Good morning, everybody.
[Witness spoke in Cree]
[English]
My name is Shannin Metatawabin. I am the CEO for the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, or NACCA, and I am a member of the Peetabeck First Nation of the Mushkegowuk tribal territory.
Thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your committee's study on the third edition of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is hosted on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
NACCA represents a national network of 58 indigenous-led lending institutions. Our members make business loans to first nations, Métis and Inuit entrepreneurs. We advocate for our member institutions and on behalf of indigenous business development in general.
As far as I know, I'm the sole indigenous representative invited to speak on the revised code of conduct. This is unsurprising, in a way. Though a number are growing, only a handful of indigenous organizations can be found on the registry of lobbyists. Indeed, indigenous advocacy is in some ways unique, following from the special relationships our people have with the Crown. Paragraph 4(d) of the Lobbying Act exempts members of first nation band councils or self-governing indigenous governments. Many national and regional indigenous organizations might argue that they too are exempt.
For our part, NACCA made the decision to join the registry in 2018 at the urging of our government relations consultant, Isabel Metcalfe. Our registration ensured that the advocacy work would be transparent and guided by the same standards that apply to all organizations.
I will save my few comments on the revised code for the end, using most of my time to explain why we embraced the lobbyist registry and to highlight some of the benefits it has brought to NACCA.
First, we are not rights holders and an entity exempted from the act. Rather, we are a national indigenous organization that operates in a competitive business environment. Ensuring we have a clear record of interactions with public office holders is simply good business practice. The principles set out in the code—ones like integrity, honesty, openness and professionalism—are also front and centre of our own organizational values.
Second, NACCA is, without question, an advocacy organization. We do manage programs. Our indigenous women's entrepreneurship program, for example, offers microloans and business training to indigenous women. However, at our founding in 1997—we just celebrated 25 years—advocacy was our original reason for being, and it remains our focus now. Our cause is the full participation of indigenous people in Canada's economy, and it still cries out for public attention.
Due to barriers not of their own making, aspiring indigenous business owners still lack capital and support to participate in the Canadian economy. We have every reason to remind federal office holders of this. We take pride in the registry's list of meetings, which provides a record of our effort to do so.
Now I'll speak to some of the benefits we have realized since 2018.
The first is that the record itself is freely available to our members, other business organizations and public office holders. Second, our upholding of the code of conduct has helped increase faith in us as a credible, trustworthy organization. Our presence on the registry sends a clear signal. We belong to a growing, new generation of indigenous business leaders who are confident to play by the same rules as other business organizations.
Finally, and most importantly, being a registered organization has opened doors for NACCA at the highest levels. We are a known quantity and have gained access to dialogue and decision-making tables that we could not have dreamed of before.
Your committee invited me here to comment on the proposed draft code of conduct for lobbyists. On this, I would make only three points.
First, the new code puts forward what appears to be reasonable and well-grounded amendments.
Second, some have questioned the hospitality limits as too strict. For our part, we appreciate clear, modest spending limits. They help level the playing field for organizations like ours, which do not have deep pockets.
I would like to compare it to the treaty-making process. My treaty was assigned four-dollar treaty payments that have remained in place for more than a hundred years. It's not reasonable to assume that the value of money maintains the same level of spending. Doing this in legislation is probably a bad idea.
My third and final suggestion would be to canvass the views of other registered indigenous organizations. Our own perspective is shaped by our work as a national advocate for indigenous business development. Other indigenous organizations could well have a different take, and are coming on board in increasing numbers.
To close, I thank you for the invitation to attend this meeting. I welcome any questions you may have.
Meegwetch.