Karen Restoule: What Pierre Poilievre got right with his message to First Nations

But not everyone in the room was pleased with Poilievre. Roughly one dozen or so First Nations veterans and leaders stood in the front of the room and turned their backs to him. While the reasons for this silent protest remain unconfirmed, some expect they were demonstrating their disappointment with Poilievre’s 2008 comments where, while discussing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the Harper-era MP questioned the value of compensating residential school survivors:

“Now along with this apology comes another $4 billion in compensation for those who partook in the residential schools over those years. Now, some of us are starting to ask, are we really getting value for all of this money and is more money really going to solve the problem?” he said in an interview with a local Ottawa radio station. “My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self-reliance. That’s the solution in the long run. More money will not solve it.”

However, what we heard from Poilievre at the AFN Assembly last week is a marked departure from his position 16 years ago. He has made demonstrable strides in advancing his knowledge and understanding of First Nations and has embraced a more humble approach to his learning journey of our shared history that spans the last 150-plus years.

In a show of humility, he confirmed to the Assembly that he doesn’t know best, and thanked them for their willingness to enlighten him and other federal representatives. By acknowledging these limitations, he stated, “Every one of you knows your communities better than Ottawa does, and certainly better than I do. You draw on thousands of years of experience, while Canada has only been here for a century and a half.”

Poilievre’s evolution mirrors the journey of many leaders and many Canadians who have come to understand the darker aspects of our shared history since the introduction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the release of their findings in 2015.

Reconciliation requires allowing space for learning, growth, and a recommitment to building a better country. It’s crucial that we give those who may have been uninformed, misinformed, or mistaken in their understanding the opportunity to grow from the truths they have now learned; allowing for an environment where everyone can contribute to advancing reconciliation towards a more just and united Canada. This shouldn’t take the form of a lecture, but an honest shared dialogue. And as Poilievre said in his speech, while there are dark parts of our past we need to acknowledge, there are also bright parts that should be celebrated, that Canadian schoolchildren should “know about the pain but also the pride”.

Not all attendees were forgiving towards Poilievre. Following his address, some more contemptuous First Nations chiefs and delegates openly criticized him for overlooking several critical issues in his speech, including the climate crisis, the ongoing issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the need for continued support and recognition of residential school survivors, among other issues.

While those may be important issues, what Poilievre did say is far more interesting than what he may have left out. His clear intent is to cut through heavy and complex bureaucratic processes that have for too long stifled First Nations advancement. His primary aim is to restore power to the hands of First Nations, allowing them to recalibrate their local economies and improve their quality of life. If true, this would represent significant generational change and a true turning point in our shared history.

In my view, Poilievre didn’t miss much. Instead of making sweeping symbolic promises about piecemeal social policy issues (what he described as “performative reconciliation”), the Conservative leader addressed the core issue: the longstanding paternalistic approach of the federal government.

As he emphasized, “Let me be clear: I’m not here to run your life. I don’t want to run anybody’s life. I want to run a small government with big citizens free to make their own decisions and live their own lives. This is especially true for First Nations people.”

I found this very refreshing. It is rare to hear a federally elected leader—especially one poised to become prime minister—confront the fundamental problem of big government as it relates to First Nations. It takes guts to do that.

If I had to pick one miss, however, it is the lack of mention of critical infrastructure like clean water, health care, reliable energy, roads, fire protection, access to telecommunication and connectivity, and others. It’s a significant list. These are but a handful or so of the basic necessities for the functioning of a society and economy, the existence and quality of which are a baseline standard in Canadian towns and cities.

This should be the same for First Nations. I want a prime minister who, when turning on the tap in the morning, does so knowing that everyone across the country can do the same, that they can do so without questioning the quality of the water and whether it will leave them with skin rashes and disease. That, heartbreakingly, is not currently the case. The lack of key critical infrastructure in First Nations is the result of bad governance from previous governments led by both Liberals and Conservatives and must be addressed by the next federal government.

It was very important for Poilievre to attend the AFN Assembly and address First Nations leaders directly, especially given the complex and sometimes tenuous history between First Nations and previous federal Conservative governments. Despite the criticism that the AFN is nothing more than another lobby group best ignored, I disagree with the notion that Poilievre’s decision to attend was misguided. While it is not completely wrong to describe the AFN as a lobby group, they receive their advocacy mandates through resolutions from their “members.”

However, to compare the AFN to a run-of-the-mill member-based association is a miss. The AFN gathers and receives its mandates from rightsholders, not a corporate executive. The rightsholders in this case are governments of First Nations, whose authority is secured by inherent rights, affirmed by treaties in many cases, and protected by section 35 of the Constitution. The discussions held within their regional and national forums are focused on addressing shared challenges and threats presented to them as a collective, as constitutionally recognized peoples.

Critics often overlook the reality that despite the many promises and good intentions, previous governments have fallen short in their relationships with First Nations. This has led to a lack of trust and effective engagement. It’s not to say that it’s a lost cause. It’s not. There’s just a lot of work to be done.

And while, yes, I agree that the point of contact between any federal government representative should be directly with rightsholders, within their territories, advancing relationships with First Nations leaders at all levels will be important to build knowledge and understanding among elected federal leaders.

Poilievre’s presence at the AFN Assembly and his strong message of freedom and autonomy signal an unprecedented commitment to engaging with First Nations directly and facing tough conversations. This, in turn, will build trust. This is vital for someone poised to become a future prime minister—especially because, as we know, “business moves at the speed of trust.”