 Well, thank you, Shannon, Newfield from Kairos, Canada, for making all this possible for us here tonight. I want to welcome everyone on behalf of Kairos Prairies North Decolonizing Group and the Treaty Land Sharing Network. I welcome everyone to this session, Decolonizing Ourselves, Legislating Broken Promises, Past and Present. We are once again so pleased with the number of participants to this event, as we've had with other events. We're both overwhelmed and overjoyed with the response to this opportunity for learning and action. We anticipate a very interesting session with many thought provoking new insights and moving forward, we hope, individual and collective actions by the participants here tonight to make right the promises made through treaty. So I really want to start us off in a good way by introducing you to Elder Marie Ann Daywalker-Pelche. She is the longest serving elected chief in Canadian history. She was the chief of Okanese First Nation, located near Fort Capellis, Saskatchewan, from 1981 to 2020. During her long career, Ms. Daywalker-Pelche accomplished many goals, including establishing the structure, instruments and policies of governance for Okanese First Nation. She also took part in numerous projects related to wellness, social reform and education, focusing primarily on providing support to vulnerable women and children. Ms. Daywalker-Pelche has been a strong advocate for preserving the language, traditions and treaty rights of Okanese First Nation. Elder Marie Ann, please. So thank you for that introduction. First of all, I want to speak for a couple minutes, just before I do the prayer. Can you see the treaty medal? Yes, we can. That's the treaty. We can also have the tobacco that Mary sent me to request for me to pray, pray for all of us. On the treaty medal, this is the most important covenant that we have ever entered into in history. Our ancestors, your ancestors came together to find a better quality of life. Our First Nations people at that time provided the newcomers the means to live on this land. And they agreed to share that land with the newcomers in a most honest, humble way. And our ancestors, my grandfathers, mothers always talk about the old stories about our ancestors, how they were so kind and so humble and wanting to share with people their knowledge, their awareness, their experiences at that time. And so the treaty medal represents that covenant. And as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow. As you can see it on the metal there, there's the sun, the grass. It depicts us of who we are and who you are. I say you because it means all of us. And I just want to say that because it's so important that all of us learn and teach each other the knowledge that we have, the experiences that we have, and how best can we make that change for our generation. And I was just reflecting today on the leadership of today, our people, decision makers. You know, a lot of times they make irrational decisions because they don't understand the principles of our history. And you'll see that in their decision making. But I am happy in our school system. We are now sharing the treaties, treaties in classroom. And so I think when you look to 30 years from now, those leaders, our children, our great grandchildren, are going to have a better perspective on this. They are the ones that are going to create change. But we have to be there to support that, support our kids, encourage our kids, encourage our children to work together. And that's the only way it's going to change. And I look forward to hearing the discussion and I look forward to, you know, seeing, you know, where this is going to lead us and lead you and to really make a difference for all of us. So that's what this treaty metal means, sacred, spiritual. It's a covenant. And it's two people shaking hands. So we need to continue to do that. So for now, I'm going to say the prayer. I asked a creator, grandfathers and grandmothers to come to us to help in our decision making. And I asked the grandfathers and grandmothers to be with us and witness the discussion and to keep the discussions and the words of our people. The words need to be kind with kindness, with humbleness, with dignity. Creator, we ask you also to bless those that are all on this event, this gathering tonight, to bless them individually, to bless their families, to bless their relatives, and also to bless their communities. We always ask for good things, Creator. We ask that you humbly bless all of us in a good way so that we can walk together on this Mother Earth and to make change for our young people. I ask you, Creator, to bless us all. Hi, hi. Thank you. Hi, hi. Thank you very much. Elder Marianne, your reflections, your prayer, your presence with us is so appreciated and helping to get us started in a good way. Thank you. In case I haven't met you before in previous events or through the Treaty Land Sharing Network, my name is Mary Smiley. I'm coming to you today on the boundary between Treaties 4 and Treaties 6 territories, where they meet on Highway 11 between Regina and Saskatoon. The confluence of these spaces is a tiny little village called Vladworth, which I call home. Treaty 4 was signed in 1874, involving people from Cree and Soto tribes. Treaty 6 signed in 1876 involved people from Cree and Stony First Nations. These lands are also home of the Métis. We respect the First Nations and Métis peoples of this place and reaffirm our relationship with one another and will support one another and our children moving forward so that the relationships can be resolved and improved over time. Together with my husband and adult children, we operate a mixed grain and livestock farm here at Vladworth. This has been the home to my husband's family since 1905, when Ian's grandmother's father laid claim to 160 acres as a settler homesteader. Over time, our farm has grown to include land homesteaded by many relatives and many neighbors. It is only very recently, I acknowledged only in the last five or six years, that we have come to appreciate that our notion of individual ownership of land is wrong. We came to this realization through participation in the Treaty Land Sharing Network. The Treaty Land Sharing Network is made up of farmers, ranchers, and people who hold title to rural property, who come together to share the land as treaty intended and to begin the crucial work of honoring treaties. The Treaty Land Sharing Network is land acknowledgement in practice. It is one small step, but an important step. I invite you through the chat to share the Treaty Territories from which you are joining us from tonight. The Kairos Prairies North Decolonizing Group is comprised of settlers committed to dismantling colonialism. In Canada, colonization occurred when a new group of people migrated to North America, took over, and began to control indigenous peoples. Colonizers impose their own cultural values, religions, and laws, and make policies that do not favor indigenous people. The goal of Kairos Prairies North Decolonizing Group is to facilitate educational opportunities like this one and conversations among settlers and newcomers from primarily Christian faith communities about decolonization and systemic discrimination to equip learners for advocacy and action. Throughout, once I see that lots of people are posting the territories from which they're coming to us from, we really appreciate that. Later, when you're hearing from the speakers, feel free to use the chat also to just post any ideas or thoughts that are resonating with you. Just try and get the benefit of being in a group learning environment and using the chat function for that. That would be great. So, without further ado, I would like to turn your attention to a member of the Kairos Prairies North Decolonizing Group, Javid Summers, who will provide you with a summary of the history of the natural resource transfer agreements. Javid. Thanks, Mary. I have my window open and I just started pouring. I hope that's not seems like it's okay. No one's getting some distracting noise. Okay, good. Wonderful. So, my name is Javid Summers, as Mary said, and I am joining you tonight from the land of Treaty Six in what we call Edmonton, Alberta, where I am a settler living and working and worshipping. For nine years, I have been working for Indigenous Services Canada, where I have the privilege of regularly interacting with many Treaty Six First Nations in Alberta on fiscal and other issues. Today, my presence has nothing to do with my employment, and it's important for me to note that. But it is my professional context that first made me aware of many of the issues we're going to talk about today, including the natural resources transfer agreements. And I think at this stage, I'm going to try to bring in my slides. So, let's see if I can do that successfully. Perfect. I think that worked. Please let me know if it didn't. So, it was because I was hearing about topics like the NRTA and conversations with First Nations that I completed a master's degree in Indigenous Studies at the University of Alberta, where I explore Treaty Six fiscal relations, including the impact of the NRTA. The Kairos Decolonization Group has been working for two years now to coordinate learning sessions such as this one in the hopes that educating ourselves will result in decolonizing ourselves and ultimately, our communities and our country. And we feel that today's topic is particularly important and timely in that regard. So why are we here? The NRTA and related issues are fundamental to understanding the colonial context in the prairie provinces. First Nations have been talking about their concerns relating to the NRTA for almost 100 years, but it is a topic settlers have largely ignored. Recently, this has changed to some extent with Saskatchewan and Alberta passing provocative legislation that is consistent with the NRTA. And just last month, we saw federal and provincial and First Nations politicians going back and forth on the NRTA in a way I've never seen. So this conversation has always been important, but perhaps never more so than right now in 2023. Before we hear from our guest speakers, I want to introduce a little historical background for those of us who may be hearing about the NRTA for the first time. My intention is not to provide analysis or commentary, but simply to ensure we have all the basic facts about the NRTA that will make the analysis and commentary we are going to hear make sense. So the year 1870 is for me the natural starting point for this conversation. In 1870, Canada as a nation is three years old, but only consists of what are today Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Canada is young and also very poor, but it's ambitious and worried about its even more ambitious southern neighbor, the United States. Canada wants British Columbia to join Confederation and wants to ensure the U.S. does not expand northward. As a first step to securing these goals, Canada begins negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company to purchase what is known as Rupert's Land. The HBC was given Rupert's Land in 1670 by the English King and has operated here for the last two centuries. Although the idea that HBC owns the land is ridiculous, as far as settler law is concerned, Canada's expansion westward requires the HBC be paid. That deal is done in 1870, and Canada now feels it has de jure control. Of course, the de facto situation is very different. The actual occupants of the land, mostly First Nations and Métis, were never consulted or compensated, and when their thoughts are heard, they do not, of course, agree that Canada owns their land. So while Canada believes it has de jure control, it does recognize the lack of de facto control. And in fact, the need to negotiate with Indigenous peoples is embedded in the legislation that transferred Rupert's Land to Canada. So in 1871, the numbered treaty negotiations begin. Canada negotiates treaties one through 11 in an attempt to gain exclusive and total sovereignty or over an enormous area, spanning from what is now northwestern Ontario, the southern northwest territories, and northeastern British Columbia. For the purpose of today's topic, I think three points about numbered treaties are important. First, whether or not we believe the treaty negotiations were done in good faith, there can be no doubt that the negotiations suffered from differences in worldview between the settler and Indigenous negotiators. For example, Indigenous peoples generally understand land and natural resources to be their relatives. While First Nations had a sense of geographical jurisdiction, it would be anachronistic or ethnocentric to speak of First Nations owning land and resources. After all, you cannot own your relative. For Canada, of course, ownership, whether by individuals or the Crown, is an extremely applicable concept. With ownership comes exclusive rights to exploit, sell, and transfer, and this is what Canada wanted. At a fundamental level, these perspectives on land and resources stem from spiritual and religious perspectives. For most Indigenous spiritualities, humans are understood to be at the bottom, the most dependent of all beings, and therefore mindful to live in relationship with land and resources in a way that is respectful, symbiotic, and harmonious. In contrast, Christians are comfortable with concepts of owning and exploiting land and resources, generally understanding that God has given creation to humans to control. Some might argue that Christians have abused their trust when it comes to creation, but nonetheless, the inherent assumption is that decision-making around land and natural resources rightfully lies with humans. Secondly, and further to these differences in worldview, Canada clearly understood the treaties to be the mechanism whereby it obtained exclusive jurisdiction over land and resources. This was never the First Nations' understanding. Rather, they understood the treaties as creating mutually beneficial relationships with Canada that would see settlers sharing the land with them as they had done amongst themselves for millennia. Thirdly, the oral traditions of many treaty-adherent First Nations suggest that while they were willing to share the land, they considered the sharing to stop on the surface. Commonly heard term is the depth of a plow. This would mean that natural resources found below the surface, for example, oil and gas, would not be included in what First Nations intended to share with settlers. This brings us to the year 1930. Through the late decades of the 1800s and early decades of the 1900s, settlers were moving into the province of Manitoba and were to become the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in extraordinary numbers. Canada's vision has been fulfilled. Canada now stretches from sea to sea to sea, and First Nations have been dispossessed, largely confined to tiny reserves. Despite the obvious colonization of indigenous peoples by settlers, the prairie settlers are also beginning to develop a narrative about their own colonization by Eastern Canada. Partly this is because other provinces within confederation enjoy administration and control over their natural resources, but Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta do not. This puts the three prairie provinces in a position of inferiority, which they of course consider unacceptable, and pressure builds to fix it. By 1930 negotiations between Ottawa and the prairie provinces have been going on for at least eight years, and finally in 1930, the natural resource transfer acts, one for each of the provinces, come into being. Well, we often refer to the NRTA in the singular. In fact, each province has its own act, although they are nearly identical in terms of what they do, transfer jurisdiction over natural resources from the federal government to the provincial governments. At the time, the NRTA was understood to be so significant that there were parties thrown to celebrate. But as with the purchase of Rupert's land in 1870, there was no consultation with or compensation of indigenous peoples relating to the NRTA. For the last now almost 100 years, treaty First Nations have consistently made clear that they consider the NRTA a violation of treaty and inherent inherent rights, including recently at the Assembly of First Nations chiefs meeting in Ottawa in April, where chiefs raised this issue with federal government ministers. For most Canadian settlers, on the other hand, even if we don't know anything about the NRTA specifically, we have come to assume that provinces should control their natural resources, with little questioning of why this is the case, or how it intersects with the original peoples of this land. In a way, we could say settlers have the luxury of ignorance when it comes to how this all came to be, or why it conflicts with treaties, we benefit immensely from this arrangement without any appreciation or understanding of the costs. Today, our hope is that we all come to understand and appreciate a little better how jurisdiction over prairie land and resources works, why it works that way, and maybe most importantly, what a better future could look like. So at this time, we're going to invite all of you to join a breakout room in which you will be in groups of about four people for five minutes or so. We're asking you to introduce yourselves to each other, who you are and why you're here tonight. You will be rejoining the same group in a breakout room later once we've had the opportunity to hear from our guest speakers. So we will see you all back here in about five minutes. Thanks. Well, welcome back everyone. I hope that it was good for you to meet the folks that you'll be in the breakout room with again to process what we're learning this evening. My name is Amanda Dodge, and I'm part of the Decolonization Working Group, and it's my pleasure to introduce you to our speaker, Mary Muscovac Halberton. Mary and I go back to, well, back in the day as we met through the legal community some years ago. And it's a pleasure to introduce her to you now. Mary is Saskatchewan's first woman treaty commissioner. She is Nackaway and of Irish, Scottish and English descent. A member of the Kisikus First Nation, she was the first member to earn a Juris Doctor from the University of Saskatchewan College of Law and practice law in Saskatchewan. In January 2018, Mary Halberton became the treaty commissioner for Saskatchewan. Her professional experience spans federal and provincial governments, indigenous organizations, tribal councils, community-based organizations, and more. She is the daughter of a residential school survivor whose family has persevered through intergenerational legacies and trauma. She is the mother of four grown children who have made her a proud Cookham. Mary grew up seeing both worlds on the family farm north of Pelley, Saskatchewan, and Treaty 4 territory across the river from Fort Livingston and her nation of Kisikus across from Fort Pelley. She is the granddaughter of late FSIN Senator Roy Mosquaw and Nellie Brass who instilled the torch of self-determination in their children and grandchildren. Mary firmly believes the personal and professional experiences she has lived have shaped her journey, knowledge, and determination. And she's with us tonight. Welcome, Mary, to share her experiences and knowledge with us. My Gwech, Mary, we're grateful you're here. Thank you for sharing. Thank you, Amanda. Good evening, everyone. Aneen, and Deja Nikazuin, Mary Mosquaw Calbertson. I'm from Kisikus First Nation on my mom's side and my dad's side. I'm Irish, English, Scottish. So I'm just going to do a screen share here. So thank you. Like I said once again, good evening, everyone. Welcome to this session. I thank you all for joining and I'm really impressed at the numbers on here. Thank you, everyone, for wanting to be part of this conversation and for Kairos Decolonization Group 1 on hosting this and continued education. And what Chief Marianne said about this is how things are supposed to be. It's very much true. That's how things are supposed to be. And so I don't think we would have seen this 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Of course, being in this role has broadened a lot of my perception in how much people do want to be good treaty partners and do want to be good neighbors, and it's very encouraging. So the conversation we wanted to have tonight part is about the NRTA and restoring broken promises and much of the I guess the narrative that Javed had laid out really well about what the political bodies have been doing back and forth, basically making fodder out of the NRTA, but there's not a lot of context. Because we only get the bits and bytes that the news wants to share about what the politicians are saying. They're not going further and talking about why Chief Cameron says this and they're not going further about why does Scott Moh say this or why did the Attorney General say that? Why does Trudeau say this? There's never the background context, it's just bits and bytes. And part of that misinformation is in their hands, the media. And then we have to do all this work like now to dispel all those myths. So when those treaties, very much like Javed said about differing worldviews, when the treaties were being entered into, it was very much about expansion. And when Canada was being built and being a very, it was an aggressive move to expand. But they had to enter into treaties with the nations first, the first nations. When the surveyors came out towards Treaty Six, towards where I'm sitting in now in Treaty Six in Saskatoon, when they started coming this way, they were sent back by Mr. Wasis and a takaku. They were told, you will not do any, any surveying here until we have a treaty. And the first nations in Treaty Six area were already requesting that the crown come and negotiate with them. When the treaties were entered into and those negotiations happened, there was never any discussion about the seed and surrender of land. The promises were made that they would give them the use of the land. And that was in treaty four discussions and negotiations, enough to plant your seeds, enough to plant your seeds so your crops will grow. Our way of life is not to change that meant hunting, fishing, living off the land, culture, identity. Those promises were not meant to be interfered with. The way of life was not to change that meant access to the land, harvesting, picking medicines, hunting for food. And that was a very different worldview than what the non-first nations had. It was secure access to the land, have people move on the land, have settlement, put themselves there, occupy the land so they can claim the ownership. And ownership was not something that first nations were staunchly fixed to. Yes, we had different territories and there was conflicts over territory, but it was always about survival. Survival when it came to food, when it came to shelter, when it came to health. It wasn't about money from drilling into the land or accessing resources. That was not a discussion that was had back then. It wasn't a value, it wasn't a worldview of the first nations. And today we have this rhetoric going back and forth. So the crux there was the seed and surrender clause. And much of the nation has a bias when it comes to seed and surrender because they believe that's what the treaties were. And yet on the first nations view, on the spirit and intent of those treaties, it was land-sharing treaties. And then you have come the push of the provinces to be created. And what Javid had went over when you had these three prairie provinces that were created after the treaties were entered into, specifically Saskatchewan and Alberta. After the treaties were already negotiated, then along comes these provinces being created. Another set of rulers, so to speak, another set of laws being implanted on treaty territories on first nations people. 1905 was far before the natural resource transfer agreement of 1930. It was after the treaties were negotiated in what's now Saskatchewan. In what's now Saskatchewan, of course, is treaty, we have two, four, five, six, eight, and ten. In Manitoba, there's treaties one, two, three on the very edge of Manitoba, mostly Lake of the Woods area, and four, five, six, ten, nine. So these provinces were just sitting there and on top of all of these resources. And of course, the Crown at the time knew it. They knew that the land was full of resources because there had been fur trading going on here for hundreds of years already before these treaties were negotiated. So here comes the creation of Canada, you know, and its westward expansion. And the first time I heard that non-first nations people at the time thought of the NRTA as their Magna Carta, then it clicked in my head about what they believed. I was like, oh, okay, I get that. And my dad was, you know, Irish, English, Scottish. He taught me a lot about Canadian politics. He taught me a lot. But he never talked to me about that aspect. He talked to me about a lot of English history, Battle of Hastings, the Normans, the British Crown, the monarchy, about how their colonizers and about Queen Victoria, you know, ensuring that she was a ruler of Europe and all of that political aspect. But we never talked about that being the Magna Carta in this country. And so I was really surprised because it made me think and click. So I learned something too in these conversations about what those differing worldviews mean. And it was, I guess, like a liberation for many people. And like Javid said, they had parties. And then on the other side, here's first nations who through the Indian Act and because of policy were confined to reservations, attending residential schools, having their children apprehended, taken, put into schools, not coming home, never seeing some children again and being confined to reserves through the Indian Act and a pass and permit system being imposed on them. In the Indian Act, it also had provisions where first nations could not hire lawyers and lawyers could not work for first nations. So you have this natural resource transfer agreement happening and being negotiated. Meanwhile, the first peoples who agreed to share the land and never give up their way of life and had no concept of complete ownership of these land and their resources could not do anything about this, about this treaty partner that they thought they made this arrangement with coming and giving another body complete control over the land around them, of resources and impacting their ability to hunt and to feed themselves and to gather medicines. So even though there's aspects within that NRTA, like section 12, I thought I had that up here on this slide, but I don't. Section 12 of the NRTA talks about lands and lands reserved for Indians. So section 12 is what a lot of governments rely on saying that they're honoring the treaties, but section 12 is very limiting. Again, it's putting this concept of ownership and the resources and lands that were supposed to be shared into legislation. So while this legislation is going on transferring the resources and the jurisdiction of them over to provinces that were created after the treaties and First Nations people couldn't have a say, they couldn't fight back on it, they couldn't even leave the reserves and this was all going on around them. So from there, you lay out this pattern of complete injustices, right? And now we come to today. The government of Saskatchewan has presented a legislation called the Sask First Act and our neighbors to the west of us, Alberta, have a similar act. In Alberta, that act is different in its wording. It says they might do this if the feds do this. In Saskatchewan, the summary of the first Sask First Act is basically saying we own all the resources and we don't have to give the federal government any of them and they have exclusive jurisdiction. So exclusive jurisdiction over all the natural resources in this province asserting that, but yet First Nations have been asserting that for over a hundred years and have been desperately trying to ensure that their rights aren't trampled on and it's a complete power imbalance as well. When Mr. Brad Wall was the former premier, he stated very explicitly that there would be no resource sharing for special interest groups and at the time I remember the media response from First Nations was First Nations are not special interest groups and so classifying First Nations as a special interest group diminishes even the existence of being nations, of being treaty partners. And if you look at the division of powers arguments in relationship with the crown in right of Canada and then all of a sudden you have the NRTA here and then you have to deal with the province on certain issues and then you have of course the constitutional division there and it's the risk of impact to everyone else unlawful authority what the federal government at the time the crown in right Canada mistakenly did was delegate an unlawful delegated authority. They had you know in my opinion as a treaty commissioner they had no authority to make the natural resource transfer agreement right but they went ahead and completely ignored the original agreement that they had already entered into with First Nations and entered into the natural resource transfer agreement with these three provinces that did not exist when those arrangements they had made were entered into so it was a complete ignorance and defiance of the previous relationship that they had created but again they had made legislation to ensure First Nations could not hire lawyers that they had to stay on the reserves that they couldn't protest that they had the northwest mountain police the RCMP there you know to ensure that Indians were being kept on reserves we couldn't go past a grade eight which was the highest grade you could go to in a residential school if you wanted an education beyond that you'd have to give up your status as an Indian give up your identity. So very much understanding the spirit and intent of the treaties and how First Nations understand it is crucial to understanding the crux of the NRTA issue and that the treaties are more than what you see on paper it's more than written documents what is on paper to me most of that text is fraudulent it was not the First Nations writing it it was not somebody who was impartial it was translators that were hired and paid for by the Crown in order to secure what they needed the translators never translated seed and surrender and if you go back through um actual histories archives oral recordings the seed and surrender clause was never translated as part of the treaty by the treaty negotiators their translators clergymen etc it was inserted at treaty three and that's how the seed and surrender clause became part of the written treaties and where Chief Marianne was speaking about the spirit and intent and the ceremony that formed the sacred relationship that differing worldview they believed they were creating this relationship and they brought in a third party that third party was a creator it was a spirituality that's how important that relationship was and it was never given time to actually grow from there the spirit and intent was wasn't given a chance and we had went over and over again you know in my previous life as a lawyer about options what could you do and of course when you look at the negotiation aspect how everything should be negotiated it should be negotiated first before it goes to court um but then you know if you have crowns who are completely unwilling you know and differing opinions um then what do you do when you have no ally when you have no partner so things like this webinar um groups like kairos decolonization project that's showing the willingness to understand willingness to hear the willingness to work together and to be good treaty partners um because first nations can't go ahead and try and negotiate an mou or anything with these provinces because they they don't want to hear it they don't want to have that discussion and then from the federal level you have you know one minister saying yeah we should talk about it definitely has to be looked at you know and then you have the prime minister saying he didn't say that um you know so so you can see where this this misunderstanding and crux is and it causes a lot of debate it causes confusion but the worst thing of course i've seen is a lot of really ugly racism right and stereotypes and i only have an instagram account i don't have social media um but i do go and look at it until it asks you to sign in and then i can't um and i it's it's just not changed from my time coming into this role of the killing of colton bushey and gerald stanley trial it didn't change and you know i thought well maybe five six years later it changed it didn't so you still see those really ugly comments like what more do they want oh they'll just drink it up anyway oh they'll go and do this oh they just you know all of those ugly things without people understanding where it all comes from and it always all comes from the very basis of broken treaties and not understanding and not having the knowledge shared with them or access to that knowledge and today we do see that hope where we have our kids learning about treaties about different ways of life about different belief systems and still those are challenged um but we have it now in our classrooms we have more and more young people talking about it the truth about the residential schools is there and it's coming out and it's in the news and it's all the time you know and then again there's our partners or our neighbors sorry to the west of us alberta where they can't talk about residential schools in the classrooms you know and my grandson goes to a school in edmonton and he lived with us all of last year so he was with us a lot at a lot of events and you know so he's always telling me mum this is how my teacher talks she can't say this and she can't say that and he said you know they don't talk about residential schools and i told him yeah i understand that and i was explaining to him about policy and government and he's nine uh he just couldn't understand it about why why can't we talk about those things and i told him it's a little different there and you know we are very lucky here where we do have that mandated in our classrooms because we're working on it at least it's there it's mandated we're not being told these things aren't real and that's been from all the work that happened before us and from people like us so understanding the written text of the treaties as being a very small portion and probably a not accurate one at all to the underlying part the negotiations that was the entirety of those treaties understanding that differing worldview understanding settler worldview and what the treaty commissioners were understanding and negotiating i've done a lot of pouring over former treaty commissioner diaries and i believe there was commissioners who truly believed in the promises they were making and that they would be fulfilled and i think that really stopped at about treaty number six so far what i have found was a lot of morris from alexander morris as lieutenant governor writing to ottawa requesting over and over and over again and then wondering why his supplies didn't show up at a fort and then wondering why this didn't happen and then figuring out down the road that he was being pushed out and then eventually being terminated right after he negotiated treaty six because they told him he had no authority to offer medicines and famine and pestilence clause so alexander morris as a lieutenant governor and a commissioner i believe there was a time where he really believed the promises he was making would be fulfilled and then he starts seeing them not and he starts seeing his own voice being stepped on and not listened to to the point where he was being told he had no authority and they removed him as a commissioner right after treaty six so in looking in that entirety really understanding and seeing that whole picture on how these all came to be has really had to form the entirety of a view so in conclusion if you see my slide here when i had been thinking about this and of course i've been really really sick for a week um and i was really thinking about okay there's just too much talking and not enough action right um you know and i bug my politician colleagues sometimes because i'm a quasi type of politician about something has to be done you have to do something we can't just keep talking about it we can't keep talking about it and you know i'm always thinking about you know i don't get to hide from these things when i'm done this role i don't get to just go back into some other profession or go be a lawyer i'm back with my own people and you know i really think about what the options are and when we have crowns in right of Canada and right of Saskatchewan that do not want to talk about it then something has to be done and i believe that the sask first act has been the crux and the trigger where first nations are going to do something and so in understanding why first nations assert the views that they have and are upset about the claims to the natural resources they firmly believe should not have been bothered or regulated by a government or the extraction of resources happening where we have complete wealth imbalance and power imbalance because of that you look around and you can see it when we go home to our home area you know literally one side of the road there's about 1015 grain bins and probably a couple million dollars worth of grain in huge farms and on the other side of the road is our first nation you know our reserves and i look at that whole imbalance there where you know it's poverty on one side of the road opioid crisis addictions hopelessness depression poverty and because of systems that were meant to completely eradicate first nations people you know and then on the other side of the road we have wealth and we have prosperity all from the land so it's my hopes that education like this will lead to understanding it'll lead to allyship it'll lead to a better future where the next generation of first nations kids you know my grandson is not saying what were you guys doing because i have honestly thought that and i felt even guilty about it thinking man i remember going to meetings when i was child whether it was with my uncles my aunt my mom and it was the same thing we're talking about the same thing as first nations people so these conversations have been going about what do we do what do we need to do who can help us they have been a going on for decades right and i hope that in this generation we end that and there's true allyship and true partnership being formed where we're all going to be able to benefit from the land we were intended to share right and where we don't have these huge power imbalances and wealth imbalances because that's what we have so when first nations do launch litigation and i believe that's coming very soon this will be part of that understanding it'll be the background about why they are doing this why are they asserting this because you have the parties they entered into with treaty being the crown completely ignoring those treaty promises to begin with and maybe this question will finally be settled it won't be very overnight it won't take it won't be a short amount of time i believe what will happen is it will go to of course the courts to the higher level courts um if it does go all the way to the supreme court of canada i believe the court will say the parties have to go back and negotiate and come to an agreement that's what i think will happen um so i believe we should all be aware of that and when these things do happen when a statement of claim is released or when there is legal action that there be more education right so that's the only way we can combat it is through education knowledge so i'll close out with there my voice has had it for right now and migwech thank you for listening to me which uh treaty commissioner musko culbertson thank you very much for for all of that and man i'm i'm processing it a lot of what you said of course some of it i knew but but so much of it uh well quite sobering to be honest so um yeah lots to think about thank you now i have uh the privilege to uh introduce dr roger epp uh roger epp is currently the uh interim vice provost and dean in the faculty of graduate studies and research at the university of alberta dr epp is also a professor emeritus in political science and i was lucky enough to have dr epp as one of my examiners at my thesis defense uh almost four years ago now and that's where i had the privilege to first meet him dr epp is from rural Saskatchewan and spent a good portion of his career in the rural alberta town of camrose and much of his scholarly work focuses on the rural prairie west and what it means to live as a settler on treaty six territory uh in particular i would recommend his wonderful book we are all treaty people which is a collection of essays exploring topics that would be relevant to many of us here tonight as we think about ourselves as settlers on treaty land dr epp worships as part of a menonite community and in 2013 he was an honorary witness at the truth and reconciliation commission hearings at ermanskin crenation at muscochies dr epp has generously agreed to join us tonight and share some of his reflections on the nrta from the perspective of a political scientist and a settler with deep roots on prairie land and we are very happy to have him indeed thank you dr epp thank you jevitt um and i have to say your dissertation is um is still one i remember um as um a really really good one it's it set the bar high for the people who came after it's um it's a well it's an honor for me to be part of this program and to uh have already heard jevitt's really concise introduction of the nrta and then then to hear mary speak so powerfully and i will i will hope i can um do justice to what they have said and and continue this conversation i may repeat a little bit but mostly to reinforce what what you've heard and uh and hopefully um lay down some seeds for conversation i am as jevitt alluded i grew up in rural suscatch one i i am a i have lived almost all of my life in treaty six i started out at the eastern corner and um i'm now on the western side in in edmonton i have four generations of ancestors buried in a little country cemetery not far south of where treaty six was first negotiated at carlton and those ancestors were also pretty much within earshot of the cannon fire that uh was directed at almighty voice in 1897 um in um maybe the last time that the canadian military used its um its weapons in uh on on the canadian prairies i'm coming to you from thanks to the marvel of zoom um from the intimacy of my um my little basement office i'm not as clever as mary about what to put in the background but you might catch glimpses i don't know of a pendleton blanket of an eagle feather of a um a sweetgrass braid all gifts from friends at uh at the creek communities at mascochies and for me a reminder of the gift and the obligation of treaty treaty understood as a relationship and not a transaction so i'm not an historian but i pay attention to how the past is is recollected and for what purposes i pay attention to language and to the stories we tell ourselves especially settler people the stories we tell ourselves on the prairie and parkland regions where we live so in that context i agree with the previous speakers it is fascinating that in 2023 the natural resources transfer agreements have become the subject of public conversation again in alberta where i began my adult life as a journalist i learned about the nrta in the hot house of the provincial legislature in late 1970s that was a time when a conservative government in edmonton and an ndp government and regina were allied against what they saw as the threat of federal encroachments on hard one jurisdiction over public lands and resources i think i was the one who used for mary the phrase magna carta the nrta was in that world the magna carta it was the end of the time of quasi colonial status as lesser provinces it was the basis for resource-based economic prosperity and it could be taken away at any time in those days safe to say the nrta was was never put into the context of treaty relationships in the 1980s people had to be reminded that even the nrta contained obligations to make crown land available for the settlement of outstanding treaty obligations this in the context some of you will remember this of the lubicon cre claim the nrta in those days was at the same time a recognition and a refusal so i started with with an interest in the way that the past is recollected and for what purposes because it seems like so we're talking about the nrta publicly now but there has been for some time longer than that a curious recent narrative settler narrative that has just discovered indigenous peoples not as a problem after all but as historical partners who are somehow equally frustrated by the federal government but maybe united this to quote our just reelected premier in alperta united to tame an unforgiving frontier this is a narrative that impresses me with its boldness its generous inclusivity tape for example the buffalo declaration issued in 2020 by four opposition members of parliament from the west in which they said this they said the country was in a deep crisis the symptom of the colonial power structures from which alberta and suscatch when we're born without irony the declaration enlisted first nations and matee people as the first westerners with a grievance against ottawa for the purchase of rupert's land without without their consent would serve they said as a template for how our people would be treated by the established eastern political class the declaration the buffalo declaration took its name from the name proposed for a single new prairie province in 1905 but it did not go so far as to suggest that the creation of any province without the consent of those who had established treaty relationships with the crown on the same territory was also a matter of colonial presumption typically the declaration does not mention treaty at all or the negotiation of the nrta it imagines that if a declaration doesn't work that albertans at least and maybe people in siscatuan too could carry through on the threat of independence as if treaties were inconsequential and indigenous peoples were just so much furniture you could cart into a new country the language of double out the language of colonialism interestingly employed a kind of double colonialism you make one disappear by subsuming it into another certainly in 1905 the dominion of canada as it called itself then the dominion government had been determined to keep control of public lands and resources in the northwest it needed to ensure that railroads and homestead land policy supported the project of mass immigration for agriculture that was the national project of the national government and not surprisingly as javid has said this was deeply resented by settler society almost from the start that resentment took the language of colonial subordination serfdom or unequal status the nrta was the subject of lengthy negotiation with each of the prairie provinces in which the dominion government sometimes served as as at least a lukewarm advocate for treaty nations and rights even the notorious duncan Campbell scott got involved although we have to be careful in reading the historical record certainly the federal government was not a righteous actor that was somehow finally worn down by provincial demands the federal government in this country had long ago shifted by 1929 from treaty relationships to the power it had under the bna act simply to legislate in matters concerning indians this was a matter of legislation not treaty and so the point is that the constitutional change that the nrta the agreements and then the acts that followed that constitutional change that fundamental neglect of treaty relations and treaty terms around hunting tripping trapping and fishing for livelihood negotiated at a time as mary has said when no one thought that indigenous people should be in the room or in the photographs indeed that was when it had become illegal for them under the indian act to organize or to raise funds to advocate for their own interests the signing of the agreements were a great decolonizing moment for settler societies when albertas premier john brownley stepped off the train at the cn station in downtown edmonton he was greeted by a large crowd a band and a bonfire to repeat the nrta was the great decolonizing moment for prairie settler societies the magna carta but that same decolonizing moment was a colonizing one for indigenous peoples in 1929 and 1930 these are not partners in in resisting the federal government they are at cross purposes this was absolutely clear the nrta transferred crown lands mines minerals and the royalties therein to the three provinces eventually it compensated them and it confirmed that provincial game laws would apply to indians quote unquote while reserving for them a right to hunt trap and fish for food on unoccupied crown lands in all seasons and in that clause the nrta appeared to limit what in later northern treaties at least like treaty eight was a clear principle recorded even in treaty because the commissioner's commissioner layered knew and recorded this in his diary that there would be no treaty otherwise this was a matter of insistence that hunting for livelihood trapping for livelihood was not to be affected but that's how the courts have interpreted article 12 of the nrta that's how provincial governments have interpreted it ever since there is a deep and practical contemporary significance here when provincial governments decide to auction off crown land as they do periodically for whatever purpose they are further diminishing the land base on which an already narrowed version of treaty right can be exercised when provincial governments auction off crown land they're further diminishing the land base on which treaty rights already narrowed can be exercised and that doesn't begin to address the larger question of resource extraction jurisdiction and economic benefit questions that might be too big for or some people to wrap their heads around so I was asked to just to change pace I was asked to to to make sure I spoke in my comments to the churches as a Christian and I'll say that I struggled with this and not for the first time I am maybe I'll start by saying this I am unaware and cannot imagine that in 1929 and 1930 there were prairie churches that raised questions about the nrta that put them out of step with the prevailing ethos I cannot imagine it and I would include churches shaped at that time by the social gospel I'd be happy to be proven wrong I don't think I will be I'm mindful that the strongest whistleblowing in the early 20th century about residential schools for example came from a federal public servant not from the churches contracted to run them so that's historical what do we call to do now let me let me offer three because three is always a good number that way you know when I'm getting close to the end first of all Christians have someone learning to do maybe this is the strongest point I have to make and I've been thinking about this a long time the premise that God plays favorites with land is deeply imprinted on north american christianity presumption is the lesson drawn for generations from the biblical story of exodus out of egypt into the promised land of kanan a story into which european immigrants have insinuated themselves again and again later this year there will be plenty of menonites whose whose families came to the prairies in 1923 and in the years after celebrating a centennial celebrating an exodus and a deliverance all true but that presumption is the lesson drawn from the biblical story I'm not saying it is the biblical story it's the lesson drawn from it it's reflected of course in the magisterial presumption of the doctrine of discovery which declared 500 years ago that land that was on that land was unoccupied until it was claimed in the name of the european christian monarch and it is the presumption present in the biblical language of dominion with which the canadian government projected its authority for many decades god does not play favorites with land otherwise god would be implicated in the affairs of empire and in the means by which land became property for homestead settlers in the prairie west there is some unlearning to do second i would say in our time that unlearning is also about refusing to be enlisted as christians as treaty people into the politics of exclusive domain the politics that animate the saskatchewan first act the alberta sovereignty act the buffalo declaration and some of the darker fantasies of independence that are currently in play on places in social media that i too don't hang out in and maybe not just refusing to be enlisted but also being ready to call out what is going on for the politics of exclusive domain or a denial of the spirit and intent and sacred covenant of treaties which imagined as we've heard a sharing of land resources and jurisdiction they still do so don't be afraid to ask where is treaty in your assertion of provincial rights where is the restoration of what was taken away in 1929 and earlier don't be afraid to ask and don't be afraid to act because land like like provincial rights like jurisdiction slips into the into the realm of exclusive domain easily enough and I really appreciated what Mary said in in the introduction about the alternative ethos that's that's playing out in the treaty land sharing network a way of saying land is not exclusive domain neither is jurisdiction so those are two here's a third because yes there always there need to be three here's where I will encourage all of you who are Christians or who are simply treaty people living where you where you live to discover rediscover the full power of the language of the neighbor. For me this is thinking I've done for a long time and it arises in the Christian Gospels in response to a provocative question. Who is my neighbor. In other words, draw for me a circle that defines the limits of my obligation of care and respect. The answer as you'll know takes the form of a story that we know well enough to have tamed it. The story of the so called good Samaritan and the title for that is probably worth another conversation. But read that story when you go back to it. In the context in which it's set a rough border country in which peoples with tangled histories lived in close and fearful proximity. In which the one who took the risks to stop and help the traveler robbed and left it by the side of the road was not in fact one of us. Who was the neighbor. Turns out the neighbor was the one who acted like one. The one we didn't expect the one who withdrew the circle of obligation. I imagine resetting that story on highway four and Saskatchewan the road from bigger up to battle for it through red pheasant reserve. Who would be the one who stopped and at what risk. Who's the one who withdraws the circle. I've tried to think about this story and the ethos of the neighbor as a way to find language to connect rural prairie people to help them find their way to what the TRC called a new way of living together. As I've done so, I keep finding the language of neighbor in the words of indigenous community leaders elders and legal scholars. It's a kind of invitation to share in the work of living well in this place different and together interdependent practicing mutual aid and taking up all the responsibilities that's the land that the land presents. The neighbors are already here. That's a treaty relationship. And I've said for a long time it's way treaty relationships are way too important to be left to governments alone. They require humility, learning and and repair from all of us stop there. Thanks again for the opportunity to be part of this and to think with you this evening. Thank you very much, Roger app. Mary muskwood culpritson. You have given us a pile of things to think about here. Really appreciate your contributions really appreciate these these tough thoughts. So we're going to take a bit of time now in our in our small groups to sort of talk about some of this. We've heard from past experiences of past events that we've posted like this, that the opportunity to connect in small groups is usually beneficial and people get to meet people they otherwise wouldn't have been able to meet. So we want to provide you with that opportunity now to connect with other participants. This time we're going to have 15 minutes in the small groups. And we invite you to share anything about what you have heard or learned tonight that stands out for you surprises you makes you uncomfortable makes you feel compelled to do something perhaps. We hope people will can start to think about what they hope to do with this information. What what's next. What are they how are they going to act on it to further work of the work of honoring treaties and to decolonize the places we call home. We'll come back to the larger group after this 15 minute break time out with our small groups, and we'll have some time for some questions that the organizing committee is going to have for our esteemed guests. So, if the magic people that put us into groups could now put us into groups, we'd be very grateful. So welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your time, as much as I did with my little group. I have been given the opportunity to ask our esteemed colleagues that joined us here tonight. Elder Mary and the Walker Peltier. Mary muskwa kalbertson and Roger app. A few questions. So as I find within all my notes where those questions might be. So maybe I'll start off with one for Mary muskwa kalbertson. If you would give us a bit of a sense of how the legal claims may be framed going forward related to the natural resource transfer agreement. Um, in conversations I've had in the past with other lawyers and colleagues and knowledge keepers. Um, of course, the main one that I had heard was, of course, that the treaties. Made it unlawful for the crown in right of Canada to have any such authority to transfer those resources so it was unlawful delegated authority. Um, but it's been there for over 100 years. And another argument would be that they put legislation in place to ensure. Um, that first nations could not object to it. And couldn't argue the upholding of the treaty. And one of the other aspects is going after specific sections in the NRTA. And previous case law. So those are a couple of them because of course you have to make these things fit into this system. In the breakout session. I had been talking about. You know how it could take about six years. If it were to go all the way to the Supreme Court and you know one of the trepidation there's trepidation with with many people, of course about. The treaty has to be done. Yes, there needs to be no more talking. It's too much talking something needs to be done there needs to be a trigger. Well this assertion from these different acts now sask first act in particular is of course inclusive jurisdiction over the resources. But however, you know that's the complete opposite right claimed by the first nation saying no you don't own these things. Going after specific sections you couldn't challenge that specific sask first act because in our versus quarterly, which would be make a suit to it's called, I believe. That case started in 2012. And it was a response to the omnibus bills that were happening in parliament. Right during the Harper government era. And that was filed by Mikosu creation. And there's Mikosu one Mikosu to so I'll put the link to it in the chat. It's Mikosu creation versus Canada Governor General Counsel, and it was opposition to creation of legislation without the involvement of First Nations, the Supreme Court ruled there that. Canada had no obligation to consult First Nations when drafting legislation. So that was a blow. Right it's to First Nations that's a bad decision. So, you know you always have that other end of the coin where it's not going to go well. And what First Nations believe would be justice is I find a hurdle in a Canadian justice system, because we have a justice system that's not made for First Nations it's not made for indigenous people. This system and all the systems around it were created to protect the crown to protect settlement and advancing that doctrine of ownership. Advancing the claim of lands for sale. All of those aspects that come with colonization is what build Canada. Right so you have its own Supreme Court. It's there to protect Canada, not First Nations. And so having a concept of justice being done is very foreign. I feel like and someone's not going to be happy at the end of the day but if things had been honored to begin with and we wouldn't be in this situation where we're figuring out how are we going to have these conversations. How are we going to intervene with facts. Are we going to dispel stereotypes, and how are we going to shut down discrimination. You know that's what we're planning to do we're having conversations like this, so we can plan what the response will be so we can be allies. You know and we shouldn't have to be in this position because of the mistakes our governments made in 1920s in order to build wealth, right. So when you have these systems not built for First Nations, there's always that risk there. So, in the international courts I see something in the chat there the only international court is the criminal court. And it's usually reserved for war crimes. So a lot of people don't really know that that there is only one international court and it's for war crimes. That's something with the coming United Nations Declaration Act implementation legislation that has to be looked at and it's actually in that draft action plan I believe the a lot of the submissions were made for it. That there needs to be an external independent body that is the overseer or a watch dog so to speak that reports to the UN. And of course we have individual nations who have like say inter status at the UN to present and organizations as well like NGOs. But the UN, like do you see them handing out sanctions to Canada, or the Australia or New Zealand right the Kansas States, or the US. No, so what what is that going to do so there's that aspect there to how are we got to get around these things. We have the UN drip. We have these implementation acts we have that but the UN has to do more when it comes to indigenous people. And like it can't just provide these forums so they can care of their voices made can't provide tables. It needs to provide an aspect that is ensuring indigenous people's rights are being honored. And the declaration implementation act is not going to go far enough. Unless people call for it amended legislation down the road. It's an independent oversight body. And I believe that these things should not be settled in a Canadian court system. But they have to end up there when nothing else works. And there is that option of it could go badly. I have one that either any of Roger, Mary or Mary Ann could answer. Maybe I'll put it to Roger and his capacity around political science here. In addition to lack of political will, what other barriers or structures allow provincial governments to ignore indigenous land rights. I think Mary Colbert since talked about how the court systems really been established to protect land rights. And I think the question and this is not going to be anything more than a speculative, very speculative answer. I think it is true for provincial governments in the prairies that this is, this is resource rights are the economic foundation, they are the economic driver for them. And so it's a hard thing to imagine putting into the realm of some other kind of shared jurisdiction. When this evening I've been thinking, there has been a similar process of devolution. More recently in the Northwest Territories. It's, it shows what happens if you do this. In 2014 so it's, it's decades after the NRTA. And it's way more complicated. I'm not saying that devolution was handled well, but you couldn't pretend that this was something to work out between Ottawa and the territorial government. There are indigenous representative groups that needed to be at the table. And that's sharing it might still be a kind of co-optation. But it is a way more interesting process than the NRTA. It is just way more complicated. And for that reason, it might be our future. If we can figure out how to get there on an acknowledgement that this is way messier than people ever allowed it to be in 1929. So definitely not going to be easy for sure. Marianne Daywalker Peltier, did you want to weigh in here at all? Our elders tell us that you cannot take our treaties to court or any elements of that on the treaties. So, you know, I think moving forward, you know, speaking truth and carrying the truth, I think all matters. And we still need to educate our children, our children. The school system is our ally in all ways and all means. That's where we need to begin as the education part. So I think it's very important to start there. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'm going to make this question available to anyone of you about speaking again about the Covenant, you know, as church and faith groups. Covenants. Covenants have lasting legacy. And I'm just wondering. You know, Mary Colbertson has talked before about how they need to be continuously renewed and refreshed. Maybe Mary Colbertson, let's, let's go back to you, because you were the one that talked about that first, the sacredness. Mary. About renew it and refresh. Well, I think it's been kind of hard to do. It's also been, there's been moments that we've had to be catapulted into learning. For example, the incidents that have happened right in our treaty territories in Saskatchewan, very much in particular was the killing of Colton bushy. And that started a lot of people talking. The trespass act that was legislated shortly after. That started a lot of people talking, questioning. And you really seen a lot of the ugliness, of course, come out. Now we have a SAS first act. So, trying to renew that treaty relationship, refresh the relationship, I guess, so to speak, like you mentioned is, we just do that through education. Through having partnering events, right, like the creation of the treaty land sharing network and Mary and Valerie, that's who I see on here from TLSN. And you've done amazing work. And the people who want to share the land and are being examples and I know that, you know, a lot of your partners in treaty land sharing network lost friends they thought were their lifelong friends and neighbors, because they didn't have the same beliefs. They didn't want to understand. So, I mean, we're trying through the education system, right and having events like this. And I know sometimes I get really tired of going to public events and I get really worn down but it is education and partnerships there are allies like chief Mary Ann said, the education system the schools are allies. We really try to make sure we're doing a lot of that work through treaty learning journeys through teaching treaties in the classroom. We've sold probably over $40,000 worth of treaty education resource kits to schools in Alberta. If that's of some hope for you Alberta people. I actually just asked my staff for the stats about how many kits over the last five years have we sold to Alberta. And how many treaty learning journeys have we done in Alberta. But Alberta is not allowed to have a treaty commissioner. So, I had done a little bit of work with that with Jason Kenny. And it was again through relationships he knew with other First Nations people. Through actually the good strikers. And who are related to people on standing buffalo, who I'm closely close friends with then relations to. So it was through those conversations and then I don't know where those conversations will go but I believe Alberta and your territories you should have your own treaty commission. You know so you can have the education happening the relationship building happening because you don't have that. So it goes through education when people drive by highway 11 now by Bladworth they see a treaty for entry to six signs. For as long as the sun shines the grass grows in the rivers flow. And there'll be four more signs going up this year throughout different highways across the province that are part of the national or inter provincial highways program. One of the ones we're working on is treaty two and four. And with the Dakota nations and the nations from treaty two on the Manitoba side. And the TRCM there so I'm trying to get those four, you know we get those approved because you want to ensure that the language is appropriate for the areas and the language groups that are there. And those languages are important to be reflected. And seeing those languages as reflection of identity. Right and acknowledgement and people start having conversations in their car and researching what treaty territory are they and what languages are from here how many tribes are here because how many people in this province or these provinces drive across and they think just create people exist. You know, or that there's just say I'm from campsack they only know so do people in that area. So they, there might be people in campsack who think they're only Indians in the world or the Soto Indian. You know, so that educational has to be there remember my mom talking to me when I was little, and she said you know what I used to think we were the only Indians in the world. You know, like in Saskatchewan and I was like, really, I remember her telling me that I didn't know there was indigenous people all over. So, education system is where we need to stay and we need to build the allies and the public education part, you know, wherever we can try and make it meaningful. The signs, having events. Last week was the first ever treaties recognition week in Saskatchewan. And it was a soft launch because it was very rushed. And it was because of a grade five class at a coal Lumsden school and their teacher Justin free tag. And they wrote to government they wrote their MLA. And Justin wrote asked, will you support me in trying to get this done? I'm like, of course we'll support you. And they did so much work. They did the advocacy work. He taught his students how to speak in, in different words in Dakota. They partnered with Piper pot school. He partnered with some of the Dakota nations. He got support letters from chiefs and all women chiefs. So that was a good thing from the top of the province to the bottom of the province. And we, we got a declaration by the provincial government that last week was the first treaties recognition week. So we had a very soft launch. Hopefully next year. There'll be a power with it. And it'll be something more, but that happened and we'll we'll have that there now for as long as we can keep it going right to declaration and it won't go away. So I think that's really nice talking to you. Yeah, I think the children can show us how they're right. Roger, do you have any final words for us. Just to say that I think that there is some really, really important identity work to be done around treaty that a lot of work to be done around treaty but part of that is, is forming a different identity. Treaty is the basis for our living here. How does that become a different identity than the kind of identity represented by a SAS first act or an Alberta sovereignty act. I think there is a different identity there that that gives us room to be treaty people here. This has been a full rich learning experience really give tremendous thanks to everyone, everyone who participated in our course our keynote speakers or speakers were fabulous. Very helpful to us. This boat wraps up our time together. On behalf of the organizing committee of the Cairo's prairies north decolonizing group and the treaty land sharing network. We want to extend our thanks again to Commissioner Mary culbertson and Dr Roger up for sharing their wisdom and insights. We feel tremendously honored that you said yes to us when we first asked. We also want to thank all of the participants who joined us this evening from across Canada really and the your curiosity and now your newfound knowledge will go a long way to being like the kids and making a difference in this country in this place you call home. So that was our session after with elder day Walker Peltier. She will give us a prayer for our evening. And, and she will also have the last words. So, when she is done, you can feel free to leave, leave the, the zoom call, because this will be when Marie day Walker Peltier is done, then the evening will be done and we thank you very much for being with us. Marianne. We have a heartfelt discussion. When we're talking about our life, our treaty rights and our way of life and how to protect how to protect it. So, so I'm just going to say a short prayer. You know, we never do a closing prayer. What we do is we do a thank you prayer. So, I just want to leave with that. And, and I want to thank each one of you with a pretty commissioner, the, the other presenters, all of you that are participated. This was the event that is much, much needed more often, and to, I guess, the information, the knowledge and the awareness that we had tonight. Certainly brings light to that, that there is hope. There is hope for us. So with that, when it has to create or to bless all of you with his blessings, blessing the families, the children, blessing the parents, blessing our old people, the elders, the seniors, as the creator to continue to, to walk with us as we go on this journey and reconciliation on this journey as partnership. This journey to, to build a better future for our families and ask you creator to bless each one of the participants and that we will come together soon. And hopefully that we will build such a beautiful future for our children yet to come. Thank you.