Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2024

[Leah Ballantyne]

I think that part of the issue—really, the heart of it—comes to an issue of governance. When you're dealing directly with rights holders, that is a good thing. You're going to get the proper identification when dealing directly with communities such as the one that I come from. We have a treaty.

If we're relying on other organizations that the Métis fall under, or even the Assembly of First Nations, again, these are non-profit entities or societies created under the Societies Act. They're not built as true governance structures vis-à-vis a third order of government that was likely envisioned under section 35.

Claiming this identity is still going to be an issue until the governance issue is resolved. I think that in the meantime the government could put a full stop to having the ticky box, self-checking, self-identity part of the process for this procurement strategy or, indeed, for any academic or any other institution within the country.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Some situations arise, particularly in Quebec.

In my riding, a community claims to be indigenous, but it has no rights. It will receive funding from Canadian Heritage to carry out reconciliation-related activities, simply because its members have self-identified as indigenous. However, they do not have to prove their legal legitimacy.

In addition, indigenous communities lack funding to organize their powwows.

Is it not an imbalance or a misuse of public funds, in your opinion?

[Leah Ballantyne]

I think any funding to any organization that self-identifies without any proof or evidence needs to be stopped immediately. Again, the use of non-profits or societies to purport that right onto otherwise ordinary Canadian citizens needs to stop—full stop.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Our last questioner for this panel will be Ms. Idlout.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

I must say, Ms. Ballantyne, that I think what you just stated also applies to corporations, and not just non-profits.

I'd like to ask Natan another couple of questions.

In my view, the Liberals' weak responses to addressing pretendians, including the newly created Inuit collective, is resulting in economic barriers for Inuit. In your perspective, what can the Liberals do more decisively to reconcile with Inuit from Inuit Nunangat?

[Natan Obed]

Inuit have written to the Prime Minister and have asked him to ensure that the Government of Canada does not recognize NCC as an Inuit collective and does not fund NCC for any Inuit-specific programs or services. We know that there is a fixed amount of money for the equity we are seeking and the implementation of our rights. We are worried that we are not able to get to equity quickly enough because of the funds that are mistakenly used for indigenous peoples who have no standing.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

What does it mean to you that the Prime Minister is not listening to you and that they are continuing to fund that collective?

[Natan Obed]

I do wonder why it's so difficult, especially when Inuit very clearly, through our self-determining process, have come forward as the national Inuit collective and have firmly given the Prime Minister a clear, articulated reason as to why the Government of Canada should not legitimize this particular fraudulent Inuit collective. It confuses me.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That concludes our panel.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. If there is anything else you would like to submit that you weren't able to get to, please do so in writing at your earliest convenience.

With that, we will suspend very briefly while we change over to our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call the meeting back to order.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the next panel.

Joining us in person, we have Mr. Darryl Leroux, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa. By video conference, we have Lorne Pelletier, senior economic adviser to the president of the Manitoba Métis Federation.

We'll go to opening remarks, starting with Mr. Leroux.

You have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Darryl Leroux, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Thank you for the invitation.

Research suggests that indigenous identity fraud has been on the rise for the past 20 years. There is a consensus among scholars who study the phenomenon that the Supreme Court of Canada's 2003 Powley decision empowered French Canadian individuals to shift their identities, especially to such eastern Métis variants as Acadian Métis, Mi'kmaq Métis, Quebec Métis and Algonquin Métis.

It is important to note that about 10 million Canadians have a tiny fraction of indigenous ancestry going back to a handful of indigenous women born in New France before 1650. I am among those Canadians, as is Céline Dion, Mario Lemieux, Maurice Richard, Quebec Premier François Legault and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Overall, about 75% of French Canadian or Québécois persons share that genealogical profile. There's nothing unique about it.

Since the mid to late 2000s, tens of thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations have emerged to argue that they are Métis under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, in so doing, they misinterpret the Powley decision, which clearly stated that indigenous ancestry on its own does not mean one is aboriginal under the Constitution. The eastern Métis movement has gone on to lose nearly 125 separate court cases in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia—most of them since 2018—in which individuals and/or their organizations have sought legal recognition as distinct Métis people under the Constitution. Of the dozens of judges who have heard these cases, including several on provincial courts of appeal, all found that the individuals before them didn't meet the Powley test—without exception.

Despite repeated failure in the courts; continued opposition to their claims by the federal and all provincial governments, for the most part; and widespread opposition by first nations and, as we heard earlier, the Inuit, these false claims to indigenous identity continue to be taken at face value by such public institutions as universities, research and arts funding agencies, school boards, and the federal public service, where self-identification is the norm. There are currently thousands of white Canadians employed as so-called indigenous people, often hired with funding for reconciliation. Billions of dollars in salaries, grant funding and business procurement earmarked for indigenous individuals disappear into the coffers of white Canadians every year.

After extensive conversation with indigenous employee groups at several federal ministries or agencies, I believe no more than a third of employees in positions reserved for or with preference for an indigenous employee are indigenous. This is in the federal public service. Efforts by actual indigenous employees to advocate for a clear policy on indigenous identity fraud have been repeatedly thwarted over the past decade, as these whistle-blowers face the reality that indigenous identity fraudsters run their departments and/or agencies.

As an illustrative example, the federal government continues to provide millions of dollars in annual funding to the Native Alliance of Quebec for housing and other initiatives, even though the alliance long ago ceased to represent indigenous people. Repeated media reports, complaints filed by indigenous organizations and scholarly material have all clearly explained what is happening. A recent court case, Alliance autochtone du Québec c. Procureur général du Québec—the decision came out just a few months ago—even confirmed that its lax membership criteria ensures that the NAQ doesn't represent indigenous people. Nonetheless, Indigenous Services Canada continues to fund indigenous social housing in the province of Quebec that mostly goes to white individuals. Thus, it is no surprise that these types of systemic problems exist in the federal government's procurement policies for indigenous businesses, as the Canadian government has refused to address this issue head-on.

This past summer, representatives of a first nation in Quebec brought the case of the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business to my attention. The CCIB has provided accreditation to over 25,000 indigenous businesses. It recently collaborated with Indigenous Services Canada to produce the report entitled “Untapped Potential: A Case Study of Indigenous Economic Development Corporation Capacity in Federal Procurement”. But the CCIB's criteria for determining if a business is indigenous are sufficiently broad to include thousands of businesses with no connection to an indigenous person. I actually wrote them about this in April and gave them detailed reasoning as to why their criteria includes non-indigenous businesses. They never responded. As such, their accreditation program is a main vehicle through which individuals involved in indigenous identity fraud have been legitimizing their claims.

The solution to Canadians stealing resources set aside for indigenous peoples and communities is for the federal government to lead the way and adopt a clear policy on indigenous identity fraud that is inclusive of those who have been disconnected from their communities due to policies and laws such as the Indian Act, residential schools and the sixties scoop, while also being exclusive of those whose claim is otherwise rejected by the courts, governments and first nations in their respective territories.

The days when self-identification was a sufficient measure of indigeneity have passed as Canadians continue to demonstrate the extent to which they are willing to go to continue to steal opportunities from indigenous people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leroux.

Next we'll go to Mr. Pelletier.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Lorne Pelletier, Senior Economic Advisor to the President, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation.

My name is Lorne Pelletier. I am senior economic adviser to President David Chartrand of the Manitoba Métis Federation. I'm joining you from the heart of our homeland in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

As the committee knows, the Red River Métis are a recognized aboriginal people under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Our people were and continue to be Canada's partner in Confederation. Our people have always been known for our hard work ethic and entrepreneurship, going back to the days of our buffalo hunts.

The Manitoba Métis Federation is the national government of our people, as outlined in the MMF constitution, which includes our definition for citizenship. It is reflected in our democratic processes, and it's acknowledged through the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty that we signed with Canada just 10 days ago.

I'd like to begin my opening remarks by commending the Government of Canada for introducing the 5% indigenous procurement mandate in 2021. The policy reflects true and tangible indigenous reconciliation and has the potential to advance the economic participation of Red River Métis in meaningful ways.

While the policy is a good one, the committee is aware of the issues and barriers in its administration and delivery. Our Red River Métis businesses continue to face some of those barriers to participation in Canada's indigenous procurement. I would suggest to the committee that the Manitoba Métis Federation is prepared and ready to be part of the solution.

In her appearance at committee yesterday, the Honourable Patty Hajdu, in response to a question, spoke to the engagement with various indigenous entities over the past year regarding the transformative indigenous procurement strategy and, based on her response to the committee, she will be providing a written list of those entities. You will find the Manitoba Métis Federation on that list. We have been a positive and constructive contributor to the discussion. In fact, when we have presented on our work at the co-development table, I humbly suggest to the committee that what the MMF is doing and what we've been sharing is seen in many respects as the leading practice in the country.

The committee may not be aware, but the Manitoba Métis Federation has its own established Red River Métis business registry and an online Red River Métis business directory that is administered by our Louis Riel Capital Corporation, the Manitoba Métis Federation's indigenous financial institution.

Our Red River Métis business directory currently has 776 registered Red River Métis businesses. For perspective, that is the equivalent to over 25% of the federal indigenous business directory, yet less than 5% of our businesses are listed on the federal IBD.

To register on our directory, businesses have to go through a verification of a majority ownership process administered by the Louis Riel Capital Corporation. For for the committee's awareness, the Louis Riel Capital Corporation just celebrated its 32nd anniversary of serving Red River Métis businesses and entrepreneurs.

Through our process, the Red River Métis business owners are equally validated for their citizenship with the Manitoba Métis Federation's citizenship registry, which is administered by the MMF central registry office. In essence, each one of our businesses is verified for majority Red River Métis ownership, and the owner or owners are validated as Red River Métis.

The issue at present is that our directory is not currently recognized as a valid source for confirmation of an indigenous business under the current system. As a result, any contract established between Canada or one of its prime contractors looking to subcontract with a Red River Métis business does not count against the federal department's 5% requirement. The effect is that our Red River Métis businesses are disregarded, not given the opportunity or encouraged to register on the federal indigenous business directory.

The IBD registration, for your awareness, can be onerous, but more than that, our businesses are already registered with our own government business directory. It is a matter of principle and acts of self-determination and self-government that have driven our intensive work with our own business directory.

On behalf of President Chartrand and our government, I would ask that the committee give strong consideration to our Red River Métis business directory being recognized as a legitimate source for indigenous procurement.

Considering our Red River Métis business registry as a source for federal procurement would contribute to the efforts of federal departments in meeting their mandatory requirements and would, without question, be a tangible act of reconciliation, and it would absolutely result in increased Red River Métis participation in our economy.

Thank you again for the invitation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pelletier, and I also want to thank you for your flexibility in timing today as well. It's much appreciated

With that, we are going to our first round of questions, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I find it very interesting when we talk about self-identification. There was a frontiersman in the northwest United States—Colorado and Wyoming—by the name of Kit Carson. His wife was indigenous. He's in my family tree, but I would never have considered claiming that as self-identification. Yet we have MPs—the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Nickel Belt—and have a Liberal candidate in Vancouver, who have used this and have been discredited.

We've also heard, from a prior witness, how this has occurred in many other parts of our country and in many different organizations. This is a great risk, in my mind, to your character and to your reputation. What is the attraction? What has the government and their bureaucracy developed in their policies that draws people to want to do this? You've done a lot of research. Why are people doing this?

[Darryl Leroux]

Thank you.

I think there there are many reasons. There's not just one reason. There are a number of social reasons that help to explain. There's a certain way in which individuals, in particular, are looking for some sense of belonging. Post the major changes that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s with civil rights movements and with other movements against racism and colonialism, what you see is that white Americans and white Canadians want to distance themselves from being white. They want to somehow evade either responsibility or guilt for some of the historical and contemporary ways in which racism is experienced by indigenous peoples and by other racialized people.

I think that's part of it. As part of that movement, you see that there's a valorization for what are called “ethnic minority groups”. In the United States and in Canada, you see Italian Canadians and Italian Americans, Irish Canadians and Irish Americans, Scottish...etc., who start to value their particular ethnic identity in order to move away from being seen as simply white. That's part of the story. There's a way in which white Canadians no longer want to be understood as white, and one way to do that is to rely on ancestry from a long time ago.

I also think it's part of this process of what we call “settler colonialism”, which really seeks to eliminate, in different ways, indigenous peoples from the landscape, whether that's through assimilation or through other policies that especially aim to render indigenous political entities as simply cultural organizations that the state or the Crown has no responsibility towards. There's this idea, generally, that circulates—and I think one of my colleagues, Kim TallBear, has written extensively about—that indigenous peoples will disappear one day, and this is part of that disappearing act. If all Canadians or millions of Canadians who were not indigenous suddenly claimed to be indigenous and were accepted as such, what would happen to actual indigenous people?

I think that's also part of what's going on—this larger movement. Maybe I'll just leave it at that. I don't think it's just a question of people doing this for financial gain; although, that is certainly part of it in some cases. There are other reasons as well.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

In this particular case, as we study it, we find that it's probably a program that's developed. It leads to that.

I'm going to go to the Red River Métis Association where you only have 5% of the grants, when your registered business are over 25% of the federal indigenous business directory. You have an indigenous organization, the Red River Métis, that goes through a thorough process, and we had a witness earlier say that this is how it should be done. There should be indigenous involvement in certifying and recognizing it. Is this the problem that we have then with the federal level? Is it that we do not have that level of indigenous involvement at the federal level to recognize who should be applying?

[Lorne Pelletier]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Shields.

First off, I would just like to say that the Manitoba Métis Federation is the recognized national government of the Red River Métis. We're not an association and we're not an organization. We represent our people through our duly elected, democratically elected government.

On the matter of our directory and the opportunities with federal procurement, absolutely, it's fundamentally anchored in self-determination and reflective of self-government that we have a directory of our businesses that are owned by citizens registered with us.

In terms of how it connects and intersects with the federal government, our position is clear. It's time to recognize our directory as a source for those in the Government of Canada who are looking to establish contracts to meet their 5% mandated requirement, to essentially be able to meet their targets and create economic opportunity for our people and for our businesses.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Next we are moving to Ms. Gainey for six minutes.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I will direct my questions to the Manitoba Métis Federation.

Yesterday, we heard from the Métis Nation of Alberta, who mentioned that they use a national definition derived from the Métis National Council. Can you expand a little bit for us on which definition you use to determine citizenship?

[Lorne Pelletier]

Yes, absolutely, Ms. Gainey. Thank you for the question.

Within the Manitoba Métis Federation constitution, you will find our definition, which outlines the four key criteria by which someone meets our citizenship requirements. These are, of course, administered by our citizenship registry on an ongoing basis. That criteria are as follows:

“Métis” means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and who is accepted by the Métis Nation.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Yesterday as well, we heard from the Métis Nation of Alberta that they don't discuss individual cases with respect to citizenship, so in a sense, their citizens are not known, or it's not publicly available. Do you have a similar practice in Manitoba?