Federal government working at cross-purposes in realizing UNDRIP

Sept. 13 marked the 15th anniversary of the United Nations’ adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous people across the world marked the occasion. I did too, with mixed feelings. A member of the Fort Albany First Nation, I am the CEO of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association (NACCA). Like other Indigenous business leaders in Canada, I see the UNDRIP as crucial to realizing prosperity for our peoples and a mutual relationship with the federal government. I also see how far we are from embodying it in practice. Canada has indeed made some progress in re-founding our relationship. In June 2021, I appeared before a parliamentary committee to support Bill C-15, which enacted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law. Our peoples have also seen significant investments, including an unprecedented $64-million for Indigenous economic development in 2021. Since 2016, mandate letters to federal ministers have set out the Crown-Indigenous relationship as a top priority. Symbolically and practically, then, there is some evidence that the federal government is serious about renewing our relationship. Yet there is also much evidence of “business as usual,” with the same old top-down paternalistic practices. I will refer here solely to my professional experience at NACCA, the national representative of Indigenous Financial Institutions (IFIs). First founded in the 1980s, IFIs were created to deliver business loans to Indigenous entrepreneurs. They replaced a failed government program, which had a loan loss rate of 80 per cent. IFIs knew the communities in their regions and could much better assess the risks of loan applications. Fast-forward four decades. Our network of lending institutions has an average loan loss rate of less than five per cent. IFIs have used an initial federal investment of $240-million to issue more than 50,000 loans worth more than $3-billion. According to a 2020 report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, our lending network is an international best practice—and aligns with the Declaration’s focus on serving through Indigenous institutions. And yet, despite our track record, Canada seems to be working at cross-purposes where our network is concerned. One example involves the Indigenous Growth Fund (IGF), a $150-million capital fund launched in April 2021. Managed by NACCA for delivery by qualifying IFIs, we built the IGF with federal partners, including the Business Development Bank of Canada. Though the initial investment is from the government, the fund is designed to attract institutional capital from Indigenous entities, private companies, and charitable or non-profit foundations. Much effort went into establishing the IGF, which marks a genuine partnership with the federal government. Contrast this to our experience with the Social Finance Fund (SFF), a $755-million initiative aiming to grow Canada’s social finance market. Administered by Employment and Social Development Canada, the SFF has now engaged experienced wholesalers to invest in projects involving vulnerable social groups—including Indigenous people, among others. The demography of social finance fund managers in Canada means that those selected to run the SFF are almost exclusively non-Indigenous organizations. The federal government has set up non-Indigenous funds, with terms laxer than those of the IGF, to compete with a fledgling Indigenous-led fund. Our efforts to discuss this situation with the responsible minister have received no response. We have effectively been left in the cold. Further examples come from federal departments that have ignored their ability—set out in their own Treasury Board policy—to develop funding agreements that offer more flexibility to Indigenous recipients, on the grounds that “no one else” is receiving them. Other departments have not engaged—or even informed—us of unilateral program changes that directly involve our operations before they are announced. Words are nice, but actions speak louder. The conclusion we are left to draw is that the federal government is not fully committed to entrusting key services to Indigenous institutions, or to working as our partner, or to recognizing Indigenous economic rights in practice. For Indigenous, by Indigenous. After decades of enduring “development” led by others, programs for Indigenous peoples need to arise from our own communities and institutions. Together with other Indigenous organizations, NACCA has developed a National Indigenous Economic Strategy that contains more than 100 Calls to Economic Prosperity. Based in the Declaration, the strategy presents a roadmap to realizing socioeconomic parity for Indigenous peoples in Canada. It is intended for use by Indigenous communities and entities, governments, corporate Canada, and non-Indigenous charities and non-profits alike. A common direction is needed, and the federal government needs to take it with us. Only when all are paddling their canoes in the same direction can we achieve meaningful change. Only then will we truly see recognition of the UNDRIP in Canadian law and practice. Shannin Metatawabin is Cree/Inninow from the Fort Albany First Nation of the Mushkegowuk Nation. With more than 20 years of industry and economic development experience, he is the CEO of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association. The Hill Times CORRECTION: The feature photo and cutline for this piece were changed on Sept. 28 at 2 p.m. because it incorrectly linked Small Business Minister Mary Ng, as the minister responsible for the Business Development Bank of Canada, to the Social Finance Fund, which is administered by Employment and Social Development Canada. BDC is a funding partner for the Indigenous Growth Fund. The Hill Times apologizes for the error.