The Canadian disability movement has been criticized as excessively focused on Euro-American knowledge, marginalizing non-Eurocentric perspectives from people of color (Chan, 2019; Bell, 2010; Galloway, 2001/2012). Although this Canadian movement is located on mostly un-ceded Indigenous land (and land ceded under duress), it is unclear what Indigenous individuals and organizations think about this social movement due to wide variability in opinion among Indigenous populations (Atherton, 2009; British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability, 2017; Stienstra, Baikie, & Manning, 2018). The uncertainty about this social movement is remarkable given Indigenous overrepresentation in the prevalence of mental health problems, traumatic brain injury, diabetes, HIV AIDS, and musculoskeletal disorders, among other impairments among this population, compared to non-Indigenous Canadians (Alexander, 2008; de Leeuw, Lindsay, & Greenwood, 2018; Kirmayer, 2007). Indigenous persons are disabled at rates twice the Canadian average, although this is a very rough estimation (Assembly of First Nations, 2017a). Accurate data is lacking regarding precisely how many Indigenous persons identify as also having disabilities (Assembly of First Nations; Quinlan, 2018).

Our central question is: How do Indigenous organizations and Canadian disability organizations think about Indigenous disability issues? We perform a secondary data analysis of the so-called grey literature, the written reports of thirteen (13) Indigenous organizations and Canadian disability organizations regarding Indigenous disability leadership. Within this analysis, we provide a case study of Assembly of First Nations documents and reports regarding disability. We find confusion about definitions of disability, the lack of disability services in First Nations and in the North, and the extreme marginalization of Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples with disabilities. We also find non-Indigenous disability organizations to be quite silent about Indigenous disability, with a few rare exceptions. The implications for both the disability movement and for Indigenous leadership regarding the broader issue of truth and reconciliation between settler and Indigenous communities are explored at the paper's end. We conclude the disability movement should listen to Indigenous communities and knowledge holders. Disability rights organizations can seek to be evaluated on their practices, like a student on a field placement, within a process of decolonial and Indigenous reconstruction utilizing a framework of Indigenous relationality (Rowe, 2022).

By Indigenous people, we refer to descendants of the earliest known inhabitants of a region who have been displaced or unethically controlled by a now-dominant settler group. The Canadian Encyclopedia stated, "Inuit and First Nations history extends well before the arrival of Europeans in Canada, while Métis emerged as a distinct culture after intermarriage between European settlers and First Nations people (2024)." These three groups, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, have unique legal status under the Canadian constitution and are considered Indigenous to Canadian land. The Métis are people of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry with connection to the historic Métis nation, radiating from the Red River (now Winnipeg, Manitoba) Settlement (Gaudry, 2023). In the 2021 census, over 1.8 million people in Canada identified as Indigenous (Parrott, 2023).

In this article, we provide a brief history of the Canadian disability movement, including its ideology. We describe four ways that settler colonialism creates disability for Indigenous people. We then discuss some Indigenous perspectives on disability, which are significantly different from settler disability perspectives. We briefly describe the difficulties in both defining disability and collecting accurate information on how many individuals identify as being disabled and Indigenous. We then discuss the results of a secondary data analysis of the written reports and papers of Indigenous organizations and Canadian disability organizations regarding Indigenous disability leadership. Within this analysis, we discuss the results of a case study of Assembly of First Nations documents and reports regarding disability, specifically AFN's analysis of the Accessible Canada Act. Our overall thesis is that settler privilege discourages Indigenous leadership in the Canadian disability movement. We conclude the article discussing the material and legal gaps–and possible bridges–between settler disability activists and Indigenous communities.

Positionality

The primary author is Walter Wai Tak Chan, born in Hong Kong and living in Manitoba, Canada (within the Treaty One territory) for most of his life. He identifies as a Cantonese man with a disability and a user of psychiatric services. After having been nurtured on Indigenous land with many Indigenous people accessing Canadian disability organizations, Walter focused on the topic of Indigenous leadership after working within these organizations, noticing their predominant Whiteness and Euro-American roots. Treaty One territory, as well as Manitoba overall are located on the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and Nehethowuk Nations. It also is the homeland of the Red River Métis. Treaty One is an agreement regarding the sharing of land and resources, established on August 3, 1871, between the British Crown and the Anishinaabe and Mushkego Ininiw nations (Krasowski, 2019).

A Brief History of the Canadian Disability Movement

We start the paper with a brief history of the Canadian disability movement to illustrate the movement's political ideology. The movement emerged in the 1960s as people with disabilities, mostly those with physical impairments or mental illness, were released from state institutions, after which they gained a greater capacity to share experiences and develop their own organizations. They publicly expressed dissatisfaction, even anger, at those institutions (Chabasinski, n.d./2012; Enns & Neufeldt, 2003). Also, parents of Canadians with disabilities began to advocate for community services for their family members, building parent-led organizations that provided direct services, advocated for disability research, and, in some parent organizations, pushed for biomedical cures (Chan, 2019; Neufeldt, 2003). These two wings, deinstitutionalized people with disabilities and parents/relatives of those with disabilities, formed the modern Canadian disability movement. The confluence of both incremental reformism and passionate, radical thought between these two groups, complicated their merger. Oftentimes, they worked separately, each with their own goals, requiring a multitude of compromises to resolve their differences. This process, however, resulted in the ability to work cooperatively with the Canadian government and the health care institutions.

The Sixties were a time of foment with the rise of numerous liberation movements. In the neighboring United States, potent movements–anti-war, Black civil rights, feminism, Indigenous resurgence, queer liberation, and environmentalism–inspired and provided knowledge to equivalent Canadian social movements (Chan, 2019; Neufeldt, 2003; Pelka, 2012; Schweik, 2011; Staggenborg, 2012). The Canadian disability movement, like its American counterpart, challenged both conservative and liberal beliefs: a belief in rugged individualism and a belief that people are seen merely as individuals without considering their community or social contexts. The movement saw that people cannot only be individuals–they are nothing without a history, a context, and a social means for survival (e.g., disability services). However, in both countries, the movement accepted capitalism to be sufficient as a system for catalyzing human freedom and prosperity. Within the capitalistic perspective, significant positive changes for people with disabilities were viewed as being able to occur within the existing economic structures (Prince, 2004; 2012). In contrast with the capitalistic perspective, the Canadian disability movement emphasizes the uniqueness of each person, the distinctiveness of one's disability narrative, and their potential for growth. This all comports well with liberalism's focus on the uniqueness of the person which cries out to be realized (Axworthy, 2015).

Some have observed that the Canadian disability movement espouses a politics of social liberalism compared to the American one, which, in conformance with the prevailing political culture in that country, sides with classical liberalism (Lord, 2010). As political scientist Michael Prince (2012) stated, social liberalism is part of "the mainstream constellation" of Canadian values, and it "does generate critiques of capitalist relationships and sets some limits on market practices" (p. 15). Embracing reformism, Prince explained, the movement seeks to pursue its goals through democratic dialogue, careful research, and public awareness through education (p. 15). Lawful, nondisruptive routes for public participation–committees, public forums, working with local political representatives–are the ones commonly taken. Canadian disability activism sees a positive role for government (Prince, 2012). Activists see important roles for "the federal, provincial, and municipal governments in showing leadership, tackling obstacles, providing essential services and supports, and ensuring sustained efforts on reforms" (Prince, p. 15-16).

Historically, there has been little success building links between potential Indigenous leaders and the disability movement (Atherton, 2009; Stienstra, Baikie, Manning, 2018), although important bridge builders exist (e.g., British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability, 2017; Demas, 2010; Hockman, 2010). Consequently, Atherton (2009) has suggested that some disability activists have given up trying to connect with Indigenous communities.

The Colonial Production of Disability

Extant literature suggests that there are at least four ways in which Canadian settler colonialism has produced disability for Indigenous people (Kelm, 1998): forced removal from the land, introduction of church-run residential schools, outlawing of traditional healing, and ecological collapse. These four factors are material causes of disability in which the effects are manifested discursively and culturally, especially in Canadian stereotypes of Indigenous people (McCallum & Perry, 2018; Razack, 2015). The history of Indigenous disablement, accomplished by government policy, is integral to Canada's colonial legacy (Razack, 2015). The discussion below lays the groundwork for why the disability movement should engage with Indigenous leadership if the movement wishes to seriously engage in social policy.

Indigenous Perspectives on Disability

Tallbear (2000) cautioned that the passage of time and differing cultural lenses would alter what one would see when examining a historical phenomenon. It would be unrealistic to judge an Indigenous practice existing two hundred years ago using contemporary concepts that would not have existed then. Thus, appraisal of Indigenous concepts of disability must be specific to a location, time, and people and one must refrain from overgeneralizing one's conclusions.

Senier (2013) quoted Mohegan medicine woman Tantaquidgeon Zobel's claim that "traditionally, disability was not seen as such" (p. 213). Senier suggested that for some Indigenous communities, disabled people were not marginalized, although she carefully did not generalize this claim to all Indigenous groups. She specified that specific Mohegan cultural practices allowed disability to be thought of as a matter-of-fact phenomenon or as a valued capacity. These traditional practices or identities took precedence over the disability idea.

Roberta Oshkabewisens, Anishinaabe ikwe and knowledge keeper, said the Old People suggested that disability is a gift (Disabled Women's Network of Canada, 2020). It is something that all of us may eventually have, while others may not have it. It opens up many doors to see what we cannot usually see, and it is a learning journey to understand ourselves and others who may be different from us. Sterling-Collins of the Nlha'kapmux Nation (2009), as the mother of a child with autism, viewed Indigenous disability as a holistic experience. Her medicine wheel teachings center Indigenous children with disabilities as spirit beings first and enables exploring the emotional and spiritual aspects of the disability experience, while integrating with the physical and intellectual. Although biomedicine and rehabilitation are very important, Sterling-Collins said that she required more holistic perspectives to be calm, grounded, and present. Like Roberta Oshkabewisens, she felt some individuals with disabilities can see what many others cannot or will not see. They may talk with spirit helpers, commune with family ancestors, or more readily possess a conduit to the spirit world in comparison to the nondisabled (Sterling-Collins).

Settler Perspectives on Disability

In contrast, the settler-oriented disability movement in Canada conceives of people with disabilities as urban dwellers and pays almost no attention to the interrelationships between humans, animals, land, sky, and water (Ray & Sibara, 2017). Many Indigenous communities would favor a more holistic perspective, consisting of ecological relationship and reciprocity, in accordance with traditional teachings and Indigenous knowledge systems. The historical fact is that severance from hunting and farming lands caused starvation and ill health (Adelson, 2000; Carter, 1990). This fact shapes the current state of Indigenous health and the politics of food for Indigenous communities. The disability movement assumes a liberal politics of citizen participation, wherein citizenship is assumed to derive from a history of immigration to Canada (Prince, 2012). An approach to Indigenous title and sovereignty, favored by substantial numbers of Indigenous people, makes the idea of subsuming one's political status within another minority group–a disability minority–quite unattractive (Borrows, 2016; Razack, 2015). Becoming a minority means being tied to the nation-state enterprise, for groups wanting to better integrate into the national community or as nascent nations seeking their own state (Williams & Schertzer, 2019). Many Indigenous leaders would reject the nation-state model in any way, while others seek it (de Bruin, 2019). Many Indigenous leaders might favor sui generis (unique) Indigenous collective rights while having a healthy respect for individual rights and minority politics, while simultaneously maintaining traditional governance systems such as clan deliberations in parallel with the Westminster-style parliament (Borrows, 2016; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). This is a problematic situation we will further discuss below.

In Canada, settler perspectives on disability typically fall into three main ideas: the medical model, the social model, and postmodern perspectives (Withers, 2012). All three perspectives have been influential in shaping the disability movement. The first two, the medical and social models, form the basis of Canadian disability legislation.

Canadian disability activism includes a Marxist, anti-capitalist wing. Herein, anarchism, or socialist libertarianism, and the influence of post-structuralism, mainly represented by Foucauldian ideals, have been influential and are deeply critical of capitalism (Withers, 2012). However, flagship disability rights organizations may also employ limited aspects of Marxist thought within mainly social liberal frames which do not tend to include postmodernists. However, academic disability studies engage significantly in postmodern ideas which eventually become influential in shaping grassroot activism (Tremain, 2015). Sadly, postmodern tendencies in disability activism have also often been colonialist in how they approach Indigenous knowledge systems (Tam, 2013). There are settler postmodernist activists who appropriate (i.e., steal) Indigenous shamanic knowledge as individual properties or commodities without any respectful engagement, observance of protocol, or community reciprocity (Tam, 2013). Within this group, Mad activists who claim their bipolar or other neurodivergent experiences give them direct access to Indigenous knowledge systems fall into this unsavory pattern of theft and colonial usurpation (e.g., McNamara & DuBrul, 2006).

All three ideas are anthropocentric and typically ignore ecological relationships (or approaches ecological relationships in a disrespectful way). For Canadian settlers, rights, like in the social model of disability, are about humans. In contrast, for many Indigenous nations, rights and treaties are also about how one treats and relates to the land and to our nonhuman relatives (Science Teachers' Association of Ontario, 2018). Despite the purported humanistic perspective of disability rights, we argue that settler privilege discourages Indigenous leadership in the disability movement.)

Secondary Data Analysis of the Reports in Indigenous and Canadian Disability Organizations

We analyzed the content of twenty-two documents and reports from thirteen Indigenous and Canadian disability organizations regarding the topic of Indigenous disability leadership, as made available in each organization's website (see Appendix). The earliest document was from 1998 and the latest from 2022. These reports (webpages, annual reports, discussion papers, research papers, policy papers, educational videos) are considered grey literature. Grey literature is material produced outside of academic and commercial publishing, typically government reports and reports by non-profit and for-profit organizations. Grey literature is also typically not peer reviewed. This material was analyzed for themes relating to Indigenous disability issues and leadership, which was then organized into three groups: findings which demonstrate Indigenous marginalization and settler privilege and their ignorance of Indigenous rights, those which do not demonstrate the above, and unique, unexpected findings.

The documents and reports were chosen from organizations which provided relevant, publicly available reports on their website. These included national organizations such as the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), Disabled Women's Network Canada (DAWN), the National Network for Mental Health (NNMH), Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (NIMMIWG), Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC), and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). Also included were regional or local organizations such as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC), British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society (BCANDS), Downtown Eastside Women's Center (DEWC), Ka Ni Kanichihk, and the Southern Chiefs' Organization (SCO).

CCD is Canada's flagship disability rights organization, focused on law reform. It tends to work closely with the federal government in Ottawa. DAWN is a feminist organization of Canadian women with disabilities. It has a track record of working with Indigenous leaders and racialized communities and sexual minorities who are uniquely isolated and impoverished. AFN is an assembly of First Nations (Indigenous bands) represented by their chiefs, subject to Canada's Indian Act. It depends upon Ottawa for most of its funding. Despite the centrality of representation of indigenous groups within the AFN, it has come under fire from others within the Indigenous community. For example, Sheila North, a journalist and leader from the Bunibonibee Cree Nation, has stated "We need a national chief who can sit at the table with the Liberals without becoming one" (cited in Watts & King, 2018). North appears to be criticizing the AFN for being out of touch with the people it represents and even for being a collaborator with the colonial masters in Ottawa, be they the Liberal Party or another Canadian establishment polity.

Although not an organization per se, the NIMMIWG was a Canadian national public inquiry reviewing law enforcement documents and the products of community hearings on the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA people, many of whom identify as people with disabilities. The inquiry was established independently from the federal government. It concluded Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples face systemic violence due to the intersection of violent oppressions. The National Inquiry (2019) called it a genocide against Indigenous people:

So why is it so important to understand the history of genocide in Canada? Because it's not history. Today's racist government laws, policies and actions have proven to be just as deadly for Indigenous peoples as the genocidal acts of the past. What used to be the theft of children into residential schools is now the theft of children into provincial foster care. What used to be scalping bounties are now Starlight Tours (deaths in police custody).… Racism for Indigenous peoples in Canada is not just about enduring stereotypical insults and name-calling, being turned away for employment, or being vilified in the media by government officials–racism is killing our people. (Palmater, 53)

NWAC is an aggregate of Indigenous women's organizations coast to coast. Almost entirely funded by Ottawa, it works for the wellbeing of Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples. The TRC, a national commission active from 2008 to 2015, studied the impact of the Indian residential school (IRS) system. It documented the IRS's disabling conditions, which some would charge were less about education than about the eradication of indigenous populations, and its long-term health impacts on Indigenous communities, among other things.

The AMC represents all 63 First Nations in Manitoba (a Canadian province). BCANDS, also called Indigenous Disability Canada, is a national Indigenous non-profit organization, based in Victoria, British Columbia. It provides disability support and advocacy to Indigenous individuals. It also holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. DEWC, based in Vancouver British Columbia's downtown east side, is a feminist organization which provides a safe space for women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples. DEWC is known for its focus on Indigenous women's advocacy. It is funded by the government and private foundation grants.

Overall, the documents and reports contained widely varying perspectives, yet some consistent themes were identified. Some reports showed creative, critical, and in-depth engagement with definitions of disability, whereas most reports uncritically adopted government or medical definitions on disability. The Indigenous organizations asserted that disability concepts ought to be congruent to Indigenous worldviews, but often did not purposefully state what disability specifically means for Indigenous individuals and communities, even where underlying Indigenous worldviews were discussed. Issues of definition remained muddy, except when Canadian government definitions were stated. Most reports emphasized the central importance of collecting accurate data on the rates of impairment and disability for Indigenous people and specifically for Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people. Reliable data was lacking on just how many Indigenous people identified as persons with disabilities.

Several reports concluded that Indigenous individuals with disabilities who reside on reserve or in the North experience immense difficulties acquiring the services they require in their home community, forcing many to move to urban centers in the hopes they will receive better care. Yet, urban-dwelling Indigenous people experience challenges when accessing disability services, because of the stigma and discrimination present in urban settings and within the service programs themselves (Assembly of First Nations, 2017a, p. 28).

The Assembly of First Nations (2017a) asserted, drawing from a Saskatchewan study, that many Indigenous people experience cultural shock upon moving to the city for medical services and disability services. There is double stigmatization from both being Indigenous and being disabled and faced with paternalizing attitudes. Also, many First Nations people living off-reserve can be excluded from band funding. There appears a great need for Indigenous organizations to provide culturally safe supports and services for urbanized Indigenous individuals with disabilities.

Regarding Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse persons with disabilities, several reports asserted that colonization has created an environment where Indigenous women are politically disenfranchised and economically marginalized, more so than Indigenous men (Quinlan, 2018, p. 6). This situation is exacerbated when an Indigenous woman, girl, or gender-diverse person is living with a disability, meaning that not only are they excluded from decision-making positions, they are often forced into economically and socially vulnerable positions (Gehl, 2020; Martin & Walia, 2019; Quinlan, p. 6). There was a strong assertion that an intersectional lens is necessary to understand these complexities (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). Some Indigenous women with disabilities survive extreme marginalization and horrific violence. One quote from a woman living in Vancouver's Downtown East Side (DTES) illustrates this problem:

My name is DJ Joe. I have lived in the DTES for 29 years, and I am a friend and street mother to many young girls. I came in 1989 from Tacoma. My cousin was murdered in the Roosevelt in the DTES. My cousin left behind three kids. It's still an open case. I came to identify her body and I stayed here ever since. This is home now. I am in my 50s and I have had two strokes. My two street moms have already passed away. (Martin & Walia, 2019, p. 11)

These reports also more fully delineate disabled Indigenous women's political and economic marginalization, limiting their access to the necessary supports and services that would have reduced the impact of disability barriers. Colonization was seen as "largely responsible for the overthrowing of Indigenous forms of governance and self-determination, such as the dissolution of Indigenous matriarchies and the traditional positions of persons with disabilities in communities" (Quinlan, p. 6). The reinvigoration of matriarchal roles for Indigenous women with disabilities appears necessary for the empowerment of these women, as well as to take down societal barriers and provide a safe space for future generations (Martin & Walia, 2019).

Of the four national disability movement organizations, only one, Disabled Women's Network Canada (2020) provided original content on Indigenous leadership (a video and several short articles) including analysis and interpretation. The video and articles explained an Anishinaabe approach to disability, as a spirit gift, a teaching (sometimes a very hard teaching), and a doorway into alternate worlds. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities offered reports primarily describing the demographics of Indigenous health and impairment. However, although they examine at census data, they lack substantive discussion of the census findings. Neither Independent Living Canada or the National Network for Mental Health offered original reports regarding Indigenous disability leadership. Instead, the latter's content was drawn from newspaper articles, while Independent Living Canada documents did not mention culture or ethnicity at all, seemingly striking a culturally neutral pose.

Conclusion

From this survey of grey literature, we can see the definitions of disability paired with Indigeneity being quite unsettled. There is some doubt as to what exactly is meant when we refer to Indigenous disability. Indigenous organizational reports illustrated the geographic and cultural divide between the service-scarce North and on reserves (Indigenous majority) and urban Canada (Indigenous minority). Indigenous women and girls with disabilities seem especially marginalized, facing a triple jeopardy of racism, sexism, and ableism–plus classism–within a Canadian state that has relentlessly attacked Indigenous women's political power (Demas, 2010; Martin & Walia, 2019). Canada's dissolution of Indigenous governance and legal systems also meant the displacement of people with disabilities from their traditional and valued roles in many Indigenous communities. We see disability movement organizations maintain their historic focus on disability rights and Canadian federalism, while some adhere to a façade of cultural neutrality. Conversely, AFN would like disability rights explicitly linked to treaty rights, a very important conversation in our opinion.

Thus, the disability movement seemingly battled two conflicting perspectives from within, one highly settler-focused and the Indigenous worlds and worldviews largely separate from it. It is significant to note that both the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability (2017), in their work on Indigenous perspectives on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Native Women's Association of Canada have strongly engaged with disability rights. This diverges from the general trend in which the disability movement leadership and its ideas fails to engage with Indigenous worldviews.

Moreover, the disability movement depends on the Canadian government to legitimize and fund its activities (Chan, 2019; Prince, 2009). The movement customarily assumes Canada to be the true and rightful sovereign, although we saw in the secondary data analysis the beginning of a tendency to recognize Indigenous sui generis rights (Disabled Women's Network Canada, 2020). We can see these state-centric politics alienating many Indigenous leaders who feel that Canada, far from being a benevolent ruler, to be chief cause of the ill health and distress among Indigenous populations (Cowie 2021; de Leeuw, Lindsay, and Greenwood 2018). Settler colonialism has deeply wounded Indigenous cultures and families (Blackstock 2009; de Leeuw, Lindsay, and Greenwood; Thomas-Muller 2011, 2017, 2021). To paraphrase Professors Chandler and Dunlop (2018), cultural wounds require cultural medicine. That is something the disability movement does not yet know how to discuss, let alone address (Chan 2019; Chandler and Dunlop 2018).

For the disability movement, we believe it needs to plan to support urban Indigenous people with disabilities, after first listening to Indigenous organizations regarding community needs and Indigenous laws. According to the grey literature, it would appear that disability rights groups seem to expect Indigenous people to have more or less the same needs as non-Indigenous people with disabilities. Even if Indigenous needs may be somehow different, there seems to be an expectation for Indigenous people to adhere to a "voices of disabled people" paradigm, as if from a singular identity. It is another way of saying that Indigenous people ought to fit into Canada's existing programs (disability studies journal personal communication, October 7, 2024). There is much evidence to suggest these programs, whether medical services or disability movement-run services, as we read in the AFN reports, are culturally unsafe, and at times lethally unsafe in terms of gross medical neglect, for Indigenous individuals (Bell, 2010; Brian Sinclair Working Group, 2017; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2014; McCallum & Perry, 2018). Urban Indigenous organizations are often overstretched in what services they can provide (Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, 2023). Nonetheless, the experience and knowledge disability rights programs have in securing entitlements for individuals and communities can be highly helpful. We suggest disability organizations dialogue with BCANDS, Indigenous organizations, and First Nations to offer their assistance in advocacy and program development. At the same time, they should be careful to come into the conversation as a humble learner, because, as we have shown in this paper, disability rights organizations may be quite uneducated of many aspects of Indigenous history, relationality, and knowledge systems (Block, Kasnitz, Nishida, & Pollard, 2016).

We suggest little of that dialogue will start if the disability movement remains stubbornly fixated on its social model of disability, without simultaneously engaging in complementary ideas regarding intersectionality and the historic treaty relationships between settlers and First Nations. Despite the moniker of social in the social model, it has become in North America a rather individual-focused endeavor, reworked into the "independent living philosophy." Under that name, although individual rights within a social liberal ideology are central, the disability movement has great difficulty grasping the notion of collective Indigenous rights (Prince, 2012). NIMMIWG strongly suggested employing an intersectional lens in working with Indigenous women. Disability rights' notion of a singular disability identity, applicable for all, tends to erase Indigeneity, inscribing instead the "White" settler norm (Bell, 2010; Nyaga, 2019). It can be experienced as a form of epistemic violence (Dei, 2021). There is, we believe, no such thing as disability identity without gender, "race"/ethnicity, class, sexuality, and so forth. Disability rights organizations will have a lot of work to do in beginning these dialogues on intersectionality, in challenging ingrained assumptions, first internally, then engaging with partner organizations as well as with Indigenous organizations. Notably, we observe DAWN Canada embarking upon this intersectional journey, even as we see other disability organizations lagging behind. Regarding engaging in collective rights, the disability movement might start by first listening–to Indigenous systems of sharing, land tenure, and diplomacy with the human and nonhuman nations (University of Winnipeg, 2017, 2019). Activists can attend workshops on Indigenous laws (there are distinct systems of law for each Indigenous nation), living tree jurisprudence, and Indigenous constitutionalism and thereby start to form relationships (Borrows, 2016; Makokis, 2008; McAdam, 2015; University of Victoria, 2018).

There is also the need for disability rights organizations to go beyond an anthropocentric, urban-focused concentration and address the relationships between humans and natural ecology. We derived this conclusion from our own knowledge and teachers (R. Oshkabewisens, personal communication, January to December 2023) and from the Indigenous disability literature (Disabled Women's Network of Canada, 2020). They can learn from Indigenous organizations providing workshops and ceremonies regarding ways in which disabilities/exceptional abilities allow us to see what for many is the unseen and to permit a unique conduit to the spirit world. There are also laws of kinship amongst humans and between humans and more-than-human entities which guide the conduct of Creation; in Cree, these laws are called Wahkohtowin (Bear Paw Legal, 2016; Makokis, 2008). Medicine wheel ways of working with individuals who desire healing are specific to each nation and are interconnected to the seasons of life, the sky earth and water, and the various animate and inanimate kingdoms (Marlene Syrette, personal communication, Batchewana First Nation, March 13, 2024). Disability rights advocates ought to learn from these approaches to gain an elementary understanding of Indigenous ethics and a holistic approach which would benefit anyone (Brave Noisecat, 2018).

Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA's political empowerment are vital, we believe, for improving the life of Indigenous people with disabilities, following the findings of the NIMMIWG and DEWC reports. It is an area of treaty rights and Indigenous political traditions and laws which center the role of women and 2SLGBTQQIA. Perhaps one way for the Canadian disability movement to support women and 2SLGBTQQIA resurgence is to engage in a process of decolonial and Indigenous evaluation of disability rights programs, led by Indigenous matriarchs and two-spirit persons (Makokis, 2008; Makokis, 2021; Rowe, 2022). It is a process rooted in Turtle Island Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing, knowledge bundles, and women's and two-spirit lodges (Rowe, 2020; Rowe & Kirkpatrick, 2018).

AFN's disagreement over the ACA seems emblematic of Canada's conflict with First Nations and Indigenous communities. While Canadian activists support the ACA's disability rights standards and want to move forward in achieving it, the AFN argued this legislation will in effect punish First Nations by providing no material support to achieve those standards yet expecting them to achieve the same outcome. As an aside, the AFN seemed both to endorse the importance of jobs for Indigenous communities and simultaneously the need for entitlements, which for some observers constitutes a robustly social liberal position. The ACA did not consider and account for the historical causes of the health disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, which are at root the causes of the economic inequality between them. Thus, the ACA did not adequately consider the treaty relationship and treaty rights. It specifically did not consider the treaty provisions for health and economic life. The spirit of the treaties, a spiritual covenant between two nations and the Creator, flows on (Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, n.d.). Perhaps the disability movement, if not Ottawa as well, should listen. It is incumbent upon disability activists to listen to the treaty conversation, the ceremonies, and the political thought underlying these treaties for them to begin to be good citizens of Indigenous territories (Borrows, 2016; Yellowhead Institute, 2019).