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

[Natan Obed]

The preferred way that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami wishes to have a relationship with the Government of Canada is directly with the Government of Canada. Whether it's our Inuit treaty organizations in each of our four treaty jurisdictions, or at the national level through ITK, or at the international level through the Inuit Circumpolar Council of Canada, for the express clarity of all governments and all Canadians, we hold those responsibilities, as do our Inuit treaty organizations.

Our understanding is that the CCIB does not have Inuit as part of its governance. No matter if it did or didn't, it is not a democratically functional Inuit institution. Therefore, the Government of Canada should treat it like it does many other NGOs or any other organizations that have been created for a specific champion or a specific purpose, but in no official capacity and no rights-holding capacity whatsoever. They're fundamentally different things. When you go to Alberta, do you talk to the Alberta government or do you talk to a group of people who've mobilized in Alberta who say that they want to talk to you?

The Government of Canada very clearly understands the rules in provinces and territories, but with indigenous peoples, sometimes it very clearly does not abide by the same structures it does for other governments.

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

What solution should be put in place to counter other people using fraudulently your identity?

[Natan Obed]

We've been working with this government on the implementation of the Inuit Nunangat policy. We're hoping for more certainty on that policy, which was adopted by the Government of Canada in April of 2022. It clearly defines who Inuit in Canada are. It also clearly excludes any new Inuit collectives that are not a part of Inuit Nunangat.

We hope that the Government of Canada in all of its business will uphold the Inuit Nunangat policy and also the definition of Inuit, as described by Inuit, through Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. We are the national expression of Inuit democracy in this country. I've championed that as a diplomat to all of you that the Government of Canada respect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Next we'll go to Ms. Idlout for six minutes, please.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

I want to respond very quickly to your criticism about having only two Inuit witnesses at the beginning. Rightly so, but from the committee's perspective, we did invite other Inuit to appear who didn't. We did make attempts. My thanks to Andy Morehouse from Makivvik and to Nunasi Corporation for appearing. We were able to get at least some voices in there.

I wanted to ask questions about the CCIB. From what you're aware, is CCIB an organization led by rights holders?

[Natan Obed]

I can't speak to first nations or Métis, but for Inuit, no. We do have rights-holding relationships with certain partners, where Inuit, through Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, identify individual Inuit who will be appointed to serve Inuit interests in other bodies. In the CCIB case, no, we don't have that relationship with them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Do you think there are problems with the federal government using CCIB to lead the indigenous procurement reform?

[Natan Obed]

We think the federal government is best suited to lead that reform. We hope the federal government will solemnly undertake the duties for implementation of its programs, policies and legislation, as it does with any host of different policy areas and files.

Sometimes with indigenous-specific files, the government gets quite worried about the ability to implement and enforce, but for us, for Inuit, we are quite pleased when the government takes that obligation. It shows that it cares about its relationship with us to actually do the hard work of administration and of compliance. Recourse and remedy for anyone who does not comply with Canadian government policy is much easier through federal processes than through outsourced third party processes. We would like the strength of Canada in the enforcement of these particular initiatives.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you so much.

I know that, as a national indigenous organization for Inuit, you've had opportunities to work as well with AFN and with the Métis National Council. I'm aware, for example, that the AFN, at their 45th AGM, passed a resolution to have a first nations-led procurement organization. Does ITK have any similar resolutions to that effect?

[Natan Obed]

We're fortunate that, within each one of our treaty organizations, in many cases, there are land claim implementation processes that have allowed for official Inuit businesses to have registries and to have opportunities within their jurisdictions. At the national level, we have our Inuit economic development body that hopefully will be able to mobilize in the national space as well, but we have such a strong foundation that we can clearly use at the national level for any sorts of economic development opportunities or procurement opportunities. However, we have not, at ITK, passed a resolution that has created a specific administrative body for that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Okay, thank you so much.

You've mentioned the problems with the new Inuit collective, and I'm aware that this newly created Inuit collective has been getting funding from the federal government. I wonder what your view is on the federal government funding the newly created Inuit collective as an indigenous organization. Do you think that is against reconciliation?

[Natan Obed]

That's a very important question. The self-determination of indigenous peoples and the idea of who indigenous peoples are in this country have not been exclusively the domain of first nations, Inuit and Métis. The federal government has played an essential role in negotiating with us on the beneficiary provisions within our land claim agreements, so the issue of who are a part of the Inuit collective is an expression of not just Inuit self-determination, but also partnership with the country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but I have such limited time.

[Natan Obed]

I'm sorry.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Do you think that it's against reconciliation when the federal government funds organizations such as indigenous organizations of this newly created Inuit collective?

[Natan Obed]

I think it greatly impedes reconciliation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Given the timing, we're going to have a shortened second round. We'll have two and a half minutes for all four parties here. We will start with Mr. Shields.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

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

It's interesting that, after nine years, if it were so important to him to appoint an ambassador for the north why it took him nine years to do it.

For Pure Spirit Solutions, you had 112 contracts in 2024. That's quite a few.

I would really like to address my questions to Leah Ballantyne.

We have an MP from Edmonton who has been discredited for his claim of being Métis. We have another one, the member for Nickel Belt, who has used it, but the Algonquins of Ontario have discredited him. We also have a Liberal candidate in Vancouver running for election, who claimed it and was discredited.

Why would people risk their political reputation? What are they doing to claim this indigenous status? Why? I know that you're researching this and that you do this. This is what you do.

[Leah Ballantyne]

There are gaps in the term “indigenous”, so there's room there for identity fraud to happen, and there are benefits to claiming that identity. Obviously—with the standing committee here—the economic procurement strategy is a great benefit if someone can get their company listed on that registry. That is one benefit, but we've seen other identity frauds in education and in the arts. Specifically, in education, there are people who have advanced their entire careers to become doctoral or Ph.D. candidates under the guise of indigenous identity fraud. The heart of the problem really lies in term “indigenous” having kind of been a catch-all phrase for everyone. The other issue with it is that “Métis” is not defined. In fact, I beg to ask this committee where the definition of “Métis” is; I don't see it. I also see in recommendations 25 and 26 that the Métis get put on the same level as the first nations and Inuit, the three partners under section 35. Not having that legal definition of “Métis” is highly problematic, and it's a deep problem.

Question were previously asked about the Assembly of First Nations. I couldn't even say that the governance structure of the AFN would be the same as that of the organization of my friend here—who is running a proper governance structure under ITK—because the AFN is actually a non-profit organization that might speak to the rights of first nation holders if they choose to enter that avenue. It gets really convoluted right from there, and you have Métis organizations that are non-profit entities or societies under the Societies Act that purport to hand out rights to ordinary Canadian citizens who may choose to seek an accolade or a benefit from claiming that identity. That is the heart of the fraud, and that's what needs to stop at this committee level. If that definition of “Métis” were further defined, I don't think we would have the issue we have right now. A lot of it also has to do with self-identification. Without a proper definition of “Métis”, this problem is going to run rampant until it's resolved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I have to jump in here, but thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Next we'll be moving to Mr. McLeod for two and a half minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I really appreciate your coming to speak to us today.

It's a very important issue that we're discussing today. The fiscal reality in the north with our indigenous governments is, at times, very bleak. We have 15 tables where negotiations are going on, and self-governance and land claims are what people are trying to achieve. Up to 2015, the government of the day—the Conservative governments—only wanted to use own-source revenue to fund the indigenous governments. Once they achieve self-governance and are attempting to be shoulder-to-shoulder with other governments, indigenous governments still have to find a way to pay for the governance—for their people, for their staff, for offices, for everything. That changed in 2015. We started looking at self-government fiscal policies that will fund governments properly. We've introduced a 5% minimum procurement, which I don't think the Conservatives support, and at some point, they will probably cut it if the government changes. It's really important that we recognize that today we're talking about a fiscal tool that indigenous governments will use. Procurement is part of many different sources that they'll need because there's no one source that will finance a government properly.

Maybe I'll start with you, Natan. Could you talk about the government's position in procurement and whether there needs to be more done so that indigenous governments can move forward? I know we talked about all kinds of problems with the process that people are identifying, but what do we need? This is an opportunity to talk about economic development in our communities, so I'd like to hear your recommendations.

[Natan Obed]

Thanks for that.

I think we are well on our way in some areas, but the barriers still remain for infrastructure, for connectivity and also for expansive policies that enable, in our case, for ITK, our Inuit businesses to succeed. We are also in a new frontier for intellectual property, and the consideration for how we can protect Inuit intellectual property and things specific to Inuit society, culture and business moving forward is a point of great concern for us.

We hope to also get this certainty that I talked about earlier, where we can just dive right ahead and know that we are not competing against other actors that have no business being in the space that we are, especially if we want to meet that 5% target. We understand, especially for defence spending, that there's going to be a lot of money put into Inuit Nunangat in the Arctic. We want our Inuit businesses to be right there to provide great services and to have access to those particular opportunities for the good of our communities and the good of Inuit in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod.

We will now go to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Ballantyne.

In a number of programs, the government requires self-reporting. It never questions the indigenous identity of the applicants.

Should this practice continue? Should certain guidelines be put in place in partnership with the first nations, recognized Métis and Inuit?