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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Chief Haymond, thank you so much for appearing. I take note of your comments on being asked to come on very short notice. I realize how much it takes to prepare for a meeting like this, but these are very important questions we are considering.

You're bringing up repeatedly in your testimony and in your answers how important it is to establish indigenous identity, but your focus, I would say, is not so much on the individual but on the entity. You've spoken a lot to the importance of clear criteria for establishing what constitutes an indigenous identity.

I wonder if you can elaborate on what you would consider proper criteria. You've mentioned indigenous participation in that definition, of course, but what specifically should the criteria be for how you constitute and define an indigenous entity?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I think we have to be fair and realistic given that there is a huge amount of diversity in and among our communities, but absolutely, at the end of the day, clearly we have to have mechanisms to know for certain that a particular business is an indigenous business.

When it's a corporation, it's sometimes easier, because you get to see who the founders are and the members of the corporation. Again, it's about having clear rules and a clear understanding. When it's an individual who owns a company, the rules should be clear: That individual must have a 51% stake in that company, and not just simply on paper.

I think there's work we have to do on our end to validate and ensure that the first nation people who own these businesses are the real owners. That is done through system verification that we develop and design for first nations by first nations. I know that my friends at the NACCA network have been at the forefront of this issue and speaking about what is required. There are a number of possible ways to do it, but it should be left to us to sit down, figure out and decide. It has to be led and developed by first nations.

Given the complexities, I think we need some time to think about what that would look like so as not to penalize any individual communities or first nation individuals' businesses and to ensure that at the end of the day, we do a better job than the federal government has in managing this procurement program since its development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Dr. Hanley.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lemire for two minutes.

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

Thank you.

Chief Haymond, who is Michel J. Tremblay?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Michel Tremblay is an individual who, in the early 2000s, started to claim and exercise rights as a member of the Métis Nation of Ontario. He was exercising these rights in the province of Quebec, on our traditional territory, to which we wholeheartedly objected.

Mr. Tremblay was subsequently charged by the provincial government for 47 offences, from trapping without a licence and hunting without a licence to destruction of the territory. He built roads. He built his own pond. He really believed that he had the right to do so, and as in every other court case the Métis have brought forward in Quebec, he tried to prove that as a Métis citizen, he had rights and the ability to exercise those rights in Quebec. The Quebec Court of Appeal rendered a decision and found Mr. Tremblay guilty of all 47 charges.

While that was going on, Canada continued to address, through a number of bills, issues of people who lost their status through modifications to the Indian Act registration, the last one being Bill S-3. With the subsequent proof issues, Mr. Tremblay ultimately went from being a non-indigenous person to becoming a Métis who exercised rights and was convicted. In his testimony, it was clear that he had some linkages to the Algonquin nation. The problem is that non-status individuals like Mr. Tremblay sometimes mistake who they are and who they represent. Ultimately, as time went by and a number of years passed, the improvements changed, and lo and behold, Mr. Tremblay became a card-carrying member of one of the Algonquin communities, Pikwakanagan, which is in Ontario, as a matter of fact.

The situation with Mr. Tremblay highlights one of the major problems we have with the Métis Nation of Ontario. Many of the individuals who claim to be Métis are in fact non-status individuals who have been removed from our communities for generations. It just shows the extent of the mentality and the mindset that folks like Mr. Tremblay get when they acquire or think they have rights, versus how we look at the world and how we exercise rights as real Algonquin people on the territory.

We can talk about this from an economic perspective. What we see is that, while we prioritize the protection of the territory over everything else, groups like MNO and AOO are ready to give up the protection of the territory for contracts.

The best example for us is the Timiskaming dam replacement project. We've been leading the environmental assessment since 2018 on our behalf and that of two other Algonquin communities. We've engaged our communities. We've had many consultations. Four hundred people have come out and have told us that the new dam has to be built on site. It cannot be relocated because it will have huge detrimental impacts on white sturgeon.

The MNO, because they are more interested in pre- and post-monitoring contracts, simply spoke to four of their members. They decided that the best location to build this new bridge is in the spawning bed, because it will create work for them. It will create pre- and post-monitoring work. Plus, they will be responsible for creating the offset. If they destroy the spawning bed, they have to build a new one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry, Chief. I'll have to interject at this point. We're quite a bit over time. If you want to provide more evidence, please submit it in writing.

We'll go to Ms. Idlout for two minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Before you start my two minutes, I want to share my issue with you unilaterally abridging the time. We had one hour with Lance, and cutting my time by even 30 seconds is a big cut for me. I'm sure Mr. Lemire feels the same way.

Knowing that we have extra resources to be here longer, I just wanted to share that really quickly, but I will proceed with asking my question. You can start my time now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Please do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Chief Haymond, the indigenous business directory has been a paternalistic process. The Liberals introduced the directory without consulting indigenous peoples first, and Ms. Hajdu said when she appeared before us yesterday that she is working with indigenous peoples on reforming the directory.

How can first nations, Inuit and Métis trust the process to fix a problem that was created by the Liberals in the first place?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

That's a very good question, Madam Idlout. I think you know that the challenge has always been the trust factor when somebody else creates an entity that, at the end of the day, we recognize doesn't work.

I'll go back to my original comments. As you know, the things that the government tends to develop, they do for a specific purpose—a specific reality and an objective they want to achieve. As the shortcomings of the current process have been explicitly highlighted, we should look at this as an opportunity for a reset, rather than having government dictating and telling us what the rules of the game are in federal procurement. Many bright and intelligent first nation citizens have already been before this committee—and others will be coming after me today—and they have spoken to what some of those solutions could be. Those all have to be, as I will mention continually, first nation-developed, first nation-led and first nation-implemented. What that ultimately looks like will be determined once we've had an opportunity to come together, have the discussions and bring forward an option that meets the needs of first nations better than the regime that's currently in place.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's important that we have programs like the procurement set-aside to give advantage to first nation businesses that have been disadvantaged in all other aspects, but we must do so in a way that ensures contracts are going to legitimate first nation individuals and businesses, not to individuals who can claim status on the basis of a policy.

At the end of the day, if you want to determine who is indigenous, first nation, Inuit or Métis, we all need to play by the same rules. Governments should not be in a position to create Indians when it's convenient, as they have done with Algonquins of Ontario. What it does is sets us, the real Algonquins, on the sidelines while Canada negotiates a treaty with, essentially, 7,000 non-indigenous people who were given the right to call themselves Algonquin through a government policy, not through the same standard that I have to follow to be called an Algonquin by the same government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That will conclude our panel. I want to say a special thank you to Chief Haymond for appearing today.

We are going to briefly suspend right now as we switch over to our next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I want to start by welcoming the witnesses for our next panel.

We have with us, from the ITK, Natan Obed, president, and William David, director of legal services. We also have Leah Ballantyne, as an individual, in person, and by video conference, Brian Doxtator, chief executive officer and principal of Pure Spirit Solutions.

I want to welcome our witnesses for our second panel. You will each have five minutes for opening statements, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

We will start with ITK. The floor is yours.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik.

Good morning—ulaakut—everyone. Thank you so much for having me here to present to you this morning.

ITK, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, is the national representational organization for the Inuit of Canada. All Inuit in Canada have concluded modern treaties with the government. The Inuit treaty organizations are the Nunatsiavut government, Makivvik, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Our homeland, Inuit Nunangat, comprises over 74% of Canada's shoreline and over 36% of Canada's land mass.

I'm surprised to have this opportunity to discuss the barriers to economic development report, a report that included testimony from only two Inuit witnesses and contained no specific recommendations related to Inuit or Inuit Nunangat. In fact, while this report discussed barriers specific to first nations and Métis peoples, it contained only one section for northern and remote communities. This categorization includes Inuit and a range of other indigenous and non-indigenous communities, implying the committee was uninterested in barriers specific to Inuit and Inuit Nunangat. Lumping policy considerations for Inuit into categorizations with all northern and remote communities is precisely the kind of analysis that leads to the challenges that Canada currently faces with indigenous identity fraud in procurement, economic development, academia and the arts.

The barriers and challenges to developing distinctions-based policies, as well as assessing whether or not federal programs benefit Inuit, are among the reasons Inuit and the Crown codeveloped the federal Inuit Nunangat policy. The Inuit Nunangat policy is a core deliverable of the Inuit-Crown partnership committee and contains an entire annex devoted specifically to procurement policy.

The Inuit Nunangat policy identifies the Inuit treaties, the Inuit collective rights holders of Canada, which are Inuit treaty organizations, and Inuit as members of those organizations. In the context of procurement, this is an essential element of the policy because it provides a foundation for the federal government to rely on regarding how Inuit identify Inuit businesses.

Each Inuit treaty organization has already developed definitions of an Inuit business. In some cases, the definition of an Inuit business is related to modern treaty rights. Together, the working group developed a definition for Inuit businesses outside of Inuit Nunangat and is in the process of revising procurement guidance and policies to increase Inuit participation in federal procurement.

Canada is an Arctic state, and Canada's Arctic requires substantial investment to be secure. Expanded procurement opportunities, including defence procurement opportunities, will provide a basis to develop a robust private sector to support Inuit Nunangat.

Canada can no longer indulge the imagination or pretense of those who make claims but are unrecognized by Inuit. Supporting false indigenous people serves to undermine the effectiveness, purpose and objectives of Canada's indigenous policies and programs. In an increasingly dangerous world, indulging in fantasies that support indigenous identity fraud will be used by foreign actors to drive wedges between and among Canadians, undermining our shared national unity.

Inuit interests are Canada's interests within Inuit Nunangat. Our shared interests are our strength, and by working together, we can make Canada a stronger, safer and more secure country.

Nakurmiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, President Obed.

Next we'll move to Ms. Ballantyne.

You have five minutes or less for your opening remarks.

[Leah Ballantyne, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Kinana'skomitina'wa'w for inviting me today to speak this the House of Commons standing committee about its second report, entitled “Barriers to Economic Development in Indigenous Communities”.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the Anishinabe Algonquin nation and the unceded lands that we now call Ottawa and that we meet upon today. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague and leader Natan Obed, who's beside me, for starting us in our business today.

I extend my gratitude to each and every one of you for being here today. I think it's important to gather together and share stories of the truth of the origin of our friendship and sacred covenants to one another.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

My name is Leah Ballantyne. I am a member of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation of Pukatawagan and also of the Highrock and Prayer River Ethiniwak in Manitoba. We are signatory to Treaty 6. With the effecting of Treaty 6 in the year 1876, it was entered into as a peace treaty. It was sanctioned by ceremony through the sharing of the peace pipe and the burning of sacred tobacco. The significance of the pipe ceremony is that the governors and commissioners of Treaty 6 accepted the friendship of the tribe.

I will quote from the late treaty commissioner and honourable lieutenant governor of Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the Keewatin district, Alexander Morris, who in 1876 wrote:

What wonder that the Indian mind was disturbed, and what wonder was it that a Plain chief, as he looked upon the strange wires stretching through his land, exclaimed to his people, “We have done wrong to allow that wire to be placed there, before the Government obtained our leave to do so”....

The government of Canada had, anticipating the probabilities of such a state of affairs, wisely resolved, that contemporaneously with the formal establishment of their rule, there should be formed alliances with the Indians. In 1870 the Parliament of Canada created the requisite machinery for the Government of the Province of Manitoba and of the North-West Territories respectively....

Today, we refer to a report and the work of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In my opinion, this work is an abrogation and derogation of our treaty and sacred covenant, and it casts aspersions on both domestic and international law.

Canada has recognized our treaty rights through section 35 of Canada's Constitution, the supreme law of Canada, which states:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Section 25 further protects section 35 and “ensures that no other provision of the Charter can take away or supersede those rights.”

The motion at the heart of this meeting today offends the aboriginal and treaty-protected rights in Canada's Constitution. In our sacred treaty, no word or term such as “indigenous” is used anywhere in any document. Furthermore, there is no shared treaty within our territory with any other aboriginal group named in the Constitution.

The committee document purports to create space for “indigenous communities”, but creates confusion and the potential for indigenous identity fraud by introducing ill-defined concepts of eligibility to the group “indigenous” without a true definition of the term.

The term “indigenous” was recently popularized by the dialogue about and adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP used the term “indigenous” toward a global audience to encompass first peoples from around the globe inclusively and to uphold minimum standards of basic human rights. The Government of Canada has now adopted this term in deference to a distinction-based approach of aboriginal peoples as defined in Canada's Constitution.

The word “indigenous” derives from the Latin indigena, meaning “native” or “sprung from the land”. The word is used to describe not only people, but also flora and fauna, which infuses a sense of wilderness to the name, while disengaging from our important shared history, legal covenants and obligations.

As first nations or nehiyaw iyiniw—Indians, as we are referred to in treaties and the Constitution—we have had our lands occupied by settlers. The concept of indigeneity is settler- and colonial-oriented. The word “indigenous” has been exploited as a colonial tool and conduit to bestow identity, inclusion and, purportedly, aboriginal and treaty rights onto a group of ordinary Canadian citizens who do not qualify for such rights.

This is the heart of the issue of indigenous identity fraud. These actions or policies can and must be stopped. In the words of Alexander Morris, “Since 1870...there now remain no Indian nations in the North-West, inside of the fertile belt, who have not been dealt with.”

I urge the standing committee to stand down this report. Stand up our constitutional rights, for us and for all Canadians. Any introduction of identity other than what already exists under aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights, which are constitutionally protected rights, would be an abrogation and derogation of our supreme laws and sacred covenants.

Hay hay. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w. Thank you for your time and your attention to my statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ballantyne.

We'll move on to our third witness. We'll go to Mr. Doxtator, by video conference.

You have five minutes or less for your opening remarks.

[Brian Doxtator, Chief Executive Officer and Principal, Pure Spirit Solutions]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the clerk and all committee members for inviting us today and for prioritizing the important discussion on barriers to indigenous economic development. Economic opportunity is central to advancing reconciliation for past injustices.

My name is Brian Doxtator. I'm a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, on Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, and CEO and majority owner of Pure Spirit Solutions Inc., an IT value-added reseller specializing in workplace technology, data centres and audiovisual solutions. I purchased the company in January 2024 after selling my majority share of an Ottawa-based electrical contracting business three years ago.

During due diligence, I identified that Pure Spirit was PSIB-compliant, certified as an indigenous business by the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business and listed in the indigenous business directory. I also found that Pure Spirit had been audited by Indigenous Services Canada in June 2022 for PSIB compliance, with no issues.

While Pure Spirit delivers value through the right products at the right price and time, we're committed to adhering to procurement standards and ethical practices. We're proud of our contributions to the indigenous community, including our support for Focus Forward for Indigenous Youth. This nationally registered charity offers employment and skills development for indigenous youth.

We sponsor an annual bursary and scholarship at Algonquin College for indigenous students in technology, business or marketing and communications programs and provide corporate sponsorship to the Masters Indigenous Games. Additionally, our staff leads fundraising activities for the Moose Hide Campaign, raising awareness to combat gender-based violence.

Though my electrical contracting business was majority indigenous-owned and I explored certification in 2014, I decided not to pursue it due to the complexity of the certification process and the resources required to engage in the federal government procurement process at that time. While there's been some clarity since then, we believe that significant barriers still remain for indigenous businesses to participate in federal government procurement activities.

Many federal procurement vehicles are highly technical, requiring specific skills to interpret and prepare bids that comply with specifications. To compete, companies must invest in attracting and retaining the necessary talent and administrative resources. While we understand the need for efficient procurement, the lowest-priced bid mentality often leaves indigenous businesses struggling. Even when successful, profit margins are thin. Perhaps weighing factors other than the lowest possible price could ease this barrier.

Another challenge for some indigenous businesses is access to reliable high-speed Internet. This has become more important since the pandemic, which has increased the need for remote work specifically to attract staff from rural and northern communities. Efforts to improve Internet access are under way, but demand certainly exceeds the available capacity.

We agree with strengthening the indigenous business verification process and enforcing penalties for non-compliance. Codeveloping procurement policies between indigenous businesses and federal agencies could help to address current barriers.

Pure Spirit is committed to ethical leadership and advancing indigenous economic empowerment. As we grow, we aim to provide more employment and career development opportunities for the indigenous community. Nearly 40% of our staff are indigenous, and we plan to increase that. Growth will allow us to support a wider variety of indigenous initiatives, further strengthening our country. This was my vision when purchasing Pure Spirit, and it remains our path forward.

I thank you again for the opportunity to speak today, and I hope the deliberations will result in enforceable recommendations to address the issues raised. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Doxtator.

We will move into our first round of questions, a six-minute round, starting with Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you to all our witnesses.

Mr. Doxtator, you said that you're the majority owner of Pure Spirit. Could you tell us who the minority owners are?

[Brian Doxtator]

The minority owners are David and Coreen Bouchard.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Could you tell us about the relationship between Pure Spirit and PureLogicIT, another IT company?

[Brian Doxtator]

PureLogicIT is a company that's wholly owned by David and Coreen Bouchard. They are the minority owners of my business and they have their own IT business.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You have the same address as PureLogicIT. Is that correct? You operate out of the same suite in the same building.

[Brian Doxtator]

We operate in the same building. We rent a portion of the ground floor of this building from PureLogicIT.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Both your addresses are listed online as being at suite 200, though.