Aaron Pete: Pretendians in the cabinet? Stop blaming the people playing the Indigenous identity game, start blaming the broken system that creates the incentives

The phenomenon of individuals with fabricated Indigenous ancestry—colloquially referred to as “pretendians” or “wannabindians”—benefiting from claims to Indigenous identity was is in the news again this week, with Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages Minister Randy Boissonnault stepping down from the Trudeau government’s cabinet for falsely claiming he was Indigenous.

It is time to stop blaming the people chasing incentives and start targeting the broken system that creates the incentives.

All thoughtful Canadians acknowledge that the harsh legacy of colonization, Indian Residential Schools, and the Sixties Scoop has had adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. I know these realities firsthand as an Indigenous person myself. My grandmother attended St. Mary’s Indian Residential School in Ontario, and my mother was a part of the Sixties Scoop. My community Chawathil First Nation (about 10 minutes outside of Hope, B.C.) was forced from the site of our village to another location disconnecting us from our home. These actions have led to poorer health, educational, and employment outcomes for members of my community and Indigenous people across Canada.

To address these historic injustices, multiplying forms of affirmative action policies, including for employees, businesses, or students, have been adopted by Canadian institutions, consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But despite their noble intent, these policies, which generally rely on a mere honour system, have inadvertently opened doors for exploitation. Benefits tied to Indigenous identity have become avenues for misuse.

I witnessed this intricate dance of identity firsthand during my time at the Indigenous Law Centre program at the University of British Columbia. It was there that I met Nadya Gill, a studious individual who self-identified as Inuit. Among our peers, there was a quiet yet palpable curiosity about her background because while many of us introduced ourselves with our region and the First Nation or Metis community we came from, she did not.

However, there was a collective reluctance to probe too deeply into her ancestry, a testament to the sensitive nature of Indigenous identity. Her true identity was later revealed by a Toronto Life article which critically examined the claims to Indigeneity of Nadya and her sister Amira. It turned out they were not Indigenous at all and their mother Karima Manji pleaded guilty to fraud and admitted full responsibility.

Despite the controversy surrounding their identity, the contributions of these individuals to their communities were undeniable—something I can vouch for through my personal interactions with Nadya. She viewed herself as a proud leader and talked about her mentorship and commitment to uplifting Indigenous communities.

The same can be said about Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She used her claimed “Indigenous ancestry” to fight for Indigenous rights, to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, and to advocate for the improved living conditions of Indigenous people. She has a DNA test that she states backs up her claim.

Questions surrounding the authenticity of claims to Indigenous heritage by public figures like Boissonnault, Buffy Sainte-Marie, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Vianne Timmons, Joseph Boyden, Carrie Bourassa, and even Elizabeth Warren have sparked conversations regarding Indigenous identity. Journalists have delved deeply into many individual cases, bringing to light the complexities of identity, authenticity, and representation.

It must be noted that the concept of “Indigeneity” is far more complicated than the discourse can allow for. First, it was the Indian Act of 1876 that defined what an Indian was. For many years, organizations like the Assembly of First Nations have been fighting to ensure First Nations can define their citizenship requirements. But many of our First Nations disagree with the requirements and want their own authority. So, does the Indian Act still govern who can claim Indigenous ancestry? Or do we?

Many white parents tell their kids, “We’re part Irish” with no ramifications, no benefits, no DNA tests, and no further investigation required. Why? Because it has no material benefit or consequence. However, with Indigenous identity, the state keeps creating additional incentives that encourage individuals, rightly or wrongly, with good intent or bad intent, to claim it to reap the benefits

Although one may be offended by these individual cases, we shouldn’t lose sight of the underlying cause: government-created incentives. It has a parallel to incentives inherent in the tax system. No one faults an individual for seeking to claim the maximum tax credits then if there’s an opportunity. Why? Because there’s an incentive to do so.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly from my perspective, while today we only view Indigeneity as an ethnic identity, we can also recognize that in many ways it is a cultural identity as well. I know people within my Nation who are not status Indians, but who practice the language, participate in the culture, uphold the nation’s values, and fight to preserve our values. Perhaps controversially, I believe they are as “Indigenous” as me.

All of these complexities are a sign we all need to review incentives for an identity that is increasingly allowing for immense financial gain and social cachet. We need to stop putting so many incentives to being Indigenous outside of First Nation communities. My critique is not directed at individuals like Nadya or Boissonnault per se, but rather at the vast incentive structure relying that encourages their claims.

In First Nation communities, members are already registered and receive health care, post-secondary funding, and community services. The First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia, for instance, ensures those with status cards access health services. Métis communities also have distinct governance providing services to their citizens.

At the National Indigenous Identity Forum in 2022, Jacqueline Ottmann, president of the First Nations University of Canada, suggested addressing these incentive issues by abolishing the self-identification process and having Indigenous people supply documentation of their ancestry to access these new programs. Respectfully, I disagree.

I would advocate the opposite approach. It is now time to eliminate affirmative action for Indigenous Peoples. While we must acknowledge the deep-rooted economic and social challenges faced by Indigenous Canadians, we must also address how current policies may inadvertently fuel the rise of “pretendians.” There’s also no need for universities, businesses, and government systems to create their own new programs that encourage misuse.

My detractors will argue these new programs are meant to help “raise up” Indigenous communities and individuals. That their starting point is far behind that of their non-Indigenous counterparts—and they’re not wrong. However, if you are First Nations, Métis, or Inuit there are already resources, supports, and programs that are there to assist.

As a First Nations person, I receive health services and support from the B.C. First Nations Health Authority. I received educational funding and support from Indigenous Services Canada and my First Nation community to attain my Bachelor’s Degree from the University of the Fraser Valley, and my law degree from the University of British Columbia. Métis Nations across Canada offer similar services to their citizens. In order to receive these supports you must attain an Indian status card or a Métis citizen Card. Are these resources perfect? Of course not, they can be invested in more and improved.

But there is no need for businesses, governments, or other organizations to create even more incentives for people to fraudulently claim Indigenous ancestry.

As the host of the Bigger Than Me Podcast, I’ve had the privilege of interviewing esteemed Indigenous leaders, including Chief Clarence Louie, Elder Eddie Gardner, renowned artist Roy Henry Vickers, actor Lorne Cardinal, and MLA Ellis Ross. Through these conversations, I’ve had the opportunity to highlight the rich, impactful contributions Indigenous people are making across Canada. As these remarkable individuals demonstrate, there are countless ways to elevate Indigenous voices—ways that go far beyond preferential treatment in education, the workplace, or government grants.

In sum, we need to strip away the emotion from these high-profile cases and invest in a truly meritocratic system so that talent and effort will rise above all else, allowing the most deserving individuals to lead and succeed. This belief is grounded in the remarkable achievements I’ve witnessed firsthand within Indigenous communities—proof that potential flourishes when given a fair chance. That’s why I advocate for a merit-based framework that moves beyond identity politics and treats all Canadians equally.