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

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I want to thank our witnesses, both those in person and by video conference, for joining us today and for all of your testimony. It's much appreciated. If you do have anything else you'd like to submit, please do that in writing at the earliest possibility.

At this point, we are going to briefly suspend for about five minutes while we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Colleagues, I'm calling this meeting back to order.

I do want to welcome our witness for our last panel for the day today. Welcome, Keith Henry, president and chief executive officer of the BC Métis Federation.

You'll have five minutes to provide some opening remarks, after which we'll proceed to rounds of questions from members of the committee.

With that, Mr. Henry, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Keith Henry, President and Chief Executive Officer, BC Métis Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Keith Henry. I'm the president of the BC Métis Federation. I'm coming to you today from Vancouver on the shared territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh people.

Our organization has been in existence since 2011. Today, we represent roughly 6,000 Métis individuals with ties to their Métis ancestry through their scrip records or what we continue to help people understand as the existence of the Métis in the Pacific northwest.

Today, we have roughly 10 partner community organizations. We're a provincial Métis organization. We have a significant amount of work in the area of economic development, which is very important as I watch this committee review and consider the work you're doing as it relates to indigenous procurement.

It's important to note that a lot of the things we do today are driven by our economic development work. We work with several partners. We have several Métis businesses in British Columbia. The revenues that we realize are reinvested into areas where we feel government funding has been woefully inadequate, whether federal or provincial.

Last year, our organization, with partners and Métis businesses, realized $4.6 million, and most of that money was reinvested into the infrastructure for our partner communities, for cultural programming and cultural events throughout the province, and of course for key social and economic programs like food security and things like the emergency assistance program. Many of our elders and individuals are dealing with health-related costs that the provincial ministry of health or their health authority simply does not have a program to support.

To give you a bit of context, here's a bit about myself. I'm a Métis person. My family is from.... I've been out in British Columbia for the last 20 plus years. Some of my other family has been out here for 30 to 40 years. I'm originally from around Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. My Métis scrip is from right around Batoche. My family was deeply involved in the historic events of 1885.

Watching the identity politics of a Métis definition running around this country is deeply concerning to me. I worry about the policies of the federal government as they relate to these programs. I worry about the efforts of the Indigenous Services Canada department to minimize...in some cases, maybe properly. However, there are organizations like ours out there that are continuing to address and meet the needs of our Métis people living here in British Columbia.

I won't speak to the validity of other membership processes, but we have a very objectively verifiable process for Métis identity. Information is on our website at bcmetis.com. We have a membership department. We require primary source documentation, no different from anybody else. This growing conversation as it relates to Métis, whether it's indigenous procurement related to Métis businesses or Métis inclusion in the indigenous file, is really deeply concerning to us because, not only does it create challenges among Métis organizations like ours to represent their constituents. The other side of it is that it's really creating a deep division amongst first nations and Métis because there's this ongoing narrative that there is only one type of Métis person.

I'm here to say that's absolutely untrue. We speak different dialects of Métis. Where I grew up in Saskatchewan, my grandparents spoke a French Michif dialect, whereas in northern Saskatchewan it was more of a Cree Michif. We weren't the same people. Maybe we had similar characteristics in some ways, but we were not the same people, although we were tied together by this notion of the Métis Nation.

I urge that, as we think about this, and as you think about this at committee level, you appreciate the diversity of how we organize and have representation of ourselves.

I just will close by saying that I wear many different hats in the indigenous world, and I am aware of the CCIB report on indigenous procurement. I am deeply concerned about the language in some of the work that they're doing—not in the report necessarily but in the business directory.

I am worried about this notion of some sort of Métis validity or unique verification and identified Métis communities that are prioritized by them. It's one of the major issues we brought forward, and we will continue to use the courts to address that issue and will bring Canada to respond in the proper court, where it needs to respond, to address our concerns.

By way of introduction, I'm very proud of a lot of the other work I do.

Thank you very much, Patrick, for the opportunity to make some opening comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Henry.

We are going to pause very briefly before going into questions. We have another witness who has joined online, so we just need to do a brief sound check for them as well before we move into questions.

[The meeting was suspended at 12:35 p.m., Tuesday, December 10]

[The meeting resumed at 10:05 a.m., Thursday, December 12]

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 137, part two, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As always, we want to start by acknowledging that we are gathering on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and by expressing gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they have stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, and the order of reference of Tuesday, November 19, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the barriers to indigenous economic development.

However, before we get to that, I want to hand the floor over to Monsieur Lemire.

I will turn it over to you for a short statement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to pay tribute to someone, if I may.

It was with great sadness that we learned that a great advocate for the Métis and a strong advocate for first nations and Inuit indigenous rights, Jim Aldridge, has passed away. He was much more than a lawyer. He was a pillar for Métis and for all indigenous peoples. He was deeply committed to justice, upholding treaty rights and upholding the right to self-determination.

His contribution to indigenous rights, including in relation to modern treaties, will remain etched in our country's legal and social history. He understood that modern treaties are not only legal agreements but also essential tools to build nation-to-nation relationships and to recognize the rights and aspirations of indigenous communities. He has worked passionately to ensure that these treaties are upheld, not only in theory but also in concrete implementation, ensuring that indigenous peoples have the means to thrive within a framework that respects their culture and sovereignty.

During his lifetime, he worked for over 30 years as a lawyer. He argued and fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 2013 for major issues on indigenous rights. He witnessed just two weeks ago the signing of the only modern treaty with the Red River Métis. When Bill S‑13was passed, he saw a side of all of us that is not seen often enough. Unfortunately, he will not be able to give us his testimony on Bill C‑77, but I am convinced that his voice would have enriched our discussions and would have enabled us to better understand the issue.

I am deeply saddened by his absence, as he carried with him wisdom, expertise and humanity that will never be replaced. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Guylaine, his children and all those who considered him to be one of their own, a friend, and who had full confidence in him. May our work honour his memory and his commitment to the recognition and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses today.

We have, appearing by video conference, Dr. Pamela Palmater, Mi'kmaq lawyer, member of Eel River Bar First Nation and chair in indigenous governance, Toronto Metropolitan University. Appearing in person today, we have Karen Restoule, senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

I want to welcome our witnesses to the first panel. You will each have five minutes for your opening statements after which we will proceed to questions from members. We'll start with Dr. Palmater.

You have five minutes or less for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater, Mi'kmaq Lawyer, Eel River Bar First Nation and Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. Thank you again for inviting me here.

I'm a registered Indian under the Indian Act, a registered member of Ugpi’Ganjig, which is Eel River Bar First Nation, and a citizen of the Mi’kmaq Nation. My family is Mi'kmaq; we were born and raised in Mi'kma'ki. In terms of my professional background, I have four university degrees, one of which is a doctorate in law that looks specifically at constitutional treaty and indigenous law issues related to Indian status, band membership and self-government citizenship. Obviously, I'm not speaking for all indigenous peoples, first nations or even Mi'kmaq people but based on my experience.

I am going to start with my summary first, in case I run out of time.

In terms of general barriers to indigenous economic development, these relate to the levels and types of funding that are allocated for individuals as well as communities. Certain industries are disproportionally supported, like oil, gas and mining—natural resources—as opposed to online content creation, online courses or education.

There is a lack of professional support included in that, such as accounting, marketing or legal support. I believe you've had many reports on the significant administrative burdens.

Access to lands is huge—lands and infrastructure for both individuals and communities. There is also a lack of education and training supports that go along with that, both the cost and the format.

Of course, the indigenous procurement policy at the federal government level is also a barrier, and I'm going to go into a bit more detail about the procurement policy.

While I understand that self-identification is one of those things that governments, universities and the arts community have done as a way of trying to be respectful and not put indigenous people through additional verification processes because of all of the impacts of colonization on our identity already and all the hoops we already have to jump through, it's very obvious that self-identification is not enough. It's very easily exploited. It's exploited at alarmingly high rates. While some might be unknowingly exploiting, I'd say that, for the most part, people know when they're exploiting that.

Having worked in government and universities, I've been around HR that has advised people to “just check the box”. Part of the problem with that is that it's confidential. There's no accountability around self-identification. You don't get to verify that; you don't get to access any of that information, whereas verification itself is relatively easy.

At the same time, in addition to verification, I think we need to have grace for people who are going through the process, and for the many indigenous women who have been excluded because of historical and ongoing Canadian laws and policies.

To make the procurement policy better, I think governments need to engage with indigenous experts on the topic. Governments and communities should have more respect for indigenous jurisdiction, law and tradition when it comes to who is indigenous and who is not and what company is indigenous and what company is not.

Ensure that human rights are respected. I think that goes without saying, but there are also best practices. For example, the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business has been in the business of verifying indigenous businesses for a very long time. I'm sure they have a lot to suggest. There needs to be an accountability mechanism and annual reporting and analysis that comes back to our communities. At this point, we really need historical investigation into how much money in total has been allocated under indigenous procurement. How much has gone to businesses we know are indigenous, and how much money has gone to businesses where we're not so sure? What should be done about that? There really need to be reparations in that area.

Those were my summary points.

I'm glad I started with those first. I can see that my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Dr. Palmater. You were just within the time.

We'll move to our next witness, who is here in person.

Ms. Restoule, the floor is yours for five minutes or less.

[Karen Restoule, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day, everyone. My name is Karen Restoule. I'm from Dokis First Nation, with relations in Nipissing and Temagami first nations. I'm pleased to join you here today to discuss the barriers to economic development and success among indigenous people.

As we know, the procurement strategy for aboriginal business, or PSAB, was introduced in 1996 by the Chrétien government. It held the following policy objectives, which I researched just out of curiosity: to increase indigenous participation in federal procurement, to promote business development, to enhance economic opportunities, to create employment and to support economic self-sufficiency for indigenous communities. When it comes to policy, I'm continuously motivated by one key question: What are the results? In the case of the procurement policy, have these five objectives been met?

I dove into the data. It appears that at the time of the introduction of the policy, there was little data on indigenous participation in federal procurement, although it was clear that the Indian Act and other barriers had resulted in very low participation rates. The aboriginal business survey conducted by StatsCan in 1996 gathered information from roughly 2,500 indigenous business owners across the country. It's my understanding that there were roughly 20,000 indigenous businesses at the time.

By 2018 the number of indigenous-owned businesses had grown to about 62,000. This data was shared by the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business. Most recent estimates suggest that there are now over 70,000 indigenous-owned businesses in Canada. As it relates to federal contracts, my understanding is that in the last fiscal year, $1.6 billion for indigenous businesses was noted by the federal government, representing 6.27% of total federal procurement and exceeding the mandatory 5% target.

On face value, this data, albeit limited, shows growth in entrepreneurship among indigenous people across Canada. However, we now have a strong and compelling reason to question the validity of this data, given the rise in appropriation of indigenous identity, also referred to as pretendianism, and the rise in fraudulent bids, all done to gain access to and advantages in federal procurement opportunities. It is an understatement to point out that this issue undermines the integrity of programs like PSAB, disadvantages genuine indigenous entrepreneurs and disrespects the public dollar.

While the federal government maintains the indigenous business directory, which requires proof of majority indigenous ownership, these measures, in my view, are not sufficient. Strengthening the verification processes and ensuring swift consequences for non-compliance are critical to preserving trust, not only in indigenous procurement programs but also in government as an institution. I look forward to the findings and recommendations of this committee, of the Auditor General and of anyone else who is involving themselves in correcting the course here and getting us back on track.

My next point is that, beyond procurement, I believe the question of the capacity and capabilities of indigenous entrepreneurs and businesses has not yet really been fully covered in our discussions to date. The increased number of indigenous-owned businesses alone does not necessarily translate to economic competitiveness or sustainability. It's one thing to have many indigenous businesses, but the reach of those businesses should also be discussed. This, to me, is critical for rebuilding what I believe to be the bold and successful entrepreneurship that once thrived among indigenous people across these lands before being stifled by the robust imposition of the Indian Act.

I have just a few observations on this point. As it relates to skills development and expertise, indigenous businesses have expanded into diverse industries like tech, finance and energy. However, access to training, mentorship and certification is still limited, which constrains growth and competitiveness.

Access to capital, I believe, has been discussed at length. I won't reiterate.

With regard to emerging markets, indigenous businesses are beginning to participate in global and tech-forward industries, but more support is needed to foster innovation and entry into these markets.

With regard to scalability and sustainability, while community-owned enterprises and indigenous economic development corporations are growing, individual businesses often struggle to scale. Greater access to supply chains, procurement opportunities, and partnerships is key. It's worth mentioning that in terms of governance and sovereignty, self-governing nations and indigenous organizations are leading major projects, but inconsistent governance models and limited capacity-building efforts hinder progress on that end.

Finally, there is measurement of success. I'm a huge fan of metrics. They really are the only way to measure results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're well over time, so if you could finish your last point, we'll move to the next one.

[Karen Restoule]

That was actually my last point, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry. I hate to do that, but we have limited time.

We are going to pause very briefly. Our third witness has joined, and we just need to do a quick sound check.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're still working on the sound for Ms. Semaganis. We hope she'll be able to join our second panel, at 11 a.m.

With that, let's move into our first round of questions, the six-minute round.

We'll be starting with Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony.

I'll start with Ms. Restoule, since she's sitting here in front of us.

I think many people who might not pay attention to politics are now aware of what has been occurring over the past few years. We now know about the Randy Boissonnault incident and many others where indigenous identity was falsely claimed in order to achieve or potentially achieve access to contracts and government business.

Many of our witnesses in committee have confirmed—and I'm sure you feel the same way—that it's hurtful when indigenous identity is stolen and used in a way to benefit others.

Now we're hearing that the majority of the contracts awarded through the indigenous procurement program were not verified by ISC. We heard explosive testimony the other day that the department was made aware of potential fraud within its strategy and basically ignored it. Then we have one company after another with no ties to indigenous heritage and background getting awarded these contracts.

How do you think we arrived at this point?

[Karen Restoule]

I think this is the million-dollar question and one that many of us have been contending with, not only in the past weeks but in the past months and past years.

To your point, this is something that has been on the radar of many indigenous organizations, leaders and communities for quite some time. I actually believe that DEI policy created an environment in which programs that are intended to level the playing field are seen as preferential treatment or as advantages for a certain group. There's not a lot of knowledge yet as to the history of indigenous-Crown relations in Canada. A lot of Canadians still don't fully appreciate the reach and impact of the Indian Act and how we got here.

In large part, when you have programs that appear to favour one group or the other coupled with policies that promote self-identification.... The most recent example was Bill C-53. First nations leaders had a lot of questions for government around checks and balances on identification. DEI policies, hand-in-hand with policies that put in place self-identification for these types of programs, really lend themselves to the situation that we're currently facing.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

How can we fix this?

[Karen Restoule]

There are advantages to procurement. When you look at those bidding for procurement, at the organizations or communities that are operating at a collective level in predominantly rural and remote Canada in and around resource development, it seems to be functioning quite well. I suppose it's hard to contest when a first nation or a group of first nations comes together to compete for these opportunities for projects that are in fact happening in their own territories. There tends to be a lot of confusion or fraud when it comes to individuals across the country who are proceeding to take advantage of those self-identification policies to claim an advantage.

In terms of a solution, I'm a huge fan of accelerators. That's not necessarily something that gets a lot of talk within indigenous policy, but it has in fact been very successful in such other industries as fintech and tech. We have seen great advancements on that level when you create that ecosystem around the entrepreneurs and work alongside the entrepreneurs to develop a skill set, offer coaching and mentorship, increase expertise and exposure to challenges that lead to growth and, more importantly, to an increase in competitiveness. I think that rests at the core of what we're talking about here today.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

We had 1,100 businesses removed from the indigenous business directory. The department itself knew about corruption. Very few actually verified that they were indigenous. As you just pointed out a few moments ago, some might look to take advantage, given, as Dr. Palmater said in her remarks, that there are contracts with significant dollar values attached to them, yet there is no recourse. I don't know if anyone in the department has ever lost their job because of this. These are large dollar amounts going out. We have Mr. Boissonnault checking a box. He bid on two contracts claiming indigenous status and was told no, thankfully.

As the AFN says, this is the tip of the iceberg.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry. Please give a short answer, if possible.

[Karen Restoule]

For me or him?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

For you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Karen Restoule]

I'm kidding.

What comes to mind when you put that point forward is that another effect of DEI policy is that it has created fear, an environment of fear. In my view, we have groups of non-indigenous Canadians who have been taught over the years to be deferential to those who self-identify and to not question for fear of getting cancelled. I think that sentiment drives a lot of behaviour, whether it's with a government employee or with Joe Canadian writ large.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schmale.

With that, we will move to our second questioner in the first round.

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