The (Ongoing) Colonization of the Consultation Tables

One of the most worrisome challenges I have witnessed in project development is the (ongoing) colonization of the consultation tables. Even though a consultation table is a crucial space where First Nations should be leading the conversation on impacts to rights and putting forth solutions based on cultural values and laws, the tools of colonial oppression used to water down and silence First Nation voices continues.

Simply put, the ‘colonization of the consultation tables’ refers to how proponents have established control of discussions about impacts to inherent and treaty rights and further exploit the territories of First Nations and limit First Nations’ participation in decision making. This is not to say that there is some evil conspiracy being implemented; it is more accurately viewed as a culmination of intentional and unintentional circumstances.

Consultation tables rarely involve ceremony (such as Opwaagan) anymore. They have become transactional. Ousamequin, chief of the Wampanoag signs a peace treaty with Governor John Carver (1576 - 1621). Credit: MPI/Getty Images

While there are many others, I want to focus on three red flags that heighten my concern at consultation tables.

---

1) Indigenous representatives, who work for proponents, remain silent during meeting (or say very little that is substantive)

---

Proponents love hiring Indigenous peoples, and rightfully so! We have completely different perspectives than most and can help identify unique challenges, offer creative solutions, and advance understanding and community relationships. However, when an Indigenous person is restricted by their employer from speaking from the heart, or is coached to provide specific messages, then that can be an act of colonialism.  

For example, in one consultation meeting the Indigenous representative for the proponent was completely silent. I found out later that it was because we were asking questions that the proponent was hoping we wouldn’t. The proponent was operating on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy and did not want to have to address additional challenges. The Indigenous employee did not want to lie, but also did not want to jeopardize their livelihood, so remained silent.

The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ strategy goes against the spirit of consultation and the commitment the parties make to transparency and honesty. What proponents see as strategy, we see as manipulation or dishonesty. I also see the situation that the Indigenous employee was put in as abusive. The psychological effect of a person being forced to choose between betraying their community, remaining silent (which may also be felt as a betrayal), or telling the truth and risking reprisal at work, weighs heavily on anyone with integrity.

One of the Grandfather Teachings is honesty. Honesty is when we demonstrate integrity in our life. We do not deceive ourselves or others.  If we are not able to practise this value (and others) then that is colonialism at work.

A solution? Let Indigenous peoples be their Indigenous selves. Ensure corporate policy may be interpreted to accommodate First Nation, Métis, and Inuit cultures, laws, and values, incorporate cultural training for staff, and openly and loudly support Indigenous employees who speak from the heart. I say loudly because in most industry settings the Indigenous voices are the minority voices and get brushed aside easily.

---

2) The people representing the First Nation at the consultation table are not First Nation citizens:

---

Non-indigenous representatives who are retained to represent First Nations, may work for the council who hired them, but they do not represent the people or the lived experience, culture or values of First Nations peoples.

To understand this criticism, you must understand what the consultation table is for. In a nutshell, the duty to consult is triggered when there are actual or potential impacts to inherent or treaty rights. The purpose of consultation is to determine what rights are impacted and how that impact can be avoided, mitigated, and/or accommodated for.

How do non-First Nation people understand our rights? This will vary person to person. There is much that people can learn about through experience and reading. But will they ever really know? For example, Michi Saagiig citizens are unable to collect river rock from the Gauges Creek in Port Hope for sweat ceremonies anymore because it is sediment now. This is a result of unrestricted government and industry development in the area ruining the natural environment. Essentially, the Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg ability to gather Grandfathers (the rocks) has been taken away, which impacts our ability to practice our spirituality in the form of sweat ceremonies.

This is important because if you are non-First Nation how would you be able to represent how this impact to rights affects First Nation peoples? How would you know this right was being impacted by development if not advised by those exercising their rights?

The information sought by proponents may be found in the First Nation citizens who exercise their rights, not those who do not have the rights and do not exercise the rights. Consulting consultants is not enough and does not execute legal obligations regarding the duty to consult.

A solution to this problem is to retain rights holding professionals who understand inherent and treaty rights through lived experience, who will review the project with a rights-based lens, and who will implement early, direct and regular communication with rights holding community members.

---

3) Gatekeeping business opportunity for First Nation owned companies

---

I have experienced situations where the representatives working for First Nations tell proponents that they cannot use certain First Nation owned businesses for contract work on projects. Yup, read that again. People who represent First Nations, and who often have no First Nation ancestry, are gatekeeping work in major project development and excluding First Nation owned businesses. Proponents, out of fear of rattling their fragile relationships with the Nations, listen without question and in effect go against their own corporate policy about hiring Indigenous owned businesses.

This is a horrible abuse of power and reminds me of the crabs in the bucket (if you know, you know).  It is even more disheartening because in our line of work we regularly hear leadership at conferences speaking about the need to support our own people. The message isn’t getting through.

Along a similar vein, I have also heard representatives for the First Nation demand that proponents use a specific First Nation owned business for project work. Again, this is an abuse of power and position as it pushes out the other competing First Nation owned businesses. It concentrates wealth, stifles entrepreneurial spirit, and prevents opportunity and growth for First Nation citizens.

First Nations need to understand the business dynamic in their communities and need to support businesses equitably. This is not as simple as it sounds. For example, if a First Nation has an economic development corporation, is that entity supporting citizens' businesses or competing against them? Is there a possibility for partnership? This is important to help ensure business opportunities remain accessible to individuals.

A First Nation owned business, is a First Nation owned business. There are too few of us for anyone to be elbowed out. Inclusivity and transparency in procurement must be a paramount consideration in project development.

While I have only scratched the surface of how the consultation tables are colonized, I hope that by opening up this sensitive conversation people are made aware and are inspired to make positive changes in the best way they know how with the resources available to them.