Hello, friends. Very good afternoon to all of you. My name is Sohail, and I work for a Wi-Fi security company, A-Type Networks. And the title of my talk is Wi-Fish Finder, Who Will Bide the Weight? And as the title indicates, this talk is going to be about a tool that can be used to discover Wi-Fi-enabled client devices, which are basically vulnerable to Wi-Fishing attack. So, let's start. Before we dive into the details of this tool, let me give you a little bit background of how it all started. As a security company, for the last two to three years, we have been conducting a lot of Wi-Fi scan in various cities in the world, and studying the trend of Wi-Fi security adoption. Some of the studies that we have published in the past are like financial district scan, and airport Wi-Fi scan study. And we found approximately 50% Wi-Fi networks were either using no encryption, or were using weak web encryption, in case of financial district scan. And the situation was even worse in case of airport scan study, in which we found approximately 70% Wi-Fi networks were using insecure Wi-Fi configuration. So, while we were conducting this scan study, we got an interesting idea to do this scan, which we'll see later. Like, there are places like airports where thousands of people from different part of the globe transit every day, and most of them are business travelers, and carry Wi-Fi-enabled clients like laptops, PDAs, smartphones, et cetera. So, we thought instead of traveling to different, different locations and scanning Wi-Fi networks, or access point installed in the buildings, why not scan these people's carrying Wi-Fi enabled devices? Can we do our Wi-Fi scan study based on client data? And the answer was yes. A very interesting client-based scan study was possible right there, instead of us going to different, different location. So, with this thought in mind, we started collecting client data. And here is a sample of client data that we have, we had collected sometime back using a tool called AeroDump ANGIE. And as you can see on the left-hand side, there are a lot of MAC addresses mentioned, basically client MAC addresses. And on the right-hand side, you can see the SSID, probing SSID lists are mentioned. Basically, the clients were found to be probing for these Wi-Fi networks. And as you can see in some of these cases, clients are also probing for multiple Wi-Fi networks. So what happens basically, you use your Wi-Fi enabled client devices to connect to Wi-Fi network at your home, then at your workplace, or whenever you visit some hotel or let's say airport, you connect hotspot Wi-Fi networks. So whenever you connect your client device to Wi-Fi network, the memory of these Wi-Fi networks gets saved into your client devices. And wherever you go, basically your client keeps on looking for the presence of those Wi-Fi networks, right? So that's the reason why these clients are found to be probing for multiple SSIDs. And if you take a closer look of this probed SSID list, we see some of the popular names here, like T-Mobile, which is basically a popular hotspot service provider. And one can easily say that this network must be open Wi-Fi network. But let me ask you, can someone precisely give any other probed SSID, security of any other probed SSID, let's say like Boyakasha or Hoffman? Probably not. But in order to continue our scan study, for us it was very important to find out the security of probed SSID. So at this point of time, we posed one question to ourself, can security mode of each probe network from a roaming client be determined? And with this question in mind, we started building a tool, and right now we have a tool ready with us, that is called Wi-Fish Finder. So when you run this tool, basically, you get to know about different Wi-Fi clients available in the vicinity. So the first column is about Wi-Fi client MAC address. The second, which is a shaded area. Second column is telling you about the security of those probe networks. Third column is about, it actually tells you about the security of the posture of that client for that particular SSID, whether client is vulnerable or secure. And if it is vulnerable, what are the reasons for that? And the last column is about probed SSID. So let's take a live demo, look at the live demo of this tool. I have a Wi-Fish Finder running here on a backtrack machine. I have a backtrack machine here, and I'm running this tool, and I'll be using my Wi-Fi client devices. There are a couple of Wi-Fi profiles saved into my client devices, and we'll see whether this tool is able to find out the security of those probed SSID or not. But before that, I mean, tool can also be used to find out security of all Wi-Fi clients present in the range. So let me run that tool just to show you what happens, and then we'll do a demo for my client. So as you can see, a lot of clients are appearing, and they are actually probing for different Wi-Fi networks. So extreme right column is about probed SSID or network for which they are looking. And on the left side, you can see in some of these cases, let me stop and drag it a little bit up. See, in some of these cases, it has already discovered the security of those probed SSID. So first SSID is just like a ROM, and the security configured for this particular client is web. So one of the clients present here is actually probing for this SSID. So I hope the person who is using must be knowing about that. So this is how actually Wi-Fi's finder finds out the security of probed SSID. Let me run this tool to find out security of my probed SSID coming out from my client. I'm running right now here just to find out security of probed SSID for my client because we'll see some of the interesting thing coming up. So let me talk a little bit about the implementation part, and by the time we will finish the implementation, we will have something ready to see there. So let me put one question as a Nive user, if you have to find out security of probed SSID without using this tool, how would you do that? And the simplest answer I could find out, why not put one access point and configure that access point with the same SSID for which this client is looking, and see if client connects to that or not. If client connects to that access point, it means it is configured for the same security, right? And if client does not connect to that access point, then probably we'll try changing the configuration, security configuration of that access point, try each and every possible configuration one by one and see if client connects to that access point or not. But then there are practical issues associated with this manual approach. The approach is not really scalable to handle probes coming for multiple SSIDs. The approach is also not scalable to handle probes for coming from multiple clients. And then of course, there are different 11 security configurations possible, and which means the turnaround time to find out the security of single SSID would be much higher if we use this manual approach. So then the question is, how WIFISH Finder is different than this? And the answer is, it is not doing anything different than this, but it is doing it smartly. All these steps are basically automated in WIFISH Finder. So it handles probes from multiple SSIDs, it handle probes coming out from multiple clients, and the all possible security configurations are properly handled here. So basically, as soon as WIFISH Finder sees a probing request coming out from any client, it basically simulates a virtual WIFI network environment around that probing client. Just to let the user feel like it is actually present in an authorized WIFI network environment. And that's how it actually finds out. So in order to help you understand about the implementation part, let me use one simple example here. Let's assume that this is a client which is actually looking for a WIFI network, WXYZ, and the client is configured for WPA2, okay? So as soon as this tool finds a probing request for that WIFI network, it sends a response to that client, saying that, hey, WXYZ is available right here and it's open. And it waits for client to connect to that. So of course, client is not going to connect because security configurations are not matching in this case. So after some time, tool is also going to send a response to client, saying that, hey, WXYZ is available right here and it is configured in web mode. Same thing happens. So after some time, tool is going to send, it sends basically a probe response to client, saying that, hey, WPA configuration is now available and see if you can connect. And finally it sends a WPA2 configuration. As soon as client finds a WPA2 configuration with the same WIFI network, it finds, oh, the security configuration is matching. So it initiates the client connection establishment process with that network. So it sends authentication frame and receives authentication frame and finally it sends a SOC request frame. So these are the frames which are basically required to do a connection establishment. As soon as the tool receives a SOC request frame, it finds out the security of that probed SSID because for the first time a SOC request frame is the frame in which client reveals the security of any probed SSID. So the idea was to create an environment where client sends a SOC request packet for a particular given SSID. So that's how WIFI find out the security of any SSID. So let's get back to WIFISH. So in fact, conference are also one of those locations where people from different parts basically gather.  And with this tool from thousands of miles away, I know basically what kind of WIFI network people are using at their home. So here are the network that is configured. You can see probed SSID as a home, one, two, three home net. And I was able to find out the security of that network from thousands of miles away. And I also actually found some of these, some of the users are actually using access point in a default configuration without changing the security of that box without changing the SSID name. I also found some of the guys who are actually using a very secure WIFI network, like Mr. Hacker who has actually named the probed SSID as wall hacker and using CCMP, WPS stuff. But let me tell you one thing that your client is still vulnerable because it's still willing to make a connection with an insecure WIFI network. You can see the security of other probed SSID coming out from your laptop. We also found some of the clients were actually infected from viral SSID or ad hoc SSID means they can connect and they can establish peer-to-peer connection. So the fact of the matter is that with this tool, a WIFI scan, client-based WIFI scan study is possible, but what else? Can we leverage this tool for something else? And the answer is yes, why not? How about doing a client security assessment or vulnerability assessment? And the reason for that is that there are attacks which are known to work against client which are configured to connect to security-enabled WIFI networks only. For example, if your client is configured to connect to, let's say, web-encrypted network, then one can actually try Caffle RTA attack and hack that client. If your client is configured to connect to WPA, appreciate key-based WIFI networks, let's say, then one can actually try dictionary attack against that client using latest Air Crack NG tool. And finally, if you are thinking that you are using WPA 2.1x WIFI network, let me tell you, someone can actually try PIP attack. So the tool can be used to find out or identify such vulnerable client well in advance. So that's how we can do a security assessment using this tool. Recently, we have, in fact, added one more feature in this tool. So if you use this tool, you will be able to find out whether a client is actually vulnerable to PIP attack or not. So let me tell you briefly what the PIP attack is all about. There are clients which only connect to WPA WPA 2.0 best WIFI networks. So while configuring those networks, if you left the server certificates validation check, if you left that box unchecked, then basically your client becomes vulnerable to WIFI networks. Which means client will never be able to differentiate between authorized WIFI networks and rogue WIFI networks and can be victimized anytime. So this tool is capable of detecting such clients and raising a flag for that. So the way it works, as soon as it detects a client is actually probing for .1x WIFI network, it also initiates higher level authentication with that EAP authentication, basically. In which case, it sends a fake server certificate to that particular client expecting that client not to respond to that fake server certificate. And as soon as it gets a response from clients saying that, hey, server certified is verified and I want to proceed further, it marks that client as a PIP vulnerable because it knows it can only happen if client is not doing a server validation check, right? So that's how this tool is actually detecting a PIP vulnerable client. So let me go back and show you. I had a profile configured for PIP vulnerable. See, couple of SSIDs you can see here which are coming out from my laptop and the tool has actually found the security of those WIFI networks. So I have a profile here right now which is actually configured and there is no server certificate check for that and we'll see this tool will flag that client as a vulnerable against PIP attack. And then there are many other profiles saved here. So generally it takes approximately four to five minutes to find out the security of all probed SSID presenting single client cache. So with this, let me continue further and finally the conclusion will come back to see what's the output of that tool. The conclusion is that a lot of measures have been taken to secure WIFI infrastructure, both access point and client present in the same environment, same vicinity. But an isolated roaming client is still need adequate security cover to protect it against honey parts. We believe that this tool can be served as a security assessment tool and can be used by security auditors or network admins to find such vulnerable clients in their office environment. And we have put this tool, initial version of this tool for download purpose on this. The link is available. So this is all about WIFI's finder. Thanks if you have any questions, you may. Yes. Could you please bit louder? If a laptop is already connected, it sends probe request, but it depends, actually depends on the transmit power of, at what transmit power this tool is transmitting. So basically client actually keeps on looking for best available WIFI networks. So in case if you are closer to that, then that will happen, you'll find out the security. But most of the time it works smoothly if client is actually a roaming client not connected to any WIFI network. Yeah, sorry, sorry. See, that's a very good question actually. And the question he's asking that, why are you saying WPA2 as a secure when someone can actually launch dictionary attack? So basically it's, see dictionary attack is not, it works if you are choosing a very weak password, right? But no one can actually predict about what kind of password somebody is using. So sometimes it will work, sometimes it will not work. Secure, I'm saying only for those WIFI networks which are configured for .onex and not using pre-shared key stuff. So mainly for those kind of networks. And they are not vulnerable to peep attack. That's it. Thank you very much. I'll be available to take any further questions.


Hi friends, welcome back to my channel. I hope you're well and today I have such an incredibly exciting announcement. I am so, so excited. This is so good, oh my god. To tell you that I am going to be co-hosting a readathon called the A Thousand Doors Readathon. This is the first readathon I am ever hosting, so my excitement levels are through the roof and I think it is such a special unique readathon. I cannot wait for you to join us. I'm going to be co-hosting this with two incredible booktubers who I'm obsessed with and love and I'm sure you will watch already. I am going to be co-hosting this with Emma from Drinking By Myself and Tasman from Teabooks and Tasman. I'll leave them linked down below so definitely go check them out if you haven't already. I guess I should tell you how this readathon works because it is very different. So it is essentially a choose your own adventure readathon. Get excited. At midnight UK time GMT on Sunday the first of November so as the clock strikes November the first doors are going to open. So there'll be one video on my channel, one video on Emma's channel and one video on Tasman's channel and behind these doors you will find your first prompts. Now these prompts are going to be super up to interpretation. You don't need to do any planning for this readathon. Well you can't do any planning and you shouldn't need to buy any books for this readathon. I know sometimes to fulfill prompts people struggle to fulfill prompts readathons with the books they already own but these prompts are going to be super up to interpretation so you really should be able to fulfill it with what you have already. You get to choose which of these doors you start with. You can just click on one in which everyone you click on and that's the one you start with or you could watch all three and decide which prompt you like best and go from there. You open the door, you hear the prompt, you go away read your book but make sure you bookmark that video because after you've read your book you need to go to the end of that video and at the end screen of the video you will see that there's four different doors with options based on what you thought of the book you read for that initial prompt. So we're going to be asking you lots of different questions about what you thought about the book or maybe the characters or something like that and that will determine which door you open next and there's going to be five layers to this so five prompts. Behind some of those doors you may find something that isn't a reading prompt but I'm not going to tell you anything more about that.  There'll be an option at the end of each video if you DNF your book so that is completely an option and there'll be a special pathway for those of you that DNF. I'm sure this is all of you right now getting overwhelmed with how exciting this is. Now behind those doors you may find me Emma or Tasman or you may find one of our amazing guest hosts so we've got some amazing guest hosts who are going to be giving you some prompts also and these are Joel from fictional fates, Mina from Mina reads, Jean from Jean bookish thoughts, Monica Kim, Cree Miles, Talani from T time T reads and Lauren from the novel lush so they'll be behind those doors also I'll leave all our guest hosts linked down below as well and the guest hosts are also going to be hosting some live readings with us throughout the week on November the 1st it's going to be Joel and Mina on the 4th it's going to be Jean, Monica and Cree and on the 8th it's going to be Talani and Lauren so I'm so excited for them to take part oh I just realized I haven't said how long this runs for so this is going to be running technically for the whole month you have got the whole month to complete it if you want the prizes which I'll get into in a second are going to be given out at the end of the month so if you want to take your time to do the whole month do that we're going to be really actively hosting it for the first week from the 1st to the 8th that's when I'm going to be completing the read-a-thon I know a lot of people like for a read-a-thon to be a week long so it's basically up to you whether you want to complete it in a month or give yourself just the week to do it we are going to be hosting some more twitter sprints and youtube lives throughout the month but it will be really active just within that first week and we do have some prizes so our prizes are going to be these amazing candles from the Grayson Honey Shop which is owned by our fellow lovely booktuber Becca and the Books I am not a like to like candles in my flat I've just got to smell it unlit oh my god smell it I can't like the smell I have the chosen one which is caramel, clove, cotton candy and warm vanilla and let me tell you if you choose this one oh my god it smells I wish I could like this it smells so good there's going to be a prize for the first to finish the read-a-thon and like don't cheat because we'll know I'm not that you would but um whoever is first to comment on one of the end videos will win a prize there's also going to be a prize for vlogging so we would love to see you vlog this read-a-thon and we're going to randomly pick one of the vlogs and they will win a candle of their choice also and then the remaining eight prizes that we have to give out are going to be kind of secret you're not going to know how you can earn them it's all going to be to do with the pathways you take through the read-a-thon so just be honest with your choices when you are picking which door you want to go into and you may be eligible to win a prize that's it's so exciting to me that you could win a prize but you don't know how that's just oh it's so exciting oh my god it smells so good make sure you follow our twitter account which is a thousand doors a thon I'll leave it linked down below and I am just so incredibly excited this is like the perfect read-a-thon for me because everyone's going to have a different path everyone's going to have a completely different set of prompts and you can't plan I just love the excitement of it and opening those doors just feels so magical and I'm so excited to come through the doors with us I can't wait to see what pathways you will get based on what books you read and what you think of them and yeah I'm just so incredibly excited to be hosting my first ever read-a-thon with these wonderful people so like I said I will leave everyone linked down below if you have any questions about the read-a-thon feel free to leave them down below and I'll answer them and let me know if you think you're going to be participating I will see you very very soon in another video bye


Good afternoon. So it's a great honor to introduce and perhaps more importantly to welcome home our keynote lecturer Dr. Kiera Ladner, who is a 2001 graduate of Carleton's doctoral program in political science. Dr. Ladner is an associate professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba where she held a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Politics and Governance for 10 years. In 2014, Dr. Ladner was inducted into the inaugural cohort of the Royal Society of Canada College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists in recognition of her outstanding contributions in the fields of constitutional law and politics, federalism, Indigenous governance and Indigenous political science. The citation for that induction noted that she, quote, continues to challenge settler societies, states and universities from an Indigenous and decolonized perspective. Kiera boasts an outstanding research record as P.I. and several large-scale grants including comparative work on Indigenous constitutional politics on Australia and New Zealand, which doesn't actually explain why she's always putting things on Facebook out of Hawaii, but that's the whole other story. Knowledge creation through digital media on anti-violence and marginalized communities and a new project on creating digital archival spaces for decolonization, resurgence and reconciliation. Republications also include writings on multiple aspects of gender and indigeneity, the racialization of welfare, and she is a contributor on many occasions to public policy debates through her collaborations with, for example, the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Kiera's co-editor with Leanne Simpson of the 2010 collection entitled This is an Honour Song 20 Years After the Blockades, and is co-editor of a new and very timely collection entitled Surviving Canada Indigenous People Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal. So I could go on with a longer recitation of her accomplishments, but given the focus of this conference on FPA, I do want to share how Kiera originally ended up at Carleton. I first heard her name in an MA admissions committee in the School of the then Canadian Studies in the other faculty, not FPA. I just want to mention that, and when one of my colleagues read out a reference letter that cited not only her fine scholastic record, but also the fact that she was a great rodeo writer. So I really sold the committee on her application because our quota of rodeo riders was a little low that year, so we thought, why not? When she arrived at Carleton in 1995, though, we quickly learned that Kiera had many talents beyond rodeo, and her at that point emerging thinking about treaty federalism would be groundbreaking. I think it's fair to say that Carleton furnished Kiera with an intellectual home that she had been seeking, one in which she established herself as a very exciting emerging creed scholar who had much to learn from, but perhaps even more to teach the discipline of political science. Her two graduate degrees from Carleton laid the groundwork for her successful and still very much unfolding academic career. For me personally, and I suspect for many in the room, Kiera influenced our thinking about decolonization, both respect to state power, the need to decolonize academic disciplines and our own classrooms, the impact of nationalisms, the limitations and possibilities of federalism, and more generally the urgency of the need to radically reorganize political relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous populations. Now Kiera always had lots to say about other things, for example the advantages of being from the prairies, the idiosyncrasies of Alberta politics, and why everyone should drive a pickup truck at some point in their life. But those are topics for another time. Instead, Kiera today will share with us her thoughts on reconciliation, resurgence and renewal, an alternate division for Canada 2042. Please join me in welcoming to the podium my colleague and friend Dr. Kiera Ladner. Hello, how are you? Hello, how are you? Hello, how are you? How are you? How are you? I wanted to just be invited to say thanks for pulling for that introduction, although maybe not the stories of rodeo that's a very long time ago. Way back the University of Calgary where they actually have a rodeo team, like who knew? And I once had a rodeo scholarship, who knew? I also want to say thanks to the organizers for inviting me back. It's wonderful to be back in Ottawa and wonderful to see the campus and see people again. I also wanted to pay my respects to the Odao, because we sit here on unseated Algonquin territory, and I think that that must be recognized and we must not only pay respect to that territory, but give good stories to that territory so that people here too have something to speak of at the end of today. It's nice to return to talking about Canadian politics. I've been spending far too much time in airplanes going back and forth between Australia and New Zealand and Canada and occasionally Hawaii, talking about how to rebuild constitutions and how to start thinking about developing a post-colonial lens to a constitution. I find this quite odd seeing how at one point I decided I was giving up my work in constitutions, kind of like I gave up rodeo for better things. I was going to go off and work in Hawaii and work with Sovereign Tis and have a bit more fun than hanging out with constitutional scholars and lawyers. I also spent a lot of time now working. My work on Canada now is really simply that of working with missing and murdered women, their families and working on a database with Shauna Ferris. And so it's nice to actually come back to my original work on Canada and to have something more positive to think about. And I really do want you to know that this is more positive than the other work that I do on Canada. Conference organizers asked me to envision and think about Canada in 25 years. The Canada we'd like to see, the Canada we dream of, what do we think Canada would be like in 25 years? I want to step back, though. I want to step back 27 years to a conference 27 years ago when George Erasmus spoke at a conference organized by the Department of the Secretary of State. A conference which was organized in 1989 to talk about what Canada should be celebrating in 1992, the year of Canada 125. Also the arrival of Columbus in the Americas. At that conference, Erasmus gave a riveting speech, much of which you can find on CBC. His riveting speech begins and ends with the same line of thought. There is not a solitary thing for Indigenous people to celebrate in Canada. Not a solitary thing. Why? Poverty. 90% unemployment rates in many communities. I'd actually go higher than the 90% rate. The death of languages, unfulfilled treaty promises and the list went on. Nothing to celebrate. He ends with a consideration that there could be something to celebrate. There could be something to celebrate if Canada decided to change. If Canada decided to address its relationship with the land, a land it acquired illegally, fraudulently. And if Canada decided to begin to deal with its relationship with Indigenous people, he warned that not dealing with these issues would lead to troubled times. Canada would no longer be just a nation defined by fights and skirmishes between its two founding nations. That these two founding nations would no longer define Canadian politics, but that Canadian politics would be defined by Indigenous relationships or the lack thereof. It's interesting. He gave the speech in 1989. He warned of worsening relationships. He warned of a thing called OKA. We're still waiting to see something to celebrate. He wanted something to celebrate.  And I'd have to say, I totally agree. We have to do something and do something now. Canada has had many opportunities to change. Following that speech, as I said, we had OKA or the crisis at Ganesadagé and Ghanawagé. We've had Iprawash, we've had Bert Church, we've had Idle No More. We've had hundreds of court cases, each costing millions of dollars, some costing in the billions for Canada just to fight. And we've had reports of deaths in custody. We've had reports such as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and still nothing has changed. Worse, I think it's actually worse in many communities than it was 27 years ago. We have less clean water, we have less housing, we have worse education systems. Nothing has changed, it's only gotten worse. So when someone suggested what were Indigenous people going to contribute to Canada 150, when my research partner, Myer Tate, said, maybe we should do something, we kind of jumped at the opportunity and have put out a book about surviving Canada, talking really very much about what there has been to survive, but also looking forward. And we look forward on this birthday, this 150, and look towards 175, thinking that maybe, just maybe, the TRC's report a year and a half ago, maybe that will give impetus for a wake-up call. Maybe that will cause a transformation. But the problem is reconciliation post-TRC is really being discussed as this great big national hug. Let's include Aboriginal people. Let's tell them that we're sorry for everything that Canada has done. Let's bring Indigenous people into the universities. Let's hire some faculty. Let's indigenize programs. Much of this is nothing more than a great big hug. But I'm still hopeful. I'm hopeful that in 25 years' time, I won't be asked back to give the same speech. I'm hopeful that in 25 years' time, I can retire and the persons, the people that come after me will be here talking about a life under treaty where treaties are implemented. We'll be here talking about decolonization. And that decolonization isn't just a pipe dream, but it's actually happening. People will be here talking about a life lived together on a Gunkman land. Perhaps I turn to Sinclair, Chief Justice Sinclair. Pardon me, Justice Sinclair. I've just put him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm sure if you'll like that appointment. It looks better than they said it, right? No one wants to abolish it. Sinclair has commented that the TRC represents Canada's midlife crisis. And it's a midlife crisis, which is calling Canada to deal with the fact that it exists on someone else's land, that it's here fraudulently. And that we need to find some other way to live together, get apart. If this is indeed a midlife crisis, I'm going to offer up my vision of what Canada should be and where we should be going for Canada at 2042. Needless to say, I acknowledge that this vision might be really one of Canada 200 or even 250, acknowledging that Canada has been very slow to move. Perhaps not even moving on the Indigenous file. I remember the words of my grandfather, which still give me hope. And he used to remind me that it took 500 years to get to this point. I think he was really talking about 1992. And while we don't have time to waste, if we really want to move forward, it's not going to be an easy 25. Or an easy 50. Or an easy 75. Or an easy 100 years forward. My vision of 2042 brings me back really to my time at Carleton. And it's interesting to come back and think about these ideas once again. We're still dealing with the same issues. We're still dealing with the fact that treaties are not being recognized. We're still dealing with concepts such as treaty constitutionalism or treaty federalism. We're still dealing with concepts rather than realities. Still dealing and thinking through issues of traditional governance and how to bring traditional governance forward. So 25 years from now, my vision is to see Indigenous languages, Indigenous laws, Indigenous governance, everywhere. To be talking and thinking through these issues in the halls of these academies. But also to be talking and thinking through these issues in our communities. Both Canada and First Nations. This vision is still a bit of a pipe dream. But I have no problem with pipe dreams coming from people of pipes. There's a bit of a glimmer of hope and that glimmer of hope is really with the Prime Minister that is talking about the TRC or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Talking about UNDRIP, the UN Declaration. Talking about the Constitution, Section 35. And talking about the need to implement all of these. Perhaps that is the midlife crisis. Perhaps if these are actually implemented and not just talked about in the way in which electoral reform has been talked about. Perhaps we can move forward. I want to talk about a transformative vision of reconciliation. Probably something that we would never hear in the next few years. Spoken about by the likes of Trudeau. But I hope one day we will hear spoken about by him or another Prime Minister. The transformative vision of reconciliation that I offer. Really is simple. It's let's stop talking about the Indian problem and let's start talking about the Canada problem. Simple. Canada doesn't have an Indian problem. Indians, Aboriginal people, Métis, Inuit, all Indigenous people have a Canada problem. And I think Canada is one that needs to reconcile itself with its past. And if it is going to move forward and to become the nation that it aspires to be. The nation that it always speaks of being when on the international stage. The nation that Trudeau speaks about every time he walks into a community. If Canada is to become that nation, the nation like that Kimmelika and others have written about. Canada is going to have to reconcile itself with its past. Recognize that it is a colonizer. Recognize that it is a guest on Indigenous lands. And that it needs to learn how to share those lands in a mutually beneficial, mutually respectful and mutually recognized way. And I'll come back to those three momentarily. American Silent Canada is going to require finding a new way to live together. Chief Justice Lamarra, the Supreme Court, and really who was a Chief Justice, once said, probably his most hospitable boards and ways towards Indigenous people, is that we are all here to stay and we must find a way to live here together. So let's find a way to live here together. My vision is that Canada must begin this process by recognizing and dealing with legal fictions. The biggest one, the doctrine of discovery. Let's face it, written, proclaimed in 1537, the doctrine of discovery is legal magic, which is there only to justify how a group, small, very small group of white people supported by the church can take over the rest of the world. And do so lawfully. Law supported the idea that might makes right. That someone can walk into someone else's house, say that they're not really a human being, or they don't have the sufficient level of civilization, and they can take everything that belonged to that other person. And they can subjugate the people in that house and do anything to them because they're not really human beings. Let's get rid of that notion. Let's get rid of that as the basis and the foundation for Canada. It is simply illegal magic. The doctrine of discovery has really four parts. We have Terranolius, the idea that Canada was an empty land. It's been used from time to time by the courts. And we have really three pieces of the doctrine of discovery. Europeans have rights vis-a-vis other European nations simply by finding a new land that is not claimed by another European. Second, you can claim not only the land vis-a-vis other Europeans, but you can actually claim all the property that you can get your hands on, either by conquering or by negotiating treaties, legal fiction. The problem with all of this is it's really just a legal myth, a legal fiction to hide might makes right, and to hide the whole imposition of crown sovereignty. That crown sovereignty cannot be questioned because the crown, the queen, the king acquired this land honorably and justfully and lawfully. I don't know about you, but I don't think that walking into someone's house and saying that they're really not civilized is a lawful way of living life. It sure as hell isn't the way we do things in 2017. And that sure as hell isn't gonna be the way that we do things in 2042. So I think we have to do what the recent court in a decision called Silcotein, some people call it Chilcotin, but Silcotein begins this idea of walking away from the doctrine of discovery. Chief Justice said that the doctrine of discovery really doesn't apply to Canada. Also claimed that it never really did, but I think a lot of Aboriginal people might disagree with that idea. The issue is that the Supreme Court has really talked about the removal of the doctrine of discovery, but only insofar as territory is discussed. So the court is willing to recognize that Aboriginal people have Aboriginal title and areas where there's no treaty. So we have Silcotein being recognized as having title to their territory. I think it was rocket science. The reality is though the courts have not stepped back in the area of sovereignty. They may be ready to say that there is no application, the doctrine of discovery, and so far as territory is concerned, but they're sure as hell not ready to discuss the whole matter of indigenous sovereignty. Instead, they continue to use every decision that they possibly can to reinforce the idea that Crown sovereignty, Canadian sovereignty will not be questioned, that it cannot be questioned. That, my friends, is a problem. But the idea, the assumption of Crown sovereignty rests on the mere idea that indigenous people are not human beings, or that they were not sophisticated or developed enough to be rated the same. So in 2042, I think it's going to be time for the people of Canada to have found a different way of living here, to recognize that Crown sovereignty, their right to live in territory isn't actually based on some legal myth, but is instead based upon indigenous consent, is instead based upon living here in a better way, making something better, making this nation what it appears to want to be. I understand this really from the foundation of Treaty Six. That idea of how we're going to live together for most peoples has already been dealt with. So we're not actually talking about having to create something new and a foundation, a legal foundation for Canada to exist, for Canadians to be sharing the land, we have it in treaties. Treaty Six, coming off South Central Saskatchewan and South Central Alberta, gives four basic rights to Canadians. Those rights are as follows. The Queen's people have the right to live in Cree territory. They have the right, secondly, to put up fences and to use a plow blade deep of land, farming. Interesting point, they have to actually still ask Cree to cut down trees to put up fences. And they have to pay for those trees if they gain approval to cut down the trees. So there's a bit of a quagmire there. So you can put up fences, but only if you get approval. There's a right not to be molested in Cree territory and there's a right of the Queen's people to govern themselves. The Cree did not choose to govern the Queen's people. It recognized that the Queen's people would govern themselves, just as the Cree would continue to govern themselves, both in the shared lands, that which Canada likes to call the seated territory. And Cree would continue to govern themselves on those which are often referred to as schoongun, those little pieces that were kept for the Cree nation.  This vision of treaty gives a vision for Canada to live in a very different way. It gives a vision of Canada to live where crown sovereignty is not assumed. It's actually founded and grounded on the territory and on Canada's relation to what Erasmus called for. Canada's relationship to land and Canada's relationship to indigenous people. So Canada could change. This vision of Canada and of living together gives us an idea of legal and constitutional pluralism of multiple sovereign keys within the same nation. I think it also gives something that is going to be required in 25 years or even sooner. I think we need to see some scholarship on how we deal with multiple sovereign keys within the same territory. And how do we go about building and seeing beyond the state? How do we build something beyond the Westphalian project? And I think that Canada could be a leader in this manner. This gets me to my second big point in my talk. We have to think about how we live together in a different way. We have to think about this idea of sovereignty that the crown's assertion of sovereignty is wrong and that we can actually find a way forward beyond that. The second point is that we actually have to think about how we live in these shared sovereign keys. How we live with multiple sovereign keys, multiple jurisdictions. This shouldn't be rocket science either. We live in a federation. We already have many of the tools that we would need to actually start to deal with and think through multiple jurisdictions. And I'm gonna step back to work that I did on treaty constitutionalism here because I think that that still to me offers a vision forward. And it offers a vision forward because it really does start to discuss what this means for Canada. So in 2042, I would hope that we're dealing with the idea of multiple sovereign keys. And that we figured out how to deal with multiple sovereign keys using the current constitution. We acknowledge that section 9124 isn't a discussion of federal jurisdiction over Indians through which they can do anything or not do anything that they wish. And we move beyond that to talk about a federal fiduciary relationships. We look at the federal government as having the responsibility for the role or the role for determining and living that right of being here and negotiating with indigenous nations, that relationship. The Indian Act is gone so we no longer need the Department of Indian Affairs to govern every single aspect of Indians life from birth to death and beyond. Can we start to think about what do we need to make this situation of legal pluralism or constitutional pluralism multi-jurisdictional governance work? As a constitutional scholar, I would love to say, hey, let's throw out the master's tools, let's throw out the master's house and let's begin again. Let's actually talk and think about what it would mean to build a new constitution completely from the ground up. New Zealand has talked about doing this. New Zealand has recently talked about doing this in relationship with how do they deal with not only Maudi but and bring Maudi in as a partner in New Zealand, but how do they go beyond that and start to institutionalize and constitutionalize the treaty? I know as a constitutional scholar that opening up the Canadian constitution just isn't going to happen. It would be fun. I remember the last time through. I think I actually met Larry the last time through. It was my first trip to Ottawa. We had a lot of fun. We had a lot of fun talking about Charlottetown and what we could do. Huge visions of how do we actually rethink this country? I'd love those days again, but I know I'll be having to just fly to Australia, New Zealand if I really want to live those days again, that Canada likely is not going to go down that path. So instead of thinking about a new constitution, I think we have to think about how we make the existing constitutional work. And here's where I really get back to that work on treaty constitutionalism. Section 91, 92 of the, what was the British North America Act, the Canada Act in 167, Constitution Act 1867, sets forward federal and provincial jurisdictions. We have to somehow get beyond federal and provincial jurisdictions and actually make space for indigenous nations. It's not about delegating authority. It's not about, hey, you can govern yourselves if you abide by these laws.  We have to actually get around the idea that there's two levels of governance and to start thinking about these multiple jurisdictions. So I pose, as I always have, following in the footsteps of those like Saagish Henderson to suggest that Section 35 of the constitution, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights, the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people of Canada, can be read as a parallel to Section 91 or parallel to Section 92, that the treaties which do not cede indigenous sovereignty, but rather protect indigenous sovereignty that are then recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, that in doing that recognition, it actually gives protection to indigenous sovereignty. It actually gives constitutional protection and a right of governance within the parameters of the constitution to start thinking about indigenous sovereignty as a parallel, as having their own jurisdictions parallel and concurrent to Section 91, 92 and the concurrent jurisdictions 93 on. This is what I'm thinking about when I think about renewal. We have to renew and start rethinking the Canadian constitution in a decolonizing lens, in the lens that we think of if we think of multiple sovereignty. So if we throw out the assumption of crown sovereignty, if we throw out the assumption that Canada has jurisdiction over Aboriginal people, we're gonna need to fill it and make some space. And I think that space has already been made. So renovate, renovate the house. We can imagine that this is already being done. We had an announcement last week that Jody Wilson is heading up a committee for Trudeau with six cabinet ministers on indigenous issues. We can acknowledge and imagine that maybe self-government is being discussed in these meetings. That maybe Jody Wilson is able to educate five other ministers in Trudeau that self-administration is based upon a legal fallacy. And that negotiated inferiority will only serve to ignite indigenous people and give us nothing to celebrate. 25 years from now, I hope that we are through those discussions. And that we have at least had a few years figuring out how do we live in these multiple jurisdictions. There's gonna be some major things to deal with. We can't simply put section 35 and say, hey, this is all gonna work, great. We actually have to start thinking about how do we live together in a mutually beneficial way? That the benefits, the resources that are drawn and extracted from the lands, not only have to be consented to by indigenous peoples, but indigenous peoples should actually gain the benefit of their lands. Not only say on what happens on their lands, but the benefit of their lands. So we're gonna have to find a way to think about redistribution. That we're not talking about this discussion of handouts.  Handouts, handouts, handouts. Let's go back and think treaty, treaty, treaty. Healthcare, treaty right, not your treaty right. Education, treaty right, not Canada's treaty right. A welfare state, a treaty right and treaty number six because people had the forethought to say that assistance must be given in times of pestilence and starvation. Treaty six, I think is a better arrangement, but that's probably because I come from there. We're gonna have to actually start to think about what those terms of treaty six mean, or those terms of treaties, or what it means to be living in unceded territory and having to negotiate a treaty with the people here. But in terms of treaty six, we can also talk about economic sustainability because that was covered in the treaty. 25 years now, we're going to have to deal with some pretty big issues, including the thing called inter-jurisdictional immunity. Inter-jurisdictional immunity and it's really about the way government's jurisdictions go together. If both governments are operating in the same area or another's laws are thought to actually be impeding the laws of government, you go to court, you take that to court, the judges deal with it. Judges have essentially cost out the idea of inter-jurisdictional immunity when it comes to Aboriginal laws and Aboriginal lands. Giving fair right to provincial governments under section 88 of the Indian Act, and I know Larry, it's a lot more complicated than that, the other constitutional scholar in the room, but we've seen the judges say, we're not dealing with this. Well, it's not for them necessarily to be dealing with and it's actually not a matter of federal or provincial jurisdiction. They're missing the point. We have to actually start dealing with federal, provincial, or indigenous jurisdiction. And how do we work out the relationship between those? We're going to have to start dealing with those issues of power and privilege. And we're also going to have to start dealing with the institutions of nations. How do we actually have a federal government or a unified government or how do we deal with shared jurisdictions and shared lands? Because as I said, Treaty Six never ceded indigenous territory. We simply said non-indigenous people are welcome, can live on those territories, can govern themselves, but the Cree will continue to govern themselves on that territory. So working on that relationship is going to take some time. And I hope that 25 years from now in my pipe dream, we're sitting and talking about those relationships. The last thing that I want to just cover very briefly is I think that which is closest to my heart. And that is about rebuilding indigenous governance. If we get rid of the Indian Act tomorrow, and oh, I wish that would happen. What are we going to do? The main question that I have had for many years is most easily understood in Cree. It's about that treaty promise and Treaty Six that's epic in it. There will not be a rope around the neck. So when we remove the rope around the nation's neck, when we remove the Indian Act from First Nations lands, when we remove the Indian Act from Skungun, that those lands that were reserved and that were supposed to be sovereign spaces of only Cree people. What do we do? I think at first we will see mostly incremental change. That incremental change is going to be a people talking about how do they govern themselves today? We're still gonna have thoughts and discussions about return to nation, a rebuilding of nation, because these bans, these First Nations, whether it's close to here in Mohawk territory, whether it's Oswego or Dianonega or Oswe... Yes, my mind is now blank. Name any community. We can go to Treaty Six. We can go to my territory. These bans are not nations. So we can talk about, and inside conversations, are going to have to talk about how do we return to nations? How do we return to clients? How do we discuss and move forward in the removal of band membership in the Indian Act? I don't think we're gonna see big change overnight. And the reason that I don't think we will see big change overnight is because Indian Act leadership is very much vested in the continuation of a similar sort of system, as is the Indian industry. And there's a huge Indian industry and half of it exists in the city. I made more money as a graduate student, consulting while finishing my PhD and consulting only several days a month than I did as a faculty member when I first started teaching. The industry here has so much vested in the continuation of a similar sort of system. I think we're gonna see this similar sort of system continue because many of the leaders are also not reading what we have our students read. They're not reading the Glenn Coltards of the world or the Simpson be that Audra or Leanne. And they're not reading Hayden's phenomenal posts and blogs about let's move and let's move now. We don't have leadership in every community that is going to be able to have the tools to move forward tomorrow. I think what we'll see is going to be sad in my books. And it's gonna be sad in my books because I think we're gonna see the Harvard school and the Harvard project take a stronger hold on indigenous communities here. For those of you that don't know the Harvard project, I urge you to look it up. It is the Indian industry wrapped up in a nutshell. It is all about the idea of good governance models that enable economic prosperity. Somehow good governance equals economic prosperity and economic prosperity is going to equal good governance. And it's gonna do so if first nations follow what they see as their guideposts. Practical sovereignty, building a system of governance that has a cultural match, effective institutions of governance, nation building leadership, and a strategic orientation. Economic, economic, economic, exploitation, exploitation, exploitation need I go on. Sad, I don't think any of the people in the Harvard project are political scientists. And none of them are really trained in indigenous political thought. And I'd go head to head with each one of them on those grounds. And I like to do so when I come across them. And we've had a lot of opportunity in New Zealand where the Harvard project basically has set up shop. Chandler and LaLonde and cases in New Zealand are really showing me as if I needed a reason. The good governance requires much more than a cultural match. Non-incremental change is still going to mean hierarchical institutions that are Western in nature that do not do anything in terms of real decolonization. And that's a huge issue. But I think that this is the route that so many will take. And so many will take because every year the Harvard project, Native Nations project, Banff Center, all whole phenomenal workshops and every chief and council goes out. This is how they know how to rebuild. 25 years time, I hope that the grassroots resurgence has really been able to engage in such a nation building activity that we're not actually talking about the Harvard project anymore. I think that we need to really move this resurgence and keep these conversations going now. And I look around the room and I know several people here are engaged deeply in these conversations. Conversations are needed in every community and in every urban space because 60 to 80% of First Nations and Indigenous people live in urban spaces and are probably never going back to the res. Why would they? Home on the res? Don't think so. We need to start thinking about how and asking questions about how do we want to live together as nations today? We have to start thinking through building governance and rebuilding governance that not only has a cultural match but is actually founded and grounded on Indigenous principles of governance. What does it mean to have consensus-based governance today? What does it mean to operate via clients or other models of governance when those models of governance have been outlawed by this country for over 150 years? Rebuilding is going to be an arduous and hellish process but it is probably the process that I am most excited by. We think what it means to be a citizen, what it means to have institutions and good governance and this is why I'm excited. I'm a constitutional scholar through and through. Thank you, Carlton. I could thank you, Miran Smith and Francois Roche but they both left Carlton but I am a constitutional scholar through and through. Well, I can't dream about changing Canada's constitution. I can dream of the day that we're actually thinking and rebuilding constitutions and training people to rebuild and rethink constitutional governance in community and that we're thinking about developing constitutions in each territory that cover an entire territory and talk about how the Algonquins on this unceded territory are going to retake power. Not as something that has to be consulted with this duty of consultation or the duty of governance that the Supreme Court has given the federal government but I'm thinking more of that nation rebuilding in a place called Odawa, this territory that clans and families are thinking about what does it mean to be Odawa in this territory 25 years from now and that they have been doing so for 25 years just as they did so for the 25 years before that and the 25 years before that because rest assured while governance has been outlawed while ceremony and languages have almost been destroyed people have been keeping them and those knowledge keepers are going to be our constitution makers. Those knowledge keepers are going to be our teachers because they are the teachers that we should be paying attention to rather than the academics like me that somehow got a degree. So 25 years from now I hope that I'm not back giving the same talk and I hope that we no longer have this Indian Act and I hope that maybe I can retire and go to Hawaii or Australia and not work. Thank you. I've always had these little books that she would carry around but so there's a few more good lectures in here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the Canada problem and thank you for your generosity in giving us a vision for 2042 and thank you in advance for taking some questions if you don't mind. So if people would please use the mics and we have about 10 or 15 minutes for questions who would like to start? Such a loud voice. Okay. What's my voice? I should be all right here. So what about forming alliances with aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand and other places? If there's continued resistance from the legal and political system in Canada would you think that that would be a natural avenue to follow in terms of putting more pressure to obtain what you mean you want? That's already been done. We have this thing called UNDRIP and UNDRIP has been there for a number of years. It had a, it began in Mi'kmaq'i at the table of the grand chief of the Mi'kmaq nation and Sagish Henderson and I've heard other stories. Wilton likes to claim that it began at his table but lots of people thought about these great things of getting together as indigenous people and indigenous people. Someone was talking today about the US being like this big mammoth one nation and all powerful. They only learned that from the British. I look at Anglo-Settler societies and with very few exceptions everyone's dealing with some of the same issues. New Zealand is a place that's getting it right. They're moving forward. Treaty, you know, treaty implementation. Treaty has to be considered and every single piece of legislation passed by the government of New Zealand. So I think that having these discussions and doing that comparative work and having people come over having us go is a fantastic way and I think that more alliances will be struck. So, yeah. Thank you for your wonderful talk and thinking. I want to share something very small with you. I am working on Bolivia and I think it will be good to discuss someday this different international experience. And in Bolivia they changed the constitution and they did a beautiful constitution because a lot, a lot. And today I cannot say that indigenous people are better. Even if the president is indigenous. But listen to you. I learned something that is going to be very important is that in Bolivia they're trying to do again a constitution, territorial constitution in the state and your proposal of having multiple sovereignty and in each nation. I think that is very, very important. And thank you. And I hope I would like to hear more about it and if you know this experience. Thank you. Bolivia blows my mind, their constitution, what they've done. But it's like South Africa. South Africa has this phenomenal constitution. Phenomenal constitution. But it hasn't really changed things. It's kind of like 1982. 1982 was, I look at 1982 and look at the dreams that were imagined and made into 1982 really without anyone knowing.  And that's a quote to Jody Wilson's father. Jody Wilson's father responded, my daughter's going to become prime minister and watch her. These are really pipe dreams. And I think that I talk great things about what the constitution could be, this vision, do I think it's gonna happen by 2042? Not the way I see it. I wish. If we started tomorrow and Canadians woke up and decided that they no longer want to be colonizers, hey, maybe we can get somewhere. But most people aren't gonna, aren't there. And even those that wake up and decide to live their life differently don't know what it means to live their life differently. So it's gonna take a long time.  They're a place to start training people, talking about constitutions, talking about the TRC, talking about reconciliation. It's a place to start. And it's our job to continue talking. Are they pipe dreams? I remember being up in Darwin, past Darwin, I don't know if there's really any way that you can physically get past Darwin in Australia. But I'm up in Darwin and we have a community consultation with their expert panel on constitutional reform. And we go out of Darwin aways and there's a tin shed, dirt floor, wonderful flying cockroaches, huge frigging cockroaches. I come from the priorities, I don't like bugs.  And she's talking about the Canadian constitution and talking about what section 35 and 25 mean. And how great it would be to have section 25 in Canada or in Australia. And I thought, do you know that that's never actually worked? Section 25 is really was meant to be a shield against all other sections of the constitution to shield Aboriginal and treaty rights from abrogation and derogation from Canada. It's never worked. Supreme Court has basically, it doesn't consider. It means nothing. But here, this grandmother was talking about what it could mean and could mean if they could get something like that in Australia. I've seen grandmothers and grandfathers get up in Australia and talk about the Canadian constitution, Bolivia and South Africa. I think we have the tools in our toolbox to do something that we could decolonize the constitution. We can renovate rather than throw it out. And I think Bolivia threw it out and started again, but the issues are still there. Same with South Africa and we have to find a way to actually work through some of those issues. But how, yeah, same questions as I asked 25 years ago. I don't know. How the indigenous person wanted to wake up to be a colonizer was happy not to wait until 2042 in the introduction of the cause of the change. You're talking about what would it be like? What would you be hoping for that person to behave like? I think a lot of non-indigenous people aren't really sure what to do. I think that one of the first tasks is to start. We, Hayden raised a point earlier. I think it was Hayden that could have been anyone in the previous panel that the acknowledgement of territory are aptly worked. What does it mean to you when you acknowledge that you live in unceded Algonquin lands? So maybe the first step is to come to terms with what it means to live in unceded Algonquin lands and what the relationship should be according to the Algonquin people. So maybe it's about time for Carlton professors to take that first step and to start thinking about what does it mean to have a university or to be a university professor on that unceded territory. The previous panel was talking about that. I think that that's a really great place to start. What does it mean to transform that relationship? And I think that it's going to mean transforming personal relationships. It's going to mean supporting renewal and a resurgence within indigenous communities. And that's something that we can all actually work towards making space. My research space now with the zero budget, lovely university life, when we're all in the same boats we have big buildings and no budgets. That's your van was on strike for three weeks. You know, my space has held a, this idea of let's bring youth together and let's bring women together to start talking about constitution renewal. That can be done by anyone. You know, what people need is a parking pass, lunch, and someone who says, hey, why don't we all get together and I'll start this process and you guys can continue it. You know, we've worked with three different groups of youth through women with one and it hasn't gone exceedingly well with one of them. But, you know, we learned from that space and we learned from that time doing it and those conversations and where the youth are and where the youth want to begin with those conversations. And I think that that's maybe a place to start is making space in your own university, your own classroom and encouraging space to be provided and being an ally. You know, I work as an ally every day when I'm in Australia. You know, usually four or five times a year I'm over to Australia and New Zealand. I work as an ally, I work as an ally. My community relationships are as an ally and, you know, working on constitutional transformation there, you know, it's me as an ally, not me coming in as expert. You know, I have a lot of expertise from Canada. It's me coming in and really trying to be humble and trying to be the person that supports communities rising up. I think the other thing in that is just really trying to support your Indigenous colleagues and your Indigenous students in encouraging those process. It's hard and it's a hard thing when that comes to issues like 10 o'clock or whatnot. I am always talked about as I'm in Hawaii or used to be in Hawaii a lot. And I have no research publications out of that project. Although that project is now on quasi-hold because my couple shirk applications, I got back one that said by the committee, an interdisciplinary committee that said, one, it's not interdisciplinary research and two, we don't fund Hawaiian vacations. Sovereignty movement, working in communities. I wasn't at the beach. So I think that we have to then find a way to salvage because I had worked with communities for four years. And what does it mean to have a project that won't go? And a project that won't go because there's also relationships with the community and we're not done and we don't know when we'll be done. So things like that have to be considered. I have a question that's troubling me. I don't know North America, even though I'm from here, as well as I know Africa, where I've studied for many, many years and the quest, but the question in my mind is when can you say that land belongs inevitably to a particular group of people and that I think I'm thinking in Zimbabwe, where there were turbulence in South Africa, people came up, the Lose came up to Southwest Zambia, the Ndebele people came up. They came up in the 1800s and before. The Dutch settlers came out in the 1600s. At what, there's a lot of shifts all over the world. There are people, layers of people. The Magyars who came, who are in Hungary, come from Asia in the 1300s. So I don't know, as a historian, is there a problem with saying that a people are indigenous and they are the rightful owners of land when the movement of people, especially now, we're in a period where there's 50, what, 50 million migrants running around the world right now, running from terrible situations. So how do you make these decisions about who's indigenous and who's not? Luckily I'm not making that decision. There's my cop out. I'm not making the decision. I think that the reality is land here was taken fraudulently. There's these things called treaties that gave specific rights. And that's to me when treaties and things were negotiated, to me, that's that presence of spirituality. I talk about things being a pipe tree. Well, that pipe came out and that pipe, to me, is what made it lawful. And so that sharing of land, that welcoming of people, that now, as a person of treaty six, I can sit on both sides. And I think that that, to me, is the reality that newcomers, aliens, Canadians, however we want to call, whatever language we want to call settler society and are welcome. But are welcoming to someone else's territory originally and there's been some agreement as to how newcomers are gonna live on that land. As to relationships because people moved around. I talk about this being Algonquin territory. Was it always Algonquin territory? Probably not. But the reality is Algonquin people were the people here who were recognized as being the lawful owners and the lawful carers of the land by the other people around them. By that system of international law or indigenous law. And so while Cree people moved out into what was Blackfoot territory and sent off the Soto and the Shoshone and other people, the reality is that relationship to land is there. The reality is that other nations recognize Cree people and Saskatchewan as that being Cree territory. And I think that this is why we can talk about Métis territory because the Métis are a late comer. The Métis have territory because of being connected to a nation and then become their own nation. And that's why I think that we can talk about Métis, the Métis nation having a territory even though it's an overlapping territory. I don't think that indigenous people have ever thought about exclusive territory. It's quite foreign. There's always been these meeting places. There's always been this very different understanding of territoriality. And I think that that gives rise to, that even though there's movement, there's an understanding of territoriality and there's an understanding of that being someone's territory. And when people came here, they entered into relationships with those people, those territories. They said that this is how they were gonna live and we're asking people to keep their word. But more so than that, if we acknowledge that this thing called the doctrine of discovery was really just one great big lie, regardless as to whether you believe in indigenous people or indigeneity or what we have to actually find a way to live on this land in a way that isn't founded on the doctrine of discovery but is founded on a different relationship. And I think that that's where I'm asking people to go. If we're tossing that out, if we're tossing it out for territory, perhaps we also have to toss it out and talk about sovereignty and talk about national relationships in a very different way. I think I'm gonna suggest that we continue these conversations over reception and I'm gonna call on Associate Dean Dr. Karen Schwartz to end the evening and give a formal thank you. I'm going to be very, very brief. It's been a long day and thank you all for hanging in with us. I just want to say thank you very much, Kira. And I hope we won't be calling you back in 2042. Not that this hasn't been wonderful but I hope we won't be calling you back. And I also hope that by 2042 we have learned how to live together by nations and that we start that process. And we have a very small token of our appreciation. Thank you.


Trying to be a doctor is by no means easy. The long hours, difficulty subjects, and constant exams, it takes a lot. But in addition, there's an underlining psychology of the medical journey that no one talks about. It can determine if you have a good or bad experience. Hey friends, today's episode is inspired by a recent book that I'm just loving called The Psychology of Money. And the book nicely breaks down the mind games that we don't even know are happening when it comes to things like finance, investing, saving, but really can make the difference in your ultimate result. And as I was reading the book, I find myself saying, this sounds a lot like the medical journey. Let's break down the psychology and those mind games that you don't even know are happening, but can make the difference between success and failure. So number one is the one hour extra fallacy. Every single student falls for this trap. I was definitely one of them when I was back in medical school and over all the students that we've worked with over the past seven years, pretty much everyone makes this mistake. And the one hour fallacy is being able to look at your schedule and saying, I need all of these to be able to study and get that A or grade that I ultimately want on this quiz or test for these classes. But in reality, if you ask yourself after the quiz or test, did an extra hour on that material make a difference? And usually the answer is no, but a problem arises when the student can't admit that that hour is likely not gonna add very much value to their grades, but that hour can make a big difference in the overall sanity and wellness. This means an hour that could have gone to more sleep, exercise, just spending time on your hobbies that you desperately wish that you again, realize will not make a difference in your scores. As soon as I accepted that the duration of how much I was studying, all of it didn't necessarily go to the performance that I ultimately got. Then I could start looking at my study time of saying, okay, how much of this could I dedicate to working out, spending time with my family, doing a hobby like making videos for you guys so that I can be happy the next time I study. And as a pro tip, if you really want to experiment with this fallacy, go ahead and look at your study time. Maybe you find that it's 10 hours, cut it by 20%. That'll be eight hours. Use that two hours to do something else that you really just want to do. Maybe it's sleep more, maybe it's catch a basketball game, play some video games, watch a movie, read a book, again, take a nap. All of those are perfectly fine, but you'll realize that your results probably won't change. And more importantly, what you do during now, that remaining eight hours, is gonna make a big difference on how you study going forward. Number two is the missed question avalanche. Now I learned about this fallacy literally as I was taking the most important exam in medical school for me, which was USMLE step one. That's like your first licensing exam you take as to be a doctor, but that score, now it's pass, fail. But at that time, that score determined what options you had for your specialty. So if you got a low score, you pretty much weren't able to get into a competitive specialty. So that test was very important. I took maybe the first two blocks of 60 questions or whatever it may have been and just felt demoralized of how hard it was. And I knew that I had five or six more sections ahead of me that I probably was gonna struggle with. And I literally had to go to the bathroom to take a break and look myself in the mirror and say, you know what, from now on, we're gonna look at every question of saying, you're either gonna know the answer and you're gonna fist pump of how hard you work to be able to feel confident enough to answer that. Or you're gonna say, this question's hard.  Let's do your best to make ahead and take an educated guess. Worst case that's not gonna happen is you're gonna miss the question like you expected best case scenario. You managed to get points on a question that you granted where you're gonna get wrong in the first place. Now there's a flip. You go from a point losing mentality that means somebody who literally will miss a question but then likely miss the next few questions that they were completely capable of doing but they got in their own way. They got in their own head. Versus somebody who says, you know what, every question is going to be an opportunity to raise my score. Some questions are gonna be hard regardless. I'm not gonna look at those as missed opportunities. I'm just gonna move to the next one and get the points that I truly deserve. Number three is the solo dummy fallacy. Now this is one of my favorites because every person has this. Even as a full-time physician, I feel like I am the dumbest person in the room and I clearly tricked everybody to get to this part. Now every single person on their medical journey has this at some point.    That's not true. Some people are just better at hiding it than others. That doesn't mean that we don't have our struggles. You're likely gonna do better on a class that you just absolutely love that your classmates who used to be performing at the top of the top are now just gonna be a little quiet because they're struggling and that is okay. Everyone is going to have their hills and valleys. So if you find yourself in the valley, just know you just have to work yourself out of it. Eventually, you'll be at some form of a mountaintop for your level of success. But my no means are you struggling as a solo venture. Everyone else in the journey is having a hard time at different places. Understand that and make sure you just work through it until your next success. Number four, this is the big one and that is the great dependency success fallacy. A lot of medical students' pre-meds fall into this where they feel like I have to get that 4.0, I have to get that A, I have to get that board exam score that I'm proud of that isn't that X percentile. Problem is, is once you get into the parts where truly matter, where you're sitting in front of an interviewer trying to get you to residency or your first full-time job as a doctor, wherever it may be, no one really cares about your grades. You got into that seat because your grades. People want to know more about you, your experience, make sure you're a true human being and likely if you're sitting in that seat for an interview, the other people have also gotten good grades. Most students tend to forget that yes, your grades are important, they're just part of the equation. However, you have to understand that your CV and your experiences and your self reflections of what you want to do really make a big difference. I say this a lot on this channel that my success is much higher than a lot of my peers who had much higher potentials than me. People who are more brilliant than me weren't able to get to where I am currently, but mainly it's because I took that time to say, what did I get from these experiences that are gonna make the difference for this opportunity I'm gonna go after? When I can sit in front of an interviewer and talk about my experiences because I've thought about it and they understand, okay, this guy is genuine, authentic and by the way, he's done well in school.  Everyone's worked hard, yes, your grades matter, but the best way to both enjoy the experience and have your experience speak for itself is to really think about your experiences and ask yourself what the next one you're gonna take based off of the good and the bad from what you've had. The more reflections you do, your grades are going to be able to speak to somebody who's hardworking, but your experiences are going to be able to speak to that person they're gonna get for that role, that residency spot, that scholarship, you name it. Number five is probably my personal favorite as a full-time doctor and that's the idea of memory versus patterns. Medical school makes you feel like you have to memorize everything, right? The idea of drinking out of a fire hydrant is one that's oversold. But honestly, if you had to ask me how much I remember from medical school, pretty little. But this is the part that I learned as a full-time doctor and definitely later on in my time during residency as I was a senior physician. That is that I learn more through medicine. I'm a better doctor because I can identify patterns through repetitions and taking care of patients.  It became easy because you put in the reps. Similarly, being a doctor or being in the medical journey is less about the memory and more so about giving yourself enough reps to get that pattern recognition. For example, if a patient comes to me hypotensive, I'm not thinking about all of the little enzymes or diseases they could be having. I'm saying here are the four categories that I know likely will cause a patient to have their blood pressure drop. Maybe they're infected. Maybe their heart's not working well. Maybe somebody's medication actually was overdosed or they took too much of it or they're having something like a blood clot. I'm thinking about all of those things in conjunction to that patient's history and it's gonna determine what I do for them in terms of short-term management but also how I work it out. Now as I do more and more reps, I'm gonna have patients who fall to that crack. My framework may not work for them. I'm gonna make an adjustment so that next time a patient comes in with a low blood pressure, I'm gonna say, okay, remember to also do this because you forgot about that for your other patients but maybe you'll catch more patients doing this framework. All about pattern recognition. More reps, all the doctors that are brilliant are less so because they have memorized X amount of enzymes or X amount of facts because they just had so many reps and experiences of the patients underneath them that they look like it's natural because it is. And so the closing thought on that is to understand that it is okay of struggling to memorize whatever. My girl, farm, I did. I've definitely forgotten more than you've probably learned on your medical journey that is normal. And then when you transition into taking care of patients just to really just focus on learning and identifying patterns that you can use over time to help the next patients you'll take care of. Next is the ceiling phenomenon. Now this is something that was actually inspired from the book Psychology of Money which is the idea of having a ceiling based off of how much money somebody else has. And the book nicely says that your ceiling of peer comparison is so high that you'll never reach it. In the same aspect, your ceiling of how you compare yourself to your peers and colleagues saying X, Y, and Z is doing this. They're able to balance research and how much time they're spending in the gym and class and doing well, I wanna be like them. And eventually you're just gonna keep pushing yourself to end up being like a person that was never your goal in the first place. Understand again that all of your peers are struggling. Some people have higher ambitions than others but being a doctor first of all is awesome. The last person in the medical school that graduates is also called a doctor just like the top 1% is. You don't have to necessarily worry about being the crème de la crème. No one really asked me where I went to medical school, where in my class I graduated, what TPI I've gotten. They just wanna know that you've worked hard which again by going through the medical journey is a clear definition of who you are but don't compare yourself to your peers. Use them as motivation of saying, I would love to have this quality that this person has in my own journey and expectations. This person is hardworking, they're disciplined. They go to work out every single day but that's important. I'm going to be inspired by their discipline and implemented into something that I consider to be important in my own life. Next is the principle of control versus performance.  But often what happens for most students especially the ones that we work with is that continues. They never happen to get out of this paralysis of just overwhelming anxiety of how much things are going on and they never actually get to the performance. The real difference between a top student and a student who is just overwhelmed when life throws its multiple lemons is that the top student could say, it's gonna be a tough week, month, year, et cetera. I'm gonna work on the next important thing that I need to do and actually start performing. I'm gonna start putting in the work. Not everything is going to be in your control. You're not gonna be able to control how hard a test is when you show up for it but you are capable of what input and hard work you're gonna put in to try your best to prepare for it. Once that test is over, you move to the next action, the next performance. And so the mind game here is that students are so overwhelmed by their lack of control because of how many things that they're juggling that they forget that the one thing they can control is actually putting in the work and starting performing on the next most important thing. Once you start doing that consistently, you will find that, oh, I'm actually having that control I ultimately wanted. Now guys, if you enjoy that breakdown, all I really ask is hitting that like subscribe button if you're listening to on YouTube and checking out some of the free resources that we have for you down below. My most important and favorite recommendation is the Med School Success Handbook. This is a document that I'm literally updating on a weekly basis. That's now filled with my 40 plus tips that I would just love to give you on studying productivity, time management motivation, so much more, life as a doctor. I wish that somebody had given that to me on my first day of medical school. I'd love to give you that document. It'll be linked down below. If after listening to this episode, you feel like you're interested in our mission to help you succeed on your medical journey but doing it with less stress, definitely check out some of our programs down below. The two that I would recommend is our Med Elite Academy as well as some of our coaching programs. Both of them have the ability to work with myself and our study coaches and give you access to pretty much everything that we've made over the past seven years to help people like you succeed on their journey. So again, check those out if you're interested, if you're not, no worries, no shame. Let me know what questions you guys have in the comment section down below. Again, if you're listening to on a podcast, hit that subscribe and follow on your favorite listening platform. And if you enjoyed this episode right here, then go ahead and check out this one right here on all of the study methods that I use in medical school to get a 3.9 GPA as well as this one right here on everything that you need to know to be a top one present student.  And as always, my friends, thanks for allowing me to be a part of your journey. Hopefully I was a little helpful to you guys and yours. I'll catch you guys in the next one, peace.