Fort Carlton Treaty #6 Commemoration
Rosalind Callihoo presents a speech given at the commemoration of the 125th anniversary of the signing of Treaty Number Six. She details events that have adversely affected the Michel First Nation Community from 1878 to 2003.
Good Afternoon Elders, Chiefs, Dignitaries, Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is an honour to be invited to this commemoration in Treaty Six Saskatchewan Territory. Not only to commemorate and honour the signing of Treaty Six 125 years ago, but also to provide an example of where the spirit and intent of the treaty has not been upheld as is the situation in the case of the Michel First Nation.
I am the great great granddaughter of Michel Callihoo who signed an adhesion to Treaty Six in September, 1878. Michel Band was granted forty square miles along the Sturgeon River, northwest of Edmonton that was registered as Indian Reserve Number 132.
In 1958, for the first and only time in Canadian history, the Michel Band as a whole was involuntarily enfranchised and its lands sold off. This action occurred under provisions of the Indian Act, Section 112 -which allowed for non-voluntary enfranchisement, meaning that a majority vote from the members was not required.
These provisions under Section 112 were only in place from 1948 to January of 1961. It appears that this section of the act was devised solely for the purpose of dismantling the Michel Band. Is it not more than a coincidence that this time frame 1948 to 1960 with the finalization of the Michel Band enfranchisement of 1959 coincides with the initial applications for individual enfranchisement (made by two of our war veterans who could not receive the same benefits as non-native veterans)?
I would like to quote Cabinet Minister, Ellen Fairclough from the House of Commons Transcripts of January 16, 1961 who spoke when this section was being removed:
... indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have never made any secret of the fact that I thought this particular provision in Section 112 should never have been there in the first place. It has not been used either by this government or by the preceding government.
This statement alone leaves many unanswered questions.
Although we are no longer recognized as a Band as defined under the Indian Act, we have never relinquished our inherent rights as established under Treaty Number Six. The process that was followed was a direct violation of the spirit and intent of the treaty. I do not believe for a minute that by signing Treaty Six my Great-Great Grandfather was agreeing to the 'Assimilation Policies' that were soon to follow.
The Michel First Nations has attempted to initiate negotiations with the federal government to no avail; we are in a catch 22 position: we claim we should have never ceased to exist as a band and yet we are denied the specific claims process because we are not recognized as a band.
There are many injustices that have yet to be settled, including the irregularities of the 1903 and 1906 land surrenders, the legality of the surrendered land sales made to Frank Oliver (former Minister of the Interior). Many of our neighbouring First Nation communities are in the process of negotiating claims based on these very same injustices and yet we have no forum to be heard. Does this mean we have no recourse for these injustices?
An inquiry was held before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) and in their report dated March 1998, the ICC made the following recommendation:
That Canada grant special standing to the duly authorized representatives of the Friends of Michel Society to submit specific claims in relation to alleged invalid surrenders of reserve land for consideration of their merits under the Specific Claims Policy.
It has taken three and a half years for the Department of Justice to provide an opinion to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) on this recommendation, and I have been advised that the opinion is now in the hands of the DIAND.
As a result of this delay and to protect our claim from new statue of limitations implications, a Statement of Claim was filed in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta in February of this year.
The implementation of Bill C 31 has partially benefited some of our members - under section 6(1)(d) - "enfranchisement is abolished" - over 730 members were re-instated and added to a General Band List. However, I question how the Government of Canada can deem the process of individual enfranchisement as discriminatory and yet not apply that same principle to band enfranchisement.
Our re-instatement under Bill C-31 has serious implications for the Michel First Nation because it allows re-instatement for one generation only. Under this process, how long will it be until we again cease to exist in the eyes of the DIAND? Is this not another form of genocide?
Our rights and benefits, including programs services and funding to which we are entitled under Treaty Number Six are still being denied. Not only have our treaty rights been violated, but also our human rights continue to be violated-we are not treated equally, in the same way as other First Nation people and communities.
We have suffered many losses due to the dismantling of our band and forced assimilation-not only loss of our land and our resources, but the greatest losses of all-that of our culture, our language, our traditions, our identity. There are only a few of our people left who are able to speak our language today. We have lost our sense of community, many of us do not know our cousins, and have not had the teachings of our Elders.
Here is a passage in the book As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows that states
Since every man is the product of the culture into which he is born and in which he is nurtured and educated, of necessity his thinking will follow certain well-defined lines. To change the direction of thinking is as difficult as changing the color of skin, and probably more painful.
I can relate personally to this passage: we were the only native family in our area - shunned by the white society and yet we were not part of the Native community - it was very difficult to grow up with one foot in both worlds, not belonging in either one. I can only assume it was much the same for many of my relations.
This 125th commemoration of the signing of Treaty Six gives me hope that the injustices of the past can be resolved and I appeal to the honourable Mr. Nault to make a commitment to begin this process of honouring our rights as established within Treaty Six. I also appeal to all the First Nation leaders within Treaty Six for their support.
I wish to thank the organizers of this event for their support and for allowing us a voice today. I give thanks to the Creator for allowing us to be heard with open minds and open hearts today.
From: http://www.epl.ca
Good Afternoon Elders, Chiefs, Dignitaries, Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is an honour to be invited to this commemoration in Treaty Six Saskatchewan Territory. Not only to commemorate and honour the signing of Treaty Six 125 years ago, but also to provide an example of where the spirit and intent of the treaty has not been upheld as is the situation in the case of the Michel First Nation.
I am the great great granddaughter of Michel Callihoo who signed an adhesion to Treaty Six in September, 1878. Michel Band was granted forty square miles along the Sturgeon River, northwest of Edmonton that was registered as Indian Reserve Number 132.
In 1958, for the first and only time in Canadian history, the Michel Band as a whole was involuntarily enfranchised and its lands sold off. This action occurred under provisions of the Indian Act, Section 112 -which allowed for non-voluntary enfranchisement, meaning that a majority vote from the members was not required.
These provisions under Section 112 were only in place from 1948 to January of 1961. It appears that this section of the act was devised solely for the purpose of dismantling the Michel Band. Is it not more than a coincidence that this time frame 1948 to 1960 with the finalization of the Michel Band enfranchisement of 1959 coincides with the initial applications for individual enfranchisement (made by two of our war veterans who could not receive the same benefits as non-native veterans)?
I would like to quote Cabinet Minister, Ellen Fairclough from the House of Commons Transcripts of January 16, 1961 who spoke when this section was being removed:
... indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have never made any secret of the fact that I thought this particular provision in Section 112 should never have been there in the first place. It has not been used either by this government or by the preceding government.
This statement alone leaves many unanswered questions.
Although we are no longer recognized as a Band as defined under the Indian Act, we have never relinquished our inherent rights as established under Treaty Number Six. The process that was followed was a direct violation of the spirit and intent of the treaty. I do not believe for a minute that by signing Treaty Six my Great-Great Grandfather was agreeing to the 'Assimilation Policies' that were soon to follow.
The Michel First Nations has attempted to initiate negotiations with the federal government to no avail; we are in a catch 22 position: we claim we should have never ceased to exist as a band and yet we are denied the specific claims process because we are not recognized as a band.
There are many injustices that have yet to be settled, including the irregularities of the 1903 and 1906 land surrenders, the legality of the surrendered land sales made to Frank Oliver (former Minister of the Interior). Many of our neighbouring First Nation communities are in the process of negotiating claims based on these very same injustices and yet we have no forum to be heard. Does this mean we have no recourse for these injustices?
An inquiry was held before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) and in their report dated March 1998, the ICC made the following recommendation:
That Canada grant special standing to the duly authorized representatives of the Friends of Michel Society to submit specific claims in relation to alleged invalid surrenders of reserve land for consideration of their merits under the Specific Claims Policy.
It has taken three and a half years for the Department of Justice to provide an opinion to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) on this recommendation, and I have been advised that the opinion is now in the hands of the DIAND.
As a result of this delay and to protect our claim from new statue of limitations implications, a Statement of Claim was filed in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta in February of this year.
The implementation of Bill C 31 has partially benefited some of our members - under section 6(1)(d) - "enfranchisement is abolished" - over 730 members were re-instated and added to a General Band List. However, I question how the Government of Canada can deem the process of individual enfranchisement as discriminatory and yet not apply that same principle to band enfranchisement.
Our re-instatement under Bill C-31 has serious implications for the Michel First Nation because it allows re-instatement for one generation only. Under this process, how long will it be until we again cease to exist in the eyes of the DIAND? Is this not another form of genocide?
Our rights and benefits, including programs services and funding to which we are entitled under Treaty Number Six are still being denied. Not only have our treaty rights been violated, but also our human rights continue to be violated-we are not treated equally, in the same way as other First Nation people and communities.
We have suffered many losses due to the dismantling of our band and forced assimilation-not only loss of our land and our resources, but the greatest losses of all-that of our culture, our language, our traditions, our identity. There are only a few of our people left who are able to speak our language today. We have lost our sense of community, many of us do not know our cousins, and have not had the teachings of our Elders.
Here is a passage in the book As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows that states
Since every man is the product of the culture into which he is born and in which he is nurtured and educated, of necessity his thinking will follow certain well-defined lines. To change the direction of thinking is as difficult as changing the color of skin, and probably more painful.
I can relate personally to this passage: we were the only native family in our area - shunned by the white society and yet we were not part of the Native community - it was very difficult to grow up with one foot in both worlds, not belonging in either one. I can only assume it was much the same for many of my relations.
This 125th commemoration of the signing of Treaty Six gives me hope that the injustices of the past can be resolved and I appeal to the honourable Mr. Nault to make a commitment to begin this process of honouring our rights as established within Treaty Six. I also appeal to all the First Nation leaders within Treaty Six for their support.
I wish to thank the organizers of this event for their support and for allowing us a voice today. I give thanks to the Creator for allowing us to be heard with open minds and open hearts today.
From: http://www.epl.ca