspective on leadership grounded in Indigenous knowledge. It was an opportune time to share some of the teachings that I have learned from Elders over the years. I found myself thinking about the “secret hidden history” of Indigenous peoples’ experiences, the true history not written in books. Or, if it is written, it’s all too likely from the colonial perspective of non-Indigenous authors and historians.

9

I mentioned the important work that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission3 (TRC) had done and how we need to consider thinking about the TRC Calls to Action4 in the work we all do in our various fields. We need people to understand the colonial history and its impact on Indigenous Peoples’ lives. This colonial history is the reality we see rolling out as socio-economic issues in Indigenous communities right now. As someone who lives on a reserve, I see this reality and the challenges our people have in overcoming generations of soul wounds inflicted by the colonial experience.

Even though the residential school era is over, and we are in a “truth and reconciliation” phase, there is still much work to do in healing from the historic trauma and intergenerational impacts5 that linger in Indigenous communities. The social issues we see today are a direct result of the colonial legacy left by the residential schools. So when the question was asked about the differences in the way Indigenous men and women lead, and in the challenges they face, I thought about the imposition of foreign systems of governance on our nations.

The Indian Act structure of governance is a foreign structure developed to control, restrict, and transition6 Indigenous peoples away from our traditional forms of leadership and governance. I discussed how traditional structures and leadership processes had the men as the speakers but the decision making was never done unilaterally, since the men consulted the women on everything7 – especially major decisions impacting the nation and the future generations of the people. The men consulted the women. I spoke about how the current Indian Act election system creates winners and losers. The losers no longer support those who have the most votes. It becomes a game and a popularity contest. The focus on the people, issues, and the future are lost in this. This in itself is another form of oppression and lateral violence, as it pits us against each other, rather than honouring the gifts of those who lead.

In our traditional governance structures, everyone had, and has, gifts to contribute to the greater good. The priority was always to serve the nation and to think about the children and the future generations. Today, we sometimes see men and women pitted against each other, instead of men recognizing women’s roles in ceremony (governance) and working together with the women. Have we forgotten the importance of traditional leadership roles, where men and women each have something to contribute to the nation? Have we bought into the “positional power leadership roles” that come from the Western system of governance?

Our own ceremonies ground us in who we are and how we should be working together or governing ourselves. Our ceremonies are beautiful and intricately detailed. They have to be this way, because the details are the preparation work. They need to occur in order for the ceremony to take place. Everyone has a role, and the men and women must be equally important for the ceremony to function. The level of detail required in the preparations before a ceremony even begins demonstrates leadership in action and the sophistication of our governance system(s).

I spoke about my family’s experience in the “fast ceremony”8 that we participate in every year. There is so much detail in a participant’s preparations for a fast ceremony. Just before the fasters go out to their lodges (which are located out on the land and in the sacred fasting ground area), we see the minute, intricate, detailed preparations that the oskapewis (helpers) and lead female and male Elder embark on to ensure that the ceremony runs properly. If the ceremony does not run properly things can go wrong, impacting a person’s life into the future.

This is the check and balance that is built into our system of leadership and governance. We see the men and women working together, and everyone knows they play an important part of the ceremony in order for it to function. The men and women fulfill their roles in leading the fasters to their fasting area, where they will spend several days out on the land, reconnecting to kikawinaw askiy (Mother Earth).

pATriciA MAkokiS has a Bachelor of Education from the University of Alberta, a Master of Arts (Leadership) from San Diego State University, and a Doctor of Education (Leadership) from the University of San Diego, California. She has worked in Indigenous post secondary education, teaching leadership classes for years. Most recently she has been working in the field of oil and gas. She currently teaches in the Faculty of Extension at the University of Alberta.

in our TrAdiTionAl governAnce STrucTureS, everyone hAd, And hAS, gifTS To conTribuTe To The greATer good. The prioriTy wAS AlwAyS To Serve The nATion And To Think AbouT The children And The fuTure generATionS.

THE JOuRNAL Of ABORIGINAL mANAGEmENT

10

AnoTher eleMenT ThAT requireS

ATTenTion iS The incluSion And

AcknowledgeMenT of indigenouS

knowledge And SpiriTuAliTy in All ASpecTS of

governing – eSpeciAlly in The

poliTicAl, econoMic, environMenT,

governMenT relATionS,

MAnAgeMenT, governAnce, And

leAderShip SecTorS.

What leadership lessons can we learn from Indigenous cultural and ceremonial practices? In sharing some of these teachings and stories with conference participants, the Elders who I have had the privilege of working with (George Bretton and Mike Steinhauer) kept telling me to say “let us live the life the Creator meant for us to live.” Both of these Elders have left us now, but their legacy remains and I recall their teachings often, especially their messages for us to collectively remember that we need our men and our women leading together. After I shared some of these stories and teachings on Indigenous leadership and the role of women, many participants came up to me afterward to tell me that they had not heard anyone talk about leadership in this way. It was then that I was asked to contribute an article for AFOA Canada’s upcoming journal so I could share some small part of Indigenous leadership that is informed by our cultural and ceremonial teachings.

leAding Through cereMony And overcoMing The indiAn AcT We cannot talk about Indigenous leadership and governance without briefly discussing the effect that the Indian Act has on Indigenous communities. The Indian Act is the blueprint for changing the traditional leadership and governance practices of Indigenous peoples into what we see today – communities that struggle with socio-economic, leadership, and governance issues. As Indigenous sociologist Cora Voyageur writes, “The social, economic, and political regulation of Canada’s First Nations was codified in the Indian Act. Rooted in colonialism and paternalism, the Indian Act was created by the government of Canada to fulfill three functions: to define who was and was not an Indian, to civilize the Indian, and to manage the Indian people and their lands.”9

Today, we see that leaders and communities are struggling to come out of a post Indian Act system and wanting to develop governance practices that reflect what their ancestors governed by. Efforts are being made by communities to move away from the Indian Act through the implementation of other forms of governance and accountability mechanisms, such as Elders’ and People’s Councils that work alongside the elected Indian Act Chief and Council.

We argue that for governance and leadership to truly represent a traditional model reflective of pre-contact practices, they need to include Indigenous women. The inclusion of women in leadership and governance is important not only in addressing gender representation but for generational change to occur, as well as for the effects of colonialism and historic trauma to be undone. Practicing leadership through ceremony allows for a more egalitarian and holistic model that removes ego and hierarchy and promotes a “seven generations approach to leadership”10 in which actions are based on a vision reaching far into the future.

Another element that requires attention is the inclusion and acknowledgement of Indigenous knowledge and spirituality in all aspects of governing – especially in the political, economic, environ-ment, government relations, management, governance, and leadership sectors. This is reaffirmed by Julien, Zinni, and Wright in their article, “Keeper of the Drums: Female Aboriginal Leadership and the Salience of Gender,” where they write that “Aboriginal leaders regardless of gender are driven by spirituality and a long-term egalitarian perspective with a focus on the good of the community.”11

Makokis further affirms the importance of spirituality in leadership in her book, Leadership Teachings from Cree Elders, stating, “Traditional teachings founded upon First Nations spiritual beliefs influenced how ancestral communities were organized on a day-to-day basis. A sense of harmony and accord within the community are attributable to egalitarianism and participatory democracy.”12 There is no question that ceremony, spirituality, and the teachings that flow from these practices play a critical role in the success of leaders and communities who practice seven generation leadership. They have remained grounded in who they are and where they come from, and they use this strong connection to their identities to plan into the future for their people in whatever leadership position they occupy.

CREE wOmEN AND CEREmONIAL LEADERSHIP

Thank you for reading JAM: The Journal of Aboriginal Management.

The full PDF Version of this Edition is available to

AFOA Canada Members

AFOA Canada members receive a free subscription to JAM: The Journal of Aboriginal Management.

The Journal is published semi-annually – once in February and once in September. The

Journal is mailed to all members, made available to all Aboriginal communities, organizations, educational institutes and professionals in Canada. If you would like to

advertise or submit an article for JAM, please contact Jody Anderson at janderson@afoa.ca

Non-members can subscribe to JAM for an annual fee of $50.00 per year. To obtain a

subscription, please CLICK HERE to view the Subscription form. Forms can be submitted through the information below.

If you would like to become a member or would like more information on AFOA Canada,

please CLICK HERE to view the Membership Application Form.

CONTACT: AFOA Canada 1066 Somerset St. West, Suite 301

Ottawa, ON K1Y 4T3 Tel: (613) 722-5543

Toll free: (866) 722-2362 Fax: (613) 722-3467

Web: www.afoa.ca Email: pr@afoa.ca