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.

Transcript

Discussions (0)