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

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be for Dr. Palmater.

Kwe, Pam. Me tawulain. Pjila'si. Welcome.

Pam, thank you for joining us today. Your book, Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity, was integral to my understanding and knowledge around indigenous identity and the very question that we talk about of indigenous identity. There's no real consensus on that, because it represents three different groups who all have three different ways of trying to verify who they are: first nations—or status Indians, as we know them—Métis, and Inuit.

The biggest issue we're dealing with is how to verify among these three distinct indigenous groups. I'm wondering if you could tell us how you believe we should be looking at how to verify first nations, Métis and Inuit.

You have about four minutes, so you don't have to rush this. Can you talk about the complexities of the different ways in which we would have to look at how we verify the different groups?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Wela'lin, Jaime, for your questions.

Obviously, on the one hand, it can be a very simple issue, and on the other hand, it's very nuanced and complex, with a lot of history. We also don't want to get into a situation in which we have thousands of bureaucrats across the country being the ultimate determinants of who is indigenous and who isn't.

I think we have to break down the easy stuff first for first nations at the outset, and the vast majority of cases are going to be easy. It's just the small segment that we have to weed out. Where do we need to have some grace and some flexibility, and what are the obvious fraudulent cases? On the easy side of things, verification can be as simple as, “Oh, I'm a member of Ugpi'Ganjig. Here you go. Here's my membership.” If I was to apply to a university tomorrow to work, I would have to prove that I'm a Canadian citizen; I'd show my passport. I'd have to prove I was indigenous and prove that I have all the degrees that I say I do, with certified transcripts, so verification isn't new. It shouldn't be considered something that's offensive. It's just that we're always in the business of having to prove ourselves, so that's easy on that side.

With regard to Inuit—and I don't speak for Inuit—they have different land claim areas. They have a different enrolment process. They have lists of who belongs to those different Inuit regions and who doesn't. It would be fairly simple on their end, at least from what I hear from Inuit.

On the Métis side, it's becoming a bit more tricky because of the ways in which fraudulent people have tried to jump on the Métis bandwagon. Instead of just historical Métis who descend from those historical Métis with their own language, culture, history and territory, we now have hundreds of organizations just claiming it, so it's going to be a bit trickier for Métis. That being said, though, we've had guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada that, when it comes to things like constitutionally protected rights, there is a staged process. It's not just self-identification. Does the community accept you, and have you descended from the historical community? These are things that the government can work with the historical Métis nation on to develop how we're going to handle this when we're not certain. I mean, it's pretty easy if someone is a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation; that's going to be easy. If it's some of these other communities, it won't be as easy.

When I talk about grace, I mean there are people, as you know very well, who have had their identities, relationships and connections with their communities impacted or severed. People who went to Indian residential schools or day schools, people who were left at Indian hospitals, people who have been living on the streets, who have been incarcerated, who were part of the sixties scoop, who were in the foster care system.... There are many instances, especially for first nations, in which children weren't registered, and we have to have grace. We have to be able to address those scenarios. However, again, that's fairly easy to prove. It's one thing to say, “Oh, I was impacted by the sixties scoop”, and then it's quite another to say, “Well, look, my mother is a band member. I wasn't registered because I was scooped up, but I can provide this documentation.”

None of this is new. For example, in the few minutes that I have left, I'll just say that in Ontario, when the Liberal government offered free education to indigenous people in the province, you had to verify. We went through a whole consultative process in the province of Ontario with regard to what that would look like, and it looked like things like your band membership, your mother's band membership, or an affidavit from the chief that says you are actually a descendant here or part of the community.

There are a lot of ways we can do it. I just wouldn't want individual bureaucrats to be doing it on their own. I think that it really needs to be in a policy co-created with indigenous experts and governments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Palmater, thank you for being with us. You created the English term “pretendian”. Yesterday, I heard the French term “fauxtochtone”, which is a good way to translate it. I had been looking for a French equivalent for some time. Can you explain what you mean by the term “pretendian”?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

That issue itself is very complex. There's a variety of individuals. Unfortunately, the term “pretendian” is now being used to just cover everybody who isn't currently a registered member of a community, for example.

We really need to separate those who should rightfully be members but aren't because of, say, sex discrimination in the Indian Act—because of amendments, they will be members at some time—versus people who were told by their families that they had some indigenous great-great-great-great-grandmother 400 years in the past, versus people who were told by one of these fraudulent Métis organizations that, yes, you're Métis; yes, we've looked at your documents; yes, you've substantiated it, and here's a card that says you have rights.

There are people who are knowingly committing fraud. There are people who have been kind of scammed into believing they're indigenous. Then there are people on the edges, who are being put into the category of pretendians who shouldn't be. It is quite complex.

I am most concerned about these fraudulent Métis organizations and fraudulent individuals who do know better and who have made it up. We've seen lots of examples of that. I think if we look at the fraudulent groups and individuals, that's different. We need to make sure everyone is aware that membership in a Métis organization, at least according to the Supreme Court of Canada, doesn't cut it. You have to be part of a historical Métis community. We need to get that information out there, because a lot of people have been duped by these organizations.

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

Can you tell us more about the benefits of claiming to be indigenous today? Why do people decide to search a family tree in the hope of finding an indigenous ancestor who lived a few hundred years ago or more recently? What is the point of doing that?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

There are actual benefits and perceived benefits. Some are tangible and some are intangible.

If you're talking about an indigenous procurement policy, and you want to claim that you have an indigenous business to access millions of dollars, that's a very obvious benefit. You're ticking a box, which you know no one will ever see, to try to access those monies, knowing that there's a smaller competition group because there are fewer indigenous people.

On the other side of things, you know that because there's a smaller number of indigenous people in music, in the arts, in Hollywood and in those different industries, you have less competition. By identifying as indigenous, you're far more likely to get an opportunity, a grant and possibly even an award—there might not be money attached to it.

Then there is the intangible stuff: I'm not part of all of the bad stuff that has been done to indigenous people. I have no role in reconciliation. I don't have to care about indigenous rights and be in that category of, “Well, my best friend says he's indigenous, and he doesn't care about land back,” and that person actually isn't indigenous.

There are lots of different reasons. I think some people think that it's just about ancestry and that as long as you have one drop of blood, you have the right to claim everything indigenous. It's a very colonial, exploitative mentality. I've heard lots of different reasons from different people. The perceived economic benefit, the notoriety benefit, the ability to get a job and you don't have to tell anybody—those kinds of things are far more prevalent.

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

I would like to hear you more about what you just said: pretending to be indigenous can give a person a better access to contracts or offer opportunities in the cultural world.

Does claiming to be indigenous also give people opportunities in the public service, for example, to access positions or promotions, especially if it is easy since all they have to do is check a box on a form?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

That's exactly right. I worked 10 years in the federal government, as a lawyer at Justice Canada and at Indian Affairs, as it then was, as a senior director. One problem our very small group of actual indigenous employees had was that there would be these pronouncements that, look, our department has 30% indigenous—

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

I am going to interrupt you, because I only have a few seconds left.

Do you think there should be an internal audit within the various departments that hire people based on their indigenous origins to verify whether there are people who falsely claim an indigenous identity within the Canadian public service?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

It's a bit trickier to go backwards, but yes, I do believe there needs to be accountability in some form, so long as we set up a balancing of human rights at the same time.

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

Thank you, meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Ms. Gazan, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My questions go to you, Pam. It's really nice to see you here.

I want to speak about sexism in the Indian Act and specifically Bill C-38. I know that you're part of the Feminist Alliance for International Action. You did a report on the bill. One of the things the report says is, “this legislative fix is incomplete”. I think this is important for the committee to look at when we're looking at procurement, particularly because there are a number of non-indigenous women who have status and benefit from these programs without any indigenous ancestry at all, because of enfranchisement. Then there are a number of indigenous women, through what we're trying to do, amend the Indian Act, who aren't recognized as having any sort of status or rights under section 35.

Can you talk very briefly about Bill C-38—what it aims to do, where the gaps are and how this indirectly impacts programs like the current federal government procurement program?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Thank you so much for the question. I'm so glad you asked it, because there is very much a gender dimension here.

Indigenous women have long been excluded on the economic front for a large variety of reasons. It's hard to apply for money for an individual business or be part of a business on reserve if you're not actually a member because you're outside of the Indian Act because of sex discrimination. We know this has happened for decades. It means that indigenous women in general are 10 steps behind all other indigenous people. We know that from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. We know that from RCAP. We know that from all the reports we have ever done.

There are still gaps, obviously. We have not gotten rid of all the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. We have a whole working group on that. We hope Bill C-38 will deal with some of that, but Bill C-38 only addresses enfranchisement. In the past, you were involuntarily or voluntarily enfranchised as a woman if your husband was, and so were your kids. How do we bring these women back who are rightful members? Similarly, consultations will be happening in the new year on all our kids or grandkids who are not included because of the second-generation cut-off, who are disproportionately indigenous women and girls.

At every level, you have indigenous women and girls who are disproportionately impacted in an indigenous procurement policy that hasn't been verifying identity to begin with. I would like to see the numbers on how many indigenous women were provided with supports who are actually indigenous. For indigenous women and girls, this means more than just business. This is about how you can provide for yourself and your children in situations of domestic violence, have a house and shelter for yourself and be able to live in a safe location. All of these things are directly related to policies like this.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We know that Bill C-38, again, is the result of a court ruling. I mean, everything that happens is the result of a court ruling. What the federal government is proposing, in fact, is once again incremental justice.

I say that because this is about having the same rights as other women in the country, never mind men. We're just talking about having the same rights as women. What is the problem with the fact that there's a normalization of incrementally providing indigenous women with rights equal to other women? How is that perpetuating violence, even in programs that we could benefit from?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

We know that various United Nations reports have said that sex discrimination in the Indian Act and excluding indigenous women and girls is an underlying root cause of all the violence, discrimination, abuse and neglect of indigenous women and girls. We know that from the national inquiry. If you add that to the indigenous procurement policy, you're just making that fundamentally worse in every single way.

I would argue that this is really about political power, lands and resources, and unjust enrichment. Right now we have a disappearing Indian formula in the Indian Act. The federal government can calculate, and has, when first nations will no longer be in legal existence. That takes away political power, if you're not legally recognized, and you can take lands and resources.

Similarly, look at what's happened; look at what they put in the legislation even when they made incremental changes to bring some of our women back: Oh, by the way, you can't sue us for all of the harms, the suffering and the lost program services in benefits, housing or anything like that.

To me, the longer they delay it, the more of an unjust enrichment they get. They get to save in the long run on how much money they're expending and who has a voice. Who's very powerful right in our nations? Indigenous women. If you don't recognize them, and you keep them separate from their communities, then you're taking away their voices economically, legally, politically and culturally.

I truly believe there is an underlying policy here that is working against indigenous women. It has everything to do with money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gazan.

We'll go to a short second round here. There will be two and a half minutes per party, starting with the Conservative Party.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This has been a really rich conversation so far. Thank you.

I want to raise the issue of exploitative joint ventures as part of procurement. There are obviously plenty of legitimate instances of joint ventures between indigenous and non-indigenous business, but we're hearing a lot about exploitative joint ventures. A non-indigenous partner gets all of the benefit. The indigenous partner realizes almost none of the benefit, but is tacked on in order to allow them to qualify for these set-asides.

One example we heard about recently through a whistle-blower is the Canadian Health Care Agency. Instances of fraud were actually brought to the attention of the government, and they didn't want those passed along. What we're seeing is that joint ventures represent a very small percentage of those on the indigenous business list, yet they are getting a massive proportion of the contracts, especially the large contracts. That suggests there is an instance of these exploitative joint ventures that are taking advantage of these set-asides in order to monopolize the benefit for the non-indigenous side of the partnership. Even to call it a partnership is misleading.

Ms. Restoule, could you comment on the issue of exploitative joint ventures and maybe what steps we could take to address that?

[Karen Restoule]

Yes. On joint ventures, there are instances where it's been very successful. There is an increasing number of first nations who are cutting into resource development projects through equity partnerships and also business partnerships, or joint ventures, if you will, where it is working. It is successful. The community is a large partner in that engagement.

Unfortunately, there are people who are taking advantage of perhaps a reduced capacity or capability of indigenous parties to position themselves fairly within a joint venture, if you will, and taking advantage of those moments to advance their own interests. In my view, at least, these are people who, as I mentioned earlier, believe these programs are seen as preferential treatment and special advantages, and ultimately want to access those for themselves, for their own benefit.

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

Just to clarify, you're basically saying that there's a kind of legal taking advantage of in the context of these partnerships, where the indigenous side may not be empowered to defend their rights; therefore, they're getting exploited by the so-called partner.

[Karen Restoule]

There are people who are exploiting the program, yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Battiste, you have two and a half minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'll go back to Dr. Palmater.

Pam, you mentioned the notion of disappearing Indian status. We've heard from Métis presidents during this study that there is no cut-off for Métis identity. They can have it in perpetuity.

How can we fairly balance procurement to give equal opportunity to Métis and first nations when we have one in perpetuity and one with a second-generation cut-off? What do you think? How do we balance that in terms of fairness and the opportunities that are there, and what do we need to do to address this second-generation cut-off?