Background

It is essential to consider Neeginan and the Kaupapa Māori movement within their historical contexts since many of the challenges currently facing Indigenous populations in these countries can be related back to, or are directly correlated with, decisions and declarations of the past. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are notable similarities in the creation and consequences of the treaties that established the modern-day city of Winnipeg, Canada, and the country of New Zealand. Treaty 1, negotiated between Canada and the Anishinabek and Swampy Cree of southern Manitoba in 1871, and the Treaty of Waitangi, negotiated between the British government and the Māori in the establishment of New Zealand in 1840, have both been at the centre of political tensions since their inception. Additionally, the Manitoba Act, negotiated between the Métis and the Dominion in 1870, adds further complexity to the experience of Indigenous peoples of Winnipeg.

As the focus of on-going dispute (aimed at interpreting their meaning and intention), these treaties reside at the heart of Indigenous/non-Indigenous race relations. Today, existing racial inequalities, particularly those relating to policy, land claims, social justice and education, can arguably be attributed to the ambiguity of these foundational documents. Self-determination can only be wholly achieved when existing government policies reliably encourage and support Indigenous-based solutions.

Treaty 1: Winnipeg, Canada

Prior to Canada's Confederation in 1867, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) and its competitors traded furs with Indigenous peoples living in the area around what is now the city of Winnipeg. However, when the HBC sold its lands to the British Crown (for subsequent transfer to Canada) in 1869, the sale and transfer of land occurred without any consultation with the local Indigenous peoples.

Lands around the Red River Valley were inhabited by a significantly large Métis population, estimated to be comprised of 10,000 inhabitants in 1870 (Taylor, Reference Taylor1983). The Métis, children of European fur traders and local Indigenous people, forcibly resisted the acquisition of the North-West by the Dominion in 1869–70, in what became known as the Red River Rebellion. Creating a provisional government with some of the other citizens of the Red River Settlement, the Métis negotiated the Manitoba Act with the Dominion, which established a provincial government for the region around the Red River Settlement in May 1870. Section 31 of the Act made the provision for land grants for Métis children (1, 400,000 acres were reserved for that purpose) as compensation for the extinction of their Indian title (Taylor, Reference Taylor1983; O'Toole, Reference O'Toole2008).

The land grant provisions of the Manitoba Act did not ultimately serve the Métis well, partially due to the slowness with which the grants were administered and, although the Manitoba Act recognised Métis aboriginal title, this title was lost by a grant of land or scrip. During this time, no negotiations or settlements were reached with First Nations peoples in the region, whose lands had come under Canadian jurisdiction in 1870. Treaty negotiations finally began in July 1871, after about 1000 Indigenous people formed a camp around Fort Garry. Treaty 1 was negotiated and signed in August of 1871 between Canada and the Anishinabek and Swampy Cree of southern Manitoba (Albers, Reference Albers2015).

Implementation and interpretation of Treaty 1 is, to this day, the subject of litigation and political tension, with Canada's Supreme Court determining that the written text alone does not reflect the understanding of the ‘spirit’ of the treaty nor the respective perceptions of the negotiating parties. In particular, the interpretation and respective understanding of the term ‘surrendered’ has led to dispute around the regulation of, and access to, natural resources. In general, Canada has proceeded on the understanding that Treaty 1 represents a surrender of land. However, records show that, from the Anishinabe perspective, the substantive agreement was to enter into a relationship of mutual assistance and care in which land was to be shared with the white settlers (Craft, Reference Craft2011).

The Treaty of Waitangi: New Zealand

The drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was initially sparked by the British government's desire to assure land and property rights in New Zealand for both the British and Māori populations, as New Zealand's resources were, at the time, garnering interest from multiple colonial powers, including the French. The signing of the Treaty marked the beginning of constitutional government in New Zealand and is considered by some to be the most important document in the country's history. However, the controversy around the document ensues as Māori and Pākehā (New Zealanders of British descent) debate whether its obligations to the Māori have been honoured.

The Treaty of Waitangi was written in both English and Māori languages and yet, while Article 1 of the English version states that the Queen is to have ‘sovereignty’, the Māori version of the agreement states that Māori chiefs were ceding the right to ‘kawanatanga’, understood as the right to govern the country. In the second article of the agreement, the Māori text guarantees the Chiefs full chieftainship of their lands, settlement and property. However, the English version reduces that guarantee to ‘undisturbed’ possession of lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties. It is this discrepancy between the two versions of the Treaty that is at the heart of the debate and which has led to inequalities faced by Māori in areas such as policy, land claims, social justice and education (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds1990; Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001; Mane, Reference Mane2009).

The similar discrepancies in both Treaty 1 and the Treaty of Waitangi have led to political tensions, litigation and inequalities faced by the Indigenous populations of both Canada and New Zealand since their inception. The far-reaching and long-lasting consequences of these documents speak to the need for a fundamental shift in new policy development so that policy will reflect an intention to support equal rights for Indigenous peoples and Indigenous self-determination.

Urbanisation

Over the past few decades, in both Canada and New Zealand, the number of Indigenous peoples living in urban centres has increased significantly. While these urban communities have experienced many challenges, including poor social conditions, poverty and health issues, it has also been mainly through the efforts of dedicated and persistent leaders in these urban-based communities that noteworthy contributions, such as Neeginan and the Kaupapa Māori movement, have evolved.

Canada

Since 1996, census records show a significant increase in the numbers of Indigenous peoples of Canada (i.e. citizens of larger collectives of First Nations, Métis and Inuit) living in urban centres. As of 2006, half of the total population lived in urban centres (Environics Institute, 2010).

Hildebrand's (Reference Hildebrand2012) examination of Winnipeg's municipal planning and policy documents, combined with interviews of Indigenous people living in the city, revealed that, despite positive shifts in recent years, there remains a tendency for a ‘problem-centric’ perception of the urban Indigenous population and an underlying frustration with non-Indigenous/Indigenous discourse, whereby negative perceptions are emphasised. Furthermore, many Indigenous peoples in Winnipeg felt like the ‘poor cousin’ when it came to the planning, development and funding of initiatives in the city (Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012).

The Canadian government has made attempts to identify and address the many issues surrounding the relationship between Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Métis), the Canadian government and Canadian society in general. This includes the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The RCAP, mandated in 1991, provided its final report in 1996, a 5-volume, 4000-page document comprised of 440 recommendations. A decade after the release of the report, the Assembly of First Nations said that only a small fraction of the recommendations had been implemented (Fontaine, Reference Fontaine2015).

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was established in 2007. Aiming to facilitate reconciliation among all those impacted by the Indian Residential Schools system, it enabled those affected to share their stories and experiences. Over the span of 6 years, the Commission travelled throughout Canada to hear from more than 6500 witnesses, including seven national events held across the country to ‘engage the Canadian public, educate people about the history and legacy of the residential school system, and share and honour the experiences of former students and their families’ (Government of Canada, 2019). The final, multi-volume report, released in 2015, includes 94 recommendations to further reconciliation.

The mandate of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women was to examine and report on the systemic forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls, as well as the underlying, contributing social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical factors. The final report, completed in June of 2019, called for ‘transformative legal and social changes to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities across the country’ (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, n.d.).

Despite the significant investment of resources, there remains concern that little has changed for Indigenous people in Canada. Twenty years after the release of the RCAP report, one of its commissioners, Paul Chartrand, states that ‘There is a very powerful lesson there, which is that today still, I don't think it's changed much’ (Troian, Reference Troian2016). Bear and Andersen (Reference Bear and Andersen2017) expressed concern that 2 years after the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, there is a ‘profound lack of knowledge about issues particular to residential schools and treaty acknowledgment’ and much that the Canadian public still needs to learn regarding ‘Indigenous issues and Indigenous peoples’ historical and contemporary relationships with Canada and (other) Canadians’. Alfred (Reference Alfred2015) asserts that Canada's reconciliation efforts have failed in many ways: by not acknowledging the role of residential schools as part of a larger strategy of dispossession, by defining their effect in terms of individual suffering, by failing to address multi-generational trauma and by failing to fund programs to restore Indigenous languages and begin the necessary healing.

New Zealand

Prior to the Second World War, approximately 75% of Māori lived in rural areas. However, by the 1960s, approximately 60% had re-located to urban areas and, as of 2013, less than one-quarter (23.8%) of Māori lived in the Auckland region (StatsNZ, 2013). This migration to urban areas, mainly in search of employment, led to a weakening of the structures of traditional Māori society (i.e. the whānau, haup and iwi), though people with Māori ancestors still felt themselves to be Māori (Palmer, Reference Palmer2013).

With increasing urbanisation, the Māori language began to die, many Māori people became disconnected from their tribal roots, and many social issues began to surface (e.g. Māori health and life expectancy, educational qualifications and incomes were lower than in the Pākehā population, and rates of mental illness and unemployment were higher) (Palmer, Reference Palmer2013).

However, it was a new generation of urban Māori who took up the challenge of what they argued was the failure of governments to honour the Treaty of Waitangi. The Māori protest over unresolved Treaty grievances escalated in the 1970s, leading to the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975. The Waitangi Tribunal was created to enable those who identify as Māori to bring forward claims of injustice resulting from the Treaty of Waitangi and to seek resolutions or redress (Ward, Reference Ward1991).

The Neeginan initiative

The city of Winnipeg has the largest number of urban Indigenous people in Canada, numbering just over 84,000 and constituting over 12% of the city's population (Statistics Canada, 2016). For significant numbers of the Indigenous peoples in Winnipeg, relatively low education and employment rates have contributed to inadequate housing, poor social conditions and poverty (Leo, Reference Leo2011).

In the late 1980s, Wayne Helgason, as Executive Director of Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata or Aboriginal Child Welfare agency, then the largest service provider for Winnipeg's Indigenous population, was looking for a more suitable location for the organisation. Up until that point, no Indigenous group had owned real estate in Winnipeg, but Helgason conceived of the idea of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata organisation purchasing property and developing an equity base by renting to additional agencies. He recognised the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) station, a historic building in central Winnipeg, as not only a possible site for his agency's headquarters, but also as a hub for the growing urban Indigenous population in the city. Joined by two other board members, Helgason began the challenging process of seeking funds for the purchase of the building. He organised both the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Manitoba Metis Federation to gain support for the revival of the historic building, which led to the mobilisation of additional support, including from the Canadian federal government, to purchase and save the building and officially begin what has become known as ‘Neeginan’ or ‘Our Place’ in the Cree language (City of Winnipeg, 2008; Leo, Reference Leo2011; Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012).

Since then, Neeginan has evolved from a neighbourhood plan, determined by local Indigenous groups, to a cultural hub in the city that addresses the unique needs of Indigenous peoples moving from rural settings to urban centres. It also created a precedent for Indigenous community organisations to own their own facility. As a non-profit corporation, the Neeginan Centre is controlled and operated by an elected Board of Directors comprised of the community-based organisations that offer services for Winnipeg's Indigenous peoples (i.e. tenants who form part of a co-operative ownership). With the intention to assist in the transition from a rural to urban lifestyle, the Neeginan initiative strives to support its urban Indigenous population by building a sense of community (both physical and social) through education programs, social assistance and affordable housing (Leo, Reference Leo2011; Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012; Murphy, Reference Murphy2016).

The organisations that are part of Neeginan ‘have established strong links and mechanisms to cooperate more fully in the design and delivery of services for Aboriginal people in Winnipeg’ (Neeginan Centre, 2018). Its accomplishments are many: thousands of working graduates; $15 million in property assets; an annual income of $1 million, which are generated by rents, restaurant and catering activities; around 200 employees, who run the campus; an annual student population of approximately 3000; and about 1300 jobs filled per year (Paul, Reference Paul2017).

Support is provided in the form of education, vocational skills, government services and spirituality, all provided in a centralised location and a familiar cultural setting. A distinctly urban endeavour, its character is an important way to address the increasingly complex social, economic and cultural issues facing Indigenous people migrating to Winnipeg (Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012). Neeginan now offers a multitude of Indigenous-led services and educational options: the College of Applied Technology, which focuses on technical and vocational post-secondary training; the Neeginan Learning & Literacy Foundation, which provides programs for adult learners; the Aboriginal Community Campus, one of the few stand-alone adult learning centres in Manitoba; the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, a community-based, membership-driven, Aboriginal organisation providing a political and advocacy voice; and the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Centre; the Neeginan Village, which provides 43 student housing units; the Canadian Plains art gallery; and the Kookum's Place Daycare and Preschool Centre (Leo, Reference Leo2011; Murphy, Reference Murphy2016; Neeginan Centre, 2018).

Neeginan's central tenant and structural pillar, the Centre for Aboriginal Human Resource Development (CAHRD), is governed by an Aboriginal Board of Directors whose mandate is to provide direction and leadership in the delivery of CAHRD's many programs and services, which are primarily focused on helping Indigenous people find employment. CAHRD also provides literacy, education, post-secondary training and other support and, in the period from 2015 to 2018, assisted over 8900 Indigenous people (CAHRD, 2018). The Circle of Life Thunderbird House, walking distance from Neeginan's services, ‘is the Spiritual Heart for all Elders, Healers, Teachers, and Helpers in the Indigenous community’ (Circle of Life Thunderbird House, 2018). It is open to all First Nations in the Winnipeg area, providing a place where Elders, Knowledge Keepers and others are able to share traditional Indigenous Knowledge and teachings, including Indigenous language classes (Circle of Life Thunderbird House, 2018). Although Neeginan's educational programs are designed for First Nations (e.g. they provide a tailored education with traditional Indigenous teachings, such as honesty, humility and truth, as their foundation), the facilities are open to all students, helping to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous education and race relations (Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012; Murphy, Reference Murphy2016).

The development of Neeginan in Winnipeg was, and continues to be, driven by the desire of Indigenous peoples to lift their struggling urban populations out of poverty and to prepare them for the working world (Leo, Reference Leo2011; Murphy, Reference Murphy2016). It is a demonstration of how the vision, determination and tenacity of one individual facilitated the garnering of support from other, like-minded individuals and led to the successful implementation of a much-needed project. The success of the first endeavour set the stage for an ever-expanding scope of services. Since these projects were Indigenous-led, their outcomes were targeted specifically to the needs of the urban Indigenous community, and as such, enabled an effective and meaningful use of the resources needed to implement them. Neeginan also provides an example of a long-running, Indigenous-led, community-based model of development, planning and capacity-building endeavours. It has created an opportunity for improved cross-cultural understanding within the city and has provided municipal planners with insight into how the City can support Indigenous community development without being prescriptive, over-bearing or simply uninformed, and instead engage Indigenous community members as self-determining, distinct and integral players in Winnipeg's urban environment (Hildebrand, Reference Hildebrand2012).

During a visit to Neeginan 25 years after its inception, Jean Charest, who had, as federal Heritage Minister, provided $500,000 towards the purchase of CP building in 1992, said, ‘I've been involved in bigger projects with much larger dollar values that have totally disappeared. It is amazing what's been accomplished’ (Cash, Reference Cash2015). Dorothy Dobbie, the only sitting government MP for Winnipeg at the time that Helgason and his group conceived of the idea of purchasing the rail station, writes that too few realise that Neeginan ‘has become a major success story for the community and a tremendous support for local Aboriginal people. Even fewer understand the commitment and effort the local aboriginal community invested in the project, or how their entrepreneurial spirit and dogged determination brought this to life’ (Dobbie, Reference Dobbie2018).

The success of Neeginan speaks to the perseverance of dedicated Indigenous community members to not only rally support for important projects, but also to change the nature of discourse and interaction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members. Recognition from the non-Indigenous community that Indigenous people have a different way of doing things, hidden social networks, traditional economic activities, and that these are all tied together, is an essential step to urban Indigenous peoples and communities successfully building on existing strategies (Crookshanks, Reference Crookshanks, Newhouse, FitzMaurice, McGuire-Adams and Jetté2012).

Kaupapa Māori movement

The Māori protest over unresolved Treaty of Waitangi grievances escalated in the 1970s, leading to the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975. The Waitangi Tribunal was meant to enable those who identify as Māori to bring forward claims of injustice resulting from the Treaty of Waitangi and to seek resolutions or redress. Though the tribunal was relatively successful in solving claims regarding political and environmental issues, many of the social and educational impacts of the treaty were not addressed. As such, inequality and misrepresentation within social and academic circles inspired new approaches towards Māori equality, most significantly the Kaupapa Māori community approach (Mane, Reference Mane2009).

Kaupapa Māori, by definition, means the Māori way or agenda. It is commonly used to describe traditional Māori ways of doing, being and thinking (Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001). Emerging within the broad context of Māori rejuvenation, the developments arising from Kaupapa Māori converge on the same point, which is that the attainment of the best outcomes for Māori, across a range of endeavours, must consider the Māori worldview (Durie, Reference Durie2012). For some, the concept is more representative of the push toward Māori-led institutions and self-governance (Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001; Mane, Reference Mane2009).

Educational services have been substantially transformed by Kaupapa Māori (Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001; Tocker, Reference Tocker2015). The first pre-school movement emerged following a research program led by Dr Richard Benton and initiated by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Smith (Reference Smith2003) asserts that the two main factors leading to the establishment of a national, united front across individual Māori tribes, thus enabling the successful evolution of a Māori-led schooling system, were the political context circumscribed by the single Treaty agreement signed in 1840 and the fact that a single language is spoken across all Māori tribes, with some minor tribal variances. The use and teaching of the Māori language was first banned by authorities in New Zealand in the 1880s and by the 1980s, less than one-quarter of the Māori population spoke the language (Wurm, Reference Wurm1991). Christensen (Reference Christensen2001) asserts that the ‘historical context, the changing contemporary landscape, the redressing of the relationship between the coloniser and colonised, the trend toward globalisation and homogeneity on the one hand, and the growing recognition of the importance of diversity and human capital on the other, form the backdrop and context for Māori language revitalisation, maintenance and transmission’ (p. 5).

The kōhanga reo movement led to early childhood educational centres in which infants are introduced to traditional Māori language and culture. They are run primarily by families of the children who attend, with assistance from paid staff. These centres operate as non-profit, community-driven organisations, with the majority of their funding coming from the Federal government. The parents and elders of the children are in charge of both governance and management of the facilities (Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001).

The kura kaupapa Māori movement evolved from the kōhanga reo movement, as parents became concerned that sending their children to mainstream primary schools was detrimental to their development as Māori. Kura kaupapa Māori provide a primary school level of education rich in Māori knowledge, traditions and cultural values communicated through the Māori language (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015). The educational movement was the result of action taken by individuals and communities who were prepared to work outside of a system that was not serving them well (Smith, Reference Smith2003). The evolution of the kura kaupapa Māori began in Auckland and was the result of many years of political and legal challenges led by a handful of individuals. The first Māori primary language school was founded on the grounds of the Hoani Waititi Marae in 1985 in west Auckland by Pita and Aroha Sharples, who approached Kāterina Te Heikōkō Mataira, known for her work in teaching Maori language to adults, to assist them in establishing a school outside of the state's system.

The establishment of the Hoani Waititi kura set the blueprint for other whānau and marked the beginning of what became known as the kura kaupapa Māori initiative. ‘The passion to continue Māori learning for their children helped the whānau to continue even though they were housed in substandard accommodation, had limited resources and suffered financial stress’ (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015, p. 24). Key individuals in the development of the kura kaupapa Māori included Graham and Linda Smith, Tuki Nepe and Elizabeth Rata, academics and teachers in Auckland who were concerned about their children's education and the rapid decline of their Māori language use and knowledge once placed in the state educational system (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015). Up against resistance from the Ministry of Education to recognise the different needs and aspirations of the kōhanga reo graduates, they acknowledged that a more activist approach would be necessary, where political and legal action would be required for changing the school system to develop a state response to the kōhanga reo children (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015). It would be 14 years before the kura kaupapa Māori was established, made possible by ‘dogged persistence and a well organised political campaign’ (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015, p.37).

Māori immersion schools have now become widespread and include high schools, where the majority of studies are in the traditional Māori language (Tocker, Reference Tocker2015). It should be noted that, while education in the Māori language is offered by other types of schools or units within mainstream schools, kura kaupapa Māori are distinguished by their commitment to a philosophy that emphasises the values, principles and practices relating to Indigenous kinship–social relationships and tribal social structures (Rata and Tamati, Reference Rata and Tamati2013).

Post-secondary education became a major focus of the Kaupapa Māori movement partially in response to a fear that kura kaupapa alumni would discontinue Māori study, but also in recognition of the inequality that exists for Māori within modern academia (Henry and Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001). Kaupapa Māori research networks now exist that are devoted to ‘culturally safe’ research, which often involves the mentorship of Māori Elders, and to culturally relevant and important topics that are often overlooked in modern colleges and universities. In addition to their own research, Kaupapa Māori research circles focus heavily on partnerships, providing training and resources to assist in the upgrading of knowledge and skills in mainstream academic institutions (Mane, Reference Mane2009).

Twenty-five years after its beginnings, Sir Mason Durie, retired Professor of Māori Research and Development and Assistant Vice-Chancellor of Massey University (Reference Durie2012), reflected that the Kaupapa Māori emerged from a broader perspective of Māori rejuvenation. While Māori language enthusiasts led the way in terms of education services, Māori social and economic initiatives were also beginning to emerge. The more negative impacts of urbanisation influenced the Māori to reconsider their place in society and, as such, played a role in the emergence of Kaupapa Māori (Durie, Reference Durie2012), and its success was the result of individuals working tirelessly to bring about change, often working within institutions that were racist and determined to maintain the status quo (Christensen, Reference Christensen2001). As Durie (Reference Durie2012) asserts, the Kaupapa Māori has been ‘an inspirational movement that has contributed to a transformation’.

Self-determination

Indigenous self-determination is codified by Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and states that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’ (United Nations, 2008). Both Canada and New Zealand initially opposed the adoption of UNDRIP in 2007. However, of the two countries, New Zealand became the first to officially endorse the Declaration in 2010. In 2016, Canada became a full supporter of the Declaration and, in the following year, released Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous Peoples (Government of Canada, 2017). The document contained 10 principles that were intended to guide reconciliation and were based on a recognition of Indigenous peoples, governments, laws and rights, including the right to self-determination and self-government. Prior to this, the Canadian government recognised the importance of the need for Indigenous people to be able to ‘structure their own solutions’ in the final volume of the RCAP report in 1996:

Alfred (Reference Alfred2015) views reconciliation as a fundamentally assimilative process, whereby Indigenous peoples understand themselves as Canadian rather than Onkwehón:we (native people). Furthermore, Alfred and Corntassel (Reference Alfred and Corntassel2005) state that ‘in the Canadian context, ‘aboriginalism’ is a legal, political and cultural discourse designed to serve an agenda of silent surrender to an inherently unjust relation at the root of the colonial state itself’ (p. 598) and that, as a consequence, many ‘aboriginal’ Canadians ‘identify themselves solely by their political-legal relationship to the state rather than by any cultural or social ties to their Indigenous community or culture or homeland’ (p. 599). This has led to ‘cultural disruption’ and a dependency on the state physically, psychologically and financially (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009). In response to this, Alfred (Reference Alfred2009) contests that meaningful decolonisation must be achieved in an Indigenous way, according to Indigenous needs, values and principles, achieving outcomes that reflect the ideals of peace, respect, harmony and coexistence that reside in the heart of Indigenous spiritualities and philosophies.

Heritz (Reference Heritz, Newhouse, FitzMaurice, McGuire-Adams and Jetté2012) asserts that self-determination is an essential component of community-building, providing Indigenous peoples in urban environments with more control over their services, and thus better enabling them to meet the needs of the community. The author found that a combination of policy development and the work of Indigenous-led organisations significantly contributed to community-building in Toronto. In assessing the role of a partnership between the ‘Aboriginal Advisory Committee’ and the City of Toronto, which led to the adoption of the Statement of Commitment to Aboriginal Communities in Toronto, and that of several Indigenous organisations, including the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, Anishnawbe Health Toronto, and the Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, Heritz (Reference Heritz, Newhouse, FitzMaurice, McGuire-Adams and Jetté2012) concluded the following: